Monday, September 1, 2008
Civilization and the "Other"
Here in our second post for the Honors Seminar Webblog, you are to give thought to the meaning of civilization and attempting here to define it with an eye to its function in the dynamic of self and other that we have been discussing. Take advantage of your online inquiries into "alterity" and "otherness" in deepening your reflection on how civilization, much like sedentary life, is employed to define an individual or collective self against the backdrop of the other. Your readings in Gellner and Conrad will undoubtedly help here, along with your own inherited wisdom on the topic. If you do quote from sources please make sure to cite them appropriately and let us know where we can find the information so that we may add to the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
In our world today, civilization is defined by a gathering or grouping of people with similar or identical beliefs. In most cases, no two civilizations are alike. These individual civilizations are the basis of education for the members in said society. Presumptuously, many civilizations believe their system to be the best; this forms the creation of the other. For a civilization to name itself as the best, most practical, or even worst, it must compare itself to the “other” civilizations of the world. As we view in our everyday lives, there are distinct separations between civilizations. One civilizations critic of another is simply reciprocated. Gellner comments that “cultures are not genetically transmitted, even though cultures can and do use genetic traits as symbols and markers.” This appears to be inherently true, as one can certainly choose to remove him or herself from his or her civilization of birth and into another, but may physically appear misplaced. All in all, civilization is yet another means of categorizing groups of people to satisfy a classification. It provides a comfortable system for the people of our world today to compare ourselves to “others.” As we’ve discussed in class, we define ourselves by stating what we are not. Pointing to civilizations from other areas of the world and observing that we are not like them adds to who we are.
In “The Ballad of East and West,” Kipling challenges our inherited conception of opposing cultures by telling a story of the meeting between two men from warring regions. Though the men are originally called into action against each other by their respective parties (the colonel’s son declares: “I hold by the blood of my clan” in line 63), they find that, in person, they both have the same basic humanity.
This encounter reminds me of an encounter in All Quiet on the Western Front. During this encounter, the protagonist, a German, is forced to spend hours in a shell-hole with a dying Frenchmen that he had bayoneted. The protagonist quickly comes to see the French soldier as a man with the same basic humanity as himself rather than as some supposed enemy.
Thus, these works of literature challenge the framework for interaction that societies – established civilizations, by euphemism – impress upon their citizens. The works suggest that these ideological barriers that civilizations throw up around themselves and against each other miss the underlying similarity of the human individuals within each society. Thus, the so called “progress” that developing cultures yield is also counterproductive in that it obscures our basic shared human experience.
In addition, the Lewis and Wigen piece examines the flawed concepts of separate, bounded civilizations. It declares that this practice of metageography – attempting to assign boundaries to regions of different cultures, economies, etc. – has little meaning when ideas and values are not, themselves, confined to geographic boundaries.
Finally, tonight’s excerpt from The Secret Sharer deals with the framework of “civilization” from another angle. In the excerpt, the ship captain meets a man who so reminds him of himself that he deems this man, “my second self” (page 28 and other pages). In this situation, many of us might not be so quick to identify with the stowaway. After all, he is a murderer on the run. But the protagonist here sees past this man’s action to his actual humanity. Here, the protagonist (it’s painfully obvious by now that I don’t remember his name) recognizes how easily Leggatt must have gotten caught up in the fight with the sailor, and how easily the narrator, himself (or anyone for that matter), could have fallen into a similar situation. Thus, the idea of civilized human behavior can easily be shattered by whatever fate or fortune befalls us as individuals.
I think Melissa is on the right track with her ideas on how civilization is just another classification used to compare ourselves to "others", the beings not included in the "self" unit. The argument regarding civilization as metageography is essentially the same as Melissa's claim, in that all classifications of alterity, whether it be by geography, religion, or race, are simple generalizing tools which we use to aid our understanding of the other.
In that way, Lewis and Wigen's argument against continents is one we've heard far too many times, that generalization is a poor tool of judgment. Does the concept of "Asia" encompass the variety of cultures, economies, and civilizations composing that "landmass"? It does just as well as the generalization of Christianity describes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. A generalized categorizing name for an overarching group is only as good as the one or two traits it helps a person immediately know about others' alterity. Profound? Not really. True? Absolutely.
Wish I had more time to expand upon some of these ideas. Unfortunately, I've got my favorite class with this one awesome professor.
The common view on civilization is that the civilizations with the greatest technological advancements and economic power are further “progressed” than those civilizations still living in the “Stone Age.” The most difficult aspect of our exploration of civilization is shaking away these presuppositions that are embedded in our minds. As Gellner tells us in Plough, Sword and Book, we must look not at the pathways of individual civilizations as right or wrong. We must consider only the options and possibilities available to a certain society during a given time period and assess the consequences of each possible decision (“hindsight is always 20/20”). Also during this assessment, we must realize that no two civilizations aspire to achieve an identical set of goals. The individuals in a society are people just like you and I. We all possess our own respective presuppositions, superstitions, and ideals.
The idea of individual “otherness” and group “otherness” is also something I noticed while reading Conrad’s The Secret Sharer. The captain of the ship feels at odds with his newly appointed crew, but somehow he seems to get along immediately with a strange murderer. Why is this so? I believe that a fine line exists between individuals and groups. A group of strangers with its own set of beliefs and customs is intimidating and difficult to penetrate and understand, whereas a single, “flesh and blood” human being is much easier to relate to and understand.
I believe I have a situation that directly parallels this sense of individual versus group “otherness” (forgive me if I seem to be straying off topic). If any of you have heard of the card game called euchre, you will most likely know what I am talking about. If you decide to sit around and watch a group of people playing, you will easily be confused and hardly be able to understand the concepts and jargon of the game. However, when an individual decides to personally teach you the rules of the game (relate to you personally as opposed to forcing you to make your own inferences), the game begins to make sense to you. This little analogy may be way off base, but it makes perfect sense to me so maybe I am just “other” for believing this analogy to be true.
I would suggest that Lewis and Wigen’s critique of metageography, while an understandable reaction to the misuse of the term ‘civilization’ to justify elevation of one’s own group against ‘others,’ goes too far in a direction of antiestablishment. Not that one should merely accept the zeitgeist and all conventions and cultures of our current age, but to reject, out of hand, certain fundamental categorizations of socioeconomic reality would seem foolhardy, even if it would seem to put one in the avant-garde.
Civilization, properly defined, certainly exists. Things get a little sticky when one considers the multiple meanings of that term, as well as the misuses and perversions which have been used to justify certain improper acts. While ‘civilization’ had not been nominated as such until relatively recently, the concept which the term describes has much deeper roots. We must be precise in our use of the word, not straying to use the term to describe a more industrially and technologically advanced society as “more civilized.” ‘Civilization’ should not be used in a normative sense to suggest superiority or sophistication. Civilization, which comes from the state, results from—at its most basic level—the conglomeration of those most basic units of society, that is, families. As families grow, the ends they can attain also grow. Over several generations, groups of families will form into groups which may be nominated as clans, and then tribes. These particular groupings are seen in nearly every geographic region on the globe. Where things change is when tribes form a village community. From that village community or an aggregate of such communities, a state is formed, an institution whose origin is in nature. Over time, large scale arts and technology develop from the efforts of many people over many generations. Though there is no sharp dividing line, somewhere around this point the social unit might be called a civilization, by proper definition. Notice that this definition—though rather lengthy—does not inherently exclude certain peoples or relegate them to an inferior position. If the term ‘civilization’ is to be used, and used properly, it should be used in such a precise manner.
To be sure, it is natural for man to think good of himself, whether in personal or collective terms. Even criminals have a tendency to justify themselves as “really not that bad guys.” Human beings and human societies are imbued with pride. As such, when an individual or ‘civilization’ encounters other individuals or groups who are different, the automatic tendency is to describe this difference as an inferiority of that other person or civilization, or even to claim that the other group is not even a proper civilization. It requires a certain swallowing of personal and collective pride to admit that another individual or group which does something differently might not be any better or worse, merely different.
Ultimately, I agree with Brendan Keeler when he describes the thesis of Lewis and Wigen as, in the simplest possible sense, a persistent declaration that prejudicial judgment based on any form of categorization can be a dangerously risky thing to do. The improper use of ‘civilization’ as an exclusive categorization presents the real problem. Especially amongst intelligent, educated people, there is a tendency to assume that one’s superiority in intelligence, knowledge, and refinement automatically conveys an overall sense of superiority, making one a ‘better person’ than someone who is lacking in said faculties. This assumption is a natural, albeit flawed, one. Some people may be ‘better’ in many senses, than other people; they may belong to a more just or culturally refined society, they may have a broader knowledge of the world such as to be less ignorant, they may act with more virtue. That does not, however, convey upon them any additional human rights. Due to our uniquely universal human nature, all men are endowed with the same natural rights, regardless of what their personal or collective behavior might consist of.
What I found most interesting was the compulsion of scholars to try and categorize the world according to some perfect system. Our present systems are, at worst, inaccurate; however, many of them are, in a limited sense, practical and logical. There will never be any perfect system; it is impossible to encompass the innumerable, changing realities of our geopolitical and socioeconomic world. It would seem prudent not to agonize over the development of a perfect system; rather, we should note the varying degrees of usefulness of a variety of systems while recognizing, at the same time, their inherent limitations.
I would also conjecture that many of the problems encountered with ‘civilization,’ as a term, are related to the sedentary/nomadic debate. It all comes down to the reality that, in describing another thing in relation to one’s own self or experience, it is unfair to use one’s own biased, preferential measures of superiority. Thus, just as the nomad is not inherently inferior to one living a sedentary life, neither should a ‘civilization’ justify exploitation on the grounds that others, who may be merely a different civilization, are not part of the blanket of ‘western civilization’—or some other similar categorization—and therefore need not be treated with decency. It is perfectly acceptable, in viewing another civilization, to note that, although they may do things differently, they may not be better or worse in some cases. Of course, there is the extreme example of civilizations engaging in inherently immoral practices (i.e. human sacrifices, cannibalism, militarism) in which case they could be deemed inferior, but that is the exception rather than the rule, and I would suggest that it does not apply, for the most part, in the context we are examining.
A note: I find it interesting that the Lewis/Wigen article categorized Ireland as “relatively poor” (Intro p.3), because at that time, the ‘Celtic Tiger’ was well underway and Ireland was rapidly climbing the charts to a point where living standards surpassed all European nations save one. In fact, in 1998 Ireland was one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, relative to population.
According to Raymond Williams book Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, civilization was originally referred to as a process. However, over time this definition has grown to include “an achieved state or condition of organized social life” (Williams 57). This revised definition became popular during the Enlightenment because of the belief in progress and the recognition of human intelligence. Yet civilization also carries further meaning, the English and French associated it with good manners, social order, and knowledge. Perhaps the most telling definition of civilization comes from Boswell in 1772 that views civilization as “social order and refinement especially in conscious historical or cultural contrast with barbarism” (Williams 57-8). From the social psychology perspective we discussed in class, civilization therefore is viewed as the “collective self” while barbarity is the “collective other.” It is impossible to define civilization if there is nothing to compare it to, so it must always stand in contrast with barbarity.
However, just because civilization is modernly considered an achievement does not mean it is without problems. In the 1830s, Mill described the positives of civilization as higher standards of living and the spread of knowledge, but at the same time it has negative points such as losses of freedom, inequality, and day to day monotony (Williams 58).
Civilization seems to be gradually breaking down aboard the narrator’s ship in Conrad’s The Secret Sharer. At first the young captain seems to be a sane man, but once he begins describing his relationship with the fugitive Leggatt, the story begins to be wracked with paranoia. The narrator is dealing with conflicting ideals – he wants to harbor Leggat because he identifies with him and begins to view Leggat as his “secret self” (Conrad 27) - but also he knows that Leggatt is wanted for murder, which is uncivilized and normally inexcusable, but the narrator sympathizes with Leggatt’s actions. The narrator’s self-identity is breaking down, he starts to view himself as the “other”, as Leggatt, and wonders if Leggatt “is not visible to other eyes than mine?” (Conrad 45).
The word civilization is tossed around so that one hardly knows what exactly it refers to. In modern colloquial English, it often refers to an established group of people, with a connotation of social refinement and industrialization, as in the phrase, “I was miles from civilization.” However, the true definition used in the intellectual world, such as in textbooks and essays, is a group of people unified by similarities in economic system, social practices, religion or beliefs, or forms of government. In addition, it almost always refers to people who live in the same geographic location. The term also indicates a division of labor, settlement in urban situations, and a social hierarchy that dictates distribution of power and class.
Over the years, however, the word civilization has become more and more connected with the idea of refinement and progress. Suggesting that a culture is civilized almost always implies advancements in technology, forward development in concepts concerning science and the arts, and refined social practices. In short, the modern concept of progress is directly linked with the concept of a civilization.
In fact, the word civilization can even be used as a comparative term. Since the word is generally applied to cultures that are more complex and “advanced,” as opposed to cultures that are considered primitive and therefore inferior, civilization as a concept has also come to imply superiority in thought, cultural practices, and social organization. As a result of this tendency, nomadic societies, for example, are rarely deemed “civilizations.” Even in the denotative definition of the word, indicating settlement, an establishment of permanent institutions, and a division of labor, the nomadic culture cannot be deemed a “civilization.” However, the further connotation is that the lack of “civilization status” indicates inferiority. This seems to be the origin and perpetuating cause of the myth that nomadic life is the primitive predecessor to a better, more stable sedentary life.
Bruce Chatwin, author of The Songlines, seems to assert that this notion is mistaken, and that a nomadic lifestyle is actually more natural for humans. This is clear at many points in the novel, including in a portion in which Chatwin quotes the poet Walt Whitman: “O Public Road…/ You express me better than I can express myself/ You shall be more to me than my poem” (9). In quoting this, he suggests that a wandering lifestyle is more expressive of humans than poetry, the byproduct of “civilization.”
I would like to look at this question (What is civilization?) from a different angle than the one previously discussed. Rather than examine civilization by way of comparison/contrast with other civilizations, I will compare civilizations to less complex human societies. First off, I would like to note that the terms “society” and “civilization” are not interchangeable. A society can refer to any group of humans with a shared/similar way of life and culture, while a civilization is a special, more complex type of society. Generally, for historians to classify a society as a civilization, it must be sedentary and based on food-production, its residents must live in cities, it must have specialization of production, and it often (but not always, as in the case of the Incas) has writing. From a historians perspective, the term “civilized” is a simple classification and is not meant to imply superiority over “uncivilized” societies. We must remember that civilizations are a very recent development. For the vast majority of humanity’s existence, we have lived in uncivilized, primarily nomadic societies.
When discussing the concept of civilization, it is more appropriate to define “the other” as uncivilized societies rather than simply different civilizations. Although civilizations from different parts of the world have their differences, they are not nearly as “other” as nomadic or uncivilized societies. Because of this otherness between civilized and uncivilized cultures, civilized peoples are unable to fully understand uncivilized peoples and have consequently come to view themselves as superior. Civilized cultures have often used this idea of their own superiority to “civilize” others (such as Native Americans, who for the most part resided in uncivilized societies) by conquering, enslaving or exterminating them.
The American view on civilization may be unique in that it defines civilization as a grouping of people living in communities with an organized system of government, education, and beliefs. However, outside of the borders of the United States, this definition no longer stands. In countries throughout the world, including those just a few hundred miles South of the southern tip of the United States in South America, civilization does not mean that there is a set system of government or a system of education that provides all with an opportunity to learn and be protected by the governing body. As in the book Songlines by Chatwin, the Aboriginal tribe in Australia has no governing body or education opportunities. Although this culture does not have these systems in place, they are still a civilization because all the members share a set of beliefs and come from a shared background.
Our definition of civilization encourages the United States to view countries or tribes as uncivilized when compared to our own life. For one, the United States sees the need to overtake or aid countries, like Iraq, when we believe a new system of government should be put into place or when we see people behaving it what we deem an uncivilized way. Against the back drop of our well-formed government, other countries ways of life do not measure up, and thus we do not view them as equals. These countries are grouped under the term “Third World Countries” meaning that they are not as sophisticated and advanced as those in the First or Second World. Through this view of the less developed countries, the United States begins to look down upon the others, not giving them equal treatment as the larger countries who are our allies, and grouping them together into the Third World Category for we do not as important since they are not as advanced technologically as the United States. The United States uses its definition of civilization to discriminate the “other” countries, which it deems unimportant and not nearly as civilized as the developed West. Thus the United States demonstrates the concept of otherness as it groups nations into “worlds” without even considering the differences in culture that may contribute to the industrial differences.
I agree with Kathryn’s comment that the definition of civilization has evolved as our world becomes increasingly focused on innovation and technological advances. Prior to the industrial age, civilizations were considered a group of people who had the same system of beliefs and shared a common heritage. Now the term civilization can be used to discriminate against those who live in a lesser countries where the focus is not as much on the advancement in the science fields.
According to Dictionary.com, the term civilization means “an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.” It is no surprise that in Western culture ‘civilization’ is often equated with towering skyscrapers and global corporations, because these are the institutions that shape our world. The current reality is no mere accident; cities offer certain advantages that have allowed for the technological transformation of the last five thousand years. The transformation has been effected by the fact that cities allow people to live together and pool resources, labor, and intellect. It should not be inferred that modern sedentary life is preferable to the nomadic life of ancient human history. In many ways modern societies have lost touch with traditional ways of living.
The requirement of people to conform to society is one byproduct of civilization. Many of the recent concepts regarding ‘alterity’ and ‘otherness’ have been discussed within the context of civilization. At every level, people can identify groups of similarity and otherness. The Islamic faith is a microcosm of how the idea of ‘the Other’ permeates every level. In the broadest sense, the Islamic faith often defines itself in relation to other major world religions, specifically Christianity and Judaism. Within Islam, there are different factions, such as the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, so that an individual may only belong within one group and the others would be considered as different. Even at a familial level, the Islamic faith recognizes strict roles within the family for men and women. The underlying theme here is that many of the groups that people identify with or against are themselves a byproduct of civilization. If human beings lived in small societies without contact, the only way people could define themselves is by comparing themselves to the world and to those in the immediate vicinity. To paraphrase, many of the groups that define people today are byproducts of so called ‘civilization.’
There are numerous examples of the above statement in the text materials we have been using over the last few days. In The Songlines, Arkady wrestles with the different societal views of the Aborigines. He was “astonished by their intellectual vigor, their feats of memory and their capacity and will to survive” (Songlines p2) while at the same time he “suspected that [white society] might be right and that his vocation to help the blacks was either willful self-indulgence or a waste of time” (Songlines p3). Arkady is caught between the conventional groups, he is neither aborigine nor does he hold the views of his peers, and perhaps that is the reason he spends so much time alone. The captain in Heart of Darkness and the Secret Sharer is similarly caught on the edge of civilization, onboard a ship with a crew he does not understand. These two examples taken together serve to suggest that while civilization benefits humanity as a whole, it does not benefit every individual, specifically those to refuse to conform to cultural standards or those who are unable to (such as African Americans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
Perhaps it is a quote by Levinas that best describes man’s basic relationship with his world. “My relationship with the Other as neighbor gives meaning to my relations with all the others” (Otherwise than Being p159). The term neighbor is used in the sense that the Other shares the same physical reality. Before civilization, people could only define themselves by what they interacted with in their immediate vicinity. People in modern civilizations can now define themselves much more ambiguously. For example, as an American, I am not an African. However, I know very few Africans, I have never been to Africa, and thus I define myself through something I barely have had the opportunity to understand. Thus is the way in which civilization changes a person’s relationship with the ‘other.’
Everyone seems to have done a good job defining civilization with regards to the other as a way to distinguish and elevate one people above another, so I'm going to talk about the world "civilized". This was used during the imperial era to define themselves as superior to the "other" cultures they encountered. In a sense they were because they were able to conquer these cultures, however that is just in a military and technological sense. Most of the times they used the word with regards to the superiority of their culture. This claim on the other hand is entirely baseless and was used as a justification to force western culture on the peoples of Africa, the Americas, and Asia.
Civilization is a very elastic concept. There is no single characteristic that unites a civilization, no one trait that all members of a civilization share. Instead, what links the members of a civilization together is a social consciousness, that they think of themselves as a unit. This way of thinking, rooted in a search for similarities rather than differences, is what brings people together to form a “civilization.”
Shared traits, while not the critical factor in determining what a “civilization” is, certainly play a key role in “civilizing” (or at least bringing together) diverse people. One example of a “civilizing” trait is language. Language plays an obvious role in developing a group mentality and forming bonds with others. A shared language allows individuals to communicate with each other, to begin the process of trying to understand others, and incorporate them into one’s sense of a collective self. Most civilizations share a common language: Greek civilization had Greek (obviously), the Romans Latin, and modern America (or perhaps the “West”) English. But there are exceptions to this rule. India, which many perceive as a single “civilization,” officially recognizes 22 languages and over 300 dialects that are spoken throughout the country (http://india.co.in/?q=node/36). Even Canada is split between English and French speakers. Because it’s possible to have a common civilization without having a common language, language cannot be considered the essential factor in forming a society.
Yet there is another factor that appears to determine who belongs to a civilization: nationality. If you asked me what civilization I belonged to, I would tell you that I’m an American, I belong to American civilization. I would imagine that an Australian would tell you that he belongs to Australian civilization and a Russian that he belongs to Russian civilization. For most people, nationality is a crucial factor in determining the “civilization” they identify with. But again, there are exceptions to this rule. A current example involves the separatists in Georgia. While they are (or at least were) part of the nation of Georgia, of “Georgian civilization,” many of them identify better with Russian civilization. This same phenomenon occurs across the globe: Spanish and French who see themselves as “Basques,” Chinese who view themselves as Tibetans, even Canadians who see themselves as Quebecans. So nationality, like language, cannot be viewed as the characteristic that defines what civilization one belongs to.
While it would be possible to go through an endless list of “civilizing characteristics,” it is clear that no single trend will unite all members of a given civilization. Dividing people into civilizations faces the same problem that Martin Lewis encounters in dividing the globe into continents or nations (in The Myth of Continents): there will always be exceptions to the rule. So instead of searching for one factor or trait that links the members of a civilization, we should look to Raymond Williams’ definition of civilization as a process (from Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society – thanks Helen). What brings people together to form a civilization is a process, the process of looking for similarities in each other rather than dwelling on the differences.
This is evident even in the microcosm of the ship on the Secret Sharer by Joseph Conrad. The captain feels alienated by the crew because his relationship with them is defined by how long they have sailed. As the newbie on the ship, he feels unwelcome and approaches the mates as the “other,” rather than part of the collective “self” of the ship. Because he approaches them as the other, the captain cannot join the “civilization” aboard the ship despite sharing many characteristics with the crew. Because of this, he never feels welcome or comfortable in the crew’s presence. However, the captain readily accepts the murderer, despite only knowing him for a few minutes, because the captain focuses on the two’s physical similarities. Their shared background aboard the British school ship serves to strengthen their bond. Because his relationship with the murderer is rooted in their similarities rather than their differences, the two form their own “civilization” aboard the ship.
Clearly, there is no single trait that decides one’s membership in a civilization. Instead, it is one’s view toward others that determines whether one belongs to a civilization. If one approaches a group by searching for similarities, by trying to include the group in one’s collective self, then one will belong to the group’s “civilization.” But if one focuses instead on the differences between his individual self and others, than he will be barred from joining the civilization and be forced to confront them as the “other.” It is the process of searching for similarities that defines civilization.
I would consider a civilization any group of people living and working in close proximity. My definition is purposefully vague as the term could be adapted to many different contexts to describe a culture, a way of life, a group in a certain area in a certain time period, etc. In almost any context, however, as stated above several times, it is a way of classifying a group. Although it has been discussed in this view, I bring it up again to share a story that shows that we still identify people with the rest of their “civilization.” For example, when we speak of ancient civilizations our minds may go to the Aztecs and their pyramids, and we immediately have a picture of that group of people, each individual sharing the characteristics of the group. Even as recently as this summer I had an experience with someone identifying a group in these terms.
My family hosted three children from China, and immediately we were confronted with huge differences in cultures. I had to explain, for example, that here we like people of color because they are just the same as us. The Chinese children wouldn’t have it, but we moved on, and they at least acknowledged that we are a mixed group here in the United States. One day when my Dad was teaching them tennis, one of the boys, Kevin, hit a ball hard right towards another boy, Kenny. My Dad joked with them, “Kenny, Kevin is trying to kill you.” Although to me, this seems like the joke it was intended to be, Kenny’s reply was serious. He said that Kevin would not kill him because they are the same. Here (in the U.S.) we kill because we are different. He went on to say that China did not even have a need for fighter jets.
My Dad was quite taken back, as was I upon hearing the story. (This was one of several such incidents.) Not only were we surprised by the ignorance that results from censorship (my Dad can even tell you that China uses Russian planes), we were surprised by the sincere belief that he could classify our people as violent because we are different peoples within one civilization. The concept itself has some merit. Over the years, different cultures and civilizations have battled for numerous reasons, but do we battle because we are different or do we just classify ourselves as different in order to justify the battle? After all, why would we fight with our people?
This summer experience made me grateful to be an American, but even then I was classifying myself and allowing myself to view my civilization as superior, which is, as some of you have stated, a notion we need to overcome. While these groups, civilizations, whatever you want to call them, do share similar characteristics, each of the separate groups are also similar in key ways. To bring in something I read today for Theology, it is amazing that separate civilizations could share such similar religious beliefs even when isolated from each other. We may separate ourselves using terms such as civilizations, but really we are not so distinct in our characteristics.
I think one of the more interesting lessons which we may draw from history and from works like "The Ballad of East and West" is that civilization significantly hinders interaction and understanding between individuals of different backgrounds. A civilization is, by loose definition, a collection of individuals who tend to subscribe to a specific set of cultural and moral norms, who adopt and maintain similar language and ways of living, and who typically cooperate with one another in order to create and support a complicated system of social, economic, and political interaction. More than this, though, civilizations are exclusive; they offer their members a sense of community, of Sameness, while they dismiss outsiders as the Other. And almost always, the Other is represented as somehow less valuable than the community member; by downplaying the common points of human experience and by promoting homogeneity for all its individual participants, civilization separates us from our fellow man. It can take an awful lot to shock us out of the preconceptions civilization has provided us regarding Others; to interact meaningfully with an outsider requires us to turn our backs, for a time, on everything that contextualizes our individual experiences. But the payoff can be well worth the while, as it was for the two protagonists of Kipling's ballad.
The function of civilization as I see it is to group together people that have similar background characteristics together in an effort to band against those who don’t have the same background. Man tries to search for people who are similar to him because that is the only way he can know another person. By focusing on the similarities between the people, and the contrast they share with other civilizations, a civilization can begin to establish its own identity that many can share. When thinking of the brief description read about Said’s book Orientalism, it seems that civilizations enforced this identity in order to abuse other cultures in an attempt to “civilize” them, or more like enforce their civilization on to them. However, when I think of current times it seems that civilizations or at least our civilization is moving toward understanding each other more than imposing our will on each other. But I also see people who only say they try to understand cultures without even making an attempt to, such is the situation in the Middle East. Even in The Ballad of East and West the two men meet and understand each other even against their own will and after a while realize that civilization’s identity doesn’t really define them. I believe until we as a human race can understand each other and forget the differences between us that we can coexist in a peaceful environment. Not such an easy task.
Alan Yanchak
With respects to this topic of civilization, one can choose from a wide array of topics to discuss: what is civilization, who is civilized, how does one compare a given civilization to another. Along with the variety of topics concerning it, civilization itself can be understood, defined and manipulated in any ways depending on the intended purpose for using the world.
As others have stated, civilization can be used as a sort of classification system. Despite the subjectivity involved with such divisions, one can easily identify from groups of "civilized" versus "uncivilized" some defining characteristics of each group. These preconceived ideas support the notion which we have discussed in class that one is constantly judging the environment in which he/she is in.
Whether these distinctions be right or wrong, moral or unjust, they are an existing factor in the world today. To state otherwise is to be oblivious to our own surroundings.
Civilization is a group of people, their territory, cultural characteristics and heritage, religion, customs, government system, etc. Essentially, all the criteria which distinguish one group of people from another and allow them to be identified. In order for one civilization to be established as separate from all others, there must be the 'other.' Without some other definition of what a civilization can be, there wouldn't be any distinction between civilizations. The problem with that, is that people want to be able to break a civilization down into its components and analyze which ones are the most morally upright, which are the most successful, which are the fairest, etc. In other words, people want to compare their civilization to others and, hopefully, be able to claim that it is the best and will survive the longest. Furthermore, this comparison provides the means to better our current systems and civilization as a whole. Theoretically, we can see which aspects of our civilization have problems and can remedy those issues using the same or similar solutions that previous or current civilizations have adopted to solve similar problems. However, this is not done as much as it should be; for the most part, people just like to be able to brag about the ways in whihc their civilization is better than everyone elses, which does nothing constructive.
Post a Comment