Civilisation?

Aug 08, 2010 Editorial

The African slaves that were finally “emancipated” had been initially enslaved because the Europeans insisted they were not “civilised.” The Greeks were the ones who initially set the example of conquering their neighbours in the name of civilisation. Ever since, the world has been divided into the “civilised” and the “barbarian”, with “civilisation” becoming a pretext for colonising different countries to exploit their natural – including human – resources.
According to the French historian Braudel, the word “civilisation” was used for the first time in the 18th century by Mirabeau, a French noble, which means “just before the French Revolution”. Otherwise the concept would be expressed by using words like ‘polis’, or ‘polity’. When the word civilisation was coined, it slowly travelled from France to Holland and from Germany to the English speaking countries. The Germans still differentiate between Kultur (culture) and civilisation. To them culture is more meaningful than civilisation.
Why do European nations call themselves “civilised” and brand non-Europeans “barbarians” or “savages”? There have been several interpretations by European thinkers. For example, Gizot, a French historian, stipulated three elements contributing to the formation of European civilisation. To begin with, it inherited state institutions – such as senate, municipality, judiciary, laws and self-governance – from the Roman Empire. Then it separated religion, which played an important role in the growth of civilisation – from the state: secularism. Then came the concepts of individualism and freedom which stimulated the creative mind.
On the other hand, Gobineau, a racist thinker, rejected the role of religion in civilisation. Religion, according to him, was meant for salvation and not for worldly matters. He promoted the idea that a pure race was the major leitmotif to create a strong, rich and healthy civilisation. Whenever there is adulteration in the pure race, civilisation declines and is reduced to insignificance. Therefore, it is the right of the pure races to dominate those which are impure and are dying. This racist theory provided a tool for the Europeans who were pursuing the policy of colonialism to conquer and rule those nations who were weak and uncivilised.
Herbert Spencer was another thinker who strengthened the racist theory on the basis of Darwin’s ‘the survival of the fittest’. He called it ‘the theory of Social Darwinism’ and justified European domination over Asian and African countries which were “racially inferior”.
Apart from these, there are other thinkers and philosophers who investigated the origin and growth of civilisation. Freud in his book “Civilisation and its Discontent” argued that the reason for the growth of civilisation was the state of uncertainty in which human beings live. To protect themselves against nature, they use all their energies to overpower their environment in order to use natural resources for their benefit. In the process of conflict with nature, human beings make advancement as well as face destruction and devastation. However, these conflicts make them creative, inventive and energetic to promote civilisation.
Norbert Elias in his book “The Civilising Process” pointed out that one of the important indicators of any civilisation is how people control their emotions and body movements. One can judge a society by analysing its habits, customs and how its people eat, speak and behave. In his other book “Court Culture” he says that it was because of courtly etiquettes that the courtiers learned how to control their body movements in the presence of the king.
This culture trickled down from the nobility to the common man and became a part of society. Elias also gives importance to ‘powerful state’ and its institutions which weakened the influence of feudal lords and aristocrats and urged the bourgeoisie to go ahead. As a result, civilisation no longer remained in the circle of the nobility but spread to other classes as well.
Ironically, the “civilised states” destroyed more lives in their “world” and other wars than all the “uncivilised” ones ever did. Vanquished nations were forced then to adopt the values and norms of victorious/ “civilised” countries. Deprived of their culture and values, can we be surprised that the defeated people turn to the uncivilised and uncultured?

Latest News

Civilisation?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Guyana boys team selected for 2025 PAHF Jr Challenge

Mainstay Goldstar FC receives NSC support ahead...

Lusignan Golf Club Announces the 2025 Ansa McAL...

Guyana U-20 Women’s squad arrives in Antigua...

GCB saddened at the passing of former GCB...

BCB strengthens Executive body as moves made to...

Features/Columnists

A flawed interpretation of international law

CARICOM Nations Should Respond Together To new U.S. Policies

Dissecting, dissembling, clearing up covering up

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Civilisation?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]