Similarities
Both Huntington and Bowen anonymously agree that civilization that is embedded on ethnicity and cultural diversity is and will remain the root cause for the world conflict. They refute the claims that global conflict arise from economic and political struggles. Most of their discussion reveals that important future conflicts will capitalize on the points of weakness that exist between various forms of civilization.
Historically, differences in civilization among different communities have led to very fierce global conflict and violence. Both Huntington and Bowen agree that historical violence and conflict have resulted from not from ethnic diversity but nationalism activities. For instance, Bowen reiterates Misha Glen’s statement that Balkan violence is not a matter of ethnic and religious diversity but is being fueled by modern nationalism. Similarly, Huntington emphasizes that differences form civilizations are real and fundamental. They do not directly translate into conflict or emanate from violence. However, he echoes that these differences have initiated some the most prolonged violence in the world.
Huntington and John Bowen view the influence of western civilization in a similar way. According to Huntington, the advancement in civilization awareness is fuelled by the influence the western power and ideologies. He also cites the shift in allegiance trends of the non-Western civilization which is moving away from the west. This relationship is taking the direct opposite direction and is headed for de-Westernization. Such cultures are tracing their roots and are tentatively dropping the western civilization. Professor Bowen supports this view by stating that the colonial masters majorly from the west defined ethnicity to those who did not even have any single knowledge of this term. For example, he cites that the colonial powers and the neo-colonialists who took over from them defined and declared that each African had an ethnic origin. This is what caused tension in Rwanda and Burundi. In these two countries, Germans and Belgians were biased and favored the tall Tutsis over the Hutus. They also gave the ethnic identity cards which drew an ethnic boundary between the two communities leading to clashes which resonated to genocide. 1(Bowen 1996)
1Bowen, John R. "The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict." Jornal of Democracy, 1996: 3-14.
2Huntington, Samuel P. "The clash of civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, 1993: 25.
The two professors approach the issue of religious affiliation and the global conflict and violence. They together affirm that religious groupings have melted ethnic boundaries in the world. Huntington states that the revival of religion has provided the fundamentals of identity and enhanced social change and economic modernization in the entire world. He further observes that differences and similarities in culture perfectly fuse in globalization than political and economic constraints. This means that people can easily intermingle and become friends despite their cultural diversity. Besides, this has diffused the historical indigenous identities. Professor Bowen actually stands with this by stating that politicians always hide in religion to fuel tension and cause violence. 2(Huntington 1993)
Differences
Bowen holds a different view from Huntington on political influence in violence. According to Professor Bowen, many historians’ blames on religious identification is baseless. This is just a matter of controversy among the historians themselves. For instance, he stresses that Muslim-Hindu relationship in India has been an issue of South Asian historians’ exaggerations. The fierce conflicts in India have been a result of politicians’ over ambitiousness to clinch some electoral opportunities. These Indian politicians pretend of fighting for their lower caste people to get jobs and education. In the real sense, they are undermining the Muslim prosperity in this nation. Huntington on the other hand distances himself from the political influence in ethnic conflict. He argues that ethnic and cultural conflict is purely a matter of difference in civilization. He emphasizes that even the future trends in the global conflict will purely be cultural but neither economical nor ideological.
In conclusion, Huntington and Bowen have a very close perception of global conflict and violence. They definitely argue way out of ethnicity and cultural backgrounds as the root cause for global disturbance. They cite variance in civilization as the key projector of world conflict and violence. However, Professor Bowen does not underrate the influence of politics in this matter. His critical view of the opportunistic and materialistic politics clearly has some significance in this discussion. All in all, the western influence instituted different forms of civilization that have so far forced ethnicity into the world peaceful community.
1Bowen, John R. "The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict." Jornal of Democracy, 1996: 3-14.
2Huntington, Samuel P. "The clash of civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, 1993: 25.
Bibliography
Bowen, John R. "The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict." Jornal of Democracy, 1996: 3-14.
Huntington, Samuel P. "The clash of civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, 1993: 25.
