Critique of Seib's Congratulations to Huntington

Philip Seib is the ‘Lucius W. Nieman’ Professor of Journalism at Marquette University and writes about political reporting, and the relationship between news coverage and public policy.

In the reading, Philip Seib questions the reality of an actual ‘Clash of Civilzations’ by first comparing world views concerning the relations between religion and politics, and then secondly by demonstrating how the media have simplified certain attributes to gain viewers’ understanding, and thus ratings.
The way inwhcih media companies shape collective consciousness is a central theme to the entire book; in particular, this chapter covers the ‘facile divisions’[1] that were utilized by the media throughout the Cold War, and how these boundaries have remained (due in no small part due to their ease in being comprehended). Seib writes without explicitely showing that he disagrees with Huntington, but far more importantly, demonstrates why the concept has appeal. As already noted, Huntington’s theory utilized already established, familiar divisions, and the news media industries were ‘receptive to a new geopolitical scheme’[2] that was identifiable to the gerneal public at the end of the Cold War.
“Essentialist and polarized scenarios such as Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” and Benjamin Barber’s “jihad vs. McWorld” belie complex real world realities. Nevertheless, in the wake of the Cold War there has emerged the notion of Islam as a primary Other.”[3]
How much of the present conflcit is related to the media seizing understandable boundaries and strengthening those divisions is an enigma within Marshall McLuhan’s ‘global village’; and hitherto, inscrutable.

As Seib notes, Huntington’s theory may have been validated by the 9/11 attacks, but more significantly, he seems cautious of that view being applied to all news coverage. When Seib mentions a number of critics of Huntington’s concepts, he reamins stoic in demonstrating the longevity of Huntington’s civilizational paradigm. Despite the number of critics of the theory, it is not only found its way into common parlence (apparently through the media) but those who support either side find it a ideology that is easy to identify with. Huntington retorts to his critics: “faith and family, blood and belief, are what people identify with and what they will fight and die for.”[4] Zbigniew Brzezinski has warned against “generalized religious bias”[5] taking blame and attention away from the complex issues surrounding the Isralei-Palestinian conflict and U.S. support in the region. Brzezinski believes in reassesing the conflict “through a geopolitical rather than a theological prism”[6]. Unfortunately the support of Israel can only be appreciated in terms of religious fervour as “Christianity is the embodiment of the divine promises made to the Jews.”[7] Coupled with the concept of the U.S. as the leader of the New World Order, in the post-Cold War world, there is both an obligation to keep peace and strong relations within the region. It is important to remember that their tenacity relies not only on their elasticity, but also that they are idioms constructed in response to emotionally charged situations and religious fervour. As Huntington understands, if either side is to incite support it is through emotional language that pushes the conflict closer to the “theological prism”[8] .

My major criticism of the reading is how Seib attempts to celebrate Huntington’s definitions due to their easy assimilation into the global language, and forcing journalism to reconsider the fault-lines of the political world through religious indoctrination. I believe that the ideological framework that Huntington has helped establish has not forced the media to critically assess these definitions at all, because news companies thrive on both the public’s need for immediacy of knowledge, and the apparent danger that makes the speed of news gathering paramount.
“However the end of the Cold War and the resulting “threat vacuum” have endangered these structures of power and wealth. Faced with the loss of their raison d’étre, some of the military and intelligence -gathering establishments began searching for new enemies.”[9]
The hegemony of dominant discourse that the United States endorses includes the belief that terrorists alone attacked and destroyed both World Trade Centre towers, and that Islam is anti-American. These thoughts connect anti-American sentiment to a religion, and thus re-identify U.S.A. as pre-dominatly Christian as a default antithesis. But to align all stereotype characteristics into simplistic groups denoting civilizations is where I personally find fault and fear in both Huntington’s concept and how Seib can congratulate such redundunt apprehensions. Especially so when it is remembered that only the Bush Administration took advantage of these ideas and their connections.
“I think most of us would agree, and some of us have indeed said, that the clash of civilizations is an important aspect of modern international relations, though probably not many of us would go so far as to imply, as some have done, that civilizations have foriegn policies and form alliances.”[10]
It must be rememberred that two of the states created immediatly after World War Two (Israel and Pakistan) are religiously inspired and the centuries old conflict between Christians and Moslems has extended into hundreds of civil wars in the third world (Nigeria, Chad, Uganda, Sudan). Such boundaries take attention away from political motivations and closer to theological and emotional thoughts, often to incite support for war. After all, the United States is still scared by the ultimate terrorism: a repeat of the 1973 Arab oil boycott, leading to a decade of slow growth and inflation. In such a disaster for the American people, even the media would suffer from lack of religion, emotion and intriguing coverage.

[1] Seib, Philip Media & Conflict in the 21st Century, New York: Palgrave, 2005, p 218
[2] ibid, p 218
[3] Karim, H. Karim Islamic Peril: Media & Global Violence, Montréal: Black Rose Books, 2003, p 3
[4] Seib, p 221
[5] Zbigniew, Brzezinski The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, NewYork: Basic Books, 2004, p 59
[6] ibid, p 59
[7] Lewis, Bernard I’m Right, You’re Wrong, Go To Hell, May 2003, Atlantic, p 2
[8] Zbigniew, p 59
[9] Karim, p 17
[10] Lewis, p 2