In the years after the Cold War ended, International Relations theorists scrambled to come up with new ways to understand the world. Two distinctly different schools of thought emerged. One, championed in Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History and the Last Man, postulated that liberal democracy would slowly dominate world politics; that nations would only move closer to systems dominated by individual liberty and democracy. This optimistic ideology became the foundation of much of our post-Cold War foreign policy. Samuel Huntington, a leading Harvard professor in the field, put forth a completely different idea in his article and later book titled “The Clash of Civilizations.” He basically theorized that the future conflicts in the world would be dominated by cultural differences. Though I don’t necessarily agree with Fukuyama, I’m naturally an optimist and it pains me to admit that Huntington’s theory is looking more accurate all the time. It seems that cultural differences have been the driving force in the conflicts of the 21^st century, and it’s no longer just conflict between states of different cultures. The Prime Minister of the UK and Germany’s Chancellor both recently gave a speech declaring that, “multiculturalism has failed.” While the full meaning of their message is complex, they both seemed to make it clear that there was something wrong with the way different cultures were interacting within the state. Both nations were worried about the threat of terrorism from within their borders based on these cultural differences, not just an Islamic extremist threat from the outside. The U.S. hasn’t been so blunt with their concerns, but immigration debates and every discussion about Islam in this country make it apparent we’re pretty worried about cultural interactions within our borders. I’m concerned; but, as I’ve said before, not about Islam or any other culture – I’m concerned about our reaction. Let me explain why.

The object of science is to observe phenomenon, then develop a theory that can accurately predict future events. In natural sciences we can test this theory and eventually gain enough confidence to call it a law. Gravity, for instance, was a theory based on observation that is now a law used to accurately predict what will happen when two objects with mass interact. Social science is no different, we observe phenomenon (people, history, and current affairs) and develop theories to predict future events. The primary difference is that we can’t ever make laws of social science because we can’t know people’s future decisions. So we can argue about whether Fukuyama or Huntington is right, but we can’t ever know, and even if their theory holds up for 100 years there’s no way to know if it will be accurate tomorrow. So why does that matter? Because when I read the news, talk about current events, and observe the world around me it seems that a lot of people are convinced that Huntington is right and there’s nothing we can do to change it. If we’re all convinced that the next great conflicts WILL be culturally based, then we’re going to do everything we can to make sure we can defeat those from different cultures , and the escalation of tension causes the theory to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. That’s exactly what I think I’m seeing in the world today, and what I’m concerned about.

So if we get to choose our own future, what are our options? It appears that just waiting for the world to see how wonderful the West is and adopt our ideals isn’t going to work so well. Also, the beginning of this century has shown that ignoring cultural differences isn’t going to help us avoid conflict. It appears that many in the West are beginning to think this way and feel a need to engage cultural differences in some way. Unfortunately, I think the West’s current course of action is only accelerating the chance of cultural conflict. The speeches in the UK and Germany mentioned above, France’s policy choices regarding religion in public, and the prevailing mentality in the US seem to all be demanding that Muslims become more “Westernized.” I’ll discuss what I believe to be the good intentions behind this mentality in a moment, but feel this trend in general is challenging Islamic cultural identity and inevitably results in a backlash against the West.

So why are we reacting this way? I believe there are some universal truths that must be upheld without respect to culture – and I’m not speaking in religious terms. For instance, we can’t tolerate human rights violations, oppression, and violence out of respect for culture. When good people who believe in freedom and human rights associate Islam with a violation of these principles, their conscience is left with little choice – the only option becomes to fight against an oppressive culture or demand it to change. I believe that this association of Islam with the violation of universal principles is the root of the problem. There is no doubt that violence and human rights violations are occurring within the Muslim culture – even within Western countries; but we need to make a clear distinction between what is and isn’t causing these behaviors. Christianity’s history is just as riddled with unacceptable conduct as Islam’s, but I firmly believe that religion isn’t the cause of such things – it’s usually just an excuse for politically motivated behavior. (More on the real cause of terrorism in my previous post.) We should and must do all we can to end oppression, violence, and human rights violations, both within and outside our borders; but the moment we erroneously attack culture or religion as the cause of these wrongs we will undermine our cause and create further conflict.
So what future can we choose? We should continue to stand firmly against oppression, but must exercise extreme discipline to keep this struggle independent of cultural differences. We must accept that the West hasn’t created the perfect society and other cultures still have much to offer – and that this change, like any, will cause tension but doesn’t need to be a challenge to our identity and source of violent conflict. We must treat all terror, oppression, and violence as individual and group crimes – not as cultural inevitabilities – and we must choose to believe we can stand against evil without attacking culture and religion.