Intellectual Biography on Samuel P. Huntington

Samuel Huntington was an American Political Scientist who widely gained popularity for his examination of the relationship between the civil government and the military, factors effecting government stability in third world countries, and his thesis that the most prominent political processes of the 21^st. century would involve “cultural civilizations” instead of nation-states. His books were all surrounded by controversy, as was his academic and intellectual life. There were people who loved him and there were people who hated him. However, his intellectual contributions have had a profound impact on US as well as international domestic and foreign policies. His last book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, published in 2004 analyses the threats to America based on modern day immigration practices. Amidst much controversy and criticism, he claims that the biggest threat to the United States comes from the massive influx of Latinos, which Huntington warns, could “divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages”. He has been accused of being xenophobic as well as racist in making these assertions that claim.

Huntington was born on April 18 1927 in New York City. At the age of 18 he graduated with distinction from Yale University and went on to serve in the US Army. He received his Master’s degree from the University of Chicago and his doctorate from Harvard where he began teaching at the age of 23. He also was a member of Harvard’s department of government from 1950 till he was denied tenure in 1959. From 1959 to 1962 he was an associate professor of government at Columbia University where he also served as the Deputy Director of The Institute of War and peace Studies. In 1963 Huntington was invited back to Harvard with tenure where he remained until his death in December 24 2008 at the age of 81. He also co-founded Foreign Policy, a bi-monthly magazine with Warren Demian Manshel. In total he authored or co-authored about 17 books that dealt with issues such as government stability, national identity, the process of democratization, problems faced by third world countries in their pursuit of independence and development and many other topics. He was Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s foreign policy advisor during his 1968 presidential campaign and also served in the Carter Administration as Coordinator of Security Planning on the National Security Council from 1977 to 1978.

The first book that brought Huntington recognition as well as notoriety was The Clash of Civilizations, which was published in 1996. In this book he offered a perspective that shifted from the commonly accepted traditional reasons for cohesion or conflict in the world that were usually associated with ideology. Instead he suggested that we look to religious and cultural value. In fact, he suggested that most post Cold War conflicts would become cultural wars instead of wars between separate states. He points out that if the industrialized West wishes to retain its predominant position in the world it would have to keep this factor in mind. Many critics of Huntington suggested that his book legitimized US led aggression towards China and Islam, particularly Iraq. However, these critics fail to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein was indeed a ruthless dictator that many Islamic people did not support. Also critics fail to acknowledge Huntington’ s stance against the US decision to go to war. His book actually prophesized the failures and tragedies that eventually unfolded. Through his book he painted the picture of 21^st. century conflict. It was going to be based along the cultural lines. From a totally pure social scientific stand point Huntington provides an unbiased theory. Thus it can be argued that it was not his agenda to instigate war. He was just laying out the facts and stating the obvious. It was other people who made the decision to go to war.

Political Order in Changing Societies, which was published in 1968, is another one of his controversial and highly disputed books. Huntington was said to have “had a knack for asking the crucially important but often inconvenient question”. The Economist went as far as to dub him “the butcher of sacred cows”. In this book he challenges traditional development theorists who just pushed for Democracy and Freedom claiming that modernization would automatically lead to economic as well as political development as it did for the industrialized west, specially the US. Huntington disagrees. He emphasizes on the necessity to have efficient institutionalization of bureaucracies before promoting social mobility. Massive migration into cities works towards creating a heterogeneous society with people hailing from different ethnic, religious and socio-economic groups. People take advantage of better education systems in the cities and become aware of their position in the social hierarchy. They begin to question their respective standings in society and in the work force. They become aware of the inequalities and strive for reform. However, this is contrary to the interests of people who are at a higher step in the socio-economic ladder and hold more power. Therefore, a class struggle erupts where the marginalized struggle for equality and the better off try to maintain the status quo. Huntington (1993) points out that urbanization along with education, exposure to mass media and consumer products creates a more politically aware and mobilized society that make bigger demands on the government. However, because the political structures in Third World countries are usually still in their infancy, they are less efficient and less effective while dealing with and addressing the tidal wave of demands being made by a very divided populace. They usually fail to address a majority of demands and resolve a majority of differences. When disputes cannot be settled peacefully through government mediation, people tend to take things into their own hands. More often than not, their resolve tactics turn violent and act as further discordant forces among the people. Thus, most political and social planning and discourse are brought to a halt and all resources and energy are directed towards thwarting the threat of civil unrest. The faster the enlightenment of the population, the more frequent the overthrow of the government” (Huntington 1996:47). The problem here lies in the fact that an educated and aware population needs satisfying and well paying jobs. If they remain unemployed they become insurgent and enter into the political arena as de-stabilizing agents questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of government. In order to solve this problem it is necessary for third world countries to shift their priority from educating their public to creating industries first. In doing so there will be plenty of jobs available for the educated youth, where they can successfully utilize what they have learnt and not enter politics as radical forces.

Another very important book Huntington wrote was The Third Wave in which he examines similar issues but focusing on what kind of regime is more appropriate for countries with different situations. This book too was of course was met with a lot of controversy. Huntington prescribes authoritarian rule during early stages of government and bureaucratic development in order to prevent the problems associated with too much mobility to arise. He was often criticized as being a supporter of dictatorship and communism. However, he merely claims that in the process of development government stability is the most crucial step. Third world countries in general lack inclusive and representative governments. Usually having displaced an older establishment of monarchy, colonialism or some other form of exploiting regime, these countries remain wary of governments that follow. So his argument is that Multi-party Democratic politics target and recruit from specific groups of an already divided population. The existing divide deepens as each party emphasizes their own respective interests while neglecting to acknowledge National Interests. So instead, people search for identities based on socio-economic class, ethnicity, religion, demography, being the historical oppressor or the historically oppressed, etc., but not on a collective national one. He points out that Democracy produces desirable outcomes only after certain criteria are met: A united population that has transcended petty differences, has acquired national identity specifying common interests and is properly represented in a government that is considered legitimate and reliable where people are willing to accept and implement policies once they are passed even if they disagree with its contents, for the sake of National Interests. These precursors help to prevent infestation from political parties that are driven by self-interest by relying on the people’s solidarity. Similarly, the danger of cyclical stalemates that has potential to emerge among rival parties is thwarted through legitimizing government decisions as final, and enforcing it by the people’s National Interests. Lastly, when people feel well represented by their governments, political participation separate from narrow party affiliations increases. In other words, the government can truly be “for the people, by the people”, and not just status, power-and certainly not inherited rights for those who hold on to the demented idea of entitlement because it runs in their blood. On the other hand, Democracy without fundamental conditions that make it ‘work’ is just another word for Anarchy. On it’s own it acts as a catalyst for reinforced division, which ultimately begets conflict, bloody conflict. Huntington thus claims that government stability should precede democracy and seeing what I have seen in countries like Nepal and Cambodia I must say I agree with him.

His latest and last book that was published in 204Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity could possible the most controversial of his books. Drawing from the relationships established between identity, government stability and development in third world countries, he claims that the “American Identity” is at threat from a massive Latino immigration into the United States. Huntington argues that the biggest threat to America’s future is not radical Islamists but rather a growing number of Latinos. He says that immigrants who come to the United States from everywhere apart from Latin American countries infuse themselves into the American Identity. They pick up the customs, language and try to fit into the established society. Huntington claims that in the case of Latinos especially illegal immigrants that is not the case. His logic is that the proximity of Latino Immigrants homeland stops them from embracing the United States as their own. They retain their customs, their language and behavior in the belief that they are in the United States only temporarily and are going back to their own home. This, Huntington says is the biggest threat to the future of America. He claims that there the nation will be divided into two groups like during the civil war. Of course immigration reform could eliminate this potential danger. Due to strict immigration procedures many Latinos do not develop a bond with the United States solely because they are treated like they aren’t wanted here. That could easily be changed by reforming immigration.

Although I might not agree with everything Huntington has to say, I do believe that he sheds light on a number of topics most people would try to avoid. I think he comes really close to the pure scientific ideal that social sciences try to achieve. It also illuminates the danger of such pure scientific knowledge as his theory being used to legitimize wars. But the necessity of stability in government is real in developing countries. In the pursuit of remaining democratic in only letters, I have seen Nepal deteriorate over the years. Worse than it ever was. In the United States t we see a divided population on Immigration based on cultural reasons. We see the country divided in its support towards the president. It seems like it is based on Ideological differences. I disagree. I think it is based on very cultural (racial) differences. Today’s wars aren’t based on ideological differences. Israel and Palestine: cultural, The US and Afghanistan: cultural. Take a look at potential conflict as well. Iran and the US: cultural. The only ideological conflict that exists is probably with North Korea where the lines between ideology and culture have been blurred anyway. Their ideology has become their culture. Similarly, if we look at alliances we see culture as well. Mass consumption cultures befriend other mass consumption or mass production cultures. The conflicts that arise in these processes are between not two nations defending separate ideologies, it between two cultures: one of affluence and the other of poverty. The realization and consolidation of our differences will require much more to do with culture. The word Culture itself should not be taken in a limited way either. We should be able to collapse and expand the word when needed. After all we are post modernists and nothing really matters anyway. We just do this because we have nothing else to do!