Introduction

The American political scientist Samuel Huntington provoked a

huge academic debate when he in 1993 issued the article ”The Clash of

Civilizations” in the magazine Foreign Affairs. Here he presented a

theory of the geopolitical situation after the Cold War. His main thesis

was that the conflicts in the world no longer was between ideologies,

but between civilizations, where different cultural and religious identity

are the main factors in creating cooperation or conflict. Huntington

fears that the self-assertion and the cooperation between the non-

Western “civilizations”, especially the Islamic and the Sinic, would be

at the expense of the Western “civilization”. “The people of the West

must hang together”, was his message when it came to the question of

how to meet the new “threat”.

The terror attacks on September 11th and USA reactions in terms

of the occupation of Afghanistanan Iraqas well as the war against

international terrorism was by many seen as a confirmation of

Huntington thesis as well as his prophecies of future conflicts. At the

same time Huntington has been met with much criticism from

academics and others.

In part 1 I will talk in this thesis about the analyse Huntington’s

hypothesis about “The Clash of Civilizations” and discuss its relevance

for the description and understanding of the conflict dynamics in the

world after the cold war and especially after September 11th

In part 2 after the introduction I will start with describing the

background for and the geopolitical context for Huntington’s

hypothesis, the end of the Cold War. Many intellectuals tried to explain

1

the new geo political situation in the world and to predict further

development. One of them was Francis Fukuyama (1992). He presented

a thesis of “the end of history” which was indirectly refuted by

Huntington one year later. Further on in this paper I will present the

main points of his theory, but I will mostly concentrate on Huntington.

In part 3 I will discuss the concept of civilization. If civilization is

universal, who and how does one define it. If it is pluralistic, where do

you draw the lines? In part 4 I will discuss whether Huntington’s

hypothesis says something about the driving forces behind conflict and

cooperation in the world. Does really cultural belonging play the

decisive role in how states relate to each other? In part 5, I will look

into whether the theory “The Clash of Civilizations” is meaningful

when it comes to describing and understanding the state of today’s

conflicts in the world after September 11th. I will end the my thesis with

a sum-up and draw a conclusion in relation to the questions asked.

2

Contexts:-

Introduction…………………………………………………….. 4

1- Culture and Civilization…………………………………….. 3

2- Definition of Culture………………………………………… 3

3- End of history or its beginning............................................. 6

4- One or several civilisations………………………………….. 11

5- “Civilisation Alliances” in International Cooperation....... 13

6- “Clash of civilizations” after September 11th...................... 14

7- Samuel P. Huntington and his Theory……………………. 16

8- Conclusion............................................................................ 19

9- Work Cited........................................................................... 21

3

Culture and Civilization

Most of the time, we mention these two terms together, if we

mention one of them, our brain will think immediately about the

another. But there is a difference between them in meaning and

indications. Let us start defining each individually then compare and

contrast between each other.

Definition of Culture:

If you look up this word in dictionary, you will find the meaning of

it as: "the way of life of a particular people, esp. as shown in their

ordinary behavior and habit, their attitudes toward each other. And their

moral and religious believes."When we employ this word culture what

do we signify by it? Does “culture” mean refinement and learning,

urbanity and good taste? Or does this “culture” mean the folkways of a

people? Our English word culture is derived from the Latin word

"cultus", which to the Romans signified both tilling the soil and

worshiping the divine. In the beginning, culture arises from the cult:

that is, people are joined together in worship, and out of their religious

association grows the organized human community. Common

cultivation of crops, common defense, common laws, cooperation in

much else—there are the rudiments of a people’s culture. If that culture

succeeds, it may grow into a civilization. During the past half-century,

such eminent historians as Christopher Dawson, Eric Voegelin, and

Arnold Toynbee have described the close connections between religion

and culture. As Dawson put it in his Gifford Lectures of 1947." A

social culture is an organized way of life which is based on a common

4

tradition and conditioned by a common environment. . . . It is clear that

a common way of life involves a common view of life, common

standards of behavior and common standards of value, and

consequently a culture is a spiritual community which owes its unity to

common beliefs and common ways of thought far more than to any

unanimity of physical type. Therefore from the beginning the social

way of life which is culture has been deliberately ordered and directed

in accordance with the higher laws of life which are religion. It is a

highly developed culture, including its social organization, government,

laws, arts, or the culture of a social group or country at a particular

time. Without going through the variety of concepts and terminologies

on the subject, civilization simply means: the comprehensive

development of the human potential in all its dimensions: physical,

intellectual, spiritual, moral and psychological. To achieve this

potential, civilizations strive to develop, utilize, and conserve the

natural resources, the benefits of which should fairly reach the whole

society, and bring about positive effects on the whole world. Given this

definition, it is obvious that a civilization has certain requirements to

deserve its name. After all, civilization is a collective effort by the

whole society, and its benefits cannot be restricted to few individuals or

be limited to certain groups. Civilization has to bear fruits to all

members of society. Besides although civilization development may not

affect all sides of society at the same level, it nonetheless, remains

inclusive and comprehensive. Civilization therefore has to maintain

continuation and duration, and it cannot be considered as such if it just

emerged to disappear. Another merit of civilization is that it has the

potential of spreading to other societies, and that it can be adapted when

it influences others. This civilization merit is being felt enormously in

our times of amazingly speedy transportation of persons and goods, and

5

communication of information everywhere in the world. A Muslim

civilization, therefore, should not mean in any way a civilization

restricted to the Muslims alone. What had been called a Muslim

civilization in the past was developed and enjoyed by Muslims and

non-Muslims all over the world, Arabs and non Arabs. It spread beyond

the areas of Muslim peoples and lands wherever and whenever this was

possible. Its contribution reached non-Muslim Europe through Spain

and Sicily, and influenced the European Crusaders, who in medieval

times, thought that they would meet savage barbarians in Jerusalem and

its neighborhood. To their surprise they soon came to realize they were

witnessing a civilization far better than what they had been seen in

feudal Europe. More important, Muslim civilization was not always

connected with military power. It continued to work one way or another

in Muslim societies during times of military strength or military and

political weakness.

End of history or its beginning.

The history of the world has to a large extent been characterized by

wars and conflicts. The nature of the conflict has from time to time

changed in accordance with technological, political, social and other

changes. In early history there were wars between kings and princes.

These conflicts were succeeded by the kings’ search for enlarging their

bureaucracies. The fight for territories became an important factor.

Nation building succeeded the power of the king and the country no

longer belonged to the king, but the people, whom were tied together

by a common historical and cultural in heritage. These nations

continued to fight for their “historically” territorial claims. The fight

about whether the borders should be drawn between nations led to the

First World War. The First and the Second World War brought a new

6

dimension into politics, namely ideology. Now the core of the conflict

was how these nation-states should be organised. One issue was how

distribute privileges and duties. The ideologies that stood against itch

other were: Nazism, Fascism, Communism and the Liberal democracy,

all with its origins in Europe. After a lot of bloodshed and destruction

during the Second World War came the Cold War. This was a conflict

between to superpowers who, to use Huntington’s concepts, none were

classical European national states. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and

the later dissolving of Soviet Union, came the end of the Cold War.

Does this mean the end of History?  

Francis Fukumaya, foreign politics adviser in USA and political

economist responds with a yes to this question. In 1989 he wrote the

article “The End of History” in the new conservative magazine

National Interest. Three years later came the monograph “The End of

History and The Last Man” (Free Press, 1992), where he elaborated his

thesis. His thesis was simple: the West and the western liberal values

had triumphed. Other alternatives (and authoritarian) ways of governing

such as Fascism, Nationalism and Communism had proven inadequate

in fulfilling human needs. The liberal democracies had surpassed all

other ideologies and there was now and end to ideological

confrontations and global wars (about ideology). Even though,

according to Fukumaya, it exists and will occur some minor conflicts,

these will be between those who is still in history or at the end of it. The

future dynamics will be about others adjustment to the liberal

democracies because “the whole world wants prosperity and freedom”.

The book was considered the most important of the year in USA and

received a lot of attention in Europe, but also received criticism for

7

being too focused on the conflict between the East and the West and

underestimating other potential conflicts.

Samuel Huntington’s article “The Clash of Civilizations” in the

more recognized periodical Foreign Affairs in 1992 and his book “The

Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order” issued in

1996, can be read as a pessimistic counterpart to Fukuyama’s optimism.

History is by no means ended and the Western liberal democracies have

by far won any victory. It is true that the liberal conflicts has ceased and

the type of conflict after the Cold War will no longer be of economical

or ideological, but rather cultural. As opposed to Fukuyama,

Huntington holds the opinion that is changing from a phase of Western

dominance, since the importance of ideology is weakened and it is

being surpluses by culture. Civilisations are the most comprehensive

cultural communities and future conflicts can best be described as a

fight and competition between civilizations. As we see his concept of

civilization is pluralistic. A civilisation is defined by a common history,

culture, habitué and religion. The latter is perhaps most important to

Huntington. According to this concept the world can be divided into the

following 7 “civilizations”, perhaps added by Africa as “civilization”

number 8: The West: Western-Europe, North America, Australia, New

Zealand, Latin: Latin America, Orthodox: Russia, most of Eastern

Europe, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania ,Islamic: North Africa, the

Middle East, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,

Albania, Confucian: China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Hindu: India,

Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, Japanese: Japan and African: Africa.

Civilizations are fundamentally different, even though the dividing

lines are not always unambiguous and sharp, they are overlapping. But

the differences are real because they are a product of centuries and will

8

not vanish easily. These differences are far more fundamentally than

those between ideological and political regimes. People from different

civilizations have according to Huntington different views upon the

relationship between God and human, the individual and the group,

citizen and state, parents and children, men and women, as well as

different views upon the importance of duties, freedom and authority.

But Huntington emphasises at the same time that the existence of these

differences does not have to lead to conflict, and conflict does not have

to lead to violence. At the same time, Huntington does not deny the fact

that he has learnt from history that differences between civilizations can

lead to the most brutal and long-lasting conflicts. (E.g. the Crusades,

the Thirty Year War). Huntington also estimates that globalisation will

have a negative effect. It will lead to more contact between people from

different cultures and thereby a higher level of “consciousness” about

one's own belonging. The frame around people’s identity will be moved

from the local level to the regional level. Religious movements in the

form of fundamentalism will therefore increase. And when cultural

conflicts occur there will be more difficult have a dialog and make

compromises. The economical globalisation is unrealistic, what will

happen is regional globalisation. Huntington claims that common

underlying values will be an important factor for economic cooperation.

Conflicts between civilizations will occur at two levels: At micro level

the conflicts will be about control over territories, at macro level the

states will join together (in an alliance of civilizations?) and fight about

military and economical power.

Huntington continues with describing the future short-term threat

situation in the world. He warns first and for most against a growing

alliance between the Islamic “civilization” and the Sinic. These

9

civilizations will get more economical and military power (nuclear,

chemical, biological and other sophisticated weapons) and the power

balance with the West will in the long run be equalled out. The danger

of major conflicts will occur if one of the civilizations feel impelled to

dominate others. So what can be a solution? Civilizations must learn to

accept the fact that they are different and to live in co-existence.

Huntington is rather cultural relativistic and means that to insist on

universalism would not be the right thing to do. That will only lead to

imperialism. The West must concentrate on maintaining and renewing

their own values (he does not take a stand to whether these values are

better than others) But, in the short run it will be beneficiary for the

West to consolidate their own power position and to protect their

interests (at the expense of other civilizations in the world).

As with Fukuyama Huntington’s article and later the book has

received a lot of attention but also, as we shall see, a lot of criticism. As

we have seen above Fukuyama and Huntington has taken on different

starting points and therefore they have come up with completely

different hypothesis about future conflict lines after the Cold War. Both

cannot be right. In fact many mean that they are both fundamentally

wrong. Social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen holds the

opinion that they cannot be taken serious as theoreticians, but that they

are interesting as a symptom. Where Huntington represents conflict and

fighting, Fukuyama represents a classical ethnocentric imperialism, a

neo-colonial white man's burden.

Fukuyama is being criticised for to have to little focus on

democratisation processes in the world. Democracy presupposes as

certain socio-economic level that many countries do not have. Further it

is focused upon that democracy opens for Nationalistic ideas. Changes

10

in itself can lead to new conflicts. His conclusions are further criticized

of being to superficial and quick. It is not unlikely that it will be a back-

lash in the democratisation process in the world in the near future. In

addition, as Eriksen says, “democratisation” of the whole world will

imply classic imperialism from the West. Eriksen sees for instance the

growth of Islamic fundamentalism as a counter reaction to Western

dominance and local misgovernment.

On the other hand Huntington is also criticized for taking his

arguments to far, of methodologically being to selective in his selection

of data, of being personally to cynical as well as presenting a self-

fulfilling prophecy. As we see from this, there are many who have

confronted the problems that Huntington raises. In the next section we

will take a closer look at some of these.

One or several civilisations: where does one draw the lines

One of the issues raised in Huntington’s thesis is the concept of

civilisation as such. The Central question is whether it exists a universal

human civilisation. If not, where does one draw the lines between

different civilisations!!

One most go back in time in order to understand why the

question originally was raised. Napoleon and the French universalism

that was in favour of one single concept of civilisation that would

include the whole human kind, was later met with a counter reaction

from the German Romanism who strongly emphasized own culture and

history. The core of the issue is who and how one shall define what is

“universal”, and as Huntington puts it “universalism leads to

11

imperialism” But many claim that his own concept of a pluralistic

civilisation is also not precise.

Aleksa Djilas, a recognised intellectual in Serbia, means that the

war in Bosnia cannot be characterised as a civilisation war, but rather as

a consequence of Nationalistic ideas about a “Great Serbia”, a “Great

Croatia” and of a Muslim dominated Bosnia. He claims that different

religious belonging was not the reason behind the war. He goes on

further to ridiculous Huntington for having excluded Latin American

countries from “the Western club”, while he has included their mother

countries, namely Spain and Portugal. He does this in spite of the fact

that it was not too long ago these two countries had dictator regimes as

those in Latin America. Djilas means that it is also wrong to exclude

the Orthodox and the two Muslim entities in Europe(Bosnia and

Albania) from all other Europeans, since both their past and present

belong in Europe. Lene Hansen (2000) has the same view. In her

article: “Past as Preface: “Civilisation Politics and the “Third” Balkan

War” she refers to old and new studies of the Balkan conflict and she

problematical Huntington’s simplified concept of civilisation. The

people at Balkan belongs to the same civilisation in the sense that their

way of living and thinking are products of common experiences and

heritage.

The concept of civilisation is an abstract theoretical construction

that simplifies reality in an almost dangerous way. It looks like it is an

almost impossible task to give a sustainable objective basis for concepts

of civilisations, no matter whether on uses a universalistic or pluralistic

approach. Huntington’s starting-point for splitting the world into eight

big cultures seems to be very questionable.

12

The late Palestinian-American critic Edward Said (2001,

professor at the University of Columbia, says in his article “The Clash

of Ignorance” that Huntington has not bothered to look into the

dynamics and plurality of the different civilisations, the fact that:

“…the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilisation”( 5 ) .

“Civilisation Alliances” in International Cooperation

Another important issue is whether cultural and civilization

belonging is a main factor behind conflict and cooperation in

international politics. Djilas thanks Huntington for reminding us about

how “formidable force” “sympathy for cultural kin” is”, but he argues

that the vital interests of each single state still is the main driving force

behind their foreign policy. He illustrates this with looking at Russia’s

relation to their Orthodox Serbian brothers throughout history. Both

during the Ottoman occupation in the 19th century and now during the

NATO bombing in 1999 Russia has deceived their orthodox brothers

for the sake of their own interests in relation to the Great Powers.

Huntington might have a point when he talks about how the

domestic opinion in countries that ally with the West are solitary

towards their “brothers” as opposed to what their governments do. But

by doing this he underestimates the State as the main political actor in

international politics, and as “controllers of civilisations” .

13

Empirical research conducted by PRIO (Peace Research Institute

in Oslo) and others shows that in the time after Huntington wrote his

article and the book, the conflict picture in the world has been more

characterised by internal conflicts than by bi-national and regional

conflicts, for not to mention “civiliasonistic”. The enlargement of

NATO and EU is also two tendencies which contradicts Huntington’s

predictions about the future. Many means that globalisation (with

increased contact between cultures) leads to a heightened understanding

(Global Village) rather than to increased isolation and cultural self-

assertion.

If one looks at cultural alliances, one sees that both during the

first and the second Golf War, the invasion of Afghanistan and the

ongoing war against global terrorism, there are formed international

alliances that crosscuts Huntington’s civilisation lines. In addition the

West with NATO in the nineties intervened military both in Bosnia and

Kosovo in defence of the Muslims (this happened in spite of

Huntington’s warnings about such an intervention). But all this does not

mean that cultural and religious differences are unimportant when it

comes to understanding the dynamic behind relations and conflicts in

the world. The historical and war journalist Michael Ignatieff (1998)

has described “The Clash of Civilizations” as he says, as a bête noire,

but at the mean time he has welcomed Huntington emphasize on the

cultural and religious roots of Ethnic antagonism as a change from the

functionalistic and “realistic” style in American foreign policy analysis.

“Clash of civilizations” after September 11th.

The current issue in relation to “the clash of Civilization” is

whether this theory can help us in understanding the conflict picture in

14

the world today. Can the terror attacks against USA and the reactions

that followed be seen as a war between civilisations?

The terror attacks against Pentagon and the World Trade Centre

on September 11th was by many seen as a confirmation of Huntington’s

theory or his prophecies about future conflict, at least it lead to renewed

interest in his theory.

In spite of this, the American president George W. Bush has

(after first having spoken about a crusade against terrorism) emphasized

that this is not a war between civilizations. But he and other American

politicians has in the mean time used a verbal rhetoric marked by a

religious way of speaking pointed towards groups or states suspected of

protecting terrorists. Also politicians as Tony Blair has emphasized that

the terror attack was a war against “civilisation”, against “democracy”,

against “our way of living”, and so forth. This kind of rhetoric from

Western leaders, and also the media has contributed to presenting Islam

as the big threat against the West and our Western values. One of the

consequences of using theories of Huntington’s type in describing this

conflict could also be that people from the Muslim world to a larger

extent start seeing this conflict as a Western war against Islam. This

might also have been the goal of those who performed the terrorist acts

in New York and Washington. The wishes of Osama Bin Laden and

Al-Qaida are exactly that these events shall be seen as a war between

the Islamic ummah (the Muslim community) and the Christian and

Jewish West (The Global crusaders) But it should be noticed that Al

Qaida has their motives for saying something like that and that they are

not representative for what the majority of Muslims around the world

thinks of the conflict. Dan Smith (2001) at PRIO, means that the

conflict in short is about American power in the Middle East. Had this

15

been a war between civilizations, USA would not have been able to

build alliances there. Noam Chomsky (2001), one of the most visible

critics of American foreign policy, has the opinion that it is in fashion

to talk about a war of civilizations ET AL, but the fact is that it lacks

any basis. He states that it is simply absurd. Even Huntington himself

means that it is not a war of civilizations simply because Osama bin

Laden and Al-Qaida does not represent the Islamic civilization.

My conclusion to this question will be that 11th of September and

the development in its after mate must be seen as a conflict between USA

and the international society on one hand and an international network of

terrorists (made out of Muslim fundamentalists who are a small minority

in the Muslim world) on the other hand. When I use the phrase the

international society I do not mean that it is constituted only by Western

countries. In this case it includes also Muslim countries that has

condemned the attack against USA and has alliance in the active war

against terrorism. The big hatred against USA in many Muslim countries

can simply be seen as a reaction against USA’s hegemony and the way

they have used this role in the Middle East.

Samuel P. Huntington and his Theory "The Clash Of Civilizations"

It is a theory, proposed by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington,

stating that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary

source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. This theory was originally

formulated 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 Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book, The End

of History and the Last Man. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a

1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

16

The phrase itself was earlier used by Bernard Lewis in an article in the

September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled "The Roots of

Muslim Rage". Even earlier, the phrase appears in a 1926 book regarding

the Middle East by Basil Mathews: Young Islam on Trek: A Study in the

Clash of Civilizations (p. 196). This expression derives from clash of

cultures, already used during the colonial period and the Belle Époque.

Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world

had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural

conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the

future will be along cultural and religious lines. As an extension, he

posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of

cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the

potential for conflict. In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington

writes In the end of the article, he writes "This is not to advocate the

desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive

hypothesis as to what the future may be like(629)." And also writes :

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of

conflict in this new world will not be primarily

ideological or primarily economic. The great

divisions among humankind and the dominating

source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will

remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but

the principal conflicts of global politics will occur

between nations and groups of different civilizations.

The clash of civilizations will dominate global

politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be

the battle lines of the future(208).

17

In my opinion, we are as Muslims never clash with others

depending on religious basis because we have the values of respect,

tolerance and peace. The writer tries to modify the essence of the conflict

and clash which is very ideological in core to a religious conflict so that

he can achieve some goals matching with his intentions colonialism and

greediness. It is very possible such intentions hide economical and

financial motives rather than the religious and cultural ones to justify

their interference in other civilizations and cultures. With a look at the

bi-relationship between the western world and Israel, you will notice the

great harmony despite of the great difference in culture and civilization.

A rising from this, we can conduct that a bi-relationship among

civilizations1 are governed by interests rather than cultures and believes.

18

Conclusion

In this research I have analysed Huntington’s theory of a clash

between civilizations and discussed whether it can help us in

understanding the conflict dynamics in international cooperation

after the Cold War and in particular after September 11 th. We saw

how Huntington splits the world into 7-8 civilisations and how he

emphasises cultural belonging as an important factor for cooperation

and conflict after the Cold War. Critics mean that Huntington’s

concept of civilisation is a dangerous simplification of reality and

that he is fundamentally wrong in his view of the main forces

behind international cooperation, first and foremost behind states as

the most important actors. Nor September 11th and the international

reactions that followed can, according to critics, be characterised as

a clash of civilisations. Both Huntington and the critics base their

arguments and hypothesis on empirical facts. The question is

immediately how one interprets these facts in order to encompass

them into the theory. “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the

facts” Albert Einstein shall have said. Even though Huntington has

not changed the facts, he has been criticised for being too selective

in choosing them. The interpretation of facts is also questionable,

for instance regarding the question of how to understand the war in

Bosnia and the Economical cooperation in the world.

Generally speaking one can say that Huntington with his

hypothesis “the clash of civilization” has come up with an important

contribution to the theoretical discussion about the concept of

civilization and to the discussion about the driving forces behind

today’s more complex geopolitical situation. But his emphasize on

19

cultural dividing lines as the decisive factors behind conflict and

cooperation seems to be over exaggerated, and also potentially

dangerous. Even though he replaces the importance of ideology with

the importance of culture, his way of thinking is still connected to

the spirit of the Cold War: “the West against the rest”.

I want to end this paper by quoting Edward W. Said (2001) when he

encourages us to look into other facts and states as a starting point in the

search for a reflected understanding and warn against the misleading

simplification of the harsh reality that we are living in:

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 ( 3 ).

20

Works Cited

Chomsky, Noam.11/9.Oslo: Forlagetoktober. 2001.

Djilas, Aleksa.“Democracy, Destiny, and the Clash of Civilizations”. Transitions , 15 October 1997.

Eriksen. Hylland Thomas. ”Historienebegynnernå” ch 6”Det nyefiendebildet” .Oslo: Cappelen, 1995.

Francis, Fukuyama .“The End of History and the Last Man”. New York: The Free Press, 1989.

Holstein, J William Globality Studies Journal, June 29, 2008.

Hansen, Lene. ”Past as Preface: Civilizational Politics and the Third Balkan War”. Journal of Peace Research 37(3): 345–362., 2000.

Huntington, Samuel P.“The Clash of Civilizations”. Foreign Affairs. New York: 1993.

........... .“The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order". New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.  

Ignatieff, Michael. "Krigerensære" Oslo: The Warrior’s Honor ,1998.

Said, Edward W. “The Clash of Ignorance”. Washington: The Nation , 22Oct2001. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011022&s=said&c=1

Smith, Adam ."Clash of Civilisations". Interview published in www.liberal.no : 2001.

.

21