Critics (for example articles in Le Monde Diplomatique ) call The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order the theoretical legitimization of American-caused Western aggression against China and the world's Islamic and Orthodox cultures. Other critics argue that Huntington's taxonomy is simplistic and arbitrary, and does not take account of the internal dynamics and partisan tensions within civilizations. Furthermore, critics argue that Huntington neglects ideological mobilization by elites and unfulfilled socioeconomic needs of the population as the real causal factors driving conflict, that he ignores conflicts that do not fit well with the civilizational borders identified by him, and they charge that his new paradigm is nothing but realist thinking in which "states" became replaced by "civilizations".  Huntington's influence upon . policy has been likened to that of British historian Arnold Toynbee 's controversial religious theories about Asian leaders during the early twentieth century.
JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital
technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways.
©2000-2017 ITHAKA. All Rights Reserved. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA.
They have added several business lines since. The biggest one is CRDN, a franchise operation specializing in cleaning textiles damaged in fires, floods and the like. CRDN gets paid by insurance companies for restoring clothes, drapes, area rugs, teddy bears and linens.
This article is based on a 2008 piece on the website of the American Interest and the preface to the 2006 edition of Political Order in Changing Societies .