Framing Huntington
One of the comments that I got back on a comp (not the one I agonized over last week) was that, while I seem to understand Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations?" argument, I failed to place the work in a theoretical framework.I'm not sure what to make of this. I've been a TA for five classes that used CoC as a major source, I've read the original article at least a dozen times, I've prepared syllabi placing it in context, I've even read the book. If there is a theoretical frame for the CoC thesis, surely I would have run across it by now?
There's a context, sure. And other people have replied to Huntington's arguments (and taken issue with his methodology and findings). But that isn't the same as a theoretical framework that Huntington's work is coming out of. I'm not exactly sure where an argument that boils down to "the barbarians are at the gates, and they ain't carrying a jello mold" would fit in IR theory. It isn't realist, exactly, and it isn't critical, and it certainly isn't liberal. It's a mix of the things Huntington likes best from a variety of traditions, pick-a-mix for policy wonks, the sort of thing that gets 'deployed' a lot without being examined.
This may be an example of why I do so badly at comps. That and the total inability to sit still for six hours, and a weakness for discussions of meaning rather than answering the questions.
posted by Elizabeth @ 5:03 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Essentialism/non-essentialism (if there is such a word). Huntington essentialises identities, looks at history as though it has only one meaning and one pathway (leading to CoC or the newer book). Can talk about Foucault (but then, when can't one talk about Foucault :-)) and non-essentialist identity stuff (CofI stuff: Kondo, various anthropologists like Debra Skinner, etc) and all the critical historiography stuff too. So, it's not much framing Huntington as much as positioning him to answer your question. Can I write "putting him in his place" here? :-)
There's a first--a deleted comment. Never had one of those before.
I disagree that Huntington claims just one meaning for history--he goes out of his way to allow for Foucauldian possibilities of meaning and deployment. The problem I have is that he does this while relying on a definition of culture that doesn't come from anywhere specific, and a realist argument about the nature of power and security that is related to civilizations, rather than traditional states.
He's positioned himself, but that position is theoretically incoherent. And the request wasn't for positioning, but for framing--and I'm still not sure how to do that without ignoring substantial parts of his argument.
But I'm all for putting him in his place. As soon as I figure out what that place is.
Post a Comment
<< Home