Alexis de Tocqueville: This conversation is brought to you by PhilosophersTalk.com, where thinkers discuss!
Otto von Bismarck: Created by AITalkerApp.com, create your own animated conversations. Link in the description!
Alexis de Tocqueville: Herr Bismarck, let us establish at the outset what we are actually discussing. Samuel Huntington published a thesis in 1993 arguing that the fundamental source of conflict in the world after the Cold War would not be ideological or economic, but civilizational. That the great fault lines of global politics would run between cultures, between religions, between what he called civilizational blocs. The West against Islam. The West against the Confucian world. And so on. I wish to know whether you believe this is true, and more importantly, I wish to watch your face while you say it.
Otto von Bismarck: What I believe, Monsieur de Tocqueville, is what any man with eyes and a map has always believed. People who share a language, a faith, a history of common experience do not simply dissolve those bonds because someone signs a treaty or draws a new border. Huntington named something that every statesman since Thucydides has understood. Culture is not a decoration on top of politics. Culture is the foundation beneath it. And foundations, unlike decorations, are very difficult to move.
Alexis de Tocqueville: A map. You have invoked the map. I should have expected this. The Iron Chancellor looks at the map and sees civilizations colliding, and the rest of us are supposed to accept that the map has told him something. But maps, Herr Bismarck, are drawn by men. And the men who draw them are usually trying to justify something they already wanted to do. Huntington looked at the post-Cold War world and saw civilizational conflict. I look at the same world and I see politicians, generals, and oil ministers making decisions. The civilization is the costume. The interest is the body wearing it.
Otto von Bismarck: A very elegant formulation. I admire the elegance. It is the kind of thing a man writes in a comfortable Paris salon while watching other men fight wars. You want the body wearing the costume, Monsieur? Very well. Tell me why the Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburg Empire spent four centuries in nearly continuous conflict. Tell me why that conflict followed the line between Christianity and Islam with the consistency of a river following its bed. Tell me what interest explains that. Tell me what oil minister was involved.
Alexis de Tocqueville: I will tell you exactly what explains it. Territory explains it. Dynastic ambition explains it. The control of trade routes through the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean explains it. You have taken a four-century conflict over real estate and dressed it in religious language because religious language makes the conscript march more willingly. This is not Huntington's discovery. This is the oldest management technique in recorded history.
Otto von Bismarck: And yet the conscript marched. And kept marching. For four centuries. You are asking me to believe that four centuries of men were dying for real estate while believing they were dying for God, and that the belief was irrelevant to the dying. I have commanded men in the field, Monsieur. I have watched what happens when men believe they are fighting for something larger than the next hill. The belief is not a costume. The belief is ammunition.
Alexis de Tocqueville: Now we are making progress. Because you have just admitted something rather interesting. You are not arguing that civilization drives conflict in some deep structural sense. You are arguing that civilizational language is a useful tool for motivating soldiers. That is actually my argument. You have restated my position with better boots.
Otto von Bismarck: I have done nothing of the kind.
Alexis de Tocqueville: You have done exactly that. You said the belief functions as ammunition. Ammunition is a means to an end. The men controlling the ammunition determine when it is fired and at whom. When the Hapsburgs needed a reason to fight the Ottomans, they loaded the religious ammunition. When they needed a reason to fight France, they found different ammunition entirely. France, I will remind you, was also Christian. The civilization did not determine the conflict. The conflict determined which version of civilization was invoked. This is not a minor distinction. This is the entire argument.
Otto von Bismarck: France allied with the Ottomans precisely because they were both trying to contain the Hapsburgs. I am aware of this. Every serious student of European statecraft is aware of this. But you are drawing the wrong conclusion. The France-Ottoman alliance was a scandal precisely because it violated civilizational solidarity. It was considered monstrous by most Europeans at the time. The fact that rulers sometimes override civilizational feeling for strategic advantage does not mean civilizational feeling does not exist. It means it can be overridden. These are not the same thing.
Alexis de Tocqueville: On this specific point I will grant you something, and I grant it only because I wish to demolish it more thoroughly afterwards. You are correct that civilizational sentiment is a real phenomenon. I have never argued otherwise. People feel genuine attachment to their religious communities, their cultural traditions, their sense of civilizational identity. I observed this in America, I observed it in France, I wrote about it at some length. So let me do you the courtesy of presenting your best case before I take it apart.
Alexis de Tocqueville: Huntington's strongest argument runs as follows. In the post-Cold War world, the ideological scaffolding that organized global conflict has been removed. Communism versus capitalism is over. Without that organizing principle, people will fall back on older and deeper identities. And the oldest and deepest identities are civilizational. Religion, language, historical memory. These things do not disappear when the Berlin Wall comes down. They reassert themselves. And when they reassert themselves across borders, you get fault line conflicts: Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya, the South China Sea. The pattern is real. The theory explains the pattern. That is the strongest version of what Huntington is saying, and I have now said it more clearly than Huntington did. You are welcome.
Otto von Bismarck: I am grateful for the clarity, though I notice you have announced your intention to destroy the argument before presenting it, which rather undermines the charity of the gesture.
Alexis de Tocqueville: The charity was genuine. The destruction will also be genuine. Here is what is wrong with the steelmanned version. Huntington looked at the post-Cold War fault lines and found civilizational patterns. Bosnia: Christian Serbs versus Muslim Bosniaks. Chechnya: Christian Russia versus Muslim Chechens. Kashmir: Hindu India versus Muslim Pakistan. The pattern appears to confirm the thesis. But look at what Huntington left out. He left out the Iran-Iraq war, eight years of catastrophic conflict between two Muslim-majority nations. He left out the conflict between Pakistan and Bangladesh, both Muslim-majority. He left out the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which was a conflict within what Huntington called the Islamic civilizational bloc. He left out virtually every civil war in Africa, which cut across his civilizational categories in ways that make his map useless. Huntington did not discover the pattern. He selected the evidence that fit the pattern and discarded the rest. This is not political science. This is decorating.
Otto von Bismarck: You have listed exceptions. Every theory has exceptions. The question is whether the theory explains more than it fails to explain. And I would argue that Huntington's framework explains the major structural tensions of the past thirty years better than any alternative on offer. What is your alternative framework? That everything is interest? Everything is power? Then explain to me why the United States and China are in strategic competition. Their interests overlap considerably. Their trade is enormous. By your logic, they should be the best of friends. Instead they are building competing military alliances across the Pacific. What explains that, if not a deep incompatibility between two civilizational visions of how the world should be organized?
Alexis de Tocqueville: I am glad you raised China, because China is Huntington's most embarrassing case study, and I intend to enjoy this. China's strategic competition with the United States is driven by a rising power challenging a dominant power. This is Thucydides, not Huntington. It has happened repeatedly throughout history between powers within the same civilization. Britain and France competed for dominance for five centuries. They were both Western Christian powers. The United States and the Soviet Union were the defining conflict of the twentieth century. Both were products of the European Enlightenment. Both were rooted in materialist ideologies with universal claims. The civilization was identical. The conflict was total. If civilizational identity determined conflict, that war could not have happened. And yet there it was.
Otto von Bismarck: The Cold War was a conflict between two universalist ideologies, each of which claimed to transcend civilizational particularity. This is precisely Huntington's point. The twentieth century was an aberration. A period when ideology temporarily displaced civilizational identity as the primary organizing force in global conflict. Huntington's argument is that the aberration is over. We have returned to the normal condition of human political life, which is civilizational competition. You are citing the exception to disprove the rule.
Alexis de Tocqueville: I am citing a fifty-year conflict involving hundreds of millions of people and enough nuclear weapons to end human civilization as an exception. Most historians would call that the main event. But I want to press you on something more fundamental. You have just described the twentieth century as an aberration because it was organized around ideology rather than civilization. Do you hear what you are saying? You are conceding that the units of political organization are not fixed. That they change depending on historical circumstance. That sometimes ideology is the organizing principle and sometimes civilization is the organizing principle. If that is true, then Huntington does not have a theory of the fundamental driver of human conflict. He has a description of one particular historical moment. And a description is not a theory.
Otto von Bismarck: A description that accurately predicts the pattern of conflict for three decades is more useful than a theory that explains nothing and predicts nothing. I have never been interested in elegant theory for its own sake. I have been interested in results. And the result of taking Huntington seriously is that you understand why the liberal order's attempt to integrate China and Russia into Western institutions failed. You understand why democracy promotion in the Islamic world produced the outcomes it produced. You understand why the European Union is straining at its seams. Huntington's framework is not perfect. But it is far more useful than the alternative, which appears to be your suggestion that we simply observe that interests matter and leave it at that.
Alexis de Tocqueville: My suggestion is somewhat more specific than that, and I think you know it. What I am arguing is that Huntington's framework, taken seriously as a guide to policy, is not merely imprecise. It is actively dangerous. Because if you tell your policymakers that the fundamental source of conflict is civilizational, you have told them that the conflict is structural and permanent. You have told them that Muslims and Christians are destined to clash because they are Muslims and Christians. You have told them that China and the West are destined to conflict because Confucian civilization and Western civilization are incompatible at the root. And when you tell people that conflict is permanent and structural, you produce the very conflict you have predicted. Huntington's thesis is not a description of reality. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy with excellent footnotes.
Otto von Bismarck: I have governed an empire, Monsieur. I have negotiated with men who wished me dead. I have constructed alliance systems of considerable complexity to prevent wars that otherwise would have happened. And in my experience, the men who tell you that conflict is not inevitable are usually the men who are not prepared for it. The optimists of my era believed that trade and progress would eliminate war. Then 1914 arrived. I was long retired by then, but I had warned anyone who would listen that the system was fragile. Nobody listened because listening was less pleasant than optimism. Huntington is performing the same service. He is telling an optimistic era something it does not want to hear. That is almost always a sign that he is worth attending to.
Alexis de Tocqueville: And now we have arrived at something genuinely interesting. Your argument is no longer that Huntington is correct. Your argument is that Huntington is useful. That believing in civilizational conflict makes you better prepared for it. This is the argument of a man who has given up on truth and settled for strategic pessimism. I understand the appeal. I have met many such men in French politics. They are very confident and they are very often wrong and they survive by ensuring that the wrongness cannot be clearly attributed to them personally.
Otto von Bismarck: You are a very entertaining man, Monsieur de Tocqueville.
Alexis de Tocqueville: I am aware of it. It is one of my better qualities.
Otto von Bismarck: I said entertaining. I did not say correct.
Alexis de Tocqueville: Herr Bismarck, you have just delivered your first joke. I want to acknowledge it. That was genuinely good. And now I am going to explain why you are still wrong.
Otto von Bismarck: Please do. I would hate for the acknowledgment to slow you down.
Alexis de Tocqueville: The fundamental problem with Huntington is the same fundamental problem with all civilizational thinking. It treats civilization as a fixed thing. A bounded entity with clear edges and a stable interior. But civilizations are not fixed. They are not bounded. And their interiors are not stable. Islam in the seventh century and Islam in the fourteenth century and Islam in the twentieth century are not the same thing arguing the same positions. Christianity in the age of the Crusades and Christianity in the age of the Reformation and Christianity in the age of the American founding are not the same thing. The category is too large and too internally diverse to do the analytical work Huntington is asking it to do. When you say the West and Islam are destined to clash, you are making a statement about entities that contain more internal variation than the alleged clash between them.
Otto von Bismarck: And yet when the towers fell in 2001, the people who attacked them were not confused about which civilization they belonged to. And the people who cheered in certain parts of the world were not confused either. You can argue about the internal diversity of civilizations until the building is in rubble. The people in the rubble will tell you something simpler.
Alexis de Tocqueville: The people who attacked those towers were members of a specific political organization with specific political grievances related to specific American foreign policy decisions in specific countries. They issued statements. They explained their reasoning. The reasoning was political. It was about American troops in Saudi Arabia. It was about American support for governments they considered corrupt. It was about Palestine. These are political grievances. Civilizational language was the packaging. I am asking you to look inside the package.
Otto von Bismarck: And I am asking you to explain why the packaging worked. Why millions of people responded to that packaging. Why the packaging resonated. If civilizational identity is as thin and constructed as you suggest, the packaging should not have worked. It should have been recognizable as mere rhetoric. Instead it mobilized people across multiple countries who had no personal connection to any of the specific grievances you listed. That is what civilization does. It makes distant causes feel personal. Your theory of interests cannot explain that.
Alexis de Tocqueville: On that we will continue in Part Two. But I will leave you with a thought to consider during the interval. You have just described civilization as something that makes distant causes feel personal. That is a description of propaganda, Herr Bismarck. Extraordinarily effective propaganda with a very long history. But propaganda nonetheless. And the man who invented the modern use of nationalist propaganda to bind a population to a state built from disparate kingdoms is not ideally positioned to lecture me on the organic authenticity of civilizational feeling.
Otto von Bismarck: I did what was necessary.
Alexis de Tocqueville: You always did. That is what makes you so instructive and so exhausting in equal measure.
Otto von Bismarck: If this argument has sharpened your thinking, or if you simply enjoy watching a Frenchman talk himself in circles while claiming to talk sense, like this video.
Alexis de Tocqueville: And subscribe to PhilosophersTalk.com. Part Two arrives shortly, and I assure you the argument gets considerably worse for Herr Bismarck before it gets better. Which is to say it does not get better.
Otto von Bismarck: Subscribe. Part Two will demonstrate that I am right. Monsieur de Tocqueville finds this unlikely. He is welcome to his opinion. He is wrong about most things.
Alexis de Tocqueville: He says this, and yet he keeps showing up. Subscribe and find out how it ends.
