The Definition of Civilization
I have a philosophical question for you folks. As far as I'm concerned, the word "civilization" gets thrown around far more than it ought to be. I think that there's a higher standard for assignment of the word "civilization". Allow me to expand on that.
There are certain words that are bandied about, and treated as if they're congruent terms. Several of these words are "culture", and "society", and "civilization". These terms, however, are not congruent; they are not equal, they do not mean the same thing. They have different standards of use, and mean different things
The basest of these terms is "culture", and it takes very little to qualify. Ancient stick figures painted on a cave wall? That's culture. Culture is the most basic interaction between humans, sometimes not even requiring two humans in the same place. Those cave paintings, for example, could be painted by a lone individual for any number of purposes, and still qualify as elements of culture. I have very little problem with this phrase being thrown around, because it takes very little sophistication in order to satisfy the requirements of culture.
Society is a tad more sophisticated. It requires more of a concerted effort, and it requires interaction of at least two individuals. Society is what you get when you have a group of individuals who live together, endeavour together, build families, villages, settlements, et cetera. Society ranges from simple settlements like Skara Brae, to more complex groups like the Germanic and Celtic tribes of ancient Europe. Society requires a higher standard than culture; just because something is culture, doesn't make it society.
Civilization is the highest standard of the three. The word "civilization" is thrown around with brazen ignorance, often by people who wish to use its connotation in order to justify something. Civilization requires a high standard in order to meet the basic qualifications. Until very recent history, in order to be civilized, very specific requirements had to be met: walled cities, written language, centralized government, et cetera. Civilization requires culture and society, but culture and society do not require or denote civilization. Contrary to popular belief, piling some stones on top of each other does not equal civilization, and a group can not gain legitimacy through such actions.
So, what is the fallout of this clarification? Well, the repercussions are several. First, the cult of political correctness goes absolutely ballistic. Given these circumstances, groups like the American Indians are not considered "civilized"; cultured, yes; social, yes; civilized, no. With a few notable exceptions (many of which are open to interpretation), the American Indians had no written language. They lived in villages, not cities or even towns; they had no centralized government.
The cult of political correctness might blame such statements on "ignorance" or "Eurocentrism"; however, someone with the academic integrity possessed by yours truly will instantly acknowledge that the societies of Europe were, in many cases, just as uncivilized. The Germaic tribes, the Gauls in France, the Celts in Britain and Ireland, the Picts in Scotland, none of these groups possessed civilization. Civilization first stepped foot in Britain when Caesar's Legio X landed there in 55 BC, and wasn't permanently established until the Claudian legions permanently settled a century later.
Contrary to popular belief, words do matter, and they can be used as weapons. I, for one, am tired of hearing ridiculous nonsense about how civilization started in Africa, or about how European settlers destroyed a rich American Indian (or worse, "Native American", as if there's any evidence to suggest such a thing) civilization when they arrived. Was American slavery a horrible, evil practice? Yes; so there's no need to pad it by suggesting that African society possessed something that it didn't. Was the European treatment of American Indians barbaric and unacceptable? In many cases, yes. Since these actions were barbaric, horrible, and unacceptable, then it shouldn't matter what the state of the affected groups was.
There's a propaganda value to assigning undue accolades to a group, and such propaganda can serve to further an agenda. I don't know about you folks, but accurate academic reporting matters to me, and I'm tired of hearing that groups had a "thriving civilization" when they didn't. It doesn't matter to me that I'm part Irish; the Irish Celts didn't have civilization until the Middle Ages. It's fair to expect the same level of academic honesty from other scholars. If I can admit that my ancestors, none of whom were Romans or Greeks, were originally savages and didn't acquire civilization until roughly the same time that all of Europe acquired it, then I don't think it's too much to ask that other scholars (most of whom are descended from the exact same savages) demonstrate more academic honesty than they currently do.
There are certain words that are bandied about, and treated as if they're congruent terms. Several of these words are "culture", and "society", and "civilization". These terms, however, are not congruent; they are not equal, they do not mean the same thing. They have different standards of use, and mean different things
The basest of these terms is "culture", and it takes very little to qualify. Ancient stick figures painted on a cave wall? That's culture. Culture is the most basic interaction between humans, sometimes not even requiring two humans in the same place. Those cave paintings, for example, could be painted by a lone individual for any number of purposes, and still qualify as elements of culture. I have very little problem with this phrase being thrown around, because it takes very little sophistication in order to satisfy the requirements of culture.
Society is a tad more sophisticated. It requires more of a concerted effort, and it requires interaction of at least two individuals. Society is what you get when you have a group of individuals who live together, endeavour together, build families, villages, settlements, et cetera. Society ranges from simple settlements like Skara Brae, to more complex groups like the Germanic and Celtic tribes of ancient Europe. Society requires a higher standard than culture; just because something is culture, doesn't make it society.
Civilization is the highest standard of the three. The word "civilization" is thrown around with brazen ignorance, often by people who wish to use its connotation in order to justify something. Civilization requires a high standard in order to meet the basic qualifications. Until very recent history, in order to be civilized, very specific requirements had to be met: walled cities, written language, centralized government, et cetera. Civilization requires culture and society, but culture and society do not require or denote civilization. Contrary to popular belief, piling some stones on top of each other does not equal civilization, and a group can not gain legitimacy through such actions.
So, what is the fallout of this clarification? Well, the repercussions are several. First, the cult of political correctness goes absolutely ballistic. Given these circumstances, groups like the American Indians are not considered "civilized"; cultured, yes; social, yes; civilized, no. With a few notable exceptions (many of which are open to interpretation), the American Indians had no written language. They lived in villages, not cities or even towns; they had no centralized government.
The cult of political correctness might blame such statements on "ignorance" or "Eurocentrism"; however, someone with the academic integrity possessed by yours truly will instantly acknowledge that the societies of Europe were, in many cases, just as uncivilized. The Germaic tribes, the Gauls in France, the Celts in Britain and Ireland, the Picts in Scotland, none of these groups possessed civilization. Civilization first stepped foot in Britain when Caesar's Legio X landed there in 55 BC, and wasn't permanently established until the Claudian legions permanently settled a century later.
Contrary to popular belief, words do matter, and they can be used as weapons. I, for one, am tired of hearing ridiculous nonsense about how civilization started in Africa, or about how European settlers destroyed a rich American Indian (or worse, "Native American", as if there's any evidence to suggest such a thing) civilization when they arrived. Was American slavery a horrible, evil practice? Yes; so there's no need to pad it by suggesting that African society possessed something that it didn't. Was the European treatment of American Indians barbaric and unacceptable? In many cases, yes. Since these actions were barbaric, horrible, and unacceptable, then it shouldn't matter what the state of the affected groups was.
There's a propaganda value to assigning undue accolades to a group, and such propaganda can serve to further an agenda. I don't know about you folks, but accurate academic reporting matters to me, and I'm tired of hearing that groups had a "thriving civilization" when they didn't. It doesn't matter to me that I'm part Irish; the Irish Celts didn't have civilization until the Middle Ages. It's fair to expect the same level of academic honesty from other scholars. If I can admit that my ancestors, none of whom were Romans or Greeks, were originally savages and didn't acquire civilization until roughly the same time that all of Europe acquired it, then I don't think it's too much to ask that other scholars (most of whom are descended from the exact same savages) demonstrate more academic honesty than they currently do.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home