【Joe’s華爾街脈動】專題：投資者指南：再探「文明衝突論」

文化認同與地理位置，如何型塑下一個世代的全球衝突

Joe 盧, CFA | 2025年8月17日 美東時間

摘要

• 杭廷頓(Samuel Huntington)的理論指出，未來的全球衝突將源於文化差異。地緣政治學則研究地理與地方如何塑造這些文化認同。
• 他識別出八個主要文明作為全球的主要參與者。「愛其所屬」是人們對這些文明群體所感受到的深刻而自然的連結。
• 衝突的驅動因素包括持久的文化認同以及對他者的恐懼。對被另一個文明支配的恐懼，驅使國家採取行動。
• 此理論的應用體現在各個領域，從中東的衝突、烏克蘭戰爭到美中競爭。

冷戰結束後，政治學家普遍預期全球將迎來和平。他們相信，如自由民主這類後天習得的意識形態將會團結世界。然而，杭廷頓(Samuel P. Huntington)在他1996年的著作《文明衝突與世界秩序的重建》中，預測了一個令人不安的未來。他主張，未來衝突的根源將是文化性的。他相信，人們對自身家庭、社會和文明那種自然的「愛其所屬」情感，是比任何後天選擇的意識形態都更強大的力量。他斷言，戰爭將在文明之間，而非國家之間進行，而宗教將扮演核心角色。

杭廷頓的論點挑戰了1990年代的樂觀主義，當時的樂觀氛圍預期全球將普遍採納西方的自由民主。他認為，在冷戰的敵對關係之下，存在著更深層的文化斷層。資本主義西方與共產主義東方之間的衝突，不僅僅是經濟問題，其根源在於不同的文明世界觀。美國領導的西方文明基於個人主義和世俗主義，而蘇聯則是由東正教的集體主義歷史所塑造。

蘇聯的解體並非「歷史的終結」。杭廷頓警告，一個全新而複雜的文明間衝突時代即將來臨。

文明的框架

杭廷頓的理論核心在於「文明」這一概念。他將文明定義為人們擁有的最廣泛的文化認同。地理位置至關重要，共享的歷史、語言和宗教在特定的地理範圍內塑造了這些認同。文明認同遠比政治意識形態更為持久。

杭廷頓識別出他認為將塑造全球政治的八個主要文明：

• 西方文明: 包括美國、加拿大、西歐和澳洲。其歷史根植於天主教和新教，以自由的政治傳統和資本主義經濟為特徵。
• 東正教文明: 以俄羅斯為中心，包括具有東正教基督教根源的前蘇聯國家。
• 伊斯蘭文明: 橫跨北非、中東和亞洲部分地區，由伊斯蘭信仰所凝聚。
• 中華文明: 由中國主導，深受儒家文化影響，涵蓋如韓國和越南等國家。
• 印度文明: 以印度和尼泊爾為中心，反映了印度次大陸的精神信仰。
• 佛教文明: 包括泰國、緬甸和柬埔寨等國家。
• 拉丁美洲文明: 天主教、原住民文化和後殖民發展的融合體。
• 非洲文明: 在撒哈拉以南非洲一個潛在的新興文明。

杭廷頓同時也識別出「分裂國家」，如烏克蘭、土耳其和南非等。它們的文化認同在更大的文明之間分裂，此一分裂使其成為潛在的衝突熱點。

衝突的驅動因素

杭廷頓並非在鼓吹文明戰爭，而是為一個潛在的未來提供了一套描述性的假說。他概述了可能發生文明衝突的幾個關鍵原因。恐懼是比貪婪更強大的驅動力。

• 持久的認同: 文明認同是根本性的且極具韌性。
• 縮小的世界: 全球化加劇了文明之間的互動，這提高了對差異的意識並製造了摩擦。
• 宗教認同的崛起: 宗教已成為一種凝聚不同文明的跨國力量。
• 西方的支配與非西方的不滿: 西方在全球的主導地位，助長了非西方文明對自身文化遭抹除的恐懼，此恐懼驅使了反抗。
• 根深蒂固的文化: 文化特徵難以妥協，基於文化的衝突更為棘手。
• 對他者的恐懼: 對其他文明意圖的未知，驅使一個社群做出最壞的假設，此恐- 懼導致了先發制人的行動。

從文明視角看當代衝突

觀察家們指出，當代的全球衝突印證了他的論點。中東的戰爭和「全球反恐戰爭」，常被框定為西方與伊斯蘭文明之間的衝突。一些分析家將2022年俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，視為東正教的俄羅斯與西方支持的烏克蘭之間的對抗。

美國與中國之間的競爭，也被視為一場文明的衝突。這場西方與中華世界之間的衝突，橫跨了貿易、科技和意識形態。圍繞台灣的緊張局勢，被認為是可能引發更廣泛衝突的熱點。印度與巴基斯坦之間的小規模衝突，則突顯了印度教與伊斯蘭世界之間的潛在衝突。

批評與反駁

杭廷頓的論點同時也面臨諸多批評。一個主要的批評是，該理論過度簡化了全球政治與文化。批評者認為，此理論助長了「我們 vs. 他們」的心態，此一看法鼓勵決策者透過文明的濾鏡來看待世界。

該理論也面臨本質主義的指控，即將文明視為鐵板一塊，而忽略了其內部的多樣性。兩伊戰爭和敘利亞內戰皆表明，文明內部的衝突同樣殘酷。該理論也忽略了階級的劃分，一個文明中富裕的、具國際主義思想的菁英，與另一個文明的菁英之間的共同點，往往多於他們與自己國家中較貧窮、更具國族主義思想的人民。

一些學者認為，杭廷頓的框架正當化了西方的霸權，在共產主義垮台後，創造了一個新的「敵人」，以合理化其軍事主導地位。該理論對世界的分類方式，也因其武斷而受到批評。

世界秩序是否已然重建？

杭廷頓的《文明衝突》是理解後冷戰世界一個備受爭議的框架。他對文化認同以及文明板塊間潛在摩擦的分析，在今日仍能引起共鳴。國家與個人的時間尺度不同，國家以「世代」和「世紀」來計算，而個人則以「年」和「十年」來計算。

世界並未匯流成單一的全球文明，但也並非注定要發生災難性的文明戰爭。全球政治的未來，將由文明內部及文明之間的合作與競爭共同塑造。他的著作提醒我們，根深蒂固的文化和宗教認同，在21世紀仍將是一股強大的力量。一個文明意識的時代已然來臨。

👍若您覺得這份研究有價值，請對本文按讚。

📲加入並追蹤鉅亨號，與我們互動，即可獲取更多趨勢指標和市場資訊。

📰追蹤此部落格。

💬LINE好友。

➡️將此分析分享給您的親朋好友，一同獲取最新投資觀點。

本電子報僅供參考，不構成任何證券或資產類別的投資建議或買賣推薦。文中所表達的觀點為作者截至發布日期的觀點，如有變動，恕不另行通知。所呈現的資訊乃基於從相信可靠的來源所獲取的數據，但其準確性、完整性和及時性不作保證。過往表現並非未來結果的指標。投資涉及風險，包括可能損失本金。讀者在做出任何投資決策前，應諮詢其財務顧問。作者及相關實體可能持有本文所討論的資產或資產類別的部位。

The Clash of Civilizations Revisited

How cultural identity and geography are shaping the next era of global conflict.

By Joe 盧, CFA | 08/17/2025

Executive Summary

• Samuel Huntington's theory states future global conflicts will stem from cultural differences. Geopolitics studies how geography and place shape these cultural identities.
• He identified eight major civilizations as the main global actors. The "love of one's own" is the deep, natural bond people feel for these civilizational groups.
• Conflict drivers include durable cultural identities and a fear of the other. Fear of domination by another civilization drives nations to act.
• You see the theory applied in various areas, from conflict in the Middle East, to the war in Ukraine and the U.S.-China competition.

Political scientists expected global peace after the Cold War. They believed acquired ideologies like liberal democracy would unite the world. Samuel P. Huntington predicted an unsettling future in his 1996 book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order." He argued the source of future conflict would be cultural. He believed the natural "love of one's own" family, community, and civilization was a stronger force than any chosen ideology. Wars, he contended, would be fought between civilizations, not nations. Religion would play a central role.

Huntington’s thesis challenged the optimism of the 1990s. This optimism anticipated a global adoption of Western liberal democracy. He argued deeper cultural fault lines existed below Cold War rivalries. The conflict between the capitalist West and the communist East was not about economics alone. The conflict had roots in different civilizational worldviews. The United States leads Western civilization, which is grounded in individualism and secularism. The Soviet Union was shaped by a history of Eastern Orthodox collectivism.

The Soviet Union's collapse was not the "end of history." Huntington warned of a new, complex era of inter-civilizational conflict.

The Civilizational Framework

Huntington’s theory centers on the "civilization" concept. He defined a civilization as the broadest level of cultural identity people possess. Place is critical. Shared history, language, and religion shape these identities within a specific geography. Civilizational identities are more enduring than political ideologies.

Huntington identified eight major civilizations he believed would shape global politics:

• Western Civilization: Includes the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Australia. Its history is rooted in Catholicism and Protestantism. Liberal political traditions and capitalist economies characterize Western Civilization.
• Orthodox Civilization: Centered in Russia. Includes former Soviet states with Eastern Orthodox Christian roots.
• Islamic Civilization: Spans North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. The Islamic faith unites this civilization.
• Sinic Civilization: Dominated by China. Influenced by Confucian culture. Encompasses nations like Korea and Vietnam.
• Hindu Civilization: Centered on India and Nepal. Reflects the spiritual beliefs of the Indian subcontinent.
• Buddhist Civilization: Includes nations such as Thailand, Myanmar, and Cambodia.
• Latin American Civilization: A blend of Catholicism, indigenous cultures, and post-colonial development.
• African Civilization: A potential emerging civilization in sub-Saharan Africa.

Huntington also identified "cleft nations." Ukraine, Turkey, and South Africa are examples. Their cultural identities are divided between larger civilizations. This division makes them potential conflict flashpoints.

The Drivers of the Clash

Huntington did not advocate for civilizational war. He offered a descriptive hypothesis of a potential future. He outlined key reasons for likely civilizational clashes. Fear is a greater motivator than greed.

• Enduring Identities: Civilizational identities are fundamental and resilient.
• A Shrinking World: Globalization intensifies interactions between civilizations. This heightens awareness of differences and creates friction.
• The Rise of Religious Identity: Religion has emerged as a transnational force unifying civilizations.
• Western Dominance and Resentment: The West's global dominance fuels a fear of cultural erasure among non-Western civilizations. This fear drives resistance.
• Immutable Culture: Cultural characteristics are difficult to compromise. Conflicts based on culture are more intractable.
• Fear of the Other: The unknown intentions of other civilizations drive a community to assume the worst. This fear leads to pre-emptive action.

Contemporary Conflicts Through a Civilizational Lens

Observers point to contemporary global conflicts as evidence of his thesis. Wars in the Middle East and the "global war on terror" are often framed as a clash between Western and Islamic civilizations. Some analysts view the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a confrontation between Orthodox Russia and a Western-backed Ukraine.

The competition between the United States and China is viewed as a civilizational clash. This clash between the West and the Sinic world spans trade, technology, and ideology. Tensions over Taiwan are cited as a potential flashpoint for a wider conflict. Skirmishes between India and Pakistan highlight potential conflict between the Hindu and Islamic worlds.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Huntington's thesis has faced significant criticism. A main critique is that the theory oversimplifies global politics and cultures. Critics argue the theory promotes an "us versus them" mentality. This view encourages policymakers to see the world through a civilizational lens.

The theory faces accusations of essentialism. The theory presents civilizations as monolithic and ignores internal diversity. The Iran-Iraq War and the Syrian Civil War demonstrate intra-civilizational conflicts are brutal. The theory also overlooks class divisions. The wealthy, internationalist elites of one civilization often have more in common with elites from another than they do with the poorer, more nationalist people of their own country.

Some scholars argue Huntington's framework justifies Western hegemony. The framework creates a new "enemy" after communism's fall to rationalize military dominance. The theory's categorization of the world receives criticism for being arbitrary.

A World Remade?

Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is a debated framework for understanding the post-Cold War world. His analysis of cultural identity and potential friction between civilizational blocs resonates today. Nations and individuals run on different clocks. Nations count in generations and centuries. Individuals count in years and decades.

The world is not converging into a single global civilization. The world is also not destined for cataclysmic civilizational wars. The future of global politics will be shaped by cooperation and competition, both within and between civilizations. His work is a reminder that deep-seated cultural and religious identities will continue to be a force in the 21st century. An age of civilizational awareness is upon us.

👍'Like' this article if you found this research valuable.

📲 Join our private channels to get more trend indicators and market information delivered directly to you. Choose your preferred channel to stay informed.

📰Follow this blog.

💬Connect with us on LINE.

➡️Share this analysis to someone in your network who appreciates a data-driven perspective.

This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. The views expressed are those of the author as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Information presented is based on data obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy, completeness, and timeliness are not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should consult with their own financial advisors before making any investment decisions. The author and associated entities may hold positions in the assets or asset classes discussed herein.

立即加入《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》LINE@官方帳號，獲得最新專欄資訊（點此加入）

關於《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》

鉅亨網特別邀請到擁有逾 22 年美國投資圈資歷、CFA 認證的機構操盤人 Joseph Lu 擔任專欄主筆。
Joe 為台裔美國人，曾管理超過百億美元規模的基金資產，並為總資產高達數千億美元的多家頂級金融機構提供資產配置優化建議。
Joe 目前帶領著由美國頂尖大學教授與博士組成的精英團隊，透過獨家開發的 "趨勢脈動 TrendFolios® 指標"，為台灣投資人深度解析全球市場脈動，提供美股市場第一手專業觀點，協助投資人掌握先機。