Introduction: Civilizations and International Relations Theory

Abstract

The past decade has seen renewed interest in the notions of “civilization” and “civilizations” in many parts of the social sciences. In particular, Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis (1993a) has attracted an enormous amount of attention, both for its simplicity in dividing the world into mutually exclusive communities characterized by deep-essential differences, and for its pessimistic conclusion that these differences are so fundamental as to make the communities in question more or less implacably opposed to one another. Both of these aspects of Huntington’s argument—essential differences, and implacable opposition—have been scrutinized and criticized on both empirical and theoretical grounds, as part of a scholarly effort to forge the concepts of “civilization” and “civilizations” into useable analytical tools.

When asked about his view of Western civilization, the Mahatma Gandhi famously replied: “It would be a good idea.” His reply reminds us that “civilization” is not a secure possession but a fragile, ever-renewable endeavor; grammatically, it has the character more of a verb than a noun.

—Fred Dallmayr

“Civilization” has meant so many different things to different people that it will be hard to retrieve it from abuse and restore useful meaning to it.

—Felipe Fernández-Armesto

What is civilisation? I don’t know. I can’t define it in abstract terms—yet. But I think I can recognise it when I see it …

—Kenneth Clark