In 1993, Samuel Huntington, Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, published an article destined to mark the geopolitical reflection of the following decades: the article, published in the journal Foreign Affairs, was entitled The Clash of Civilisations?. In this article, Huntington proposed the concept of "civilisation", i.e. "fundamental cultural units" understood as "the highest grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity that distinguishes human beings from other species". In this regard, the essential elements of any civilisation were religion, language, ethnicity, etc. According to Huntington, in the post-Cold War world, the conflicts of the future would be played out on these fault lines between different civilisations (Huntington identified nine) that were impossible to reconcile. Clearly, this reading already puts forward a problem: to think that a civilisation is a fundamental identity is to determine a characteristic in a definitive and totalising way. According to Gerald Toal, Huntington's "clash of civilisations" discourse reduced every variable (geographical, for example) to an a priori attributed identity, transforming all the uncertainties that determined the unfolding of history into solid and immutable truths. Huntington's proposal appealed greatly for this reason too: because it proposed a reading of the post-Cold War world - multipolar, confused, without a clear hegemon - that was very simplified and easy to understand, providing legislators and decision-makers with a simple reading on which to base their foreign policy decisions. Although it has proven to be a fallacious and incomplete model for reading changes in international politics, the model of the clash of civilisations still remains alive and well in the elaboration of modern political discourse.