Huntington: A Realistic Conservative

Speaking of Huntington, perhaps best known is his later years of “Clash of Civilizations and Reconstruction of the World Order.” The book makes Huntington a well-known academic star with its powerful judgment on the post-Cold War world order. It also makes the “Clash of Civilizations” the theoretical basis for understanding the international pattern in the Western world, especially the American political elite. The author of this article, Ou Shujun, placed the “Clash of Civilizations” in the academic context of Huntington for 60 years, presenting a consistent “realistic conservatism” ideological position behind it. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the American academic community, Huntington has been violently criticizing the liberal creed of American society’s whitewashed reality with a sober realism attitude, and unearthing the deep conservatism cultural foundation of American society. Under the current dramatic changes in the international pattern, Ou Shujun’s analysis of Huntington’s thoughts helps us to more clearly identify the cultural basis of American political behavior.

Samuel P. Huntington is one of the most important political thinkers in contemporary America. As a witness to the “American Century” of the 20th century, Huntington has been in the American political sciences for 60 years. In these 60 years, he has always adhered to a sober, realistic, conservative ideology, thinking about American politics, world politics, and the relationship between the United States and the world. Since he intervened in the American intellectual debate after World War II, he has always been condemned by narrow political correctness. He has constantly used the “liberalism” of American society as the theoretical target to explore the ideological basis for supporting the operation of American social and political systems. In the ever-changing world structure after World War II, he also judged the relationship between the United States and the world and positioned the US national strategy with its sober realism.

Huntington is well-deserved as one of the most important thinkers in the United States in the 20th century. Through deepening the trajectory of its thoughts, we can truly understand the nature and national direction of the United States in the 20th century, as well as the broader modern political world and modern political predicament.

Realism and conservatism

After the Second World War, in the world pattern of the Cold War, between 1945 and 1965, the American intellectual circles generally described the American national concept with John Locke’s liberalism. In this concept description, the United States is a country in which modern political principles such as liberalism, democracy, and egalitarianism are gradually implemented. This liberal national concept has been shaped into the consensus of the United States. However, in 1957, Huntington, who had just passed the year, challenged the mainstream concept. He reminded the Americans to reflect on whether the American concept of nation-building was Locke-style liberalism or Edmund Burke-style conservatism.

Huntington believes that [1] it seems that American society’s progressiveism, pluralism, and consensusism are variants of Locke liberalism. This American-style American liberal “cultural hegemony” did indeed lead to the formation of American conservatism. A consistent tradition. Before the “Western War” in 1898, the United States had two kinds of conservatism: the first was “Northern Federalism,” which originated from the northern industrial state that wanted to push the United States from the Confederacy to the Confederation, the earliest in American history. Conservatism; the second is the “Southern Conservatism” based on racial slavery, as discussed by John Caldwell Calhoun and Horatio Alger. These two kinds of conservatism are indeed weak and fleeting. However, in Huntington’s view, these two conservative traditions are resurrected under two important opportunities. First, as the United States accelerated the bid farewell to “isolationism” to the world, the federal conservatism of New Hamilton’s Miltonism was resurrected. Second, from the “World War II” to the “Cold War”, “Southern Conservatism” was weakened at the legal and political levels, but After the Cold War, out of fear of external Soviet communism and internal mass democracy, “Southern Conservatism” was also resurrected. In the face of the huge threat of the Soviet Union as a comprehensive strategic opponent, the “classical liberalism” and “classical conservatism” of the United States quickly became unanimous under the banner of “Cold War liberalism.” [2] Huntington became one of the typical representatives of “Cold War liberalism.”

But it is also in Huntington that “Cold War liberalism” exudes a strong sense of realism and conservatism. In 1957, as a 30-year-old young scholar, Huntington pondered the question: Since the United States has long been a liberal society, how do such Americans and Americans accept their own opposition to the standing army for more than 100 years? ? Why does a liberal society need a powerful army that threatens freedom, democracy, prosperity and peace? If the American society accepts a strong army, it means accepting the political ethics of realism and conservatism. Therefore, in Huntington’s view, although American society regards “roxual liberalism” as a national concept, in reality, it is a combination of realism and conservatism. “Realism” means that Americans must accept a strong, united, highly professional army under the fierce competition between countries in the Cold War. “Conservatism” means that officers must accept civil servants’ superiority in their legitimacy, moral ethics, political wisdom, and ability to govern the country. They must accept civil service control in terms of personnel appointment and dismissal, budgetary budgeting, and military discipline review.

Huntington’s observation of the actual form of American society derived from the three constructive ideas he advocated were Carl von Clausewitz, Alfred Thayer Mahan and Hans J. Morgenthau). Clausewitz’s “Theory of War” not only provides the rationality of the professionalization of officers, but also provides the legitimacy of civilian control. Huntington is thus based on the core of his theory of military and political relations, so that “Military and the State” Become a classic that cannot be understood in understanding the military-political relationship of the modern state. Xiao Mahan’s “The Influence of Sea Power on History” closely captures the imperialist sentiment that emerged in the United States in 1898 because of the victory in the American West War, and became the drummer of New Hamilton. It was in Xiao Mahan that Huntington’s federalism and southern conservatism that once disappeared in American history were revived after the United States abandoned isolationism and went to the world. The calm political realism of Morgans in “Inter-State Politics” has shaped the main line of the US foreign strategy since the Cold War, and has also largely shaped Huntington’s realism criticism and reflection on the US foreign strategy.

Huntington’s early focus was on why a liberal society needed to accept a strong conservatism army. Under this framework of thought, Huntington repositioned Edmund Burke’s ideological status. In his view, conservatism is realism rather than idealism because it does not have its own “utopia.” Inspired by these three strategic thinkers, Huntington regarded realism and conservatism as the two pillars of military ethics. Huntington believes that understanding why a liberal society accepts a conservative army requires not only the investigation of the power relations between military officers and civil servants, but also the relationship between the two. The civil service group is susceptible to the ideology of social prevalence. Therefore, the stability of military-political relations depends on the ideology of political ideas and social concepts generally accepting conservatism. Therefore, Huntington is very concerned about the fate of the two major ideologies of liberalism and conservatism in different eras in the United States. In Huntington’s view, in the context of the Cold War, the United States must reverse the ideology dominated by classical liberalism and classical conservatism. In Huntington’s understanding, classical conservatism is only a “conservative version of liberalism”, and its theoretical opponent is not classical liberalism, but “mass liberalism” and “democratic liberalism.” In 1975, American politics had ended the climax of the 20-year democratization movement after the Second World War and entered a long period of conservatism. Huntington further elaborated on the “democracy crisis theory”, [3] which was seen as the return of Joseph Alois Schumpeter’s “elite democracy theory.” [4]

In 1957, Huntington wanted to use his “Military and State” to apply for tenure, although this work was later considered to occupy the same academic status as War Theory and Sea Power in the field of military and political relations, but At the time, Huntington was accused by liberals in the Department of Political Science at Harvard University of advocating militarism and authoritarianism, and was eventually forced to leave Columbia University with Harbin University along with Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Realistic conservatism

Perhaps because of this personal encounter, Huntington has had a stronger interest in Reinhold Niebuhr during his four years at Columbia. Niebuhr had a great influence on the Cold War generation American thinkers, including Protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich, liberals such as John Dewey, and Norman Thomas. Thomas) and other socialist, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., realist international political theorists, and George F. Kennan, founder of the US Cold War containment strategy, and the US Supreme Court Justice Judiciary Justice Felix Frankfurter et al. Niebuhr’s thought spectrum is also quite complicated. He is both a “Christian socialist” and a Protestant realist. He was the first scholar in American history to use Marxist class analysis to attack American society’s own problems. This is reflected in his famous book “The Moral Man and the Immoral Society” published in 1932. It is “big.” The Depression period affects the classics of an entire generation of Americans. American international relations and history scholar Andrew J. Bacevich called Niebuer the chief architect of Cold War liberalism, and American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Niebuhr is known as the spiritual godfather of the American Cold War generation of thinkers.

As the “teacher of Niebuhr” in Little Schlesinger’s mouth, Huntington read most of Niebu’s works. Due to the influence of the Protestant theologian, Huntington gradually strengthened the conservative stance of realism, which made him Unlike the idealistic conservatism, it is also different from the Catholic social thought of the contemporary modernist poet Thomas Stearns Eliot. [5] In 1968, Huntington focused on his judgment of the unique problems faced by liberalism and conservatism in modern society. [6] He believes that unlike traditional countries, with the deepening of industrialization and urbanization, each country has either become a large-scale modern society or a “changing society” or “transition society” in the process of transformation. In the view of liberals, the transitional society must also have its own development goals of good political values. They embodies the modern people’s pursuit of good political beliefs; as long as this goal is established, the transitional society can “Economic modernization” goes directly to “political modernization”, and all good things can come overnight. Huntington believes that the modernization theory of liberals is actually an ideal sample of Western Europe, Northern Europe and North America. It actually equates modernization with Westernization, equating the starting point with the result, and in fact ignoring economic transformation and social change. The enormous impact on political change ignores the complex twists and turns and alternatives of processes and roads.

Such a judgment reflects Huntington’s thought shift. In the 1950s when writing “Military and State”, realism and conservatism were parallel in Huntington; in the 1960s, realism has become a qualifier of conservatism. Beginning with his participation in the formulation of the national security strategy during the Cold War period at Columbia University, Huntington has targeted the liberal political modernization theory, development theory, and foreign strategy, and put forward “realistic conservatism politics.” Change theory.”

The book “The Political Order of a Changing Society” embodies Huntington’s “realistic conservatism” political attitude. It integrates and transcends the discussion of political development in the Western world, shifting the focus of comparative political research from political development to political change. on. Before this book, some scholars discussed what elements, conditions and objectives were included in the political development of a transitional society. However, these discussions are presupposed by the dualism of “tradition and modernity”. They are static linear evolutions, ignoring the dynamic characteristics of large-scale transitional society: when the political system of a transitional society cannot face, respond to, and absorb from the public. When political, economic and social equality demands, it cannot achieve modernization. Therefore, Huntington pinned the connotation of political development in three aspects: the influence of social system on political system, the influence of social development on political development, and the influence of social structure on power structure. [7]

Over the past 50 years, “realistic conservatism” has gradually become the mainstream concept of most middle and lower whites in the United States. “Realistic conservatism” understands and deals with modern political dilemmas, culture versus politics, political thought, political system and politics. The shaping of the process is getting more and more attention. For example, the famous political scholar Sida Skochepo has been studying for nearly a decade to study how the revival of American conservatism in the past 50 years has promoted the great transformation of American politics, and how to influence US decision-making, [8] the US conservative in its context. The doctrine is mainly realism rather than idealistic conservatism.

The Protestant Roots of “Realistic Conservatism”

The continued deepening of Huntington’s thoughts comes from the fact that the democratization movement in the United States in the 1960s has come and gone, and this challenging democracy movement poses a huge challenge to the United States itself. How to understand and respond to this challenge? Huntington turned from politics to culture. [9] In his view, the student leaders in the movement questioned not the legitimacy of the American system, but the ability of the current US government to rule. These students were driven by the “passion of faith” in American politics. It has repeatedly corrected the course of the United States. Therefore, he believes that the seemingly radical democratic movement is essentially conservatism. Huntington has raised similar questions about the political development of developing countries: Are the most radical revolutionaries not exactly the most typical conservatives? Huntington attributed the imbalance of American politics to the liberal consensus of American society, which became the theoretical target repeatedly used by Huntington. Huntington believes that the liberal consensus in the United States allows Americans to accept liberal ideas and political ideas, and also to believe that the ideals of American system representation can and will be realized. But this kind of consensus is only a theoretically presupposed reality. In fact, there are many internal crises. The political reality is that the concept of liberalism has not been realized and is always impossible. The conflict between theoretical presupposition and political reality lies precisely in the consensus of liberalism. Therefore, Huntington fundamentally challenged the liberals’ institutional confidence in American politics.

Huntington was inspired by Burke in explaining cultural issues from a cultural perspective. He believes that the United States has never produced an independent liberal ideology tradition, which made it feel overwhelmed by internal enemies and external enemies during World War I, World War II and the Cold War. Conservatism returned to the American political arena at this time. Burke’s conservatism in “On the French Revolution,” especially the characteristics of the North American colonists outlined in the Reconciliation with the American Colonies, is regarded by Huntington as the national identity, national identity, and core culture of the United States. source. In Burke’s view, the Protestantism of the American colonies was “Protestant Protestantism” and “Dissent Dissent” and was the product of the unfinished Protestant revolution in Britain. [10] Therefore, the colonists of North America and the motherland are the same species, just as today’s “Five Eyes Alliance” is the same species. On the basis of Burke, Huntington defined “the same text” as “the same religion.”

Huntington pointed out that American liberals have summarized American political ideas as a set of “American convictions.” The so-called “American conviction” means that Americans have always lived in a liberal society and believe that they represent a series of wonderful political values ​​of human society. But Huntington believes that this liberal American conviction has not touched on the fact that its political system originated from the British Protestant revolutionary era, and even every system originated from Protestantism. Here, Huntington returned to the “Tudor Politics Theory”. Although the power of the US government is structurally separate, it is essentially in a state of “combination of functions.” The American government originated from the British Tudor system since Henry VIII.

It should be noted that Huntington in 1968 did not focus on the roots of Protestantism in American politics. This involves the internal transformation of Huntington’s thought: before the 1980s, Huntington focused on political institutions, such as military institutions and countries that were a collection of political institutions; from the 1980s, Huntington’s into the fateful year. Focus on the moral concern for major political and social dilemmas, trying to find the cultural elements behind the system. At this time, Huntington emphasized that in order to truly understand American politics, it is necessary to trace the true origin of American politics, that is, the Anglo-Protestant culture as the source of American core culture and national identity. In this sense, we can discover the profoundness of Huntington’s criticism of liberals in the incomprehensible year: the Americans’ anti-power and anti-authoritarian political ethics that the liberals believe are not born, because the British stay The power of the government is too large, and the authority of the government is everywhere. Only when Americans appear to be good at limiting rather than establishing government authority, have they ignited Americans’ anti-power and anti-authoritarian political ethics.

This cultural paradigm focuses on the cultural factors behind American politics. He believes that all modern political systems in the United States have almost religious roots. The hope of solving modern political predicament lies in the “re-religionization” of politics and the “re-moralization” of the state. Arousing American moralism and idealism, only by stimulating passions beyond class, region, race, religion, and identity, American politics has hope, just as the murals on the dome of the US Capitol depict the American presidents as prophets and Saints, and Washington is placed in the position of God. American political and Protestant beliefs have similar forms and social foundations, politics emphasizes religion, and religion adds passion to politics. In short, in Huntington’s view, the “re-religionization” of politics is the most unique feature of American politics. In this regard, Huntington’s realism conservatism is the “conservative American exceptionalism” in the history of American thought. [11]

Protestant Realism and Modern Political Dilemma

In the early 1990s, in the face of the changing international situation after the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Huntington believed that it was necessary to make accurate realist judgments on the new international pattern. After the Cold War, liberal internationalism was rampant, and Huntington was adhering to the guidance of the “thinking godfather” Niebuhr, and very clearly combined liberal internationalism with Protestant realism. [12]

Niebuhr was the godfather of thought during the “Cold War” period. The common theoretical construction of the thinkers of the Cold War generation has a premise that the Soviet Union will be regarded as a comprehensive strategic opponent. Only in the face of this ideal enemy can the United States and the Americans properly position themselves. Under this premise, Niebuhr believes that it is a stupid illusion that Americans are arrogant to other nations by God’s chosen people. Niebuer criticized this liberal cosmopolitanism from Protestant realism. [13] He hopes to find out how Christianity can morally understand and deal with major political and social dilemmas. [14]

Niebu’s Protestant realism has profoundly influenced Huntington’s thinking on US internal affairs and diplomacy and the relationship between the United States and the world. However, Huntington deviated from his academic stance when the Cold War pattern was loose, trying to explore the guide to democratic action in non-Western countries. His friend Brzezinski called it “Machiavelli of Democracy”. Huntington himself believes that he probably has half of the space, but the other half is still objective, because he still regards order as the core dimension of the analysis of the country. For him, democracy is a good thing, and order is also a good thing.

After the end of the Cold War, in the face of the disappearance of an “ideal enemy,” the American ideological community also had a huge controversy. American conservatives gathered under the umbrella of National Interest to think about the question: How does the United States define national interests after the Soviet Union disappears? After the end of the Cold War, are Americans still Americans? If there is no cold war, what is the significance of being an American? If you lose the ideal enemy of the Soviet Union, Americans are also likely to lose themselves, so look for new ideal enemies. In 1996, the problem of Huntington’s handling in the ancient times became an understanding of how the world politics of the post-Cold War era and its root causes of conflict. [15] Does the harmonious world advocate conform to reality? Can multiculturalism be explained? Can liberal cosmopolitanism be explained? Can nationalism explain? The opportunity for the birth of “Clash of Civilizations” was the dialogue between Huntington and his student Francis Fukuyama. The “final conclusion of history” proposed by Fukuyama was a typical representative of liberal cosmopolitanism at that time. To this day, whether the future of human society is “the end of history” or “the conflict of civilizations” is still a public case concerning the discussion of “post-cold world order” in contemporary political science and international relations. Huntington seriously criticized the idealism of “the final conclusion of history”, completely returned to Niebu’s Protestant realism, returned to the realist dimension of the Cold War liberalism, and brought the political and religious conflicts of the Machiavelli era back to the “post-Cold War era” of world politics. analysis.

In Huntington’s view, since there are multipolar civilizations, there may be conflicts; only by understanding possible conflicts can peace be pursued. The “Clash of Civilizations” seems to have simultaneously inspired Western hegemonic countries and rising non-Western countries to form a “global empire civil war state”: on the one hand, Western countries will continue to adhere to the uniqueness of their own civilization and emphasize the civilization of their own civilization. On the other hand, non-Western countries are motivated to become “new monarchs” within the empire. Huntington once again won the label “Modern Machiavelli” for himself. The American ideological community believes that the challenges facing the United States after the Cold War are not only the external crisis of the conflict of civilizations, but also the internal crisis of the disintegration of national identity. In 1992, Schlesinger published “The Deconstruction of the United States.” [16] In his view, the United States, which lost its enemies, is no longer a united country under the impact of multiculturalism. Huntington, who has long inspired each other with Schlesinger and others, also used the last days of his life to deal with the challenges of multiculturalism to American national identity. [17] He believes that with the 1965 Immigration Act as a turning point, pluralism challenged the Western civilization represented by the United States in terms of race, language and culture, and promoted the “anti-Americanization” process. However, Huntington does not pin his hopes on the white native protectionism advocated by Trump today, although he is once again labeled as a nativist by criticizing liberal pluralism. In his view, the hope of the United States is to return its core culture to the Protestant motherhood, which lies in the Anglo-Protestant culture rather than the ethnic white supremacy. If we can revitalize the core culture of Anglo-Protestantism, we can revitalize the national identity of the United States; white people can continue to serve as the rulers, dominators, and leaders of the United States and the world at home and abroad. Huntington believes that the United States in the 21st century needs “sound nationalism” – neither isolationist nationalism nor liberal cosmopolitanism, but everyone should cherish the political virtue of patriotism.

Realistic political conservatism

Huntington’s “re-religiousization of politics” and “re-moralization of the state” and the Anglo-Protestant culture as the main body of the “American core cultural renaissance” since the end of the Cold War seem to be “self-fulfilling prophecies” after the end of the Cold War. “. One scholar once commented on Huntington in the “Clash of Civilizations”: he is not contemporary Hobbes or modern Machiavelli, but Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, who is likely to destroy himself. Mother. [18] Of course, there is a deep misunderstanding in this. What Huntington reflects is the crisis faced by American national identity and American world status. What he hopes to avoid is precisely the misfortune of civilized conflict. After Huntington’s death, his friends and colleagues may have different opinions and differences, but they have a consensus: Huntington is a typical Anglo-Protestant. The alienation of Huntington from the American liberal elite is precisely because his thinking represents the idea of ​​ordinary American voters after World War II. [19] In terms of personal qualities, Huntington insists on hard work, honesty, justice, fearlessness, loyalty, and, above all, patriotism. He himself also hopes to write only one sentence on his tombstone: here is a patriot with faith.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a contemporary sociologist and politician at Huntington, believes that the core consensus of American liberalism lies in politics rather than culture. Politics can change culture and preserve itself. The core consensus of American conservatism lies in Culture, not politics, determines whether society is successful or not. Some scholars have pointed out that Huntington’s thinking is based on the premise of reflecting on the ideological misunderstanding of liberalism. His primary contribution to political science lies in maintaining the core consensus of conservatism, emphasizing that liberalism is insurmountable in realizing its own ideals and beliefs. Obstacles, so it is necessary to realistically invoke the conservatism’s ideological resources. [20] Huntington’s first 30 years focused on politics, and the second 30 years focused on culture, but he always adhered to the conservative stance of realism and the major politics facing the United States and its relationship with the world. Thinking about moral aspects with social dilemmas. Perhaps it is for this reason that Huntington became the only political thinker in the United States that attracted both realists, liberals, and neoconservatives.

As an important representative of American political science after World War II, Huntington’s most memorable thing is the ideological position of this “realistic conservatism” patriot. It is also this ideological position that makes him an ideal window to truly understand the modern American ideas, nature, course, and social and political dilemmas.

(Author: Department of Political Science, Renmin University of China)

Note:

[1] Unless otherwise specified, the source of this article is Samuel Huntington: “Military and State: Politics and Theory of US Military and Political Relations”, translated by Li Wei, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2017 edition.

[2] Samuel P. Huntington, “Robust nationalism”, The National Interest, Vol.58 (1999).

[3] Michel Croce, Mian Guanzhi, Samuel Huntington: “The Crisis of Democracy”, translated by Ma Dianjun, and the Real Press, 1989 edition.

[4] Lawrence B. Joseph, “Democratic revisionism revisited”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.25 (1981).

[5] The modernist poet Eliot is an extremely important Catholic social thinker. His “The Idea of ​​a Christian Society” is only a few dozen pages, but it is considered to represent how the Catholic Church can avoid the decline of liberal society in the era of great changes. The basic proposition of fate. Thomas Stearns Eliot, Christianity and culture: The idea of ​​a Christian society and notes towards the definition of culture, Vol. 32, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1960.

[6] Samuel Huntington: The Political Order of Changing Society, translated by Zhang Yuyun, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1989.

[7] Samuel Huntington: “Changes Leading to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics”, in Cyril E. Black, eds., “Comparative Modernization,” by Yang Yu, Chen Zuzhou, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1996.

[8] Paul Pierson and Theda Skocpol, eds., The transformation of American politics: Activist government and the rise of conservatism. Princeton University Press, 2007.

[9] Samuel Huntington, “American Politics: The Unbalanced Commitment” (1981), Chinese Translation 1 “American Politics: The Unbalanced Commitment”, Zhou Duan Translation, Oriental Press, 2005 edition; Chinese translation 2, American Politics: Surging between ideal and reality, first Meng Qi, Jing Weiming translation, Xinhua Publishing House 2017 edition.

[10] Edmund Burke: The Three Books of the Americas, Selected by Yan Zhe, The Commercial Press, 2003 edition.

[11] Dorothy Ross: “The Origin of American Social Science”, translated by Wang Nan, Life, Reading, Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore, 2019 edition.

[12] Samuel Huntington: “The Third Wave: Democratization at the End of the Twentieth Century”, translated by Liu Junning, Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore, 1998 edition.

[13] Reinhold Niebuhr, The irony of American history, University of Chicago Press, 2008. First published in 1952 by Charles Scribners Sons.

[14] Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian realism and political problems, New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1949.

[15] Samuel Huntington: “The Conflict of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of the World Order”, translated by Zhou Qi, Xinhua Publishing House, 1998.

[16] Arthur Meier Schlesinger, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society, WW Norton & Company, 1992.

[17] Samuel Huntington: “Who We Are: The Challenges Faced by American National Identity” (2004), translated by Cheng Kexiong, Xinhua Press, 2005 edition.

[18] Ertu?rul Ko?, “Alchemy Revived: Fraudulent Evolution of Power Politics from Dr. Frankenstein to Dr. Huntington”, Journal of Faculty of Letters/Edebiyat Fakultesi Dergisi 26, no. 2 (2009).

[19] Eric Kaufmann, “The meaning of Huntington”, Prospect Magazine, February 28 (2009).

[20] “Samuel Huntington, 1927-2008”, https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/30/samuel-huntington-1927-2008/.