An interesting article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200710/ai_n21100167

ANTINOMIES OF SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON: SOME ANTHROPOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE AMERICAN PUNDIT

Journal of Third World Studies, Fall 2007 by Keles, Fethi
INTRODUCTION

Sweeping generalizations on sociocultural phenomena of the sort made by influential political scientist Samuel Huntington exhibit a proclivity toward representing the globe in terms of analytical categories devised without adequate attention to inter- as well as intra-cultural specificities. Huntington's simplistic and politically-motivated conceptualizations of such notions as culture, globalization, and undue reifications of ethnonyms (challenging Hispanics, bellicose Muslims etc.) distort the reality on the ground. His-probably unconscious- trespasses into what is arguably the most anthropological of all issues studied by anthropologists-kinship-in the context of his search at the macropolitical level for perennial roots of collective violence are even more questionable. With his hypothesis that the globe is composed of cultures/civilizations each of which a) is complete unto itself with neatly identifiable borders-imaginary or otherwise- and b) legitimizes amicable relations with others only on the basis of civilizational same- or similar-kindness, the political scientist poses himself as a globalization theorist, culture theorist, and kinship theorist simultaneously.

[…]

CONCLUSION

This paper suggested that very broad generalizations on such concepts as globalization, identity, culture, and civilization run the risk of presenting the lay as well as the informed reader a distorted version of sociocultural reality as it is actually lived all around the globe by tangible human beings in concrete contexts. The work of political scientist Samuel Huntington thus far has been a prime example of such risk-running behavior: Gross misrepresentations in his latest writings of various aspects of Hispanic presence in the United States suggest only an old-fashioned notion of the world. Ethnographic evidence casts a serious doubt on his reasons for considering the Hispanic immigration to the U.S. perilous for the future of American national identity which he assumes to be represented, and represented only, by WASP values. His assumption of a one-way process of enculturation is problematic. He wants incoming populations to adjust themselves according to the 'creed', while expecting the creed to remain rigidly unchanged while times continue to change.
Huntington's characterization of the post-Cold War globe as made up of a number of different civilizations neatly separable from one another is countered by anthropological evidence given above, as well. Edward Said puts it most elegantly: "What culture today-whether Japanese, Arab, European, Korean, Chinese, or Indian-has not had long, intimate, and extraordinarily rich contacts with other cultures?"32 Not only is Huntington indifferent to the complex nature of the multicultural world, but also he disregards intra-cultural or -civilizational variation as well. Neither the Hispanics nor Muslims can escape that fate in his writings: Regardless of their internal differences, each group is presented as if it constituted a monolith.
This paper further sought to show that the anthropological eye is particularly well-suited to heal the analytical wounds opened by such broadbrush treatment of sociocultural phenomena as Huntington's. With its effort to understand peoples of the world as they understand themselves, its cautious, bottom-up approach in making generalizations about surface level similarities - between and within Western and non-Western cultures alike-, its attention to cross-cutting cultural connections, its endless search for local manifestations of globalization, identity politics, culture, assimilation, and other phenomena, anthropology is sure to contribute to a more accurate assessment of issues of global scope. Only after he starts paying attention to detail, of the sort provided by anthropology, may Huntington have the chance of transforming his approach from a constantly risk-running sort to relatively risk-averse one. Absent such an attention, there will be little reason to excuse him for not including a single foreign language reference (a detail finely noted by anthropologist Hugh Gusterson) in his densely footnoted, some three-hundred-page apocalyptic book of, and with, clashes.