Samuel Huntington – World Citizen Theory

Must Cultural Identity Determine Political Belonging?

Imagine someone attending a ceremony to become a citizen of the country they now call home.

The applicant has satisfied the legal requirements. But one final act remains: shaking hands with a public official.

What if the applicant refuses because of a religious conviction?

Should a gesture of greeting determine whether someone can become a citizen?

In Denmark, this is not merely hypothetical. Since January 2019, applicants covered by the country’s citizenship ceremony rules have generally been required to shake hands with a municipal representative. Certain exemptions apply.

Some people regard the handshake as an expression of equality and mutual respect. Others question whether a particular social custom should determine access to citizenship.

The disagreement raises a larger question.

How much of a society’s culture must someone adopt to become a political equal?

Samuel Huntington’s work on civilizations and national identity provides an important starting point.

Why Huntington Thought Culture Matters

In "The Clash of Civilizations?" (1993) and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), Huntington argued that cultural differences would become increasingly important in international politics.

The Cold War had ended. He expected religion, language, history, and cultural identity to play a greater role in international alliances and conflicts.

He did not suggest that every conflict could be explained by civilization. Nor did he regard individual identities as permanently fixed.

His argument challenged the expectation that economic modernization and international exchange would eventually make societies culturally alike.

People can trade and cooperate while continuing to disagree about religion, authority, and political values.

The World Citizen framework does not require these differences to disappear.

Indeed, meaningful political-community choice would lose some of its significance if every community had to become identical.

But Huntington’s civilization theory concerned international relations. It was not a proposal for deciding which individuals should legally receive citizenship.

His later work, however, examined national identity and cultural assimilation much more directly.

The Culture Behind the American Creed

In Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004), Huntington examined what had historically held Americans together.

He identified several elements of American identity, including race, ethnicity, culture, and political principles commonly called the American Creed—ideas such as liberty, equality, individual rights, and limited government.

He acknowledged that racial and ethnic definitions had largely lost their former legitimacy.

Yet he doubted whether these shared political principles alone could preserve American national identity without the culture from which they had developed.

What did he mean by that culture?

In his 2004 essay "One Nation, Out of Many," Huntington explicitly included "the Christian religion" and "Protestant values" among its central elements. He also emphasized the English language, individualism, the work ethic, British traditions of law and limited government, and Europe’s cultural inheritance.

Huntington regarded this Anglo-Protestant cultural tradition as a historical foundation of American national identity.

He worried that weakening it could threaten national cohesion. His concerns included multiculturalism, declining national identification, and immigration, particularly from Latin America.

His arguments were controversial. Critics challenged his interpretation of immigrant integration and the importance he assigned to Anglo-Protestant culture.

One distinction, however, is necessary.

Huntington did not argue that only people of British ancestry or Protestant faith could adopt America’s core culture. He believed its values and practices could be learned by people from different backgrounds.

His concern was whether immigrants would adopt that historically established culture.

This brings us to the question of political membership.

Must someone adopt a community’s inherited cultural tradition to become its political equal?

Creed, Culture, or Residence?

In the previous essay, we considered Francis Fukuyama’s defense of an inclusive national identity.

Fukuyama emphasizes shared democratic principles and civic commitments. Huntington places greater importance on the culture that historically supported those principles.

The World Citizen framework begins from another relationship: durable residence under a shared political order.

These are not three competing citizenship laws. They are different ways of understanding what connects individuals to political communities.

Fukuyama asks how shared civic values can sustain liberal democracy.

Huntington asks how national identity can survive cultural change.

Resident Sovereignty asks what should provide the ordinary basis for becoming a political member.

Its principle is:

Durable residence, rather than inherited nationality, is the primary basis of ordinary political membership.

This does not mean residence is the only relevant connection. Nor does it require immediate full membership upon arrival.

But sufficiently durable residence must create a meaningful route toward full political membership.

Learning a public language or understanding democratic institutions may be legitimate parts of that process.

The difficult question is whether a community can go further and demand adoption of the majority’s religious or cultural identity.

People already belonging to a democracy disagree about religion, history, and national traditions.

Why should newcomers have to agree on matters about which existing citizens remain free to disagree?

When Culture Becomes a Citizenship Requirement

Return to Denmark’s citizenship ceremony.

Applicants covered by the requirement must sign a declaration respecting the constitution and basic Danish values. They must also shake hands with a municipal representative.

The two acts are different.

One concerns a formal commitment to constitutional principles. The other involves a particular way of greeting someone.

For many people, a handshake is an ordinary sign of mutual respect. For others, physical contact may raise religious or personal objections.

Does refusing a handshake necessarily demonstrate unwillingness to respect democratic government?

There are arguments on both sides. Supporters may see the requirement as a public demonstration of equality, while critics may question whether equality requires everyone to follow the same form of greeting.

The law does not mean Denmark demands complete cultural assimilation. It is one requirement within a wider process of becoming a citizen, and certain exemptions exist.

Nor should this Danish policy be attributed to Huntington. It is an independent example of a broader problem.

The example shows how a cultural practice can become a legal condition of citizenship.

A political community may legitimately expect newcomers to respect common democratic institutions. But when it requires a particular social custom, it should be able to explain why that custom is necessary for political membership.

Otherwise, the difference between respecting democratic principles and following the majority’s cultural practices becomes difficult to maintain.

Does Democracy Require Cultural Unity?

Huntington’s concern with solidarity should not be dismissed.

Democratic institutions need cooperation. People must contribute to common purposes, respect laws, and accept decisions they may oppose.

Shared language and familiar civic practices can make these tasks easier.

But that does not mean a society needs cultural uniformity.

A common language can help people take part in democratic debate without replacing the languages they speak at home.

Respect for constitutional rights does not require sharing the majority’s religion.

And people can cooperate through schools, workplaces, and public institutions without having the same ancestry.

The important distinction is between shared practices needed for democratic cooperation and cultural characteristics that the majority prefers.

That distinction is not always easy to draw.

A language requirement, for example, may help people participate in public institutions. But if the standard is unnecessarily demanding, it may also exclude people who have already established enduring lives in the community.

Similarly, civic education may help newcomers understand democratic government. It need not become a test of agreement with every interpretation of national history.

Cultural similarity does not guarantee political harmony. People sharing the same traditions may disagree deeply about public policy.

Conversely, people from different backgrounds may cooperate successfully under institutions they regard as fair.

The World Citizen framework does not assume that diversity automatically produces solidarity.

It asks whether solidarity can develop through common institutions without making inherited cultural identity a permanent condition of political equality.

For long-term residents, that question is especially important.

They may depend on the community’s institutions, obey its laws, and share responsibility for its future while maintaining a different cultural identity.

That difference alone should not make them permanent political outsiders.

Political Belonging Beyond Cultural Boundaries

A person may retain the language, religion, and traditions inherited from family while choosing to live in another political community.

There is no necessary contradiction. Cultural identity concerns personal and collective attachments, while political membership concerns participation in institutions of government.

The World Citizen framework holds that collective self-government and meaningful political-community choice must be accommodated through legitimate institutions.

Cultural differences may complicate that task, but they do not, by themselves, determine who may become a political equal.

Sufficiently durable residence should therefore provide a meaningful route to full political membership without requiring individuals to abandon their inherited cultural identities.

A World of Different Cultures

Huntington challenged the expectation that modernization would erase cultural differences.

He also reminded us that political communities need solidarity and shared practices.

These concerns deserve attention.

But a community’s cultural history and the conditions for becoming its political equal are not necessarily the same.

A democracy can preserve its language and traditions while allowing people from different backgrounds to become full political members.

There will still be difficult questions about education, integration, civic obligations, and the ability of public institutions to meet people’s needs.

Those questions require political judgment. They do not justify assuming that cultural origin must determine political membership.

The World Citizen framework does not call for the abolition of cultural identities or political communities.

It asks that political belonging become less dependent on what people inherited at birth.

Even if civilizations and cultures remain different, why must those differences determine where a person can become a political equal?

A world of diverse cultures need not be a world of permanently inherited political membership.

References

Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 22–49.
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004).
Samuel P. Huntington, "If Not Civilizations, What? Paradigms of the Post-Cold War World," Foreign Affairs 72, no. 5 (November/December 1993): 186–194.
Samuel P. Huntington, "One Nation, Out of Many," The American Enterprise 15, no. 6 (2004).
Samuel P. Huntington, "Huntington’s Book Focuses On Identity, Not Immigration," The Harvard Crimson, March 19, 2004. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/3/19/huntingtons-book-focuses-on-identity-not/
Denmark, Act No. 1735 of December 27, 2018, effective January 1, 2019. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2018/1735
Danish public administration, "Conditions for Foreign Citizens’ Acquisition of Danish Citizenship." https://lifeindenmark.borger.dk/settle-in-denmark/danish-citizenship/conditions-for-foreign-citizens–acquisition-of-danish-citizenship