SPD2321 Chinese Civilization

and Modern Consciousness

from the West
Lecture 3 Clashes of Civilization?
Lecturer: Dr. Man-tat Terence Leung
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 The so-called “Clash of Civilizations” is a hypothesis that
people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary
source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.
 It was proposed by Harvard political scientist Samuel P.
Huntington in a 1992 lecture at the American Enterprise
Institute, which was then developed in a 1993 Foreign Affairs
article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?”, in response to his
former student Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book, The End of
History and the Last Man.
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 The decline of the West and the rise of China/Asia
 Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order, argues that the decline of the West will become
obvious in 21st century (when the West reach Absolute Power, the
only way is downward) and it is a slow process (and also not
proceeding in a straight line), which can be proved in terms of:
 A) population
 B) economic growth
 C) social ethics
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 Huntington offers several explanations for why civilizations will clash:
 1) Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations
are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture,
tradition, and, most important, religion. These fundamental
differences are the product of centuries, so they will not soon
disappear.
 2) The world is becoming a smaller place (i.e cf David Harvey’s
‘time-space compression’). As a result, the interactions across the
world are increasing, and they intensify civilization consciousness
and awareness of differences between civilizations and
commonalities within civilizations.
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 3) Due to the economic modernization and social change, people are
separated from longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has
replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment
that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
 4) The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual
role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power.
But on the other hand, a return-to-the-roots phenomenon is
occurring among non-Western civilizations.
  The West at the peak of its power will inevitably confront non-
Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will and the
resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 在 The Clash of Civilization and the Remarking of World Order
一書中 , 杭廷頓認為下個世紀的世界衝突並非來自左派與
右派抑或資本與馬克思的意識形態之爭 , 而是宗教與文明
的衝突 , 意即冷戰結束之後 , 「文明」已取代意識型態成
為國際政治的斷層線。
 杭廷頓在此書中將世界劃分為若干文明區 , 認為其中的伊
斯蘭文化圈與西方基督新教文明圈最易引發戰爭 , 而九一
一事件與美國出兵伊拉克無疑使其論點得到印證。
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 911 恐怖攻擊事件對美國而言 , 無疑是反美勢力在美國本
土上給予美國一記無情的痛擊。
 恐怖份子一舉摧毀了代表西方資本主義的世貿中心大樓 ,
以及代表美國全球打擊戰略的指揮中心五角大廈 , 除了具
有重大的象徵意義外 , 更是美國立國以來最大的打擊與悲
劇。
 而此一事件的主角 - 賓拉登 (Bin Laden) 及其所領導的凱達
組織 , 在成為美國的頭 號通緝犯的同時 , 也變成伊斯蘭世
界反美的精神象徵。
What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 對冷戰後國際局勢發展 , 杭廷頓在 90 年代初期就曾悲觀
的認為 : 冷戰後由於世界的距離拉得愈來愈近 , 民族間的
互動日趨頻繁 , 一方面強化了文明意識 , 另一方面也加強
彼此的差異性與內部的共通性 , 民族間的仇恨 。
 Charlie Incident

 Paris Terrorist Attack

What Is “the Clash of Civilizations”?
 According to Huntington, cultural differences determines the
cause of the conflicts
 The cultural difference arguments fills the ideological vacuum
真空 created by the end of the Cold War:
 A) affirmation of ‘Asian values’ or “Chinese characteristics”

 B) revival of traditional value is not a rejection of modernity

but a rejection of the West
 C) balancing power is not the norm of Confucian culture
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 The thesis of “clash of civilizations” can be equally applied to

the current tensions between China and America.
 The combination of stunning economic growth and
unpredictable political governance causes deep concerns, if
not anxieties about China among the nations in the world in
recent years.  the “China’s threat” theory 中国威胁论
 The reason for American concern mainly arises from its
hegemonic status in the world politics and the ideological
incompatibility of China with the Western democratic
system.
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 Apart from the ideological incompatibility, Samuel Huntington had

added a cultural factor to the “China threat” thesis.
 In his book “The Clash of Civilizations”, Huntington also
mischievously constructed an “unholy alliance between Islamic and
Confucian civilizations” ( 儒家文化和伊斯兰文明之间的邪恶联
盟 ).
 According to this theory, even if China sheds off its ideological
straitjacket, nationalism may still drive China into a course of clash
with the United States (especially if the US refuses to
accommodate or share the leadership with China as a rising
power).
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 從文化角度的觀點而言 , 杭廷頓認為東亞的「儒家主義」
(Confucianism) 以 及 基 本 教 義 派 的 「 伊 斯 蘭 主 義 」
(Islamism) 是對「第三波」民主化最主要的反動力量 , 也
就是說 ,1980 年代之後在東亞與中東興起的「新威權主
義」與「伊斯蘭基本教義派」的政治主張 , 就是從文化價
值的層次挑戰西方民主的普世地位。
 換言之 , 從文化相對主義反對西方民主運動的東亞與中東
地區之國家 , 特別是長期與美國為敵的伊斯蘭激進國家 ,
以及國力正於崛起然而戰略動向尚不十分明朗的中國 , 就
成為杭廷頓立論下打造西方之劍的試劍石。
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 正因杭廷頓以「民族衝突」為文明衝突的核心 , 再擴大成
包括宗教與文化所共同組成而合的「文明」間的對立性思
維 , 杭氏遂更進一步將伊斯蘭與儒家世界的中國連結起來 ,
並認為儒家、伊斯蘭兩大民族的軍事結合已經形成 , 這項
結合是藉由成員之間 , 相互獲得所需的武器和技術作為橋
樑 , 並與西方的軍事力量形成抗衡的狀態。
 杭廷頓在《文明的衝突》中推論 , 冷戰後的國際衝突因素
將不再是主權或意識型態上的紛爭 , 而在於文化上的差
異。
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 Empirically speaking, China’s military modernization is of a

pace and kind that inevitably makes its neighbors feel
vulnerable—not necessarily to a direct attack, but to the
emerging superpower’s ability to throw its weight around and
force nearby countries into its sphere of influence.
 At a time when America and the major European powers are
reducing defense spending, China’s has been growing by about
12% a year for more than a decade. China's defense spending
is currently less than a quarter of America’s, but if current
trends continue, its defense budget will overtake America’s in
about 20 years’ time.
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 Much of that spending has been on so-called asymmetric

capabilities designed primarily to nullify and neutralize 抵消
(i.e. as a certain re-balancing of power) the force projection
power of American naval and air assets in the event of a future
crisis over Taiwan. But now China is also developing power-
projection capabilities of its own.
 What truly worries the Western nations is that there is a lack of
transparency 缺乏透明度 about the ever-expanding Chinese
military budgets and intentions.
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 Can China rise peacefully?

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNjfRCEPr8 (72 mins –

with Eng subtitles)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1gz61zYArw (Is
rising China a threat to its neighbors?) (8 mins)
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 A prospective security alliance between China, Islam and Russia

will give the cash-strapped United States a nightmare.
 Foad Izadi, a professor at the University of Tehran, made the
comment in an interview with Press TV after Chinese
President Xi Jinping called for the creation of a new Asian
organization for security cooperation with the participation of
Iran and Russia against US expansionism.
 The three countries form a “triple alliance,” which constitutes
the core of a Eurasian coalition directed against U.S.
encroachment into Eurasia and its quest for global hegemony.
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian
and Islamic Civilizations”

 Many commentators argue that the various Chinese

befriending gestures with Islamic Iran prove to be highly
provocative towards the psychologically vulnerable
Americans.
 China is believed to have helped Iran militarily in the
following areas: conduct training of high-level officials on
advanced systems, provide technical support, supply
specialty steel for missile construction, provide control
technology for missile development, build a missile factory
and test range.
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian and
Islamic Civilizations”

 It is rumored that China is responsible for aiding in the development of

advanced conventional weapons including surface-to-air missiles 表面
对 空 导 弹 , combat aircraft, radar systems, and fast-attack missile
vessels 快速攻击导弹船只 .
 China has also provided assistance to Iran—in the form of both duel-use
决斗用 goods as well as technical knowledge—in the development of
its missile and nuclear weapon technologies 核武器技术 .
 Sino-Iranian nuclear cooperation began in the mid-1980s, “when China
began training Iranian nuclear technicians in China under a secret
nuclear cooperation agreement, assisted in the construction of Iran’s
primary research facility, located at Isfahan 伊斯法罕 , and also agreed
to supply Iran with subcritical or zero yield nuclear reactors 核反应堆 .”
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian and
Islamic Civilizations”

 U.S. pressure later prevented China from providing Iran with

a research reactor, pressurized water reactors, and a uranium
hexafluoride 六氟化铀 (UF6) plant.
 The Iranians, however, were able to proceed with
construction of the UF6 plant with blueprints sold to them by
the Chinese.
 Though Jiang Zemin 江泽民 in 1997 promised Bill Clinton he
would halt nuclear cooperation with Iran, China has not kept
that promise.
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian and
Islamic Civilizations”

 Interestingly, in January 2010, China reiterated 重申 its

calls for diplomatic efforts on the Iran nuclear issue over
economic and trading sanctions.
 Even so, Beijing played the role of broker 经 纪 or
moderator in a historic deal that Iran struck with six
world powers aimed at curbing Tehran 德 黑 兰 ’ s
nuclear programme in exchange for initial sanctions
relief 制裁放宽 .
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian and
Islamic Civilizations”

 Beijing welcomed the breakthrough deal with Iran,

saying it would “help safeguard peace and stability in
the Middle East.”
 US President Barack Obama said the deal cut off
Tehran’s potential path to a nuclear weapon. But Israel,
Iran’s arch-enemy 头 号 敌 人 , denounced the
agreement as an “historic mistake” 历史性的错误 . 
why?
The “Unholy Alliance between Confucian and
Islamic Civilizations”

 “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place

because the most dangerous regime in the world took a
significant step towards obtaining the world’s most
dangerous weapon,” said Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime
minister.
 On 16 February 2006 French Foreign Minister Philippe
Douste-Blazy said “No civilian nuclear programme can
explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine 隐
蔽 military nuclear programme.”
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 However, it is also true that the ancient, unchanging cultural bias of the
Western powers towards the non-Western countries can be one of the major
causes of such perpetual East-West conflict.
 就文化與文明的定義及其內涵而言杭氏所提「文明衝突」論 , 最具爭議之
處即為其對於「文化」與「文明」定義的 含混不清。 杭氏所定義的「八
大文明」 , 主要是以「宗教」為劃分 , 卻又同時夾雜種族與世俗的概念。
 福克斯 (Jonathan Fox) 指出 : 由於杭氏對於文明的定義不夠清楚明確 , 因此
必須不時做出另外的延伸解釋。
 有評論認為杭氏刻意以此文明定義的模糊之處 , 而得以逃避邏輯上的檢驗
與隨意解釋之便利 , 但同時也因此無法依據嚴格的概念來分辨衝突的發
生 , 究竟應來自於文明本身 , 或是以文明為藉口拖詞的意識型態之爭 , 又
或者文明與衝突本身根本上沒有任何關係。
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 The Clash of Ignorance is a theory concerning sources of
tension and hostility that are generally perceived to
characterize the relationship between Western and Muslim
societies. The theory emphasizes cultural ignorance as the
primary source of conflict.
 It refers to a theory developed by Columbia University
professor Edward Said shortly after 911 attacks as a rebuttal
to Samuel P. Huntington’s now prominent theory “The Clash
of Civilizations?,” which argues that after the Cold War, the
fundamental source of world conflict will be primarily cultural
and economic.
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 “The Clash of Ignorance” provides a critical response to
Huntington’s thesis, in which Said asserts that the uses of
labels such as “the West” and “Islam” are dangerous and
serve to confuse about a disorderly reality.
 According to Said, this ignorance is the fundamental cause of
conflict.
 Said argues that through “The Clash of Civilizations?”
Huntington recklessly affirms the personification and over-
simplification of enormous and complex entities such as “the
West” and “Islam.”
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 杭氏粗略的將「文明」視之為一個「整體」的概念 , 突顯
文明間的對抗 , 卻忽視文明的組成、國內衝突以及內部差
異等因素。
 簡單的藉一個「伊斯蘭」卻概括整個穆斯林民族、國家的
經濟、政治、意識型態等複雜面向 , 根本是非常不適當的 ;
非但貶抑了穆斯林國家並非鐵板一般「伊斯蘭新月地帶」
(Islamic Crescent) 的主體獨特性 , 而是有許多不同民族、種
族、意識型態、社會制度的國家或組織等混合體。
 E.g. Does ISIS belong to the “Islamic nations”?
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 世人對於文明衝突的質疑並不在於不同文明之間的差距、
優劣 , 而關心的是在文明的交流互動中 , 尤其是在西方文
明與非西方文明的相互較量下 , 哪種文明將獨占鰲頭。
 杭亭頓認為未來西方文明將受到來自其他文明的挑戰 , 而
無法繼續維持原有的優勢。
 有學者則認為杭亭頓誇大了西方的弱點 , 並忽視了西方文
明目前正朝向世界每一個角落掃蕩的事實 , 並以為世界走
向全球化的同時 , 西方思想潛移默化深入人心 , 因此根本
無須妄自菲薄。
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 杭亭頓的文明衝突論另也突顯出一種西方中心論調的觀點。「文明
衝突論並不是從學術角度觀察各文明間的衝突 , 而是蓄意製造西方
文明與其他文明之間的論述 , 進而為西方國家謀略規劃」。
 其缺陷在於未能跳出冷戰思維的陷阱 , 即所謂「西方文明與其他文
明」的思維 , 與冷戰術語「我們與他們」的對立如出一轍 , 並沿襲冷
戰思維模式中的「集團對抗」過時落伍的概念。 (i.e. strict binary
opposition)
 關於這一點 , 中國學者王緝思則指出 : 「杭亭頓的文明衝突論 , 把西
方和非西方的分野冠以『文明』的大帽子 , 而標示西方與非西方、
基督教文明與其他文明的價值觀難以融合溝通 , 把西方與非西方的
分歧永 久化 ..., 使人很容易聯想到種族歧視 , 聯想到白種人與其他人
種之間過去那種不平等的關係」 。
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Said argues that the
vocabulary employed by major American and European
newspapers served to intensify passionate associations with “the
West” and further established the notion of Us vs. Them, or the
West versus Islam. (i.e. “the West and the Rest”)
 There is no wonder why Huntington’s argument became the
official guideline for American foreign policy (especially under
Bush’s government)  to help justify the anti-terrorist wars
against the Islamic countries
 In short, Said reminds us that ignorance and conflict are
themselves the products of these labels.  a vicious circle
Towards the “Clashes of Ignorance”
 According to Said:

 “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.”  i.e. to rethink our global
conflicts beyond the old dichotomous mindset