“Reality itself was becoming unrealistic.”

After the pandemic, the world suddenly lurched toward a strangely psychedelic direction.

Wars that seemed confined to history books began appearing on the front pages of the news.

Samuel Huntington attributed all of this to a clash of civilizations. He argued that the post–Cold War world is composed of seven or eight major civilizations: Western, Sinic, Indian, Japanese, Islamic, Orthodox, Latin American, and possibly African. In this view, the primary actors in international politics are no longer individual nation-states, but the core states of these civilizations.

At first glance, this explanation seems persuasive. The Russia–Ukraine war appears to pit Russian-speaking, Orthodox Eastern Ukraine (and Russia) against Ukrainian-speaking, Catholic/Protestant Western Ukraine (and the Western world). The chaos in the Middle East seems like the Islamic world versus the West. The U.S.–China rivalry looks like a struggle between Sinic civilization and Western civilization.

But I think “the clash of civilizations” is a surface phenomenon, not the essence. And it’s easy to challenge. A simple thought experiment is enough:

If all other civilizations suddenly vanished, and their lands sank into the sea, would the remaining civilization achieve some harmonious utopia?

Obviously not.

If only Western Christian civilization were left…

Just think of the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, and the two World Wars. Peace would be a luxury; they have never hesitated to fight “their own.”

If only the Islamic civilization were left…

Consider the two early Islamic civil wars, the Abbasid Revolution, the Iran–Iraq War, the Ottoman–Persian conflicts, and endless Sunni–Shia strife. They would still fight each other fiercely.

If only the Chinese civilization were left…

Well—if the world had only Chinese cuisine, people would immediately argue about whether Korean or Singaporean food counts as Chinese, or whether Cantonese, Sichuanese, or Hong Kong–style cuisine is the “best.”

Look at it from the other side:

If Trisolarans or aliens invaded Earth, all these civilizations would naturally unify into a single human civilization.

So the “clash of civilizations” is ultimately a false proposition. It is merely the appearance of conflict arising from geopolitics, ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic interests—essentially a scapegoat. When people face crises of identity, what matters is bloodline, belief, loyalty, and family. We cluster with those who share our ancestry, religion, language, values, and institutions, and distance ourselves from those who differ.

Civilizational differences may indeed intensify or facilitate many conflicts, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient causes. They are only one factor among many—and in some cases, civilizational differences may even help prevent conflict.

Every person carries multiple identities that may compete or reinforce one another: kinship, profession, culture, political system, region, education, party affiliation, ideology, and more. Any identity is defined through its relation to “others.” The roots of conflict lie largely in competing claims over people, territory, wealth, resources, and relative power.

According to social psychology’s theory of distinctiveness, individuals define themselves by what differentiates them in a given context: