imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (138 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ''by [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]]
| | <small> |
| | | ==Footnotes== |
| ----
| |
| <noinclude>'''''The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order'''''</noinclude><includeonly>'''[[The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order]]'''</includeonly> is an influential and controversial book on [[grand strategy]], [[international relations]] and world futures, by the late political scientist [[Samuel Huntington]]. He does not rigorously define an abstraction of a [[civilization]], but uses examples, although in a ''[[Foreign Affairs (magazine)|Foreign Affairs]]'' article he called a civilization "the highest cultural grouping and the broadest level of cultural identity short of that which distinguishes humans from other species."<noinclude><ref name=Huntington-FA>{{citation
| |
| |title= The Clash of Civilizations?
| |
| | date = Summer 1993
| |
| | url = http://uniset.ca/terr/news/fgnaff_huntingtonclash.html
| |
| | journal = [[Foreign Affairs (magazine)|Foreign Affairs]]
| |
| | author = [[Samuel Huntington|Samuel P. Huntington]]}}</ref></noinclude>
| |
| | |
| In the book, the chief premise is
| |
| <blockquote>that culture and cultural identifies, which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration and culture in the post-[[Cold War]] world.<noinclude><ref name=Huntington-1996>{{cite book
| |
| | title = The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
| |
| | author = [[Samuel Huntington|Samuel P. Huntington]]
| |
| | publisher= Simon & Schuster
| |
| | year = 1996
| |
| | ISBN-10 = 0684811642
| |
| }},p. 20</ref></blockquote> | |
| | |
| It takes a darker view than some alternative models, such as that of [[Thomas P.M. Barnett]] in ''[[The Pentagon's New Map]]'',<noinclude><ref name=Barnett>{{cite book
| |
| | author = Barnett, Thomas P.M.
| |
| | title = The Pentagon's New Map: The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century
| |
| | publisher = Berkley Trade
| |
| | year = 2005
| |
| | ISBN-10 = 0425202399
| |
| }}</ref></noinclude> suggesting that major conflict is likely; "avoidance of a global war of civilization depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multicivilizational character of global politics." He bases this on five corollaries to the central theme: | |
| #Global politics is multipolar and multicivilizational; [[modernization (cultural)|modernization]] is distinct from [[Westernization]]
| |
| #"The balance of power among civilizations is shifting; the West is declining in relative influence"
| |
| #"A civilization-based world order is emerging; societies sharing cultural affinities cooperate with each other; efforts to shift societies from one civilization to another are unsuccessful
| |
| #"The West's universalist pretentions increasingly bring it into conflict with other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China"
| |
| #"The survival of the West depends on Americans reaffirming their Western identity and Westerners accepting their civilization as unique not universal"
| |
| | |
| He rejects [[globalization]] as being neither necessary nor desirable.</onlyinclude> He specifically rejects the [[The End of History and the Last Man|"end of history"]] model of his student, [[Francis Fukuyama]]:<blockquote>we may be witnessing..the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.<ref name=FukuyamaEnd>{{citation
| |
| | author = [[Francis Fukuyama]]
| |
| | journal = [[The National Interest]]
| |
| | title = The End of History
| |
| | volume = 16
| |
| | date = Summer 1989
| |
| | issue = 4 }}, p. 18</ref></blockquote> Note that Fukuyama has sometimes been strongly identified with [[neoconservatism]], which has this ideal of liberal democracy, although his position keeps evolving.
| |
| | |
| ''[[The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
The Mathare Valley slum near Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009.
Poverty is deprivation based on lack of material resources. The concept is value-based and political. Hence its definition, causes and remedies (and the possibility of remedies) are highly contentious.[1] The word poverty may also be used figuratively to indicate a lack, instead of material goods or money, of any kind of quality, as in a poverty of imagination.
Definitions
Primary and secondary poverty
The use of the terms primary and secondary poverty dates back to Seebohm Rowntree, who conducted the second British survey to calculate the extent of poverty. This was carried out in York and was published in 1899. He defined primary poverty as having insufficient income to “obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency”. In secondary poverty, the income “would be sufficient for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency were it not that some portion of it is absorbed by some other expenditure.” Even with these rigorous criteria he found that 9.9% of the population was in primary poverty and a further 17.9% in secondary.[2]
Absolute and comparative poverty
More recent definitions tend to use the terms absolute and comparative poverty. Absolute is in line with Rowntree's primary poverty, but comparative poverty is usually expressed in terms of ability to play a part in the society in which a person lives. Comparative poverty will thus vary from one country to another.[3] The difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that a recession can actually reduce "poverty".
Causes of poverty
The causes of poverty most often considered are:
- Character defects
- An established “culture of poverty”, with low expectations handed down from one generation to another
- Unemployment
- Irregular employment, and/or low pay
- Position in the life cycle (see below) and household size
- Disability
- Structural inequality, both within countries and between countries. (R H Tawney: “What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice a problem of riches”)[4]
As noted above, most of these, or the extent to which they can be, or should be changed, are matters of heated controversy.
- ↑ Alcock, P. Understanding poverty. Macmillan. 1997. ch 1.
- ↑ Harris, B. The origins of the British welfare state. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Also, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- ↑ Alcock, Pt II
- ↑ Alcock, Preface to 1st edition and pt III.
