sign in sign up
<<
Home , Polish Americans

#2160—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 4—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

ESSAY

The Real Threat: An Essay on Samuel Huntington AMITAI ETZIONI The George University [email protected]

Examining the most recent book by Samuel instead of dissected, would these prejudices Huntington, Who Are We?: The Challenges to be held at bay? To respond to these questions, America’s National Identity, raises a question an examination of Huntington’s work is useful that applies to similar publications, like The indeed. Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in The theme that runs throughout various American Life by Charles Murray: How works of Huntington is best characterized as should such books be reviewed? Who Are a theory of fear. His books typically identify We? is one of a small number of volumes that a mounting threat, such as Mexican immi- look like works of social science and have grants, Islamic civilization, or democratic pro- the appearance of scholarship but actually clivities, and then point to the need for appeal to, reinforce, and help to legitimate strong national-unity building measures and one form of prejudice or another. Some of mobilization of the people (including milita- these works, we shall see, “merely” agitate rization) in response to the barbarians at the against democratic forms of government; oth- gates, if not already in the gates. Sometimes, ers reflect various anti-feelings—anti-Black, the argument is formulated in basically ana- Mexican (and more generally immigrants), or lytical terms: If the required vigorous Muslim (and more generally foreigners)—just responses to the particular challenge at hand as certain films seem at first glance to be are not forthcoming, various calamities will works of art but actually appeal to prurient ensue (e.g., the U.S. will lose a large part of interests. Should one treat such works the its territory to Mexico and its Anglo- way one treats any other serious book? Protestant identity will be undermined) that Ignore them altogether, as one ought to treat implicitly call for stronger countermeasures. the ruminations of deniers? Or In other cases, an advocacy for powerful examine them mainly as ideological tracts? antidotes is quite explicit. As Huntington puts David Brooks points out in his humorous it in the Foreword to Who Are We?, he is writ- but insightful book Bobos in Paradise: The ing as a patriot and a scholar, in that order. New Upper Class and How They Got There that Taken on its own, the threat-response the- one way to make it in our public intellectual sis is unproblematic—a correlation the valid- life is to be dead wrong. Then, he says, scores ity of which even people without social of people will write essays and present lec- training can readily discern, and one that has tures explaining why you are in grievous often been repeated in the annals of social error. Your books will sell like hot cakes. And analysis. When the Nazis were about to over- your next one will be promoted with extra run Britain, that country suspended habeas diligence by a keen publisher. Above all, your corpus. And few, even among the strongest misbegotten message will receive extensive supporters of Israel, would deny that while public airing. This (Brooks does not note) is continuous threats from armed neighbors especially true if the work plays to one or and terrorists and the various responses to more widely held prejudices, especially those them have helped to keep the segments of that people usually refrain from speaking Israeli society together, they have also about. Such books are extra-popular because involved a measure of militarization of the they give license to the expression of silently nation and imposed limits on various civil embraced prejudices by claiming that they rights. have a base in scholarship and even science. The key issue then is to determine However, if such works were roundly ignored whether a nation truly faces particular threats

477 Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

478–Essay or whether such concerns are largely Huntington argues that if this develop- drummed up if not totally manufactured— ment is allowed to continue, it may lead to a say, in order to keep a nation under the con- profound breakup of the nation, or as he trol of one power elite or another and to posits, “The possibility of a de facto split make its citizens accept various governmen- between a predominately Spanish-speaking tal measures that they otherwise would not America and English-speaking America .|.|. tolerate. These measures might include the with .|.|. a major potential threat to the cul- curtailment of rights, economic belt-tighten- tural and possibly political integrity of the ing, and discrimination against foreigners, ” (ibid. p. 243). However, among others. It is a familiar issue, seen for Huntington’s concerns go beyond the mere example in the debates over whether or not threat of a linguistically, culturally, and polit- Saddam actually possessed nuclear weapons ically fractured American society. He ulti- that could pose an imminent threat to the mately fears that Mexicans might grab a large United States. Even more recently, it has part of the United States: “No other immi- been witnessed in the argument of whether grant group in American history has asserted or not Social Security is indeed in “crisis.” We or has been able to assert a historical claim to must ask: If the various threats are real what American territory. Mexicans and Mexican- is their magnitude? And if the dangers are can and do make that claim” (ibid. p. 229). He later writes, “Mexican-Americans, vastly exaggerated, what purposes are served in turn, argue that the Southwest was taken by such a politics of fear? from them by military aggression in the In Who Are We?, Huntington argues that 1840s, and that the time for la reconquista immigrants, especially those from Mexico, has arrived. Demographically, socially, and are undermining the “Anglo-Protestant culturally that is well under way” (ibid. creed,” destroying the shared identity that p. 246). makes us Americans. These immigrants do so Huntington often resorts to the device not by refusing to assimilate, to learn English, of advocating a particular course of action and to become American citizens and by but of claiming to predict that it may take maintaining a segregated society centered on place (or, is one of the major options that the un-American values. According to nation faces). This technique enables nativist Huntington, it is not entirely the Mexicans’ sentiments to be voiced and anti-immigrant fault; it is also the doing of liberal policies. policies to be put forth, while the author can He writes: maintain that he is merely reporting the pos- In the late twentieth century, develop- sible or likely outcomes of ignoring the dan- ments occurred that, if continued, could gerous threat posed by immigration. Thus, change America into a culturally bifurcat- Huntington writes: ed Anglo-Hispanic society with two [T]he various forces challenging the core national languages. This trend was in part American culture and Creed could gener- the result of the popularity of the doc- ate a move by native to trines of multiculturalism and diversity revive the discarded and discredited among intellectual and political elites, racial and ethnic concepts of American and the government policies on bilingual identity and to create an America that education and affirmative action that would exclude, expel, or suppress peo- those doctrines promoted and sanc- ple of other racial, ethnic, and cultural tioned. The driving force behind the groups. Historical and contemporary trend toward cultural bifurcation, howev- experience suggest that this is a highly er, has been immigration from Latin probable reaction from a once dominant America and especially from Mexico. ethnic-racial group that feels threatened (Huntington 2004: 221)1 by the rise of other groups. It could pro-

1 Books by Samuel Huntington cited: ———. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Samuel P. Huntington. 2004. Who Are We?: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Challenges to America’s National Identity. New Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard York: Simon and Schuster. University Press.

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

Essay–479

duce a racially intolerant country with creed. Huntington emphasizes that a return high levels of intergroup conflict. (ibid. p. to this creed is especially called for because 20) Al Qaeda targeted the United States as a Christian nation. Indeed, Huntington sees this as already The full importance of these observations beginning to happen. Pointing to some local about the favorable effects of the militariza- meetings, op-eds, and other such sociological tion of society will become clear once they trivia, Huntington concludes (without dis- are viewed through the prism of cernable regret), “The makings of serious Huntington’s earlier works, to which I turn white nativist movements and of intensified below. They also, as we shall see shortly, racial conflict exist in America” (ibid. p. 315). greatly help to answer the question of how The reader should pause here and reexamine one is to treat such tomes. the last sentence because it is vintage Huntington. He points to a threat that has not ASSESSING THE THREAT developed in order to generate support for Is there a threat that Mexicans will dismem- what he holds ought to be done. ber the United States—that immigrants, espe- What course then does Huntington cially Latinos, will destroy its unity? And is believe ought to be followed in order to the American essence found in Anglo- avoid the nativist backlash that he envi- ? Huntington uses anecdotal sioned? Although he does not say so explic- and statistical data to bolster his points, as do itly, Huntington insinuates that immigration other such authors. The Bell Curve, for exam- from Mexico should end—a solution that he ple, includes a very large body of statistical seems to think could lead to the resolution of tables and numerous correlations. There is many of America’s problems. Indeed, he con- some merit in showing that the data selected siders this possibility at some length, writing for use in these works and the ways in which that “The possibility of a de facto split they are interpreted are grossly misleading between predominately Spanish-speaking (the ability to demonstrate the true measure America and English-speaking America of the threat is essential to the arguments of would disappear, and with it a major poten- both Huntington and his critics). However, a tial threat to the cultural and possibly politi- warning is called for. If one goes too far cal integrity of the United States” (ibid. p. down this road, in effect one gets sucked into 243). Above all, Huntington posits, one and the world as fashioned by authors like all Murray and Huntington. As anybody who has should recommit themselves to the participated in a debate or political campaign Anglo-Protestant culture, traditions, and knows, the battle is half won or lost accord- values that for three and a half centuries ing to who chooses the issues on which to have been embraced by Americans of all focus and the terms through which these races, ethnicities, and religions and that issues will be sorted out. Thus, if one follows have been the source of their liberty, uni- Huntington, implicitly accepting that good ty, power, prosperity, and moral leader- Americans are Anglo-Protestants and that ship as a force for good in the world. Mexican immigrants are or are not becoming (ibid. p. xvii) good Americans based on how Protestant and Anglo they become, his thesis has Fostering unity and suppressing differences already won half of the debate. If instead one would also be greatly helped by putting the asks what Mexican immigrants have con- nation on war-footing. According to tributed to make American society better and Huntington, the collapse of the Soviet Union how many Mexican immigrants (citizens and removed an external threat through opposi- noncitizens) have died fighting for America tion to which America derived a major source in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, one of identity: “The end of the Cold War reaches rather different conclusions. It could deprived America of the evil empire against be argued that one should use all social mea- which it could define itself” (ibid. p. 11). Al surements possible in responding to Qaeda, he writes, provides a new threat, fill- Huntington’s assertions. But in pursuing this ing a void and offering hope for a reinvigo- course, one is left open to the suggestion that rated American nation and Anglo-Protestant still other angles exist that were overlooked,

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

480–Essay and questions arise as to whether all mea- gringo-ized, given the spread of American surements should be given equal weight. habits and norms and American-owned and Thus, to avoid such unfruitful discussion, I managed factories and supermarkets. Thus, will only briefly show that even if one no one is biting off large chunks of America, accepts Huntington’s particular selection of but America is sinking its teeth into other measurements and their interpretations, one people’s turf. still does not find the threats that he evokes. I then turn to show that Huntington’s alarms No Acculturation? are based on a profound misunderstanding Huntington’s other and related source of of what keeps the American society united alarm, the subversion of the American creed, and commands our mutual respect. identity, and unity by non-acculturating The Threat of Secession? Mexicans, likewise finds little support in the The threat of secession is fear mongering at evidence. To reiterate, I have no intention of its extremist form. Few developments consti- playing Huntington’s game and getting mired tute a more effective call to arms than the in “he said; she said” or “this or that poll notion that someone is in the process of tak- shows.” It suffices to cite but a few pieces of ing their homes and homeland and annexing data that demonstrate that the threats he them to a foreign nation. As Huntington depicts are simply not in evidence. writes, “History shows that serious potential for conflict exists when people in one coun- No English? try start to refer to territory in a neighboring One major measurement of acculturation is country in proprietary terms and to assert the acquisition of the governing language. special rights and claims to that territory” Huntington does not claim that Mexican (ibid. p. 230). But in a work that is elsewhere immigrants fail on this count but merely voic- heavily footnoted, here Huntington offers no es concern that they may here differ from credible evidence that Mexicans seek to or are about to break away from America and other ethnic groups or even from earlier either “return” territories to Mexico or form a Mexican immigrants. However, this is simply new state. As Enrique Krauze, editor of Letras not the case. As Tamar Jacoby puts it, “Study Libres, points out, “The obvious question is: after study shows that virtually everyone in who made this claim, and when? No serious the second generation grows up proficient in (or unserious) figure of the twentieth centu- English, and by the third generation, two- ry, political or intellectual—at least none that thirds speak only English.”3 And in response I know of—ever proposed something so to Huntington’s charge that Mexican- 2 absurd.” Indeed, one of the only sources that Americans can share the American dream Huntington gives in support of the likelihood “only if they dream in English” (ibid. p. 256), of a Mexican “reconquista” is a radical pro- Fuchs writes, “Actually, most of the grand- fessor from the University of , children of Latino immigrants could not merely proving that if you Google enough 4 you can find someone to say anything—not dream in Spanish even if they wanted to.” that the country is about to be divided, with Indeed, at one point even Huntington him- large chunks of it gobbled up by aliens. self notes that the evidence simply does not There is evidence, which Huntington bear out this worry: “English language use flags, that the border between the United and fluency for first- and second-generation States and Mexico is being blurred (although Mexicans thus seem to follow the usual pat- it has become less so since 9/11), but it hard- tern” (Huntington 2004: 231). ly supports his alarmist conclusion. If any- thing, this development indicates that the 3 Tamar Jacoby. 2004. “Rainbow’s End.” Review northern states of Mexico are becoming more of Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. Washington Post, 16 May. 2 Enrique Krauze. 2004. “Identity Fanaticism.” 4 Lawrence H. Fuchs. 2004. “Mr. Huntington’s Review of Who Are We?: The Challenges to Nightmare.” Review of Who Are We?: The America’s National Identity. New Republic, 21 Challenges to America’s National Identity. June. p. 29. American Prospect, August. p. 71.

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

Essay–481

No Protestant ethics? Protestants.7 Thus, Mexican immigrants may Huntington writes that Mexican immigrants save America from becoming too Protestant. exhibit low levels of socioeconomic and edu- cational achievement and that that they are No outmarriage? “more likely .|.|. to be on welfare than most Nowhere is Huntington’s biasing of the data other groups” (ibid. p. 235). The reason, and the utterly unfounded conclusions that Huntington thinks (drawing on a few lines by he draws from them more evident than in his a few Hispanic writers), is that the character treatment of outmarriage. Outmarriage is par- and values of Hispanics, and particularly ticularly important because there is no more Mexicans, are intrinsically “different from intimate and consequential way by which Anglo-Protestant ones” (ibid. p. 254). He immigrants can be integrated into a society writes that Mexicans show “lack of initiative, than for them and their children to marry self-reliance, and ambition” and a “low prior- members of the society into which they are ity for education” (ibid. p. 254). However, supposed to acculturate. Huntington claims similar claims have been made about many that a major sign that Mexicans are refusing immigrant groups, including Catholic immi- to become part of the American society is grants. (Indeed, at one time it was thought that they do not marry individuals outside of that Catholic immigrants’ religious beliefs their ethnic group. Although he initially were incompatible with modern capitalist admits that, “Mexican intermarriage rates may values, as Max Weber noted in his renowned not differ greatly from the Hispanic rates, but study.) All of these groups, though, accepted they are probably lower,” a few lines later he the work ethic (to the extent that they did not states flatly, “Mexicans marry Mexicans” already have it in the first place) and pros- (Huntington 2004: 240). For Huntington, this is simply another indication of Mexican pered, enriching America in the process. immigrants’ inability to acculturate. Regarding welfare, a 1994 study by I have some very reliable information to Pachon and DeSipio shows that the majority the contrary: Minerva Morales, born in of immigrants of Hispanic descent hold full- Mexico City to Mexican parents, did me the time jobs, and most eschew any form of gov- honor of accepting my hand in marriage. ernment aid.5 As to education, 58 percent of More broadly speaking, Huntington himself Latinos said that a politician’s approach to cites data that show that the proportion of this issue would be one of the most impor- Hispanics who outmarry is high, as great as tant factors in deciding whether or not he or 33.2 percent for all third-generation Hispanic she would receive their vote.6 women. And it is important to note that these But above all, one should not get sucked statistics date to 1994. Later data show, as into accepting Huntington’s main thesis. Jacoby reports, that “Among U.S.-born Asians Even if it were true that many Mexican immi- and Hispanics, between a third and a half grants are slower to embrace Protestant marry someone of a different ethnicity. By ethics than other immigrants, there is no evi- the third generation, according to some dence that such a development will break up demographers, the rates reach over 50 per- the nation or undermine its creed. Indeed, cent for both groups.”8 the opposite may well be true. Given that In short, Huntington does not even come more and more of our values and social rela- close to showing that either the integrity of tions are undermined by longer working the American society or its creed is under hours, our 24/7 society would benefit from immigrants who value family, community, 7 and social life more than do Anglo- Please see Amitai Etzioni, “The ‘Dangerous’ Hispanics (and Asians) Will Save America.” This article is not yet available, but a version of it 5 Harry Pachon and Louis DeSipio. 1994. New will appear in an upcoming volume to be edit- Americans by Choice: Political Perspectives of ed by Carol Swain. Latino Immigrants. Boulder: Westview Press. 8 Tamar Jacoby. 2004. “The New Immigrants: A pp. 33–34. Progress Report.” P. 25 in Reinventing the 6 Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family : The New Immigrants and What It Foundation. 2002. National Survey of Latinos Means to be American, edited by Tamar Jacoby. Latino Electorate. : Basic Books.

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

482–Essay attack. There is no threat—no justification for mosaic is enriched by a variety of elements of all the countermeasures Huntington sees as different shapes and colors, but it is held forthcoming and indirectly advocates. together by a single framework. The mosaic symbolizes a society in which various com- A PROFOUND MISCONCEPTION munities maintain their cultural particulari- At the very core of Who Are We? lies ties, proud and knowledgeable about their Huntington’s basic misleading conception as specific traditions, but they also recognize to what makes America great. Throughout that they are integral parts of a more encom- American history, and again recently, alarms passing whole. As Americans, we are aware have been sounded when immigrants did not of our different origins but also united by a seem to assimilate (or did not do so quickly joint future and fate. enough) and appeared to maintain subcul- Huntington’s profound misunderstanding tural distinctions. As a result, various coercive of, if not contempt for, the genius of measures have been advocated, both to stop American society is revealed in his treatment immigration and to deal with those immi- of language, often used throughout history grants already in the country. and in many societies both as a major factor However, I join with those who see no in assessing the integration of immigrants compelling reasons, sociological or other, to into a society and as a metaphor for their assimilate immigrants into one indistinguish- relationship to it. Huntington writes, able American blend—to apply, as James Bryce put it, the great American solvent to If the second generation does not reject remove all traces of previous color, stripping Spanish out of hand, the third genera- Americans of their various ethnic or racial tion is also likely to be bilingual, and hyphens.9 There is no need for Greek- the maintenance and fluency in both Americans, Polish-Americans, Mexican- languages is likely to become institu- Americans, or any other group to see tionalized in the Mexican-American themselves as plain Americans without any community. .|.|. (Huntington 2004: particular distinction, history, or subculture. 232) Similarly, Americans can maintain their sepa- That is, Huntington holds that if Mexican- rate religions from Greek-Orthodox to Americans learn English but maintain Spanish Buddhism and their distinct tastes in music, as their second language, it is an indication dance, and cuisine without constituting a that they are refusing to become good threat to the American whole. Indeed, the Americans. But there is nothing un-American American culture is richer for having had an in maintaining a subculture and with it a introduction to jazz and classical music, the command of the homeland language. (I note jig and , Cajun and soul food, and so as an aside that regrettably many third-gener- 10 on. ation immigrants, Mexicans included, do not A melting pot is what Huntington has in maintain such a command of their native mind. In contrast, the image of a mosaic, if tongue.) properly understood, depicts the way in Most important, the framework of the which American society actually functions in mosaic can be, and has been throughout 11 these matters, and very well indeed. A American history, both reinforced and recast by immigrants. This cannot be stressed

09 James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Vol. II. London, 1888: 328, 709: quoted by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of Amitai Etzioni. 2003. “Diversity within Unity.” America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. In 21st Century Opportunities and Challenges: New York: Norton. 1992: 7. An Age of Destruction or an Age of 10 Tamar Jacoby. 2004. “What It Means to Be Transformation, edited by Howard F. Didsbury, American in the 21st Century.” P. 306 in Jr. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society; Amitai Reinventing the Melting Pot. Etzioni, 2003. “In Defense of Diversity Within 11 or further discussion of the diversity within uni- Unity,” The Responsive Community 13, no. 2 ty model, refer to: Amitai Etzioni. 1996. The (Spring 2003); www.communitariannetwork. New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in org for the Diversity Within Unity platform and a Democratic Society. New York: Basic Books; for a list of those who have endorsed it.

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

Essay–483 enough as often reference is made only to viewed in the context of his previous works. the enrichment that the addition of pieces (or Among these, the best known is his 1996 The immigrants) brings to the American mosaic Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of (or society) by providing greater diversity World Order. It has become one of those through the incorporation of a growing range books that educated people feel they ought of cuisine, music, and holidays. Certainly, the to have read, and if they have not, pretend to mosaic has been made more varied. But of know its content. Many people outside of the equal importance are the changes made to United States view the book as just one more the framework of the mosaic—to what unites significant piece of evidence as to how hos- us and makes us Americans. These days you tile the United States is to other belief sys- can be a good American without being a tems and nations. (In 2002, I was a guest of Protestant or even a Christian. I am. the reformers in Iran at a meeting that they According to Huntington, American iden- held at the new Center for the Dialogue of tity was defined for 200 years by Civilization. And practically all of those who Protestants—in opposition to Catholics. attended, from many different nations, railed Slowly, over the generations that followed, against this work of Huntington’s). Catholic immigrants acculturated and either There is, hence, no need here to rehash joined Protestant churches or changed their the book’s main thesis, but it is useful to faith to make it Protestant-like by developing revisit its main take on the world, which is community services, adopting lay trustees, surprisingly isometric to Huntington’s take on and recasting the Church in an American, the domestic fate of American society—as if national way—a truly odd list. I fail to see he applied the same pattern to both, only on what is Protestant about community services; two different scales. In The Clash of lay trusteeism is a minor adaptation of the Civilizations, the role of the beleaguered and kind that the Catholic Church (like other reli- threatened party is played not by the United gious establishments, Protestant included) States but by the West, which is still power- made many over the centuries. But most ful but, like other previously great civiliza- notably, American Catholics chose not to tions, at its peak and unaware that it is about break away from the global, hierarchical to be overtaken—unless it heeds Church—a course that has defined Huntington’s warnings. The role of the Protestants. Instead, they merely increased threatening Mexican from Who Are We? is the local autonomy of the American chapter. played by Islam in The Clash of Civilizations, This is akin to increasing states’ rights, not to and the roles played by other immigrants to seceding from a federation. the United States are reserved for other civi- Most important, American society’s core of lizations, especially that of the Chinese shared values (call them a creed if you must) (“Sinic”). The same fifth column that bores and the social institutions that embody them from within the United States, helping the have changed over the generations and now enemies of the state and the creed in Who accommodate different religions as well as Are We?, also exists in the West, this time as secular bodies of belief. Indeed, differences liberals in general and multiculturalists in on the key moral and spiritual issues of the particular. day are often between fundamentalist and Many scholars fell into the trap of treating moderate Americans (found in all belief sys- The Clash of Civilizations as if it were a stan- tems, Protestant included) rather than simply dard, scholarly text, questioning Huntington’s between the practitioners of different belief definition of civilization and arguing that systems. It then follows that Huntington’s there might be greater or fewer civilizations concern that Mexicans are not than the seven that he lists, and so on. Others Protestantizing, is a problem not for America held that 9/11 validated Huntington (and but only for his assimilationist approach. Bernard Lewis’) position. But, as I see it, the particular slant of the book is most evident in IN PERSPECTIVE: A GLOBAL ISOMETRIC its dealing with Islam as if it were one body PATTERN? of belief. Actually, Islam is subject to funda- Huntington’s particular slant stands out more mentalist and moderate interpretations. Thus, clearly when his take on the threats that he some Muslims see jihad as a call to holy war claims Anglo-Protestant America is facing is against all nonbelievers (including other

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

484–Essay

Muslims who follow a more moderate line), book set off a furor in Harvard’s Department while others interpret it as a spiritual journey. of Government where Huntington was then a Seyyed Hossein Nasr describes this second young and untenured professor. interpretation, that of a softer Islam, as fol- At the time, only a few years had passed lows: “jihâd is therefore the inner battle to since the world had faced the threat of a purify the soul of its imperfections, to empty Fascist regime, and many military-authoritari- the vessel of the soul of the pungent water of an regimes still dotted the map. Indeed, The forgetfulness, negligence, and the tendency Soldier and the State so infuriated Carl to evil and to prepare it for the reception of Friedrich, a leading political scientist at the Divine Elixir of Remembrance, Light, and Harvard and a refugee of Nazi Europe, that Knowledge.”12 Generally, Wahhabi Islam calls he led a successful campaign to deny for a strict interpretation of the texts, but Sufi Huntington tenure, prompting him to leave Islam is much more moderate and accommo- Harvard (although he was invited back, a few dating to democratic and modern economic years later). systems. Indeed, there are hundreds of mil- The citation of but a few quotes from the lions of Muslims in Indonesia, Bangladesh, last pages of this work in which Huntington Malaysia, and Kyrgyzstan who are moderate compares the military academy of West Point and live peacefully together with people of to the nearby town of Highland Falls pro- other creeds. (Although the media has made vides an ample idea of his vision of America. much of some increase in militant Islam in He finds that in the military academy: these countries, most Muslims there continue There join together the four great pillars to remain moderate). of society: Army, Government, College, It is not only empirically wrong but also and Church. Religion subordinates man psychologically troubling and strategically to God for divine purposes; the military counterproductive to approach the world life subordinates man to duty for society’s from an “us versus them” perspective and to purposes. In its severity, regularity, disci- hold that we bring light to the world through pline, the military society shares the char- enlightenment, rationality, and democracy, acteristics of the religious order. Modern while “they” are the force of darkness, the man may well find his monastery in the evil empire. A much more valid and healthi- Army. (Huntington 1957: 465) er approach is to recognize that there are major moderate and fundamentalist camps in Huntington goes on to conclude: all civilizations and that the West should West Point embodies the military ideal at work with moderates everywhere and be on its best; Highland Falls the American spir- its guard against fundamentalists—every- it at its most commonplace. West Point is where. The West should also recognize that a gray island in a many-colored sea, a bit just as it brings to the world concerns of of Sparta in the midst of Babylon. Yet is human rights and liberty, other civilizations it possible to deny that the military val- also bring to the world valuable concerns ues—loyalty, duty, restraint, dedication— that the West has increasingly neglected, for are the ones America most needs today? instance those of the common good and That the disciplined order of West Point community. has more to offer than the garish individ- The true dangers faced by those who buy ualism of Main Street? Historically, the into Huntington’s world are revealed when virtues of West Point have been one examines both Who Are We? and The America’s vices, and the vices of the mil- Clash of Civilizations in light of his first book, itary, America’s virtues. Yet today The Soldier and the State: The Theory and America can learn more from West Point Politics of Civil-Military Relations, in which than West Point from America.” (ibid. he openly favors militaristic, authoritarian, pp. 465–66) and homogeneous regimes over democratic and pluralistic ones. Published in 1957, the IN CONCLUSION 12 Seyyed Hossein Nasr. 2002. The Heart of Islam: How is one to treat such works? Name-call- Enduring Values for Humanity : ing will not do. I see nothing to be gained by Harper Collins. p. 260. calling Huntington “racist,” “xenophobic,”

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5 #2435—CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY—VOL 34 NO 5—FILE: 34501_rev_essay_1

Essay–485

“nativist,” or “chauvinist,” as he has been that he evokes as endangering not the nation labeled.13 Nor can one ignore works that have but his privileged group—and his alarmist such wide appeal. The prejudices they air possibilities of recourse as attempts to protect and feed need to be addressed, and one way it—not the United States of America. But in to do so is to deal with such books. reality, it is Huntington and those who share However, it is best not to view them as his position who pose a real threat to the works of social science once it becomes clear nation. Huntington says that he is concerned that their use of data is highly tendentious about divisions, yet he divides the nation in and misleading. Instead, one had best lay ways that very few others do, between set- bare their ideological slant. In Huntington’s tlers and the rest of us. And to the extent that case, he is a systematic and articulate advo- Huntington and others are able to drum up cate of nationalism, militaristic regimes, and fears—of Mexicans, Muslims, or the an earlier America in which there was one unwashed masses of voters—they may be homogenous creed and little tolerance for able to sow conflict in American society. pluralism. I would fight for the right of such Moreover, they might be able to slow right wing positions to be aired, just as I those processes through which American would for left wing ones. However, one must society has demonstrated to the world that a lay bare their subtext. This is best achieved nation can grow and benefit by people of dif- when later works are viewed in the context ferent backgrounds and traditions becoming of previous ones, especially when they all a part of it—without having these people reflect the same slant, as the works of have to surrender their subcultural and ethnic Huntington do. identities. To the extent that Huntington and Huntington’s fears are not wholly without company succeed in making us approach foundation. He defines himself as a settler, whole civilizations as evil empires, they will not as an immigrant. Settlers, white and undermine national security by causing us to Protestant, are those who fashioned the overlook major potential allies across the “true” America and controlled it. This control world. And to the extent that they succeed in indeed has and is being undermined by putting the nation into a permanent, milita- immigrants, yet it is not America that is losing rized mobilization, they weaken the founda- power and creed but (as elsewhere in the tions of democracy. It follows that reviewing world)—the settlers. Thus, Huntington’s posi- such tomes helps us to understand both the tion does make sense if one sees the threats true sources and nature of the threats that the nation, indeed the world, face, with which 13 Letters. 2004. Foreign Policy. November/ we are sure to cope as we have done in the December, p. 4. past and continue to do today.

Contemporary Sociology 34, 5