The End of the Clash of Civilizations and Laissez-Faire

Published in Mingpao
(Hong Kong) on 05 January 2009
by Xu Baoqiang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Ming Li. Edited by Louis Standish.
The Clash of Civilizations, published in the 1990s by Samuel Huntington, a political scientist in Harvard who passed away not long before, causes lot of disputes. The Clash of Civilizations was first published as an article in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 1993, and then printed as a book in 1996.

What Huntington stated in his book is not complicated. He thought that with the end of the cold war, the new international tension would be dominated by eight major civilizations -West, Orthodox Church, Latin America, Islam, Chinese Confucianism, Japan, India and Africa. The conflict between the Islam and West is written home about in the Clash of Civilizations. Recently, the supporters of civilization clashes tends to invoke the September 11 attack to strengthen the Huntington’s theory and this produces or enhances some cultural and political effects, among them, the recent farce of the on-board rejection by an American airways to Moslem is a small one while the rationalization of the American forces’ stay in middle east and the air raid by Israel in Gaza a strong one. The opponents pointed that Huntington’s though is careless because it not only disregard the richly indigenous cultures all over the world, but also integrate the Israel culture into western civilization and ignore the vast area where the Buddhism is popular.

Why only conflicts are left for the civilization?

Edward Said, a passed professor in Colombia and the author of Orientalism, and Culture and Imperialism, criticized Huntington for his inattention on the exchange, share and inter-gestation between “civilizations” as he only set his eyes on the conflicts between the “civilizations. Edward wrote in an article titled The Clash of Ignorance that:

“We are all swimming in those waters, Westerners and Muslims and others alike. And since the waters are part of the ocean of history, trying to plow or divide them with barriers is futile. These are tense times, but it is better to think in terms of powerful and powerless communities, the secular politics of reason and ignorance, and universal principles of justice and injustice, than to wander off in search of vast abstractions that may give momentary satisfaction but little self-knowledge or informed analysis. ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ thesis is a gimmick like ‘The War of the Worlds,’ better for reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time.”

Turning back to history, it is clear that the exchange, share and inter-gestation between “civilizations” mentioned by Said is not insignificant, and in the so-called “globalization” age that we are now living in, the interpenetration between “civilizations” is ubiquitous. So the question is: how should we understand the clash between “civilizations” Huntington set his eyes only on? And why this judgment that focuses only on civilization clash could receive a strong concern and attention in 1990s? To answer these two questions, it is necessary to put Huntington’s theory into a certain historical context.
Huntington, once worked for the National Security Council of the Carter government in 1977 and 1978, brought forward the clash of civilization theory after the cold war and the collapse of socialist camp in former Soviet and Eastern Europe, which can be seen as a try to look for a new enemy for the U.S. The efforts to set up a new enemy to replace the “evil Soviet Empire” for the U.S., might be actions to continue the rationalization of American’s military expansions and a strategy in diplomacy and politics to take Latin America and East Europe in to counter Middle East and East Asia, so the American political and military hegemonies will continue. For both the Democracy and Republic, Huntington’s theory helps the domestic and diplomatic manipulations of populism politics.

Just like what Ernesto Laclau points out in a book named On Populist Reason (2005), knowing the manipulation of populism, is the key to understand the operation of contemporary politics. The manipulation of populism, as a political logic, relies on a diametrically opposite structure of friend and foe to turn the miscellaneous “people” into a collective with same appeal (and enemy), and build a unity (e.g. ‘western civilization’) that is impossible to reach in reality with an empty signifier as medium.

Borrowing Laclau’s populism idea to analyze Huntington’s “theory”, we might understand more why he just focused on the “conflicts” between “civilizations”. The “threats” from the “civilizations” that build pagan Islam and China is the very stopgap to fill up the blank left by the passed Soviet Communist Party as the “evil enemy”, so a collective identity for the American (even the “west”) “people” is set up, and the equivocal, empty “eight major civilizations” as well as the “clashes” between them are used to bear the various anxieties and appeals that American “people” formed in cold war and social polarization. It is afraid that this is the true cause for the popular Clash of Civilization since 1990.

Reread Keynes and Polanyi

If it is an illusion of trees for forest to use the September 11th attack run by few to “prove” the conflict between Islam and western “civilization”, then this financial tsunami that sweeping the globe seems to be more evident for the damage by laissez-faire. In the last 30 years, the rampant laissez-faire and thereof policies not only produced a serious global polarization but a financial tsunami with deep impact, through these, what is uncovered should be the contradictions of powerful and powerless social groups, of political powers between intellect and ignorance, and of universal principles between justice and injustice, rather than abstractive and equivocal “clash of civilizations”. To understand “the complicated interdependence in this era,” it seems that we have to say good bye to the theory of clash of civilization first, then seriously analyze the historical factors that caused this financial tsunami and review the laissez-faire that dominated this world in the past.

In his book The End of Laissez-faire, written in 1920s, J.M. Keynes warned that history of opinion is the premise of emancipation of mind. So rereading Keynes and Polanyi’s judgments on the rise and fall of laissez-faire between 19 century and early 20 century will help us understand our situation in the financial tsunami.

Keynes pointed out that the concept of laissez-faire that was dominating in 19 century is not from the political economics masters like Adam Smith and Ricardo but from political philosophers, and then it was copied by some secondary economic authorities and copied again by some educational machine before it eventually became a copybook maxim rampant in a time. Laissez-faire was so popular in 19 century, Keynes thought, was because it was a counteraction against the inefficient and greedy governments in 18 century, it got helps from vulgar social Darwinism popular at that time, and it was simple and easy to be understood while its opponent, the protectionism and national socialism, were out of reality.

Coincidently, in his masterpiece The Great Transformation, Polanyi also talked about the rise and fall of the laissez-faire. He pointed out that the laissez-faire and economic liberalism had created a social (including natural, human and monetary) self-protection when they damaged a traditional social and cultural life, and this led to a dead end for the laissez-faire and economic liberalism.

Both Keynes and Polanyi criticized laissez-faire advocators for their chaotic thoughts and unrealistic economic liberalism theory. They actually revealed the empty signifiers of “laissez-faire” and “economic liberation”---no concrete and positive contents but a try to buckle a variety of appeals by “people” that can be really united. Also, the “protectionism” and “socialism” with the same emptiness in contents were just in a right time to become the very good enemy for “people”, and this successfully created a great populism cause that pushed the society toward capitalism. In other words, same as the theory of “clash of civilizations,” the “laissez-faire” that was popular between 19th century and a time 30 years back, clearly illustrated the overrun of populism rather than the penetrating judgments from political scientists or economists.

Economic Depression in 1930s witnessed the fall of “laissez-faire” and “economic liberalism” that dictated the whole 19th century. And following the impact of financial tsunami in 21st century, up-to-date laissez-faire tone is also fading out. Along with the death of Milton Friedman, the advocator of laissez-faire, and the pass away of Huntington, the author of Clash of Civilizations, the Bush government that favored plutocrats and dared warring steps officially down the historical arena and the U.S. eventually got its first black president with the supports from minorities. Whether or not all these changes are predicting that the theories of laissez-faire and clash of civilizations, which provided theoretical basis for the polarization and racial hatred/discrimination, are formally pacing to a termination?


许宝强﹕文明冲突与自由放任的终结
——弗里曼和亨廷顿辞世之后 2009年1月5日








【明报专讯】刚离世的美国哈佛大学政治学者亨廷顿(Samuel Huntington),于20世纪90年代发表的《文明冲突》(The Clash of Civilizations),惹起不少争议。《文明冲突》先于1993年以学术论文的形式发表在《外交事务》(Foreign Affairs)期刊(www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5188-p0/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations.html),再于1996年以专书出版(The Clash of Civilizations——Remaking of World Order, New York : Simon & Schuster)。亨廷顿的论点并不复杂,他认为随冷战的结束,新的国际张力将受到八大文明——西方、东正教、拉美、伊斯兰、中国儒家、日本、印度 和非洲——之间的冲突所主宰。对伊斯兰与西方之间的矛盾,《文明冲突》墨尤多。晚近的文明冲突论支持者,往往援引九一一事件来支持亨廷顿的理论,产生或强化的文化政治效果,轻的是最近美国客机驱赶回教徒落机的闹剧,重则包括合理化美军长驻中东和以色列空袭加沙。反对者则指亨廷顿的说法粗疏,不仅无视世界各地丰富多元的原住民文化,同时也随意地把以色列并入西方文明,又忽略了以佛教为主要文化的地区。
文明为什么只剩下冲突?
着有《东方论述》(Orientalism)和《文化与帝国主义》(Culture and Imperialism)的已故哥伦比亚教授萨伊德(Edward Said),批评亨廷顿只看到「文明」间的冲突,而无视「文明」间的交流、分享和相互孕育。他在题为〈无知的碰撞〉(The Clash of Ignorance, The Nation, Oct.4, 2001, www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said)的文章中,这样写道:
「我们西方人、伊斯兰与其他人群都同游于彼水之中,而这些水均共享同一历史海洋的源头,因此尝试(把「文明」)分隔和划地为牢是毫无意义的。这确实是充满张力的时代,但与其短暂地满足于缺乏坚实知识、极端抽象的(文明冲突这种)胡思乱想,不如正视有权和无权社群之间的矛盾、理智和无知的现世政治、公义与不公义的普世原则。『文明冲突』论就像是『不同世界之间的战争』这类说法一样的花招,只会强化自我防卫的偏见,无助于批判地理解我们时代复杂的相互依存关系。」(笔者译)
回顾历史,萨伊德所说的「文明」间的交流、分享和孕育等依存关系,显然并非微不足道;而在我们这个所谓「全球化」的年代,「文明」间的相互渗透,更是无处不在。问题因此是:如何理解亨廷顿只眼于「文明」之间的冲突?为什么这种侧重冲突的文明观,能够在20世纪90年代以降备受关注和重视?要回答这些问题,有必要把亨廷顿的文明冲突论,置放于特定的历史脉络之中。
曾于1977至1978年美国卡特政府的国家安全委员会任职的亨廷顿,在1989年苏联东欧社会主义阵营解体和冷战的结束后,提出文明冲突论,可以理解为一种重新为美国寻找敌人的尝试。为美国树立新的敌人,替代冷战时期的苏共「邪恶帝国」,恐怕是想继续合理化美国的军事扩张和外交政冶上的合纵连横——拉拢拉美、东欧以对抗中东和东亚——延续美国的政治和军事霸权。对美国的民主或共和党政府来说,亨廷顿的文明冲突论,都有助推动内政和外交上民粹政治的操作。
正如Ernesto Laclau在On Populist Reason(2005)一书指出,了解民粹主义的操作,是打开理解当代政治运作的锁匙。作为一种政治逻辑,民粹操作依赖的是一种截然对立的敌我建构,以便把内部纷杂多样的「人民」,打造成拥有同一诉求(和敌人)的集体身分,当中需要意义含混的空洞能指(empty signifier)作为中介,以建构一种不可能存在的统一体(例如「西方文明」)。
借助Laclau有关民粹主义的分析来阅读亨廷顿的「理论」,或可更明白为什么他只集中于讨论「文明」间的「冲突」。建构伊斯兰和中国等异族「文明」的「威胁」,正好用来填补失去了苏共这「邪恶」「敌人」的空缺,以打造美国(以至「西方」)「人民」的集体身分认同;而含义不清、内容空洞的「八大文明」及它们之间的「冲突」,也可用来承载美国「人民」在后冷战时期和社会两极分化下各式各样的焦虑和诉求。这恐怕才是文明冲突论在20世纪90年代以降一纸风行的真正原因。
重读凯恩斯博兰尼
如果以只有极少数人发动的九一一袭击来「印证」伊斯兰和西方「文明」的冲突,只是一种以偏概全的虚妄,那么是次席卷全球的金融海啸,似乎更能普遍反映放任主义(laissez-faire)的遗害。在過去30年橫行的放任主義和相關的政策,不僅造成嚴重的全球兩極分化,更導致影響深遠的金融海嘯,當中反映的,恐怕並不是抽象和含義不清的「文明衝突」,而是伊德所指的坐落於有權和無權的社群、理智與無知的政治力量、公義和不公義的普世原則之間的矛盾。而要理解「我们时代复杂的相互依存关系」,似乎无可避免先要告别文明冲突论,认真分析导致金融海啸的历史原因,重新审视过去主宰全球的放任主义。
凯恩斯(J. M. Keynes)在其写于上世纪20年代中的〈自由放任的终结〉(The End of Laissez-faire, 收于New York: Prometheus Books, 2004, www.panarchy.org/keynes/laissezfaire.1926.html)中提醒我们,研究观念的历史(history of opinion)是思想解放的前提。置身金融海啸中,重读凯恩斯和博兰尼(Karl Polanyi)有关放任主义在19世纪至20世纪初兴衰的论断,应有助我们理解当代的处境。
凯恩斯指出,雄霸19世纪的自由放任观念,并非源自Adam Smith和Ricardo等政治经济学大师,而是出于政治哲学家之手,再经一些二流经济学者(secondary economic authorities)和教育机器(educational machine)的不断自我复制,终于成为了主导一时的陈腔滥调(copybook maxim)。凯恩斯认为,放任主义之所以在19世纪大行其道,除了是对18世纪无能和贪腐的政府的反动外,也得力于物竞天择、适者生存的庸俗社会达尔文主义观念的流行,同时又受益于放任主义的简单易懂和其论辩对手──保护主义和国家社会主义──的脱离现实。
不约而同,博兰尼在其名著《大转变》(The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1944/1957)也论及自由放任观念的兴衰。他指出19世纪兴起的放任主义(laissez-faire)和经济自由主义(economic liberalism),在破坏了传统的社群文化生活之余,也同时造就了社会(包括自然、人和金钱)的自我保护,最终导致放任主义和经济自由主义自身的末路。
凯恩斯和博兰尼都批评放任主义者思想混乱,经济自由主义的理论与事实不符。这些指控,其实是反映了「自由放任」和「经济自由」等空洞能指的属性──它们并非要表述任何具体和正面的内容,只是尝试扣连无法真正统合的「人民」纷杂诉求。而同样空洞的「保护主义」和「社会主义」,则正好作为「人民」的敌人,成就推动社会往资本主义方向转变的民粹大计。换句话说,与「文明冲突论」一样,「自由放任主义」在19世纪以至过去30年间的流行,彰显的恐怕不是政治学者或经济学家的真知灼见,而是民粹主义的泛滥。
20世纪30年代的经济大衰退,见证了主宰整个19世纪的「放任主义」和「经济自由主义」的没落,而在21世纪金融海啸的冲击下,当代的自由放任论调也步入黄昏。随鼓吹放任主义的弗里曼(Milton Friedman)和提出文明冲突论的亨廷顿相继辞世,勇于偏向财阀和发动战争的布殊政府正式步下历史的舞台,在各少数族裔的支持下,美国终于选出了第一位黑人总统。这种种转变,是否正预示了分别为贫富两极分化和种族仇恨/歧视提供理据的自由放任与文明冲突论,正式走向终结?

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Indonesia: Trump’s 19% Tariffs: How Should We Respond?

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Australia: Donald Trump Made MAGA a Promise on the Epstein Files. They Are Holding Him to It

Topics

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Australia: Donald Trump Made MAGA a Promise on the Epstein Files. They Are Holding Him to It

Australia: What’s Behind Donald Trump’s Latest Crypto Adventure?

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Foreign Media Warn US Brand Reputation Veering toward ‘Collapse’ under Trump Policy Impact

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Hong Kong: What Makes US Trade War More Dangerous than 2008 Crisis: Trump

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump