Huntington Vs Fukuyama Analysis

Francis Fukuyama and Samuel P. Huntington, both political scientists, wrote pieces on world civilizations and ideals. These two political scientists both had very different ideas on how world civilizations and ideals will continue. They argue the points on the future of international conflict among the nations and they question if there is a way of peace among nations in the future or if it is truly the “end of history.” The end of history is not a new idea, the idea originally began with Karl Marx, who believed that the direction of historical development was determined by the interplay of material forces, and would come to an end only with the achievement of a communist utopia that would finally resolve all prior contradictions (Fukuyama …show more content…
I liked Huntington’s argument better because it seemed more relatable to today’s time. Even though Western civilization has been around for a long time and it could fall at any point in time, Huntington makes the point that a new civilization will rise up in time, maybe not right away but eventually, just like history has proven. Fukuyama doesn’t prove a good a point on this topic to me; he just says that Western civilization will end and then it will be the end of history. Huntington goes to disprove this point of Fukuyama by stating past historical events like the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire to name a few examples. Fukuyama and Huntington both gave very valid points that cultural identities are central to civilizations and it isn’t just the ideas in the government or politics that shape civilizations, but they play a key role in that idea making process. Fukuyama seemed to do a better job expressing these key ideas in the material world that play an influence in ideas. Fukuyama gave examples of religion, art, culture and philosophy and went on to explain how they play a key role in determining the ideology of a civilization. Huntington did a fair job of doing this but I did feel Fukuyama’s argument was better. Finally, I did like Huntington’s argument much better than Fukuyama’s argument on the issue of violence and war. Fukuyama makes the point that violence would still ensue, but it would be of ethnic and national violence, not war of large states which he says seem to be passing from the scene. I believe that violence would still ensue on an international level because of differences between civilizations and the ideologies of the states. Huntington has a very similar point as I believe, he makes the point that war would happen if states disagree on civilization’s and would want to intervene causing a major war. He poses that the problem of why nations disagree on