PHD Discussions Logo

Ask, Learn and Accelerate in your PhD Research

Question Icon Post Your Answer

Question Icon

How might one evaluate Samuel Huntington’s "Clash of Civilizations" thesis through the lens of economic philosophy and theory?

Body: In an international relations seminar, we're debating Huntington's thesis that post-Cold War conflict would be primarily between cultural/civilizational blocs. Many critics focus on political or cultural aspects, but I'm interested in an economic-philosophical critique. Does globalization and economic interdependence undermine his thesis (as liberal institutionalists argue)? Or do economic disparities and resource competition actually reinforce civilizational fault lines? Can concepts like "dependency theory," "global public goods," or "cosmopolitan capitalism" provide a better explanatory framework for 21st-century conflict?

All Answers (1 Answers In All)

By Ramesh Answered 2 months ago

An economic-philosophical evaluation reveals deep flaws in Huntington's thesis. Liberal economic theory argues that complex interdependence and global supply chains create powerful disincentives for civilizational war, as seen in intra-civilizational conflicts (e.g., Ukraine, a war within "Western" civilization). Dependency theory and world-systems analysis suggest the primary conflict axis is economic: core vs. periphery, which often crosses civilizational lines (e.g., oil alliances). Huntington's model underestimates how transnational capital and class interests can align elites across civilizations against their own populaces. Furthermore, the thesis neglects the cosmopolitan economic forces—digital platforms, financial markets—that create hybrid, globalized identities. While economic competition can exacerbate cultural tensions, the driving structures of conflict are more often material and geopolitical than essentially civilizational. Economics reveals a world of fragmented, cross-cutting interests, not monolithic cultural blocs.

Your Answer