Zaher Baher
Sep 2026
This article argues that conflicts arise mainly from power, domination, political and economic interests, and the systems that turn human differences into division and violence. From an anarchist perspective, it calls for mutual understanding, cultural exchange, international solidarity, and the creation of free societies and communities beyond state power and hierarchy.
The phrase “culture clash” has been around for a long time, but the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon made the idea even more prominent. On the same day, George W. Bush Jr. said, “Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our freedom itself came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly acts of terrorism.”
The idea of the “clash of cultures” later became more commonly known as the “clash of civilizations.” The idea became widely known after Samuel P. Huntington wrote an article in 1993 titled The Clash of Civilizations. In 1996, he expanded the article into a book. Huntington argued that post-Cold War conflicts would be driven more by cultural and religious differences than by ideological or economic differences.
George W. Bush’s announcement on the day of the September 2001 attacks marked the beginning of, or a leap towards, a different view and interpretation that could be used as an excuse to look at different cultures as desired. To the extent that the attacks were interpreted as a clash between different national cultures that did not like Americans. In Britain, it was interpreted as an attack on our way of life.
It was during the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that many politicians, journalists, and analysts became more familiar with the term “clash of civilizations” and began to talk about relations between the West and parts of the Muslim world, interpreting the attacks as a clash between them. Others, however, argued that this interpretation oversimplified complex political, historical, and economic issues.
Undoubtedly, differences between nations, ethnic minorities, and communities, as well as differences between tribes, give rise to different cultures. These cultural differences may sometimes seem unfamiliar or strange to people from other cultures and may give rise to either positive or negative reactions, depending on how they are understood.
When the concept of “cultural clashes” is used widely, and takes on an elastic form, it becomes subject to different criticisms and analyses. At the same time, many people have criticised the view that cultural differences inevitably lead to conflict. They argue that conflicts are not the inevitable outcome of cultural differences.
Today, the system, through states, authorities, official media, social media, the ruling class, and the elite, does not listen to these criticisms. Instead, it imposes its own views and interests through laws and legal provisions, while misleading people and preventing them from recognising the reality of domination. It is obvious that the system, with the state as one of its main pillars, takes advantage of divisions among people based on language, colour, skin, culture, and traditions, and treats them according to its own interests. However, language is important in expressing ideas and communicating with others. At the same time, language has sometimes been used to justify domination and exclusion. We hear this every day from those who benefit from the system, including politicians, statesmen, intellectuals, and journalists, and we can see how they use language to serve their own interests.
There may be no doubt that the term “clash of cultures” has been used in Britain to describe the arrogance of the British establishment and the sense of cultural inferiority that some people in other nations may feel in relation to Britain’s dominant cultural and political position. This sentiment can be understood in the context of Britain’s imperial political background. However, the issue is not simply one of cultural differences or feelings of inferiority. It is also closely connected to power, who holds it, and how it is used by dominant states and ruling establishments.
I think British institutions are extremely clever and do not use concepts or terms without a flexible meaning. That is, words and terms can be interpreted in either a positive or a negative way. However, because Britain was once a powerful imperialist and colonialist power, I believe that, in their use of such concepts and terms, they often intend the negative interpretation. In other words, they use language in ways that can create divisions, justify domination, or present other cultures and societies as inferior.
Evidence of the above opinion can be seen in the use of the term “naturalisation.” The process of “naturalisation” applies when refugees come to the UK and are granted asylum. After a period of indefinite leave to remain, they may become entitled to apply for British citizenship. The process they go through is called “naturalisation.”
Defenders of the term argue that the word “naturalisation” does not mean that a person was “unnaturalised” before becoming a citizen. Its meaning comes from legal history, not from the ordinary meaning of the word “natural.” They say that naturalisation is the legal process by which a person who was not a citizen at birth acquires the same legal status later in life. Many legal scholars and governments also retain the term, supposedly not intending to make a judgment about a person’s values, identity, or humanity, but because it has an internationally established technical meaning.
It is true that, in everyday English conversation, the word “natural” means something normal or occurring naturally. However, the term “naturalisation” can carry a different implication when used in relation to refugees and citizenship. As refugees go through the naturalisation process, some people may interpret the term as suggesting that refugees only become “natural” or properly accepted as people in the UK after obtaining British citizenship. In this sense, the term can unintentionally or deliberately create a distinction between those who are regarded as naturally belonging to the country and those who are not.
Here I am talking about the term “culture clash,” which is based on cultural differences between nations. This would indicate conflict or misunderstanding between people from different cultural backgrounds. However, it can also be understood as an opportunity to understand the history and identity of different cultures.
When there is no understanding of other cultures, whether due to a lack of knowledge or deliberate ignorance, intense debate, anger, confrontation, and conflict can prevail and replace dialogue and understanding. What may be nothing more than a misunderstanding can therefore develop into difficulties or conflict.
Of course, there are some social or religious norms, such as ignoring women’s rights, inequality, forced marriage, child marriage, female genital mutilation, and opposition to homosexual and transgender people. These issues must be confronted, but not through violence or war. Certainly, when such customs and traditions are practised by some communities in countries such as the United Kingdom and other European countries, they can create tensions between these customs and the established customs, traditions, and social norms of those countries.
The failure to distinguish between genuine cultural conflict and misunderstandings of different cultures can make cultural conflict appear inevitable or impossible to overcome. This can be used to mislead people into believing that differences between cultures must necessarily lead to hostility or conflict. Politically, such misunderstandings can also be exploited to justify hostility, discrimination, and even violent conflict.
In contrast, talking about “understanding each other’s cultures” should emphasise dialogue, learning, and mutual respect, and encourage people to understand different customs or beliefs before judging them. Not understanding another culture highlights the need for education and communication. Respectful dialogue and a willingness to understand others can reduce prejudice and lack of knowledge about different cultures, and therefore reduce the risk of conflict. This does not mean that people have to agree on every value or custom. It is possible to deeply understand another culture while still disagreeing with some of its customs or beliefs. This itself would indicate understanding between people from different cultural backgrounds.
Can this problem be solved in the shadow of this system?
First of all, I must say that the phrase “clash of civilisations” has been interpreted in both positive and negative ways. The September 2001 attacks had a very negative impact on the way relations between different cultural and religious communities were perceived, particularly in the United States and elsewhere. However, this does not mean that all communities reacted in the same way. At the same time, many voices rejected hostility and discrimination and called instead for greater dialogue, mutual understanding, peaceful coexistence, and solidarity between different communities. The problem is that the word “clash” itself can suggest conflict and confrontation, and in some contexts even violence. It does not necessarily encourage people to think first about dialogue, understanding, or collaboration. Therefore, when politicians or the media use the phrase without explaining what they mean by it, it can reinforce fear, suspicion, and hostility towards other cultures or communities.
When it comes to changing the term “clash of cultures” to another expression, many leftists, politicians, and scholars believe that changing the name alone is not enough. If governments, the media, or political movements continue to portray other cultures as the enemy, a new term may eventually acquire the same negative connotation. In other words, both the language we use and the way we use it matter.
They argue that more clarification is needed and that, in many contexts, a less confrontational term is preferable. A concept should describe reality as accurately as possible without implying that conflict is natural or inevitable.
It is a fact that language reflects how people think, and terms that suggest inevitable hostility can contribute, especially during periods of political tension, to generating belligerence and, in some cases, support for war. However, changing the wording alone cannot eliminate these risks, even if it is accompanied by more detailed explanations and responsible public discussion. Doing so may blur the issue to some extent, but it does not eradicate it.
Therefore, the answer to this question depends on the political views and perspectives of those addressing it. Many leftists and reformists have brought the term “clash of cultures” into mainstream public and political debate, mostly in the way I described above. For them, overcoming the problem depends on taking political power, changing the state, and establishing a democratic state that represents the whole population. In their view, the issue would then become a concern of the state and its institutions, creating opportunities for negotiation, mutual learning, and peaceful coexistence.
In my opinion, the problem is not just the terms, nor can it be removed simply through a change of political power or the state. It is also about how we understand the relationship between different cultures and peoples. From an anarchist perspective, there is no reason to assume that large, stable entities described as “civilisations” will not come into very violent conflict with each other. Having said that, however, this does not mean that we should overlook the importance of the relationships between people and communities, or the concerns that arise from them. In other words, it does not mean that all civilizations are naturally in conflict. There are undoubtedly Muslims who oppose Islamic authoritarianism, just as there are Westerners who oppose Western imperialism. There are also Muslims and Westerners who cooperate and live peacefully with each other.
I believe it may be more appropriate to replace the term “clash of different cultures or civilisations” with “conflict of power and interest.” Who can deny that the cultures of some Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Gulf states, and others, are very different from those of the United States, Britain, and other European countries? Yet cultural differences do not necessarily lead to violence or war. Countries with very different cultures can cooperate when their political and economic interests coincide. Whenever there is a serious conflict of interests or another major political dispute, however, their relationships can develop into a struggle for power and control, which in some circumstances may lead to war. At the same time, cultural differences can be used or presented as a justification for hostility, conflict, or war, even when the underlying causes are political, economic, or related to power and interests.
Human differences do not inevitably produce conflict. Conflict arises when differences develop into hostility between people as a result of systems of power, domination, supremacy, competition, and intolerance.
At this stage, while the state, class differences, and hierarchical society continue to exist, the anarchist struggle can include reducing the structures of power that turn differences and relationships between people into means of pursuing self-interest, domination, hostility, and violence. In other words, the task of the anarchist struggle today must be to encourage the creation of free societies and communities, cultural exchange, and individual independence and autonomy.
The struggle must be against power and the state in all its forms, and for international solidarity, rather than what is called today civilisation, nationalism, state power, military conflict and competition, hierarchical society, and religious or ideological power.
پێویستە لە ژوورەوە بیت تا سەرنج بنێریت.