David Brooks joins the stable of writers who are much better when they are not sure what they're supposed to say about something. On the other hand, the real problem with Huntington's work wasn't that it misapprehended Islam in some gross feat of Orientalism, as is so often the charge, but rather that it completely and totally misrepresented the so-called West.
7 comments:
"In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique."
(sluuuurrrrp!)
While I agree that it's banal, it's the sort of banal truth that typically and wholly escapes everyone who works at the Times.
I remember, years and years ago now, when George Will would occasionally get something right.
"risk their lives for pluralism, openness and democracy"
"universal political values"
"aspirations ... for political systems ..."
Ya know, most people just want to get on with their lives, and not be bothered with all this political bullshit. There is certainly a universal desire not to be fucked, for sure.
It's been years since I've read Clash of Civilizations, and I don't see myself wanting to any time soon, but I did wonder how closely Glenn Beck's Egyptian doomsday scenario matched up with Huntington's projections.
I only skimmed Huntington's work, but I got the impression that he wasn't arguing for much more than that civilizations exist, we have to take them into account, and institutions that might work in France won't work quite the same way in Uzbekistan because of the different history, culture, religion, etc.
This wouldn't have been surprising to anyone who has read Toynbee, and is pretty much common sense, but I can see how it would have been controversial in Washington or at Harvard.
Re Beck, look to earlier Huntington.
A lot of people who criticize "Clash: have clearly never read it.
Post a Comment