The Theory of the “Clash of Civilizations”: How real is it today?

The late political scientist Samuel P. Huntington popularized the phrase Clash of Civilizations in the early 1990s. He argued that, after the Cold War ended, the main dividing lines in the world would shift from ideological or economic conflicts to cultural and civilizational ones: differences in religion, values, identity, language, and historical memory would become the defining fault lines. 

Huntington’s key claims include:

• Civilizations are the broadest level of identity (beyond states or ideologies).

• Conflicts between different civilizations will be more frequent and more intense than conflicts within civilizations (though intra-civilizational conflict can exist).

• The “West vs. Islam” boundary is one of the most likely and volatile fault lines.

• Non-Western civilizations (e.g. Islamic, Sinic, Hindu) will reassert themselves against Western cultural dominance.

• The West needs to accept that its model of liberal democracy and universalism will not automatically prevail everywhere, and must prepare for resistance rooted in cultural identity. 

Huntington’s thesis provoked huge debate. Critics argue that his civilizational categories are too simplistic, essentialist, and ignore internal diversity and cross-cutting identities. 

For instance:

• Many conflicts are intra-civilizational, e.g. between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or within the Islamic world. 

• States sometimes ally across “civilizational” lines when convenient, showing that pragmatic interests can override culture. 

• Culture and identity are fluid and overlapping; individuals hold multiple identities (national, ethnic, religious, ideological). 

• Empirical support is mixed; not all major conflicts neatly align with Huntington’s civilization map. 

So the “Clash of Civilizations” is useful as a provocative lens, but many scholars treat it as a partial heuristic, not a definitive law.

---

How It Marries (or Misaligns) with Today’s Dynamics

When we look at contemporary world politics and social struggles, some patterns echo Huntington’s framing of identity and culture as central sources of tension—yet many dynamics complicate or contradict his model.

1. Identity and culture as core battlegrounds

• In many societies, debates over gender norms, religion, values, secularism, immigration, and historical memory are intense and polarizing. These are not just policy disputes — they often carry existential overtones: “What kind of society do we want?”

• In democracies, culture-war issues (e.g. LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, free speech) often mobilize deeply held beliefs and identities more than pure material interests.

• This fits one of Huntington’s key points: when ideological divisions wane, cultural or identity divisions step into the vacuum.

2. Transnational identity conflicts

• Identity conflicts today often cross borders: diaspora communities, global social media, religious networks, and ideological movements connect groups across countries.

• For example, debates in Western Europe about Muslims, Islam, integration, and “Islamization” are partly shaped by global Muslim identity discourses.

• Similarly, “wokeness” (or progressive identity politics) is not just domestic; countries, institutions, NGOs, and universities often interact, debate, and contest norms across borders.

3. Hybrid and overlapping conflicts

• Many conflicts today do not split neatly on civilizational lines. Economic inequality, class struggle, authoritarianism, resource competition, political corruption, and geopolitics remain powerful drivers.

• In places like the Middle East, conflicts often mix religion, ideology, geopolitics, and power, not just “civilization clash.”

• Alliances and antagonisms can cross cultural boundaries (e.g. a secular authoritarian regime cooperating with religious actors, or leftist coalitions transcending religious lines).

4. The “woke vs. traditional” tension in the West

The question highlights a particular clash: wokeism (progressive identity politics) vs more traditional or religious values, and the rise of Islamization movements in the West. Let’s examine how those phenomena relate to the idea of civilizational conflict.

Wokeism as a transnational cultural force

• Woke ideas—around race, gender, inclusion, decolonization, identity, and structural justice—have spread globally (in universities, civil society, media).

• These ideas provoke backlash in many societies. Some see them as a form of moral imperialism or cultural coercion.

• The debate is often framed not just as left vs. right, but as liberal cosmopolitan universalism vs local traditions, religious values, or communal forms of identity.

• In that sense, some see this as a “civilizational tension” between a modern secular-progressive value system and more conservative or traditionalist ones.

Islamization (or stronger Muslim identity in the West)

• Some Muslim communities (especially among younger generations) are embracing stronger religious identity, activism, and communal cohesion.

• In Western countries, tensions arise around religious dress, mosque building, halal options, Islamic schooling, apostasy laws, and whether Islam should have greater public presence.

• There are movements and intellectual currents that combine Islamism with social justice themes, cooperating sometimes with progressive activism (“woke Islamism”). 

• The friction arises when secular liberal institutions see demands for religious accommodation or autonomy as threatening the secular/public order.

How they clash (or align)

• Both sides claim moral universality: proponents of wokeism claim universal justice, equality, and human rights; some Islamist currents claim universal religious truth and the primacy of Islam. This produces a struggle over whose normative framework should prevail in public life.

• They evoke identity boundaries: for many people, cultural identity is nonnegotiable. If a Muslim dress code is seen as incompatible with liberal norms, tension emerges.

• Alliances and conflicts: in some cases, progressive groups ally with Muslim communities over anti-racism, anti-colonialism, or immigration rights. In other cases, progressive groups criticize religious conservatism (e.g. on gender or LGBT issues). This makes the terrain messy, not neatly “civilization vs civilization.”

• Backlash and polarization intensify: as these fights intensify, societies polarize more sharply—those who see themselves as defenders of “Western values” may push back against both Islamization and wokeism, treating them as threats to cultural cohesion.

Thus, the contemporary “culture wars” can indeed be read in light of Huntington’s idea: identity and culture are often the new battlegrounds. But the conflicts are more fragmented, overlapping, internally contested, and fluid than Huntington’s original model presumed.