Do civilizations really clash? A teen’s perspective on Huntington’s Theory.

When I first heard the phrase “The Clash of Civilizations,” I immediatly imagined ancient empires at war and cultures rising against each other in an endless conflict. But this wasn’t just history, it was a theory by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who believed that after the Cold War, our greatest conflicts would come not from politics or economics, but from cultural and religious differences.

In his view, the world is divided into big "civilizations": Western, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Latin American, African, and a few others. According to Huntington, these civilizations don’t just coexist, but they often compete over identity, values, and influence.

At first, this theory seems powerful and true. After all, when we look at global tensions: immigration debates, wars, rising nationalism, it can feel like cultures are in fact clashing. But here’s what anthropology teaches us: culture isn’t fixed. We’re not locked inside civilizations like cages. Culture is fluid and it moves, mixes, and changes. No person can be reduced to a single “civilization.”

As a teenager who has lived between Italy and the U.S., traveled, and spoken different languages, I see the opposite of this clash. I see connection. I’ve lived with people who speak entirely different languages. I’ve shared stories with strangers whose beliefs are different from mine. These experiences didn’t create fear, they created understanding.

That’s why I believe the real problem isn’t a clash of civilizations, but a lack of curiosity. When we don’t take the time to understand another’s story, we reduce them to a label. But anthropology invites us to do the opposite: to listen, to ask, and to reflect.

So, do civilizations clash? Sometimes. But maybe they don’t have to.

Sofia Agostinelli.