What is Civilization?
by Jason GodeskyI ended my last post in this series with an example of civilization as a bad thing. This doubtless strikes many readers as a bizarre statement. We are used to “civilization” as the sum total of all that is good and decent in the human heart; civilization is the better angel of our nature. It is philosophy, literature, good music and fine food. Its opposite is barbarism or savagery–the cruelest dispositions of our species. Torture is barbaric. Rape is savage. These are terrible things; “uncivilized” things. This issue speaks to the very heart of a question I find myself having to answer over and over again, so let me answer it here one last time in the fullness it deserves: What, exactly, is civilization?
When asked this question directly, many people answer that a civilization is simply a synonym for “society”–that a civilization is simply a group of people living together. This definition is betrayed when you press the point with borderline examples. Are you comfortable with the phrase “Inuit Civilization”? Or “!Kung Civilization?” Or “Australian Aborigine Civilization”? Most people are not. There is no doubt as to whether the Inuit, !Kung or Aborigines constitute societies, but we waver on the question of their civilization. Obviously, then, the two words are not the synonyms some would claim.
WordNet provides four definitions for the word:
- civilization, civilisation — (a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); “the people slowly progressed from barbarism to civilization”)
- civilization, civilisation — (the social process whereby societies achieve civilization)
- culture, civilization, civilisation — (a particular society at a particular time and place; “early Mayan civilization”)
- refinement, civilization, civilisation — (the quality of excellence in thought and manners and taste; “a man of intellectual refinement”; “he is remembered for his generosity and civilization”)
The third definition is the synonym of society discussed previously (are not all societies in some particular time and place?). The other three all have a common root in nineteenth century ideas of unilineal cultural evolution. Fundamental to this idea is the notion of a society’s progression from savagery to civilization: “the people slowly progressed from barbarism to civilization.”
Progression, though, implies the reality of perfection. For societies to “progress,” there must be some single goal to move towards. Every culture believes itself to be superior to all others, but even after centuries of philosophical theorizing on the subject, we have yet to develop any objective criteria that do not require us first to accept the superiority of our own culture. We can prove our superiority only when it is taken as a premise, making the entire argument moot. Given that such ethnocentrism is a universal among all human cultures, we should not count our own for anything more than that. Ethnocentrism once had its place: a smug sense of superiority could help keep people from wandering off by themselves and dying alone. Usefulness should not be mistaken for truth.
So we see that none of the four definitions provided really give us any meaningful definition. One fails to capture what we really mean by the word, and the other three are based on a deeply flawed premise.
Etymologically, the origins of the word “civilization” lay in the Latin word civis, often translated as “city,” but perhaps more accurately translated as “city-state.” The Roman Empire was a patchwork of civitates, fulfilling a role not terribly far removed from states in the U.S. The Roman Empire was, in fact, a hierarchy of smaller imperial dominions; the Pater familias was emperor of his family, and the magistrate was the emperor of his civitas. Strictly speaking, a civis was the “citizen” of such a civitas, but the word was also applied to the sense of “city-ness,” as well as the city itself.
Etymology, then, gives us our first workable definition: “civilization” is a culture of cities. Working more along these lines, and trying to identify a set of defining criteria among those cultures we can comfortably call “civilized,” Vere Gordon Childe defined a set of criteria still taught in introductory anthropology courses and widely accepted as the criteria for civilization:
Primary Criteria
- Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people.
- Full-time labor specialization.
- Concentration of surplus.
- Class structure.
- State-level political organization.
Secondary Criteria
- Monumental architecture
- Long-distance trade
- Sophisticated art
- Writing
- Predictive sciences (math, astronomy, etc.)
The secondary criteria have a general correspondence with civilization, but are not definitive. There are plenty of civilizations that lack one or more of them (Teotihuacan most likely lacked a writing system), two out of five (predictive sciences and sophisticated art) are human universals, and two of the remaining items (monumental architecture and long-distance trade) are known among non-civilized societies.
The primary criteria, though, help us to begin to understand the true nature of civilization. It is my supposition that these criteria form a reflexive set; that no one of these criteria can be met without also fulfilling the other four. That these five primary criteria form a single cultural “package,” best defined by the word “civilization.”
Hi, Jason,
Found you by way of IshCon. Very interesting.
Of course, Childe’s list effectively rules out places like ancient Catal Huyuk and Jericho despite the fact that both of them were well-defined, organized population centers (I’m not sure they exceeded 5,000, but they were pretty crowded) because they lacked a state-level organization. Same’s true of the Anasazi and possibly the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Also, what if the society were technologically advanced but dispersed in small, communicating villages? That would be civilization to me, but not to him.
As Cohen & Stewart write in The Collapse of Chaos, “…most of the stories we teach our children are myths, Just So stories, oversimplifications. They are teaching stories, not truths.” That’s certainly true of the common image of civilization and one we need to outgrow if we ever want to be truly “enlightened.” Personally, I’d add that our view of ourselves is decidedly dissociative — we praise ourselves mightily for doing good & being advanced(sometimes accurately), then justify behavior that even “uncivilized” peoples would consider barbaric without trying to really understand where both sides of our culture come from.
Comment by Gus — 8 March 2005 @ 12:53 AM
You’ll notice I left off with a rather contentious claim: that Childe’s primary criteria form a single set package. A cultural subspecies, if you will, where all traits occur together. I was going to keep writing on that in this post, but decided it deserved a post of its own. Suffice to say for now, I don’t take Childe quite so literally.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2005 @ 10:55 AM
Hi,
3 would most likely occur AFTER a centralized civilization has evolved or collapsed provided that the memes (i.e. educational background) and sufficient technology exist to continue without state-level organization. Granted, that would be difficult — such a transition would essentially have to be PLANNED rather than occur randomly, with planning made possible by a distributed communications network akin to the Web. It is essentially a “post-civilization.”
Curiously, isn’t that what “true communism” AND “true democracy” call for? Maybe such a society — and, therefore, a period of civilization before it — is one natural possibility of the process of social development. Over a long time it looks like this: Egalitarian hunter-gatherers gradually centralize under “redistributor” headmen/elites, population grows, the elites become governments, governments promote public education that gradually broadens to include almost everyone, thus essentially doing away with their own elite status and restoring a semblance of egalitarianism. (This would explain why Christian conservatives and other religious self-identified elites tend to strongly restrict educational opportunities: They KNOW it will ultimately promote their downfall.)
As far as 2 goes, I was tossing those out to show that Childe’s list is somewhat arbitrary: Wouldn’t the Anasazi communities probably have been seen as “Civilization” by the people of the desert SW at that time?
Catal Huyuk did have a lot of what seem to be religious shrines, but that in itself isn’t proof of theocracy. It could have been, but I’m not sure we’ll ever know. The Hopi towns of today have numerous kivas that are used for similar religious gatherings, and their religion is a key element woven into their lifestyle, but the tribe isn’t a theocracy. I suspect CH was something similar; their community is even built along similar lines.
Comment by Gus — 8 March 2005 @ 4:58 PM
Oh, obviously just a number of shrines does not a theocracy make. I had heard other evidence indicating a theocracy once upon a time, but again, I’ve never studied Catal Huyok very closely….
The Anasazi seem to have been heavily influenced by the Aztecs and Toltecs. While they, like all cultures, believed themselves superior to all others, I’m not sure this is a valid definition for “civilization.” Such self-righteous ethnocentrism is a universal among all human societies; if that’s our criterion, then we’re reduced once again to a synonym of “society.”
The third possibility in my list is an interesting possibility–but, for now, purely speculative. No such thing has ever existed, and the jury’s out on whether it’s even possible.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2005 @ 5:16 PM
Hi,
Yeah, I know. I’m inclined to think option 3 might be the best one we have if we want to survive the next century. We’ll never know if it’s possible until we try it.
Have you ever read Marge Piercy’s “Woman on the Edge of Time”? she postulates such a society, with some features I like a lot — good science mixed with nature spirituality, ecologically sound agriculture & transportation, shared wealth/literature/art of the old world (our civilization) without money, etc — and a few I don’t (procreation via machine).
Comment by Gus — 9 March 2005 @ 10:55 PM
Catal Huyok is a civilization k.
Comment by Dude — 22 September 2005 @ 8:17 PM
Ehh … yes, yes it is. Are you going somewhere with this, Dude?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 September 2005 @ 9:31 PM