The clash or cooperation of civilizations? Current reviews of Huntington’s theory from western specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article dwells on an issue-based thematic review of recent publications devoted to the civilizational approach of S. Huntington and his “clash of civilizations” theory in American, Canadian, British, Spanish and French academic journals, covered in the Scopus database. The author characterizes five main aspects of these articles in the context of the “Russian Civilizational Development Project”, including the interpretation of the facts of inter-civilizational cooperation. As a result of the content analysis, the author divides the studies into several groups according to the type of fundamental factors considered as principal sources of modern international clashes and conflicts, such as: political and economic interests of states, strengthening of the national identity of the American population, affiliation with Orthodox civilization. Two special groups include studies, in which authors positively assess S. Huntington’s theory, but do not share his civilizational grouping of countries and offer their own classification; as well as the original empirical research on the perception of modern countries and its coalition formation by modern youth. With the aim to analyze inter-civilizational cooperation, the author examines the collective work “Clash or cooperation of civilizations?” in which scientists from different countries justify their points of view on the current state on international scene in the context of Huntington’s theory. The results of the analytical review, obtained during the semi-formalized assessment using six author’s variables, indicate that experts from different countries put forward arguments for and against the “clash of civilizations” concept. The academic community agrees that civilizational differences play an important role in the emergence of military conflicts, but do not assign priority to civilizational issues, considering political and economic interests of states as the root cause of modern international conflicts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".