Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Western Civilization
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) ** on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
One of the guests on 'Start The Week' on Radio 4 yesterday was Maria Wyke who was discussing her book 'Caesar: A Life in Western Culture' about Julius Caesar.
The presenter Andrew Marr, referred to Julius Caesar as 'one of the most important figures in Western Civilization'.
Although the culture and ideas of the Classical world of ancient Rome and ancient Greece have undoubtedly had a huge influence on Western Civilization - were the ancient Romans themselves part of Western Civilization?
Western Civilization is traditionally defined as 'civilization based on the philosophy of Western Christianity'. Viewed this way Western Civilization can only be said to date from the Great Schism of 1054.
Is this a correct interpretation? Or are there other definitions of what is meant by 'Western Civilization' and are there other dates which could be put forward as marking its beginning? -
Message 2
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
I think that Western Civilisation can at least be dated to the Carolingian Franks, in particular Charlemagne. For he united a good deal of Western Europe under one Empire, one that established the roles of Church and State that were to last centuries. It was the 'ideal' era looked back to in the Middle Ages in W. Europe: a 'Christian' (=Roman Catholic) Empire, able to expand, or at least hold its own, against its enemies, and to promote learning through monasticism.
The very letters I type here are descended from the Carolingian Minuscule that Alcuin developed to do all the copying of Classical works that helped the Carolingians/their successors promote learning and get in touch with Europe's past. Indeed the font is called 'Roman' (it won't be when I post the message!) as later scholars mistook it for the lettering used by the Ancient Romans, so widespread were the manuscript copies of ancient texts made because of Alcuin's monks' industriousness.
The civilisation changed/destroyed by the French revolutionaries was basically a direct descendent of the Carolingian one. In fact, in one form, it only really ended with the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the end of WW1. -
Message 3
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
were the ancient Romans themselves part of Western Civilization?
Ìý
I suppose to the Romans they might have seen themselves in a "western" sense, but only so much in that they were not eastern Persians (I know they are later, but right now I cannot for the life of me recall the name of the empire during Caesar ~ ok scrub that, Parthians!!), nor were they "eastern" in the way that the Greeks were (even if the education of equites & higher was based on classical Greek). Whether or not they would see themselves as part of "western civilsation" or not I don't know, as there would have been no one else to add into the basket, there was just Rome, Greek Learning & "Far-Eastern Parthia" (I'm delibratly ignoring the likes of Macedonian Eygpt as that would fall under the ageis of Greece for this period)
Western Civilisation is more a Christian era construct I would say, and as such I wouldn't like to classify Rome & Caesar as "western figures" but certainly they would have recognised a difference between themselves and what they considered to be "eastern" civilisations -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
Officially the Western Civilisation begins in 1204 and the conquest of Konstantinople, its oldest roots can be traced to the beggining of the Crusades or Charlemagne - I would opt for the former since for me the carolignian period was just a break in history and not one with long-lasting direct effects.
Romans were very much alike (though not identical to) Greeks in most aspects (they were certainly more Greek-like than actual Greeks of Spain or of Ukraine) thus one cannot say that Romans belonged to a different civilisational group than Greeks.
Greeks are essentially a separate civilisational entity from western Europeans but also of eastern europeans - two cultures certainly heavily influenced by them. Romans can only be seen as being in edge of that civilisation. There is also no direct huge influence of Romans on the rest of Western Europe - other than certain ruins and some stories of hypothetic relations - correct me if I am wrong but in Carolignian France of 20,000,000 pepole there were not more than 100 people who could read and write (if it was not for the bible, writing could be a lost "science" in the region and later would have to be re-introduced). Franks and Saxons and Vickings were never a part of the Roman Empire. All these were not certainly any direct civilisational effect of the Roman Empire.
Hence for western civilisation we have the dates of 1204 and breakthrough point of 1492 (discovery of Americas) as the cornerstones. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
... which practically makes the western civilisation the fastest ever evolving technological/cultural entity of any living organism on earth... Nice!
-
Message 6
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
Nikolaos, Richie and Alaric,
I think Greeks are not a civilisation separate from western Europeans. I take as connotation of Greeks the Greek classical civilisation as it existed on its zenith.
I think also that the Roman empire had absorbed already that many eastern influences, as Christianity, itself with roots in the East as Judaic, Zoroasterism and all those other religions from the East together with the Greek influence, with was nearly a second nature of the cultural Roman.
When one says "western civilisation" I think one has to consider, as Nordmann said about the Celts, that it is only a vague description that is interpreted by different people in different ways, even academici.
For me it is the end result of an evolution that started on the Greek islands and was already heavely influenced by ideas from the Middle-East and Persia. It went on via the Roman empire to the Carolingean Renaissance. And yes, Alaric, it were just copies of the ancients texts and not discussing of the matters, but they were just enough to make the link with the Middle-Ages, the next link was in northern Spain from the translation by the medieval monks and! discussion of the Greek and Morish texts. There was also cross-fertilisation during the co-existence of medieval Europe and Byzantium. I studied the whole period for a French forum about a question: Was the Renaissance a further building on the knowledge acquired during the Middle-Ages? And I answered yes, after reading 4 historybooks about the question.
And so we are already in the Renaissance, which track is much more easier to follow in historiographie than the time before.
Warm regards to Vizzer, Alaric, Richie and Nikolaos.
Paul. -
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Tuesday, 18th December 2007
"Western Civilization" is one of those annoying phrases that was coined in relatively recent years but is projected back in time, almost as a cliche, designed both to infer a continuous "timeline" from what is considered nascent democracy in the southern Balkans and to infer that those included in that "timeline" consider themselves united in their occidental opposition to what goes on "to the east". This cliche gained currency with the rise in political strength of the USA, making the older (and almost as inept) phrase "European Civilization" redundant.
The fallacy it encourages is twofold. Firstly, it encourages the notion that civilization could only be perfected, or even originated, in "the west". As Paul points out, those societies considered as Western Civilization's roots (or more grandiosely the "pillars" upon which WC was built) were themselves very much "Orient"-oriented. Their inspiration and the education required to transform it into reality drew almost completely upon innovation and enterprise that had been (and was still being) developed by communities later consigned to "The Near-" and "The Middle East", where their descendants still languish, largely excluded from the definition of "Western Civilization" and therefore, by implication, of secondary worth. Secondly, by being the only point of the compass awarded a singular common "civilization" (we speak of Eastern civilizations in the plural, and nearly always in the past tense, and the terms Northern or Southern civilization lack any ready meaning) it sets a subjective standard by which those who define themselves as such define themselves as "better". In short, it is a divisive, and grossly inaccurate description of anything, let alone civilization.
That it was coined to express a geopolitical entity defined by its general adherence to a particular religion (and by that religion's adherents) explains much of this. According to the tenets of christianity it is not only acceptable to subjectively declare yourself superior to adherents of other faiths, it has been traditionally demanded of you as an article of that faith. The phrase therefore is not only sectarian, but one designed intentionally to paper over the cracks in the logic of implying that we in "the west" live at the zenith of a long and unbroken development and refinement of civilized principles from ancient times to the present, and one moreover which owes nothing to anyone outside that geopolitical area. It is a lie, in other words, and Gandhi's summation when asked what he thought of it is one I echo completely.
There is such a thing as civilization, but it is not concentrated in areas in which christianity predominates, and nor is it even best represented often by those areas' denizens. -
Message 8
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
The fallacy it encourages is twofold. Firstly, it encourages the notion that civilization could only be perfected, or even originated, in "the west". Ìý
I think this view is simply part of the backlash against the old racist view that Europe was the best civilization. To counter the old wrong notion, writers, historians, philosphers etc have gone to far down the line of "the West isn't anything special". No-one would claim talking about Chinese civilization implied that Chinese was the only and perfect civilization, so why should one think that about "Western Civilization". Western civilization does so clearly have a combination of cultural factors which make it distinct that I see no reason not to talk about it.
Secondly, by being the only point of the compass awarded a singular common "civilization" (we speak of Eastern civilizations in the plural,Ìý
Is this unrealistic? To talk of Chinese civilization as the same as Persian civilization is to be unaware of how different they really are. But Western civilization derives from a geographically close area which does have many, many common roots. Most of the area was Catholic or subsequently Protestant (which in itself is culturally defined by it's relationship to Catholicism). Politically Europe has been intertwined with continent-wide wars being common to the same cultures. Similarly "high culture" is European - composers, painters, scientists were genuinely international at the European scale. Similarly the enlightenment was an international affair. The commonality of a European civilization which was subsequently exported outside Europe is much wider than any pan-Asian culture.
sets a subjective standard by which those who define themselves as such define themselves as "better".Ìý
So long as it's a subjective better, I see no problem with that.
Western civilization is better *for me* but that merely reflects the fact that it is my traditional culture and I am comfortable and happy with it, not the fact that it is objectively better. -
Message 9
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
Are you confusing culture with civilization perhaps? To state with pride, for example, that you share the same civilization as France or Montenegro would suggest that you place the few cultural affinities (in which religion plays an inordinately high definitive and formulative role) on a par with or higher than other affinities, such as literacy, aesthetics, technology, etc, that you share with people from Japan, or China, or for that matter Montenegro.
Can you see the problem here? If you rate the subjectively selected cultural affinities to the point that you deem them to have constituted a separate "civilization" (whether you are comfortable in it or not) then you need first and foremost to define what one earth you mean by civilization, and then to define at what point cultural diffusion stops suggesting suffusion of civilization itself. -
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
Are you confusing culture with civilization perhaps?Ìý
But the two concepts do overlap considerably. As your second point says, without defining either, then I'm just wasting my tea-breaks. -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
But the two concepts do overlap considerably
Ìý
Which is why the last question I asked requires an answer. In some instances cultural variation is accepted as simply different facets to parts of the same civilization. In other instances it defines the differences between civilizations themselves. If you predicate which cultural difference belongs in which category on the basis of religious tradition, then you arrive at the terms as used today which include "Western Civilization". If, on the other hand, you see religious tradition as simply one strand of thousands in the complex development of society, then you will shy away from using such a glib term since it places emphasis where none is warranted and implies division where none exists (except where those who want it to exist insist that it must). -
Message 12
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 19th December 2007
If you predicate which cultural difference belongs in which category on the basis of religious tradition, then you arrive at the terms as used today which include "Western Civilization". If, on the other hand, you see religious tradition as simply one strand of thousands in the complex development of society, then you will shy away from using such a glib term since it places emphasis where none is warranted and implies division where none exists (except where those who want it to exist insist that it must).Ìý
Nordmann, apologies in advance if I don't get chance to give this topic the attention it deserves. But here goes...
In my view "cilivization" is the sum total of a the achievements of a particular group. In that sense it is the combination of (at least) artistic, scientific, technical, legal, and religious traditions/institutions. And where, within a civilization, the embodiments of those things are common. I don't think a shared appreciation of e.g. music counts, but a common form of music (the same scales, musical notation, e.g. Beethoven being appreciated across the whole of western Europe) does. Because they are combinations of various factors, they aren't necessarily discrete (a bit like the visible colours in the spectrum - it's difficult to say where blue ends, but one can see it as different to red).
To my mind Western (effectively western-central European) Civilization is one.
In art, we have a similarity of subjects and similarity of painting styles which vary with epoch rather than varying with geography. Extend that to architecture and a castle in north Wales is the same style as one in Tuscany, Blenheim Palace could have been built in Austria in and wouldn't be out of place. Clothing styles also moved rapidly between countries (reflecting the international trade in such items).
In science, European scientists were international in their outlook from an early stage. Advances rapidly diffused throughout Europe, improved and went back.
Technically, at least in warfare, Europe advanced almost in step with changes to weapons. Not just in weaponry, but battlefield tactics and often style of uniform. Uniforms themselves reflect that fact that e.g. a Prussian soldier and British solider would have been difficult to distinguish were it not for arbitrary colours of their coats. Styles of watermills in Europe are the similar (though admittedly not the older technology of windmills).
Legally we also have much in common. Much of Europe works on a single system based on Roman legal foundations and heavily influenced by Napoleon. British common law which appears unique in fact has historic parallels in France and Germany (much British common law was codifed by the Normans and is actually the Norman practice of common law, not the anglo-saxon version).
Religously then Christianity and particularly Catholicism and Protestantism are common to most of European history.
Politically, thinkers like Voltaire travlled widely and was translated and used as comon source material for western thinkers in his own lifetime.
Even when it comes to food, beer in C15th Britain is largely the same drink as beer in C15th Poland.
The relatively small area of Europe does make communication comparatively easy across the continent and "opinion formers" throughout our history have found it easy to move between one country and another. -
Message 13
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 20th December 2007
I always say that 'civilisation' actually means 'living in cities'. There is also the implication within this definitioin of an economy developed enough for specialisation and division of labour to arise, which is necessary for the making and maintenance of cities, and a society organised enough to have a coherent set of laws, which is necessary so that everyone can live, cheek-by-jowl, in cities.
'Western' simply means the peoples from the Western end of the Eurasian continent.
Any period in history when these people lived in cities, is part of the history of Western Civilisation. -
Message 14
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 21st December 2007
I would propose that realistically there has been so much overlap ,influence,invasion,migration etc that to speak of there being completely seperate origins of western ,eastern, african, arabic civilisation is probably misleading...Knowledge/science/civilisation in the west has many disparate roots. For instance ,throughout Moorish iberia, the region at the time was thought to be the most advanced, due to knowledge preserved and advanced in the arabic language
-
Message 15
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Friday, 21st December 2007
Nordmann has spoken here with exceptional eloquence and quite possibly for the first time ever i cant really disagree with anything he said!
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 21st December 2007
It is relatively more easy to define a culture than a civilisation. The fact is that there are 10s of 1000s of cultures around the world while civilisations not more than 5-6 (and that depends on the layman's eye).
There are nations that provided a civilisation by themselves like Greeks and Persians and Chinese, three nations that actually provided more than 1 distinct culture over time (Greeks 4, Persians 3, Chinese 3, Egyptians 3 etc.). There are also civilisations that were formed by more than one nation like the Indian (Indians bacl then were a collection of different states some of which were of course different nations) and the European one etc.
But then all these things are defined mostly by the way the viewer views the world - especially by his political positions.
For example, I saw above that there has to be distinguished the "western/central European" civilisation from the rest but then that leaves me wondering what so different exists in Russia to be included in some other civilisational group (say in Eastern European) - or maybe just Russia can be described only as a culture and as a part of any civilisation. Perhaps a Russia would love to talk about a separate Russian civilisation.
Well the reality is that Russia both based its culture in the hellenic+christian background (i.e. the very same basic influences of western europe) and the only difference is that it never colonised the Americas (well... actually it did, Alaska was their colony for some time) - so do we have to exclude Italy or Sweden from western/central European civilisation? What about Poland? Asiatic speaking Hungary (one of the first countries to enter the "Renaissance"!)? And what was so different between Russia and France or England back then? The words Tzar or King or Republic? Or was it the different clothes? So Scottish were not at all part of European civilisation?
Of course talking about "western european" civilisation is only a political statement, there is no basis in it. It is a way of avoiding talking about Germanic or Anglosaxonic civilisations since it is much more difficult to establish the "civilisational" aspect of english or german cultures in comparison to Greeks or Chinese.
What exists is the notion of European civilisation which is the sum of the cultures developed in all european lands from Portugal, France and England to Russia. But this is actually a separate one than the older Graeco-Roman civilisation that influenced equally the Arabic one (but none seems to include Arabs and Europeans in the same group) since there is no direct connection between them other than the presence of the Eastern Roman Empire (I think I do not need to repeat how meany people read and wrote in "great" Charlemagne's "empire" times). However the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire can only be seen as part of the Graeco-roman civilisation (that is practically the Greek civilisation - as Romans can only be seen in the fringes of that civilisation) and not in one unity with any other despite the fact that it influenced two other civilisational groups. -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Friday, 21st December 2007
The "Greek" (or "Southern Baltic" as I prefer to call it) civilization was itself simply a cultural offshoot. It drew the parameters by which it deemed itself civilized from those established already to its east, and would have been quite happy to do so in perpetuity if another gang of peasants-on-the-make to their west hadn't trounced them and claimed to have inherited the mantle of "civility" from them.
All very meaningless a conversation, I think, until someone comes up with a better definition for "civilization" than "lives in cities". -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 21st December 2007
well it is not so simplistic as that and most certainly back then there was absolutely no relation between the europeanoasiatic blond Baltics and the hairy Greeks. Greeks had "high-culture" not very long after high-culture developed in the Middle East and it is true that still we know practically nothing about pre-Minoan age.
As I said whether a culture is a civilisation is up to the layman's eye. I prefer the definition of civilisation as a culture that affects a greater area of the world than its own particular radious in terms of way of thinking/technology etc, a culture that even if it is denied the imported influences could still stand upright. The Greek culture was one that despite the whatevever influences could stand alone just nicely, same did Egyptian one or the Chinese one. European individual cultures do not present anything like that thus they are necessarily banded together in one civilisational group.
The city-definition is incomplete. Angor Vat was a huge city of 500,000 when the largest European city was less than 50,000 but what was exactly its civilisation? -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Saturday, 22nd December 2007
I believe extensive research has been conducted into counting the hairs on all the Balkans. Results indicate that most were a little embarrassed to talk about what was obviously a strong impediment to attracting members of the opposite sex (especially the women) whereas those southern Balkans who were proud of everything they did, no matter how innocuous, actually claimed their hirsuteness as a mark of distinction. This, coupled with their colour blindedness when it came to identifying the hair colour of their neighbours, set them apart in their own eyes, and so started a long tradition of overstatement on their part that continues to this day.
To their immense good fortune they were even taken over and assimilated by another hirsute people, the Turks, and thanks to that genetic input can now even point to actual hairs on their chests, arms, legs, nasal cavities, ears etc to bolster their ancient claim to be the originators of hairy. As long as they don't look from under their hirsute eyebrows too closely to their cousins to their immediate east, of course.
How am I doing in the E_Nik school of anthropolgy, Nik? I reckon I'm getting the hang of it now. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 22nd December 2007
yes whatever Nordman, I thought we talked about history not about Britney Spears.
-
Message 21
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 22nd December 2007
Re: Message 12.
Cloudyj,
I did some quick research for the definition of "civilization" and came to almost four different concepts and even more as the "civilization" confined to the area of the nation state. There seems to be as many thoughts as heads thinking.
For me: "civilization" is a bit as Fascinating says, but a more general definition:
The acquirement of a social differentiation within an organized entity as for instance the first city states of Sumer. There you had already several layers distinct from each other in the organization of that specific society, distinct from entities based on extended family organisations. And it was made possible by the surplus of for instance agriculture, which made it possible that groups hadn't to spent all their free time in the search for food to survive. And it could evoluate to "stands" (castes?) as nobles, priests, peasants, craftmen, servants.
By this organization the own group became more independent of other groups in my opinion and the notion of own territory became more preponderant and as such the need to defend it. So you had the first "wars". Before it were only skirmishes between extended families, tribes.
I agree it is quite another definition as from Sir Kenneth Clark in the Ö÷²¥´óÐã series "Civilisation". And it is only my personal "opinion" and I give it for what it is worth
.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 22
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 22nd December 2007
until someone comes up with a better definition for "civilization" than "lives in cities". Ìý
So what is wrong with that definition? -
Message 23
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
That definition missed the utopia and the ideology behind establishing its core geographical seat, before expanding into the first, second and may be third regional rings.
-
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
Well, you did ask
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
The problem with the 'city' definition of civilisation is that we will have to take out the Renaissance period and talk about the European civilisation only from the 18th century and onwards; europe passed the whole of Renaissance in towns and large villages while the biggest city in the 15th century was Konstantinople, a city that was actually in rambles ready for the taking, less than the 1/10th of its earlier size but still the biggest city in Europe.
However it is generally agreed that the Renaissance is described as the birth of the European civilisation that consists of the highly iterelated individual cultures of the european states and regions (apart Greece and its neighbours that passed all this great time under the sleepy Ottomans).
On the other hand Tenohtitlan and Angor Vat in 15th century were the biggest cities in the world (with 250,000 and 500,000 citizens respectively) but then no matter if some talk about the Mexican civilisation, no-one ever talked about the Angorvatian civilisation (most do not know that it was the Chmer who built it)... but then who may talk about the Chmer civilisation? some may takl about the Mexican civilisations...
Hence, the 'city' definition while not bad is not complete. I prefer the explanation that states that civiliastion is a predominant culture that commenced from a specific area and spread considerably in its greater area and/or elsewhere influencing other cultures and/or giving birth to other cultures. Usually that is also followed by the spread of the language of that predominant culture. A civilisation must be a culture that really left its stamp on the human history.
Well, the Chmer despite having built one of the most amazing cities in the world they did not exactly leave their stamp on human history but Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Egyptians, Greeks and the band of Europeans and Indians they really did so. That is why when we talk about civilisation it is usually to them that we refer. We may refer to
Note down that the fact that a culture did not give birth to a civilisation or does not belong to a civilisational group does not mean that it was in any sense 'inferior' or something. The Chmer culture was excellent but historic evolution in the end did not offer it much chance. The unknown Nigerian culture that built that huge fence some 1000 years B.C. just vanished and left nothing in later generations - it was great but then its achievements did not pass on as an influence to the following generations, we do not know why. Arab culture was nothing special till the appearence of the muslim religion and from that point they went on to exploit things already cultivated by their neighbouring Persians, Egyptians and Greeks, thus historic evolution was very much favourable to them. What can anyone say about the American cultures that did not stand a chance due to the massive annihilation due to random biological reasons? It is perhaps for that reason we seem willing to talk about their cultures as civilisations - the truth though is that they did not exaclty influnce much more than their own neighborhood (it is not established that the Incas in South America and Aztecs in Mexico had great cultural interraction apart sporadic commerce).
I think the best definition for explaining the difference between culture and civilisation is the extend to which a culture gave birth and/or influenced other cultures. -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
But seriously, it allows only a narrow definition of 'civilization'. Gaelic civilization, for example was notable for its absence of urban centres, as indeed was that of Native North Americans. Both were highly complex civilizations, the former with laws and law enforcement surpassing in effectiveness and egalitarian comunity principle at its height anything its immediate geographical neighbours had to offer (and who had cities), and the latter, as in the case with the Iroquois, a perfect example of how a tribal based extended community could regulate all the affairs of state commensurate with urbanised civilizations, including taxation, welfare, foreign policy and legislature but without even a village to its name. Other agrarian-based examples abound throughout history around the globe.
Unless of course you're of the same mind as the English in Tudor times who saw their neighbours as "uncivilized", or the Native Americans as "savages"? -
Message 27
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 23rd December 2007
The bright light of the full moon of tonight is like the climax days of the ancient/old civilizations.
I mean, civilisations refer to the past, but cultures, societies, generations, etc., refer to the past, the present and the future.
The future generations will add some cultures of these days to the roster of civilizations. -
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 24th December 2007
To me the word civilisation is just a word and I tend to see it with less politicosocial colours. I would not use this term for American natives of Gaelic people no matter if their cultures were wonderful and highly commplex. I underlined above that this has nothing to do with the qualities of their culture.
Of course others are all welcome to give their own meaning to this word and divide cultures to civilised or uncivilised and then others also are all welcome to include all cultures under this term... no big harm - it is just a word and in the course of time may take the meaning that people want. Above I only expressed my own view about this term. -
Message 29
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 27th December 2007
But seriously, it allows only a narrow definition of 'civilization'. Gaelic civilization, for example was notable for its absence of urban centres, as indeed was that of Native North Americans. Both were highly complex civilizations, the former with laws and law enforcement surpassing in effectiveness and egalitarian comunity principle at its height anything its immediate geographical neighbours had to offer (and who had cities), and the latter, as in the case with the Iroquois, a perfect example of how a tribal based extended community could regulate all the affairs of state commensurate with urbanised civilizations, including taxation, welfare, foreign policy and legislature but without even a village to its name. Other agrarian-based examples abound throughout history around the globe.
Unless of course you're of the same mind as the English in Tudor times who saw their neighbours as "uncivilized", or the Native Americans as "savages"?Ìý
Yes the native Americans were 'uncivilised', because they did not live in cities. But that does not mean that they were better or worse, richer or poorer, more sophisticated or unsophisticated, than people who did live in cities. You mentioned the term 'savages'; remember that savages were not always seen as inferior; you have the concept of the noble savage/barbarian from Tacitus and into the 18th century.
I do see what the problem is; there is no word to convey a highly-organised society, so people pick up on the word 'civilisation' to convey any highly-organised culture/society. It is just that I object to people doing that, because any culture (just by being a culture) may be deemed to have an organisation in it, and any person wishing to sell his book can claim that they are highly-organised, therefore he feels entitled to use the word 'civilisation'. What I object to is the twisting of a word that has meaning, and twisting it so much that it has virtually no meaning left within it, or (just as bad) every person has a different meaning for it. -
Message 30
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
What I object to is the twisting of a word that has meaning, and twisting it so much that it has virtually no meaning left within it, or (just as bad) every person has a different meaning for it.
Ìý
Wow, hold on a moment! If you examine dictionary definitions for the term "civilized" or "civilization" you will see that my comments above are not only correct use of the idiom, but that they conform to a rather strict definition themselves.
Incidentally, by refusing to acknowledge any definition except that which pertained at the point when the word's etymological root was first used (civis) you are adopting a rather strictured stance with regard to vocabulary that begs an obvious question - why don't you adopt the same policy for all words? You blithely employ the modern meaning for the word "society", for example, without once even hinting at companionship in the slightest, its meaning when "civilized" meant what you insist it should still do.
Very strange (in the meaning of the word since 1374)! -
Message 31
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Nordmann, I can certainly see why you may think that my insistence on the original meaning of the word is strangely constricting. Let's go with what you suggest, the dictionary definition.
Looking on Google I find :'a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations);'
Can you tell me of any society which was/is NOT in an advanced state of social development (please suggest why you regard it as not advanced enough). -
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I can of course. Societies in decay or in the process of being eliminated lose their claim to be civilizations once that process is complete. Societies which have never even begun the process of codifying laws, let alone becoming organised enough to enforce them, are also outside the dictionary definition of "civilization" (though they may earn fully the definition of a distinctive culture). "Uncivilized" and "non-civilized" are specific and pertinent terms for such societies, even before the words are applied in the comparative sense, when they acquire even more pertinence and meaning.
That latter point can be illustrated by the use of several instances in history. I am tempted to highlight yet again the comparative civilization of Ireland at a time during the Dark Ages when Britons were patently denied the appellation, but better examples abound. A good one would be the nomadic Bedouin prior to their Islamification and during the many centuries when they operated at the periphery of the "civilized" world, interacted successfully with it, largely obeyed laws enforced by others on a temporary basis to facilitate trade, but never formulated much by way of common traditions, let alone laws, during this time and never became absorbed into the populations of the settled and civilized lands to their north and east. Yet they were a unique culture unto themselves, and recognised as such in antquity as now. -
Message 33
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Thankyou. Unless I am wrong, your definition of civilisation boils down to 'having formulated laws'. Do you regard Australian aborigones as uncivilised?
-
Message 34
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I agree with Ghandi.
Western Civilisation would be a very good idea. -
Message 35
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Do you regard Australian aborigones as uncivilised?
Ìý
No, I would regard them as non-civilized in the accepted sense of the term prior to European intervention. Australian aborigines traditionally lived in a clan-based system between which clans there was minimal or sporadic interaction at the most. Outside of some basic spiritual beliefs that appear to have been common but with variation, there does not appear to have been any attempt at organisation. Some recent research seems to suggest that coastal communities had just begun the first tentative steps towards forming cohesive organised communities transcending clan affiliations when the first Europeans arrived and effectively stopped the development dead in its tracks. But even that research is speculative and not supported by archaeology as yet.
Absence of codified laws is indeed a vital part of the definition of "non-civilized". Such legal codes are themselves evidence of a degree of organisation that is not possible without the community concerned having adopted basic philosophies and having set in train enabling mechanisms to enforce them that are the hallmark of civilized societies, however many cities they end up building, if any. The aborigines had done neither, and had not a society that was likely to do either to the extent that they could rank as a civilization in the definition of the term accepted by all except yourself, it seems. -
Message 36
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Well, I am willing to change my stance, provided any words that we do use can have clear meaning and be understood by all. Your stance raises a problem in that you have ended up calling the aborigines 'uncivilised', primarily because they do not have laws, but you seemed ready to condemn me, I think, for calling the Indians, and other cultures, 'uncivilised' simply because they did not live in cities.
-
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Actually I made a point of calling their society non-civilized and not uncivilized since the latter word implies a greater degree of anarchy and barbarity than pertained in their case.
Nor do I condemn you. I disagree with your definition of the word "civilized". That's all.
I wouldn't worry about clarity either since dictionaries seem fairly agreed on this one. That is why I took issue originally on this thread with the prefix "Western" since it exaggerates a common cultural bond between all those societies traditionally lumped under the banner. -
Message 38
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) ** on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Of course talking about "western european" civilisation is only a political statement, there is no basis in it. It is a way of avoiding talking about Germanic or Anglosaxonic civilisationsÌý
This seems to be one aspect E_Nikolaos_E.
Although here the word ‘Western’ also seems to be linked to the journalistic term ‘the West’. But what exactly is meant by that?
A few years ago I remember a UK yoof tv travel program which was about Argentina. The UK presenter was interviewing a group of very intelligent, stylish and sophisticated young denizens of Buenos Aires. During the interview the presenter was comparing and contrasting the life and attitudes of the young people there to that of their counterparts in the UK. The presenter kept using the term ‘the West’ to describe the UK in as much as to imply that Argentina was not part of ‘the West’. For example she would say - ‘Well you would go to such and such a place at such and such a time on a Saturday night which is different from how we do things in the West’.
It was grating to hear this and to see the non-plussed expressions on the faces of the young Argentineans at this bizarre turn of phrase. It was excrutiating, also, when they then showed extreme politeness in not picking up on and correcting the UK yoof tv presenters' crass ignorance.
It was then that I began to appreciate that the term ‘the West’ is essentially a lazy journalistic term and means whatever the talker or writer wants it to mean. In other words it means nothing. -
Message 39
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Actually I made a point of calling their society non-civilized and not uncivilized since the latter word implies a greater degree of anarchy and barbarity than pertained in their caseÌý
You don't want to use the word uncivilised so you coin the word non-civilized, which must mean the same thing ie not civilized. -
Message 40
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
I agree, but both are used to convey a subtle but important difference in meaning. The term "uncivilized" is often used to describe behaviour which is practised by people who understand that they operate at a standard lower than that deemed "civilized" (normally inferring a sadistic or barbaric tendency). In other words there is an element of choice and wilfulness about their activities. The term "non-civilized" is used most often to describe a society or behaviour where this discrepancy is not appreciated on grounds of ignorance, and where the activities thus described are as likely to betray simply a lack of complexity as a tendency to aggression.
For a person who appreciates clarity of expression I am surprised that you did not realise that, or that you thought it was I who coined the phrase "non-civilized". -
Message 41
Posted by Therapon (U5193521) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
"Western Civilization is traditionally defined as 'civilization based on the philosophy of Western Christianity'...Is this a correct interpretation?"
No I don't think it is, I think of Western Civilisation as being based on the Greeks & Romans, for which the Iliad of Ö÷²¥´óÐãr represents its primary text. The war of Troy being the seminal event which made Europeans realise our commonalities. Christianity in that respect is a bit of a cultural graft on to Western Civilisation and in many ways stands in opposition to it being based in the near-east rather than Europe.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.