Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Dec
28
I learned of Samuel Huntington’s death from the opening line of this column by Stirling Newberry, which explores the economic oomph behind the status of the Middle East – a fancier but still persuasive explanation of the proxy quality of existence to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank – something which I’ve written about and stated since the mid-1980s.
As a government major with a political theory concentration, Huntington’s books (specifically, Political Order in Changing Societies) were central to the formation of my ideas about global relations and dovetailed extremely well with my double major in sociology. As Stirling Newberry writes in the above hyperlinked piece:
While Huntington warned against America imposing its order on the rest of the world, his paradigm left few other options. His late influence obscures his contributions to political realism, such as Political Order in Changing Societies, which featured perhaps the most concise discussion to its day of modernization which, despite its rationalism does not necessarily mean the rationalization of power, authority, structure, or political participation, because of the difference between modernization as a direction, and modernization as a process.
Ah. I got chills reading that line, while also, like Newberry, in amazement that Huntington’s death occurs at this moment in time. Maybe he doesn’t want to see what will happen?
The Boston Globe has a nice obit here. It includes this exactly right description:
Despite the brickbats that accompanied his first book, it was an article toward the end of his career that became his most cited, and most controversial, work. “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” centered on how differences between cultures throughout the world would be the cause of most post-Cold War conflicts. It was this premise, said former student Todd Fine, that inspired Dr. Huntington’s argument against the war in Iraq.
“Even though he didn’t make a big to-do about it ahead of time, he was against the Iraq war. [It was] his belief that it was unnecessary to antagonize other cultures and civilizations,” Fine said.
Bolding is mine.
I’ll always remember how, just after a college friend of mine had started on a PhD program at Harvard a couple of years after we’d graduated, she specifically commented on how now, she wasn’t just reading Huntington’s books, she had him as a professor. I remember how excited she was about that.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:29 pm December 28th, 2008 in Culture, Debates, democracy, Economy, Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics, RIP, Writing
Comments
10 Responses to “RIP, Samuel P. Huntington”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Jill quoted and bolded: While Huntington warned against America imposing its order on the rest of the world, his paradigm left few other options.
I find it interesting that the first half of the sentence was bolded, while the second was not (i.e., Huntington’s paradigm almost implies that America must impose its order on the rest of the world). I also find it interesting that Huntington is being lauded both here (if I’m reading Jill correctly) and by writers at National Review (here and here).
And you find these observations interesting because…why exactly?
Jill wrote: And you find these observations interesting because…why exactly?
To me it appears that you were bolding the part of the characterization of Huntington with which I think you agreed. However, it also appears to me that you downplayed (i.e., did not bold) the part of the characterization (the implied necessity of America imposing its will) with which I expect you disagreed.
With respect to the second half of my comment, I’m guessing that you and the writers at National Review were lauding Huntington for entirely different reasons. You, perhaps, for his warnings about America and his opposition to the Iraq war. They, perhaps, for his recognition of a clash of civilizations and his views on American identity.
Anon – not sure why you are so tentative in your assertions but so be it.
1. I bolded what I had learned as a student and was being repeated in this eulogy/analysis/application kind of thing by Newberry, written more than 25 years after I studied Huntington. Frankly, I don’t really understand the “his paradigm left few other options” part of Newberry’s analysis so no disagreement – just no comprehension.
2. I don’t read NRO. I laud Huntington because of his contributions and his concentrated efforts in political thought over his long life – simple as that.
You have sort of a morbid fascination with dead people lately?
I am a freak about processes, what is a rudimentary unit, accountability and measuring changes.
Something you can see is actual, something described is literal and imagination is then figurative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language
“because of the difference between modernization as a direction, and modernization as a process.”
Describing the path apposed to waking down it?
Oengus – I read that line to mean modernization as an end unto itself that can be pursued in a methodical and planned way, versus modernization as a result of individual and organizational efforts toward smaller goals not geared toward some specific, manifest overhaul.
As for the posts on people who have died, we both know I’m nothing like a god – I can’t control who dies when.
1. I bolded what I had learned as a student and was being repeated in this eulogy/analysis/application kind of thing by Newberry, written more than 25 years after I studied Huntington. Frankly, I don’t really understand the “his paradigm left few other options” part of Newberry’s analysis so no disagreement – just no comprehension.
2. I don’t read NRO. I laud Huntington because of his contributions and his concentrated efforts in political thought over his long life – simple as that.
I was suggesting that people (including you and those at NRO) often focus on the things with which they agree and disregard the things with which they disagree. If you weren’t, then so be it.
I think you’re overanalyzing way too much.
Why don’t you tell us what you think of Huntington rather than meta-analyzing those of us who have?
I think you’re overanalyzing way too much.
I sometimes think the same of you
.
Why don’t you tell us what you think of Huntington rather than meta-analyzing those of us who have?
My knowledge of Huntington is mostly secondhand, i.e., I haven’t read his books. However, I have read his 1993 Foreign Affairs essay, “Clash of Civilizations,” which preceded the book of the same name. I find many of the essay’s conclusions highly plausible, e.g., “conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict.” (The phrase “Islam has bloody borders” also sticks in my mind.)
My knowledge of his last book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, is limited to the article that came before it (“The Hispanic Challenge”). That article makes some points with which I agree, so I would probably be sympathic to the thesis of Who Are We.
Social evolution is a product of social engineering, that is what it says.