“What do we mean when we talk of a civilization? A civilization is a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from German villages.”

This quote provides the definition that will structure Huntington’s argument about the future of global politics and The Influence of Civilizational Identity. While people can be divided by a variety of social constructs within their own nation, they will still find themselves more opposed to somebody from a different culture altogether. When tensions arise, Huntington argues, people will fall back on preexisting cultural bonds to bolster them in conflict with others.

“People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he intensely identifies. People can and do redefine their identities and, as a result, the composition and boundaries of civilizations change.”

The broad range of terms by which a person can define themselves makes analyzing global conflicts, on the micro or macro level, inherently complicated. Huntington acknowledges this, clarifying that the “broadest level of identification”—in this example, a Westerner—is the basis for what he argues will be the crux of future conflicts. However, while establishing the influence of civilizational identity is key to all of Huntington’s later claims, he simultaneously acknowledges that forms of identification shift enough to make any assertions fluid and impermanent.

“North African immigration to France generates hostility among Frenchmen and at the same time increased receptivity to immigration by ‘good’ European Catholic Poles. Americans react far more negatively to Japanese investment than to larger investments from Canada and European countries.”

Huntington explores how bias toward one’s own civilization manifests in phenomena like immigration or foreign investments. As he has asserted “Western” and “non-Western” as being the key civilizations in conflict, he notes how even broad or tenuous similarities among Western cultures facilitate an attitude of tolerance or acceptance.