In the 21st century, the human race and humanity continue to highlight the differences among beliefs, ideologies, political claims, and practices. Certainly, these evolved into cultural differences, not anymore in plain politics or economics, as asserted by Samuel Huntington in his publication entitled “The Clash of Civilizations.”
Conflicts between civilizations are the current trend and working phenomena among state actors, the market, and civil society, considered the tripod of a nation. Huntington narrated cultural reductionism that focuses on the struggle between capitalism, democracy, and communism. This struggle was mainly in ideology and is now shifted to identity, thus no longer in ideology or economics. Moreover, Huntington demonstrated that culture is the current concern of the 21st century, where politics and economics are plainly secondary interests in the international community. These differences among cultural traditions will impact world affairs and, thus, affect the landscape of the modern world.
For Huntington, a civilization is a cultural entity. Villages, “barangays,” “puroks,” regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, and religious groups are some of the various cultures with distinct cultures at numerous levels of cultural heterogeneity. For example, the culture of a barangay in “Payatas” may be culturally different from that of a village in Buffalo, the State of New York. Therefore, Huntington pointed out that civilization is considered to be the “highest cultural grouping of people” from any community or ethnicity, thus “the broadest level of cultural identity.” Every identity may be threatened by another identity, or one culture may be a threat to another culture because of differences. Now, this can cause conflicts. This means that one has to separate cultures to avoid these conflicts. Concerns such as multiculturalism in a society, the influx of migration, and other related issues should be prevented. As a result, every civilization should strengthen its identity.
In line with the prior discussion, a civilization may be compared to a minority or a majority of people. During ancient times, in “World History,” a group of people who had their own form of structure could be called a civilization for as long as one projected power. This power can be demonstrated through the number of soldiers or followers, the acquisition of vast lands, sustaining an economic source of livelihood for its people, the creation of good architecture or public structures, and the like. This means that any civilization should focus on proper administration and leadership to gain the loyalty of its people on the part of the rulers so that people will not lose trust in their leaders.
In essence, it is normal and not outlandish to realize that every civilization acquires salient features and uniqueness. These differences allow any civilization to create an impact on the international community, thus establishing a sense of belonging among its people.
Negotiation towards resolving differences among civilizations in the international community can be defined as diplomacy. In this process, state actors should demonstrate due recognition to the local residents of their community. This openness among officials and residents should consolidate a direct consensus or collective agreement that would advance their interests.
The advent of technology literally changed the cultural practices of every civilization, most especially among the youth sector. In line with this, a civilization whose youth sector is almost entirely engaged with social networking sites, for example, is a threat to its culture. This evolution can result in the abandonment of some traditions, which eventually may change their foundation, such as their customs or heritage, into a simplified method.
Samuel Huntington was right when he perceived and forecast that large cultural units, not states, are becoming the new actors in world affairs. This means that societies are aspiring to a political order established to recognize all the rights of all cultures and communities. It can be said that differences between cultures may result in various experiences of complementarity.
World events recently reflect many clashes among nations. There are nation-to-nation and people-to-people struggles as the biggest blockade to world peace. In the first one, nation-to-nation, we witnessed how Russia engaged in war with Ukraine, the ongoing tensions between Palestine and Gaza, and we also have contentious concern in the South China Sea with China against its claimants, the Philippines and Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and Taiwan. The people-to-people struggle is in the ongoing predicament in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, some parts of the Middle East, and Africa, including domestic instability such as the crisis in the Venezuelan election, Mexico’s border, Cuba’s economic struggles, including the many separatist movements, and many more. Is it really true that Samuel Hungtinton’s thesis is that people’s cultural and religious identities serve as the primary source of conflict?
Peace can be found in a multitude of local situations. Differences among cultural practices can be considered a problem or something to be enjoyed. This concludes that openness and respect are vital tools to gain love that will consolidate international security, order, peace, and unity in a multicultural society. Finally, there are profound landmarks towards the attainment of universal peace. On this note, I believe that cultural differences can lead to conflicts; however, overcoming these boundaries can result in peace. In any scenario, whether it’s about politics, religion, economics, and so forth, proper knowledge and appreciation of each other’s uniqueness can be the ultimate source of unity and eventually peace.
