Huntington oversimplified

I welcome Prof Gerrit Olivier’s and Dr Costa Andre Georghiou’s spirited defence of Samuel Huntington's “clash of civilisations” thesis in response to my recent article (Creaky Culture, February 15). In principle, at least.

In their admiration for this “brilliant contribution” (their words) they are not alone, as I made clear in the piece. Huntington’s neat framing of the modern world has seduced extremists (including Christian, Islamic, even Shinto nationalists), ordinary crackpots and many thoughtful writers. That the far-right clique within Trump’s administration embraces Huntingtonian logic makes an inquiry into its stubborn appeal necessary and timely. But this demands serious debate. The straw-man posturing and personal attacks of Olivier and Georghiou get us nowhere.

The “clash of civilisations” thesis has the qualities of an iconic photograph — both powerful and dangerous. Powerful because it readily conveys seemingly all one needs to know about an aspect of our world; dangerous because it deadens complexity, stops people from interrogating assumptions and induces laziness. That is especially dangerous if it invites action. Huntington’s grand civilisation narrative oversimplified complex and, in some respects, still scarcely understood dynamics, particularly in the Islamic world.

But the appointment of Lt-Gen HR McMaster to replace the clash-obsessed Michael Flynn as US national security adviser could be a game changer.

McMaster, with colleagues such as Defence Secretary Gen Jim Mattis, represent a formidable counter to chief strategist Stephen Bannon and others who think in Manichean terms. Vastly experienced and respected, McMaster rejects any characterisation of Islam as a monolith opposed to the West.

His is a multidimensional view of the world. He could become a powerful voice for the better angels of US foreign policy.

Terence McNamee Via e-mail