Response #1

In his work, The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington proposes that the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world will be cultural rather than ideological or economic.  His presentation of this hypothesis is slightly murky in that I would consider ideological and economic situations to be a substantial addition to the links between people that promote a cultural identity; however, he seems to have unofficially defined these broad terms in reference to their role in the Cold War, which is understandable, and draws a number of pertinent observations, although his conclusions may be overreaching.  

Huntington notes a tendency to view interactions in terms of "'us' versus 'them'" (4) in groups who self-identify in terms of ethnicity and religion moreso than in other terms just as "civilization rallying" (8) expedites the resolution of violence.  This is a general claim that seems to be heavily based in correlation rather than causation, but it works as a basis for further observation.  He also notes a pattern of "economic regionalism" prompted by common cultures (3).  This is a valid point: trade can certainly be facilitated by proximity, and shared customs between trade partners can lead to happy dealings without unfortunate misunderstandings.  Conversely, cultural differences can impede trade: linguistic barriers are an obvious hurdle, but simple religious observances such as the Thursday/Friday or Friday/Saturday weekend in many Arab countries can also limit trade opportunities.

Chiefly, Huntington ponders the domination of Western civilization, as in its modern state, the West feels it has the power to make qualitative judgements on other cultures.  Coexistence and cooperation are clearly key to global interations, but they must be lobbied on more of an equally modern footing for the Western civilization to respect the cultural differences and avoid an explosive "clash of cultures."

-Amanda Delp