Second Half of POL114.docx

6 Pages
386 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL114H5
Professor
Lee Ann Fujii
Semester
Winter

Description
POL114 – Lecture – March 1, 2012 Bowen believes conflict is State-centric (conflicts arising over power and resources) Huntington believes conflict is People-centric (conflicts arise over cultural differences) Combining theories  For instance Nazi Germany >>> What was wrong with the culture, why did they support the killings, (CULTURE) but also the state wanted political control of the rest of Europe. How Huntington saw previous and future conflicts:  Pre-Modern World  Wars were between kings  20 Century Wars were over ideology  Post-Cold War Wars will be between civilizations ( believed wars will be against cultures or civilizations…between “West” clashing with the “Rest”) Definition of a civilization:  Larger than nations  Common language, history, religion, villages etc. *Modern civilizations will be comprised of the West and the Rest which are Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin America and possibly Africa. Example: He believed wars will no longer be between France and Germany (West vs. West), but France against Islam (West vs. Rest) COMPARING HUNTINGTON TO ANDERSON Huntington Anderson Civilization = Cultural entity Nation = Idea about belonging Real and basic Imagined Ancient Recent Replaces “nation” as source of identity Replaces dynastic and “religious” community West v. Rest No prediction HOWEVER  Bowen completely rejects Huntington’s ideas, based on 3 faulty assumptions: Three problematic assumptions:  Huntington Says: Identities are ancient and unchanging Bowen Says: NO – identities are modern  Huntington Says: Identities motivate people to persecute and kill Bowen Says: NO – Leaders motivate people to persecute and kill  Huntington Says: Diversity inevitably leads to violence Bowen Says: NO- Struggles over power and resources leads to violence Examples that reinforce Bowen  Arab spring has nothing to do with civilizations but leaders (state- centric conflict)…other examples include the Vietnam War, and CANADA (b/c different civilizations assimilate without turmoil)  THE NEXT 2 PAGES ARE MY NOTES FROM THE READINGS THAT GO IN DEPTH & FURTHER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT ABOVE. THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS (notes) Huntington’s Thesis Huntington Stated that: Fundamental source of conflict and division is not economical or ideological but cultural divides between humankind…principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.  Clash between civilizations will dominate global politics. *** By civilizations Huntington means a cultural entity: Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, and religious groups…civilization is a broad category in which people find a cultural identity. Civilizations may be large or small, they may divide, merge or disappear *** Civilization Clash World will be shaped by 7 or 8 major civilizations (i.e. Western, Confucian (system of morals and ethics), Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African, which he says will separate these civilizations from one another and thus create a division. Why will a clash occur?  Different approaches to situations, different viewpoints concerning the state, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy, husband and wife, relations between God and man etc.  He also states that globalization does not assist the issue, rather, because the world is becoming a smaller place, it intensifies the interactions between civilizations and hence intensifies civilization consciousness  Consciousness invigorates differences (i.e. French citizens having hostility against North African immigrants but not against Catholic European Polish immigrants who are of the same western realm)  Also a factor with religion and the violence/discrimination with Muslims and Christians (i.e. modernization of Africa and consequently the spread of Christianity creates a social division.  Revival of religion – Religious differences  Muslims, Jewish, Catholics being divided)  Growth of civilization consciousness is enhanced by the role of the west …de-westernization--- non-westerners will become actors not objects  Cultural characteristics are harder to resolve than political and economic issues (i.e. poor can become rich and vice versa, communists can become democrats but a Russian cannot become Armenian)  Economic regionalism (increase in economics of select regions of homogeneity…for example NAFTA agreement between Canada, US and Mexico is advantageous for the 3 countries, but creates problems for Japan because its civilization is different so it makes economic growth difficult with parts of Asia) – can promote regional economic integration CONCLUSION  Civilization clash occurs at 2 levels, MACRO (states from different civilizations compete for economic power, military, control of international institutions etc) and MICRO (control of territory and each other). Huntington says: Conflicts will be more frequent, more violent than with members of same civilization leading to the escalation of global wars. Essentially believes wars will be ethically driven. MYTH OF GLOBAL ETHNIC CONFLICT (notes continued) Bowen’s Thesis Bowen’s perspective is that there are misleading and misrepresenting assumptions that there is age-old hatred based in ethnical conflict. Fights and hatred is not fueled from ethnic or cultural identity, but from attempting to get more power, land, or other resources. He states we make 3 assumptions (based on Huntington’s beliefs) about ethnic /group conflicts that are ALL WRONG according to Bowen ---- These myths directly oppose what Huntington believes. 1. Ethnic identities are ancient and unchanging 2. Identities motivate people to persecute and kill 3. Ethnic diversity itself inevitably leads to violence – not true since places with little ethnic diversity – (i.e. Rwanda/Former Yugoslavia have blood baths while Malaysia – every diverse suffer little violence. Examples: These misleading assumptions are seen in the Former Yugoslavia where Croats (Roman Catholics), Serbs (Orthodox Christian) and Bosnians (Muslims) all speak the same language but are separated by religion, the three religions have indeed become symbols of group differences, but religious differences have not, by themselves, caused intergroup conflict. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Hatred of Tutsis in Rwanda was not fuelled by ancient tribunal hatred but because Belg
More Less

Related notes for POL114H5

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit