Huntington Samuel. Samuel Phillips Huntington. The book that created the name

Amer. political scientist, research analyst, director of the Institute of Strategic. Research at Harvard, Unt. He studied at Yale, Chicago., Harvard, un-tah. In 1970 he founded the journal. “Foreign policy”, until 1977 was its co-publisher. In 1984, he was elected vice president, and in 1985, president of Amer. Association polit, sciences. The works of X. - “Polit, Order in Changing Societies” (1968), “The Crisis of Democracy” (1975) laid the foundation for the “neoconservative wave” ser. 70-80-ies., Exposed the dangers arising from the imbalance between the ruling institutions and the forces of the opposition and emphasized the importance of maintaining the foundations, traditions watered. culture from the pressure of extremist movements.

Of particular interest are studies of civilization processes. X. prefers a civilizational approach, proposing a new paradigm for theories. analysis and forecasting of the world order at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. He believes that the division of the world during the Cold War into the countries of the “first” (West), “second” (socialist camp) and “third” worlds no longer corresponds to realities, and now it is much more reasonable to group countries based on non-political , or econ. systems, or taking into account the level of their economy. development, but with t.zr. their culture and civilization. X. considers civilization as the highest cultural entity, uniting people and providing them with def. degree of cultural identity. Civilization is defined as general objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, societies. institutions, and subjective self-identification of people. Civilizational identity, according to X., will play an increasingly important role in the future, and the world will be formed and, therefore, degrees will be influenced by the interaction of seven or eight chapters. civilizations - Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islam., Hindu, Slavic Orthodox, Latin-Amer. and possibly African. And the largest and, consequently, the consequences of future conflicts will occur on a kind of cultural boundaries dividing these civilizations. The end of the Cold War signified the end of the political ideol. division of Europe, but then the cultural separation between app. Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodoxy and Islam, on the other. The “velvet curtain” of culture, which replaced the “iron curtain” of ideology, can turn out to be not only a border separating different cultures and civilizations, but, as events in Yugoslavia have shown, a line of bloody conflicts. The confrontation between app. and Islamic civilizations have been going on for 1300 years - from the Arab. conquests before the war in Persian. Gulf: it is unlikely that it will decline, it will soon become more dangerous and cruel, which is promoted by demogr. processes. Population growth in Arab. countries, especially in the North. Africa, has led to an increase in migration flow in the West. Europe, which resulted in more and more strong and frequent manifestations of racism in Italy, France and Germany, since 1990.

Istor. the clash between Muslims and Indians in the subcontinent manifests itself not only in the confrontation of Pakistan and India, but also in religion. contention within the latter between Hindus and the Muslim minority. Cruelty and violence are characteristic of Muslim relations with Jews in Israel, with Serbs in the Balkans. Islam, X. believes, has "bloody borders." The confrontation of civilizations is intensifying. The situation is especially “explosive” in countries inhabited by a large number of peoples, who consider themselves to be different civilizations, cultures, ethnic groups, as well as those in which, despite a large degree of cultural

homogeneity, there are very sharp disagreements on the question of which civilization their islands belong to. The last X. refers, in particular, and Russia. According to X., if the Russians, having rejected Marxism, and after it the liberal democracy, begin to behave like Russians, that is, in accordance with their jaats. interests, then relations between Russia and the West can again become “cool” and conflicting.

Analyzing the situation developing in the world, X. notes that opinion, according to Krom, is modernization and economy. development contributes to the strengthening of uniformity and give rise to a common modern. culture, turned out to be wrong: on the contrary, as local traditions assert themselves, app. the culture is eroded. Behind the decline of app. power followed by the retreat app. culture. All this will require the West not only to maintain the economy. and military power at the level necessary to protect their interests from the “encroachments” of other civilizations, but will also push him to a deeper understanding of their religions. and philosopher. foundations and those areas in which the peoples of these civilizations perceive their interests. Under these conditions, the search for ways to coexist. civilizations, the identification of elements of community app. and other civilizations. He believes that in the foreseeable future there will not be a single universal civilization, on the contrary, their clash will intensify. The increase in conflict in the relationship between civilizations reflects the underlying processes taking place in the economy. and cultural spheres. Processes econ. modernization and social change tear people from their roots, weakening at the same time nat. the state as an important source of self-identification. In many parts of the world, religion is trying to make up for this loss of identity, often in the form of “fundamentalist” movements. Revival of religions. feelings creates the basis for preserving identity in the form of joint involvement in k.-l. civilization, but sometimes this is accompanied by hostility towards representatives of other cultures. Differences between civilizations in history. experience, language, culture, religion, traditions, have deep roots. They are more significant than the differences between ideologies and polites, regimes, and do not necessarily turn into conflicts, but if this happens, it is civilizational differences that give them a fierce and protracted character. Differences in cultural properties, as opposed to econ. and political, least affected by change. X. notes the tendency to return to the roots of nat. being in zap. countries, which is manifested in the "Asianization" of Japan, the "Hinduization" of India, the "re-Islamization" Cf. East after the collapse of app. ideas of socialism and liberalism. The West is increasingly confronted with the confrontation of these countries, seeking to build life according to their own, rather than Western recipes. This is facilitated by the “nativeization” of local elites, which in the past, having been educated at Oxford or the Sorbonne, were chap. conductors app. influence.

Op .: American Politics: the Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge (Mass.); L., 1981; The Third Wave. Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman; London, 1991; The clash of civilizations? // Foreign Affairs. 1993. V. 72. No. 3; If not Civilizations, What ?: Paradigms of the Post-cold War World // Ibid. No. 5.

T.M. Fadeeva

*****************************************************

HARRIS (Harris) Marvin (p. 1927) - Amer. cultural anthropologist, prof. Columbia University, in 1963-66   He headed the Department of Anthropology of the University. He gave lectures in all the most meaning colleges and high schools of the USA. Field research conducted in Mozambique, Brazil, Ecuador and India. Known for his work in the field of ethnography, ethnology and cultural theory, following. areas: racial relations in Brazil; cultural ecology; econ. anthropology; history of theor. thoughts in anthropology etc. DOS methodol. X's approach in scientific literature (including Russian) is equated with cultural determinism and is often compared with Marxism. X. defines his investigate. strategy as cultural materialism. With his t. Sp. cultural materialism links ecologic into a single whole. and socio-cultural direction in anthropology.

X. is based on materialistic. explanation of social reality. His theory is based on the study of the relationship of demogr. pressure on the natural environment and its reactions in ODA. sociocultural systems. Based on the physical. the essence of man (need for food, etc.) reveals four universal levels of humanity. organizations: I) the infrastructure of production and reproduction (of man); 2) the structure of household and polit, economy; 3) the superstructure of social relations; 4) mental (intellectual) or emic superstructure. Each of these levels is a determinant for the subsequent. In practice, the theory of X. is an environmental option. determinism. X. argues ecologic. character to elucidate the causes of food bans, various taboos and cannibalism, to-ry according to the prevailing anthropol. traditions were interpreted as a result of religions. practice. X. believed that the cultural evolution of man takes place within the canal, the boundaries of which are determined by cultural and environmental. conditions, while production methods determine the nature of this channel.

X. was not formally a student of L. White, but actually develops problems that are central to the cultural-evolutionary direction in the cultural anthropology of the United States.

Op .: The Rise of Anthropological Theory. N.Y., 1968; Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture. N.Y., 1974; Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. N.Y., 1980; America Now: The Anthropology of a Changing Culture. N.Y., 1981; Cultural Anthropology. N.Y., etc., 1983.

Samuel Phillips Huntington Born April 18, 1927, New York, USA - died December 24, 2008, Martas-Vinyard, Massachusetts, USA. American sociologist and political scientist, author of the concept of ethnocultural division of civilizations, published by him in the article “Clash of Civilizations?” (The Clash of Civilizations?), Published in 1993 in Forin Affers magazine, and then in 1996 in The Clash of Civilizations.

He graduated from Yale University, in 1948 - a master's degree from the University of Chicago, defended his doctoral dissertation at Harvard University, where he taught until the end of his life.

At the beginning of his scientific career he gained fame, first of all, as a researcher of civilian control over the armed forces and the theory of modernization. Founder and chief editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

In 1973, he worked as deputy director of the Center for International Relations.

In 1977-1978 - coordinator of the planning department at the US National Security Council.

In 1978-1989 - Director of the Center for International Relations.

Huntington Bibliography   (main works):

“The Soldier and the State: Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations” (1957)
  “Political Order in Changing Societies” (1968)
  “The Third Wave: Democratization at the End of the 20th Century” (1991)
  Clash of Civilizations (1993)
  "Who are we? Challenges of American National Identity ”(2004).

Huntington created by Huntington concept of “clash of civilizations”describing the dynamics of modern international relations through the prism of conflicts on a civilizational basis.

In his opinion, the only real difference that remained between nations after the end of the Cold War was cultural affiliation.

Huntington expressed the view that the confrontation between the Islamic and Western worlds, which will resemble the Soviet-American confrontation during the Cold War, is imminent in the near future. These constructions of his gained particular popularity in the West after the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Huntington's other famous theoretical development is concept of "waves of democratization".

Inevitability textbook.

This serious work could (read: should) become the holy grail of couch troops and school geopolitics, but as it should be smart books remembered only in higher circles. Danilevsky, Marx, Spengler, Jaspers, Toynbee - significant carriers of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe separation of civilizations, researchers of their development, relationships and death. At the end of the 20th century, Samuel Huntington joined their club along with his theory of "The Clash of Civilizations."

The above works should be read at least in order to understand why Crimea is ours, and not theirs, instead of meaningless slogans. why ISIS still exists and will exist for a very long time, although under a different name? Why does the West rot? And so on.

1. Are there no bad nations?

The clash of civilizations is inevitable. The war has just begun. Here is such a synopsis.

According to Huntington, world history is subject to its laws. In the 90s, the Union collapsed and the capitalist world declared a triumph over the Reds. Then all the world countries, as after a century of sleep, began to look around. What to do next? What is the meaning of existence? There used to be a specific enemy, now in its place is emptiness. And then everyone together paid attention to their identity.

The Middle East recalled that Europe, with which they had recently been friends, is actually a bearer of Catholic civilization and there is nothing more to do with them. The same thoughts appeared in the southern republics of the USSR - Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan. tense situation in the Caucasus.

By the time the regime collapsed, China had established production facilities and had already positioned itself as a growing major player in the East. Japan has not yet agreed with him, torn between America and its Asian identity.

Russia has long tried to fill a gaping hole in its national idea (Pelevin clearly shows this in Generation P), but eventually returns to its Orthodox roots.

So, according to Huntington, the world was divided into 9 civilizations: Western, Islamic, Sin (Chinese), Buddhist, Japanese, African, Latin, Hindu and Orthodox. And now at least 4 of them will begin (at the time of the 90s) to pull the blanket in their direction, inspiring the world to new conflicts.

The book actually looks unfinished, because in the future the author will pay attention to Western, Islamic, Sinsky and Orthodox civilizations. The rest will be mentioned in passing.

2. Why do we not love the West?

And it all started with Europe. It did not sit still - they decided to invent democracy, elections, parliaments and other ideas that stirred up the world. Then it all across the Atlantic was transferred to the continent more and it began - colonies, oppression, slavery, and after an unhealthy attraction to convince the oppressed that the Western way of life is the only true one. The Western world (USA, Europe, Canada, Australia) for a long time felt dominant. He defeated the Nazis, he conquered half the world, he destroyed the USSR — that means his way of life is the only true one.

[this paragraph does not express my opinion. He states facts from the book, as well as from history]

Initially, most of the countries accepted these values \u200b\u200band agreed to live with them, as these are technologies, money, opportunities. But gradually, one after another, liberal groups in government circles of the "non-Western" (Huntington's wording) countries are replaced by conservative and even radical parties, which are aggressive against the western side. The action of the West to introduce their culture has led other countries to do the opposite, to fight "their rotting values" and to show their national identity (This was 20 years ago !!!). So Western attempts to intervene in the violation of human rights in China were rudely flagged by the Chinese side. This was one of the first grins of China towards the West. It was then that it became clear that there is no more than one superpower - it will be necessary to share influence.

To summarize and look at it from the side, the clash with the West and its mass charity occurred for two reasons.

The faith of the West that one culture will be spread all over the globe, and this is precisely its culture.
The true desire of other civilizations to prove their identity to the detriment of their device.

3. Why is our Crimea?

What defines each civilization? Nationality, religion, culture. Paradoxically, the first is not so important if the other two points are identical. Huntington says the clash is religiously motivated. And the starting flag for him was the war in the Balkans, where three civilizations clashed at once: Croats (Catholics), Serbs (Orthodox), Bosnians (Muslims). As we know, this led to a bloody war, genocide and atrocities. Each side had its own country. The Croats were supported by the United States and the West, who supplied them with weapons, and with the help of the United Nations, restrained Serb aggression. Muslim brothers in the amount of $ 80 billion were annually supported by Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan. The Orthodox Serbs were supported by Russia that did not recover after the collapse of the Union.
Significantly, the United States also supported Muslims. They did not give them money, but turned a blind eye to the numerous deliveries of weapons. The Serbs remained out of work and even managed to quarrel among themselves, for which they paid.

In the second half of the 20th century, many local military conflicts occurred, most of which were between representatives of different civilizations and religions. The author predicts an increase in such hassles in the future.

The idea Huntington put forward is as follows:
The borders of the state will not be able to keep within themselves the fragments of civilizations: that’s why so much money goes to Chechnya, why Ukraine has split, and why Karabakh will never calm down.
  Here, for example, is one of Huntington’s prophecies in 1996:

As one Russian general put it, “Ukraine, or rather, Eastern Ukraine, will return to us in five, ten, or fifteen years. Western Ukraine let the hell go! ” . Such a “scrap” of Uniate and pro-Western Ukraine can become viable only with the active and serious support of the West. Such support, in turn, can be provided only in the event of a significant deterioration in relations between Russia and the West, up to the level of confrontation during the Cold War. "

4. The legacy of Saladin.

That from which Huntington would have stood up on his hair happened two years ago. Massive flow of migrants to Europe. The author of "The Clash of Civilizations" even then described in detail that Muslim and Western culture are incompatible in principle: Europeans, as if open, were not tolerant - tension between these parties is inevitable. There is a solution: all Europeans should be circumcised and convert to Islam, because Muslims will definitely not accept Christ.

Huntington generally singled out an entire chapter on Islamic civilization. What you need to know about this from the book:

1. Muslim civilization may reach its peak in the near future. Since the beginning of the 20th century, people professing Islam have become many times more. At first they were on a par with the Christians in growth, but then the latter braked sharply. Why? Huntington explains this by the fact that the number of Christians in particular increased due to the conversion of other peoples to their faith, and Muslims due to natural growth. There was no one to convert, but you can always give birth. Especially with the frequency of the Muslims, everything is in order.

2. Muslims do not have a core state. Among the Orthodox, this is Russia, in the West - the USA, Sinsk civilization - China. Unlike others, the Islamic world does not have a leader to lead them. Based on influence and power, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were candidates for this place in the early 90s. However, Iran is not suitable, because it is a Shiite state, while the rest of the Islamic world is Sunni. Saudis are not suitable because they are too dependent on American papers. Turkey did not live up to expectations when the beloved popular leader Ataturk once abandoned Islam in favor of a secular atheistic state.
Now, by the way, they say that Erdogan is determined to Islamize the country, let's see what happens. Indeed, at the time of Huntington, ISIS was not there.

3. In 80% of local wars at the end of the 20th century, Muslims took part. This is true. The Qur'an does not call for violence, but the great jihad can be viewed in different ways. Until the last moment, the West, having global influence, ignored this. Now he raised a monster. You can control a small hearth in the form of a small republic, throwing money in there, but you can not stop the whole world, which is aggressive on its borders.
Not only did the West cultivate militaristic behavior in the Middle East. In the 80s, large investments came to Iran and Pakistan from ... China. Yes! The Celestial Empire was accelerating from the runway, hoping to break out into superpowers, and already then weaved its own political networks. Here, "House of Cards" seems to be the plot for "Dasha the Traveler."

5. In the end. On the fragments of civilizations ...

Our names will not be written. Most likely this will be the end. I remember that in a series of "X-Files" the main characters encountered a genie who literally fulfilled wishes. And Mulder asked him for world peace. After that, the entire population on the planet disappeared. The conclusion from Huntington’s book can be made disappointing - wars, conflicts, genocides - a natural course of history, acting according to its harsh logic. He will always be and, judging by the facts and opinion of the author, will only gain momentum.

HUNTINGTON, PHILLIPS SAMUEL(Huntington, Samuel P.) (1927-2008) - American political scientist, creator of the geopolitical concept of "clash of civilizations."

Got a good education, studying political philosophy. In 1946 he received a bachelor's degree at Yale University, in 1948 - a master's degree at the University of Chicago. He served in the army. In 1951 he received a Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Huntington’s biography is typical of modern highly skilled Western intellectuals who combine teaching, research, government, and science centers.

In 1950–1958 he taught at Harvard, then in 1959–1962 he worked as deputy director of the Institute for the Study of War and Peace at Columbia University. During this period, his first monograph came out, which caused very mixed assessments, - Soldier and state: theory and practice of the relationship between civil authorities and the military (The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, 1957).

Having established himself as a qualified theoretician, Huntington began to work actively in the apparatus of the US government. In 1967–1969 and in 1970–1971 he headed the Department of Political Science at Harvard University.

During this period, his monograph gained great fame Political Order in Changing Societies (Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968), which has become one of the classic works devoted to the analysis of political systems of developing countries. In an effort to consolidate the community of American political scientists, he founded the 1970 journal Foreign Policy. Until 1977, Huntington was the co-editor of the magazine, which became one of the most respected world political science publications.

In 1973 he worked as deputy director of the Center for International Relations; in 1977-1978 - coordinator of the planning department at the US National Security Council; in 1978–1989 - Director of the Center for International Relations.

Since 1989, Huntington returned to the predominantly scientific and scientific-administrative work, taking the post of director of the Institute for Strategic Studies. John Olin at Harvard University. Since 1996 he headed the Harvard Academy of International and Regional Studies.

His main interests include national security, strategy, the relationship between the civilian population and the military, the problems of democratization and economic development of developing countries, cultural factors in world politics, problems of American national identity.

Among political scientists of the 21st century Huntington is known primarily as the author of the concept of "clash of civilizations", polemicizing with the concept of "end of history" F. Fukuyama   . Huntington first outlined his view of geopolitical socio-political problems in 1993 in an article Clash of civilizations?   Published in Foreign Policy, it caused worldwide resonance and formed the basis of the book. Clash of Civilizations and Rethinking World Order (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996), which has become a global scientific bestseller.

If Fukuyama suggested that the main victory in modern world politics be the complete victory of liberal ideology, Huntington considered this approach to be overly optimistic. In his opinion, at the end of the 20th century. the geopolitical alignment of forces is determined by ideologies that go beyond the traditional confrontation between liberalism and authoritarianism. The main opposing forces are civilizations, uniting groups of countries with similar mental values.

After A. Toynbee   Huntington claims that "human history is the history of civilizations." According to Huntington, in the modern world there is a clash of 7 or 8 civilizations - Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, Latin American and, possibly, African. Inside civilization, there is usually a pivotal country that organizes a single policy for the entire group of countries with similar cultural norms (such as the USA in modern Western civilization). Each civilization seeks to expand its influence or, at least, to preserve its identity from pressure from other civilizations. Instead of the ideological confrontation of the 20th century. in the 21st century, intercultural conflicts will play a major role.

In the 16th - first half of the 20th centuries. Western civilization was the main dominant force, imposing its values \u200b\u200bon everyone else. However, in the 20th century. the world first becomes bipolar (the confrontation between the West and Soviet Russia), and then multipolarity is gradually formed. Western civilization is gradually losing its leadership, but the independence of Far Eastern civilizations and the civilization of Islam is growing. In the modern world, the main thing has become the division into the "West and everyone else," with the most aggressive anti-Western struggle being Islamic civilization. Conflicts are growing along the "fault lines", where there are protracted local wars (as, for example, in the Middle East). In this new world, the West must abandon claims to the universality of its values \u200b\u200band attempts to enforce them in non-European countries.

After the events of September 11, 2001, Huntington was called the "visionary" who predicted the exacerbation of Islamic extremism. Following his concept, he protested against the US invasion of Iraq in 2004, believing that this would only lead to a widespread aggravation of relations between the West and the Islamic world.

If in Clash of civilizations   Huntington analyzed inter-civilization conflicts mainly as a confrontation between groups of states, then in a monograph Who are we? Challenges of American National Identity (Who are we? The Challenges to America "s National Identity, 2004) he focused on the problems associated with international migration. According to Huntington, the flows of migrants from developing countries create enclaves of a different culture in the developed countries of the West. As a result, the “clash of civilizations” is already taking place not only between countries, but also within multi-ethnic countries that are at risk of losing their cultural identity. Thus, for the United States, the greatest danger, Huntington believes, is the flow of Hispanic migrants, most of whom do not share the basic values \u200b\u200bof Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture.

Huntington's ideas are very popular not only among social scientists, but also among the general public. This is largely facilitated by the deliberate polemic and popular style of presentation of his scientific works, which often cause a kind of scientific scandals and cause fierce debate.