Talk:Civilization

---

This entry is so wrong. A civilization is much more than a culture or whatever. At least, not unless you define culture narrowly, which most people will not know enough to do.

Okay, the problem is that civilization means to live in cities. If you live in cities, you're civilized. If you don't, you're savages. Civilization is the rules of behaviour which makes it possible for people to live in cities. It's that simple.

And yes, the Northern American natives were savages. Or at least, the Southern American natives thought so. Note also that the Conquistadors were extremely impressed with Mexico, whereas nobody was impressed with the savages up north.

Ark, you've done it again: unadulterated bullshit in the guise of scientific and historical fact. Since when does civilization equal city? Does that mean that anyone who does not live in a city is uncivilized? As for the native peoples of North America being savages because they did not live in cities, obviously I reject that equation.

However, even your very assumption is wrong. There actually were cities in pre-contact North America, and these may have even rivaled their European counterparts in terms of population and organization, though the material cultures were different. Take, for example, Cahokia, a center of the Mound Building civilization. At its peak, it may have had a population of 30,000 or more. Some mounds are estimated to have taken as much as 5 million man-hours to create, surely evidence of some kind of "civilized" social structure. In other areas, you have the Hohokam and Mogollan cultures in the Southwest, which lived in organized towns (the Anasazi are a prime example of this), and the pre-contact Iroquois Confederacy, which developed a federative political structure in New York State long before Jefferson and Franklin … and they lived in "villages," which were effectively small cities.

The problem, as I see it, is the late-nineteenth century use of the word "civilization," with all of its racist connotations: "We [the Europeans] are civilized, therefore anyone who is culturally similar to us is 'civilized,' and everyone who is culturally unlike us in 'uncivilized,'" i.e., savage, barbaric, etc. Of course, this argument, which was used to justify colonialism and the attempted extermination of indigenous cultures around the world, is inherently racist. If anything, by modern standards, the massacre of Native Indian men, women, and children because they were "savages" can hardly be conceived as "civilized." Danny

Danny, yes, the distinction has been woefully abused, but it is there. Historians usually don't apply the term civilization to anything before around 4500-3000 BC, starting it off in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The two most significant developments in that time were the rise of cities (villages existed before) and the appearance of writing. Many of the contemporary, and earlier, cultures were extremely sophisticated but that title isn't applied to them. The term, then, has a technical sense where it doesn't mean cultural advancement or kindness but means urbanity and literacy, as well as the colloquial sense.

Thanks but I disagree. Inca civilization, for instance, was illiterate, and there are other examples. I would venture to say that rather than urban life, civilization implied the rise of agriculture and (at least semi-)settled communal life. My reference to kindness was a facetious jab at the author's referral to native peoples as being "savages." Danny

The problem is that agriculture and villages appeared around 10000 BC, and it is uncommon to see the term civ applied to anything that early. If literacy doesn't count, that leaves us with urbanity and perhaps statehood, which is what ark insisted on in the beginning. As for savages, well, it is entirely true that the Native Americans were by and large anything but peaceful. It is fair to say that the Europeans aren't, either, but they tend to commission professionals to do the dirty work, which results in considerably fewer deaths per capita. Which is some progress, if not nearly enough.

Your dating would depend on region of course. Urbanization is a confusing term here since even major cities in the Bronze Age generally numbered no more than a few thousand people at most, and could often be counted in the hundreds (Jerusalem is believed to have had no more than 2000 in early First Temple times and it was the major urban center in the region). Jericho and Cayat Huyluk [sp.] are nonetheless examples of emerging civilizations as well as cultures. Statehood is also a Western construct, and it would probably be better to use a term like "political structure," which would have existed in most of those early societies too. The fact that they can build a defensive wall for more than one family is evidence of that. I still contend that civilization per se is an artificial construct used to impose a Western veneer on cultural development. I can see, however, where my position is controversial (not wrong--controversial). As for Native Americans being less peaceful, I think it would depend on which of the hundreds of groups you are talking about. Let's not give a romanticized picture of the Plains tribes and impose it on all groups. Other groups, by the way, did have warrior castes, so that it was not unlike the system employed in Europe. Then, of course, there were Plains (and other) battles, where the goal was "couping," or touching an opponent, not killing them. Much more humane than the wars of the Middle Ages in Europe. Where do your statistics on fewer deaths come from then? Danny

Technically, knights weren't supposed to kill one another either, and serfs weren't usually involved when they did. But the death thing is complicated, and is the combined impression I get from various texts which I would have to track down, so since it isn't the central issue here I would just as soon drop it. As for the other things, state is only a western construct when it is used to mean nation-state, but that's not the way many texts use it, and city really is used in a way that applies to Ur or Athens but not Catal Huyuk. For instance, people don't hesitate to say that Rome became a true city under the Etruscan kings, though there were settlements on the site far earlier.

If you want to argue that the term civilization is prejudiced or racist, then add it to the article. Redefining the word is a different thing.

I don't see that "civilization is high culture" helps anyone, or even means anything. -- ark

No, I want you to give a source for your definitions, which like so much else you have written, is questionable at best, and often just odious. Danny

I think the question is, can one come up with a universal, objective, non-culture-bound, and analytically meaningful definition of civilization (what the current article attempts to do), or should one discuss the word "civilization" as it has meaning within Western discourse? Personally, I would go with the latter: civilization does come from the root "civitas" and is used to identify a complex of traits associated with urban elites, including literacy; moreover, it is used to express a distinction between civilized people and savages. This is true (what isn't true is the claim that these words have any meaning outside of a particular cultural discourse). I think it is useful and important to define civilization in this way, because it then becomes a starting point for a critical analysis of Western culture (of which Derrida's Of Grammatology is but one example). It is also useful to point out that the use of this word-pair as an analytic tool has come under increasing criticism through the twentieth century -- after World War I, people had to start wondering whether being civilized had any connection at all to moral superiority; during the post-colonial period the word-pair was exposed as a tool of colonial domination. It is true that some scholars, such as Huntington, continue to use the term civilization in an analyitcal/objective mode, but they are subject to the same critiques as earlier scholars. SR

---

A clone of the Civilization computer game is FreeCiv. See [1]

I removed that because we're redirecting to Civilization video game anyway, and it obviously has a link to FreeCiv. I think it's best to minimize the amount of external links and keep them to the main topic page. Also, it seems that the name Civilization is covered by trademark. --Uri

[Mike]To judge and argue about pecularities of a civilization assumes we know all we need to know to do that intelligently. Also, it is a deliberation by a jury without power (beyond the grave). The most important aspects of a "civilization" are its shortcomings and why did it fail. These questions are still being debated about the Roman and Maya civlizations.

Perhaps if we focus on the shortcomings and dangers in our civilization, a beneficial improvement and healing may occur. We should wonder why some civilizations expanded their frontiers, in the sense that they shared their "civil life" with foreign people. This, of course, would exclude expansions by conquest followed by exploitation, and called "civilization." When some refer to Roman Civilization, they exclude the life of the slave, the vulnerability of children or lack of respect for women. Distortion is the game. [Mike]

---

There is a strong POV problem in starting out "From a naive European Christian ethnocentric viewpoint human history is the history of 'progress' leading to development of the achievement of 'civilization' represented by European Christian culture". Its definitely true that many postmodern theorists argue that the concept of civilization is ethnocentric, and this should be pointed out, and the arguments should be detailed in the article! However, to state in objective language that Europeans were naive and ethnocentric, and then to state in equally objective language that people who argue against the concept are "sophisticated" is a POV problem. Also, its a mistake to hold that everyone who believes in the concept of "civilization" believes history is a history of progress. Civilization has two uses, one to just contrast with nature generally, the other to talk about the cultural/infrastructural bodies,etc which is hard to define. But neither necessarily are meant to imply progress. If nobody addresses this issue, I will eventually edit the article myself. Brianshapiro

Naive Postmodern view

From a naive European Christian ethnocentric viewpoint human history is the history of "progress" leading to development of the achievement of "civilization" represented by European Christian culture. This attitude was associated with European colonialism and with the relation of Europeans and Americans with indigenous peoples such as the Native Americans.

Sorry, I'm just random visitor, Czech student of physics, which is propably not enough to understand more sophisticated though of this page. For me it seems just stupid exercise from postmodernism

- ethnocentric - what does it mean? Its neither explained in wikipedia nor a common word found in dictionary.

- European Christian - well, im European not Christian, but I dont think history can be summarized by one sentece.

- if naive means something like "as taught on classical school in 192x", its not true. From that viewpoint "european west christian civilization" was many times inferior to other civilizations, especialy with rise of christianity. Achievements of ancient Greek and Roman culture and science were preserved and developad only thanks to Byzantium and Moslem civilizations. All that time "Europe" had been "competing" with distant civilizations for example of China. Only Chineese politicians made extremely uniwise decision of forbidding long distance navigation. And developement of science in Europe was a big thing. etc...

- words progress and civlization are enclosed in what I call "detesting quotes" - why they should be? Both civilization and progress are normal words, for example I can see "progress bar" when I copy files. Progress alone does not carry positive or negative moral meaning. If author dislike any progress in general its quite funny.

- history of "progress" leading to development of the achievement of "civilization" - what??

- This attitude was associated with European colonialism and with the relation of Europeans and Americans with indigenous peoples such as the Native Americans. Certainly different associations come to authors mind than to mine. Intention was I should feel sory some people killed some indigenous native americans(??).

I don't understand

I don't understand why people don't even bother looking in the dictionary before they add stuff into Wikipedia. Maybe I do because English is not my first language and I am afraid to make mistakes? In any case, there are, as with many other words, multiple definitions of "civilization". However, I am convinced that we can do better than the trenches we have right now, ok?

Firstly, what the dictionaries say:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civilization

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=civilization

I believe we can help ourselves by finding the original sense of the word. In the English language, "civilization" comes from French "civilisation". Let's see what they meant in French:

"1. Action de civiliser, fait de se civiliser. " "2. Ce qui caractérise la vie culturelle et matérielle d'une société humaine. ".

Which gives:

"1. Act of civilizing, fact of civilizing oneself." "2. What caracterizes the material and cultural life of a human society".

That's good. The word didn't take a completely different meaning. Now, where did this word come from in the French language? From what I read, the original sense is not helpful. It meant: "the transfert of a criminal trial to a civil trial". The "civilization" of the trial. Interesting, but useless. What about the root "civil"? City, yes, you guest it right. Reading more allows us to learn that the French used the word "civilisé" (civilized) to speak of well-mannered peoples as opposed to the "sauvages" (savage) ones. The people of the city (read Paris) were civilized and the rest of the world were savages, or babaric as the Ancient Greeks would have said.

It seems to me that a "civilization" is a people that has developped or matured long enough to have cities and also the snobism and superiority complex that was produced by these people unable to survive in the woods because of their inability to make fire. Sadly, numerous nations have produced such retarded individuals. Right now, thinking that most of humanity happens to live in urban areas, I am beginning to be afraid for the survival of our species. ;-) Mathieugp 22:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The list with the 25 major civilisations.. "Communist -- Soviet Union, People's Republic of China" WTF!?!? Communism is a ideology, NOT a civilisation! Its like saying that anarchy, fascism or democracy is "a civilisation". Thats just silly. Noone 20:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Civilizations in human history

Did a major re-write of the table, replacing it with a list that offers a bit more explanation, interpretation, and qualification. Some of the civilizations listed before (Communist, Mongol) were a bit odd. Others, like Sumerian, Babylonian, and Levantine, could easily be considered to be periods or cultural regions of a single civilization. The new text needs considerable wikification and tweaking, (or complete reversion ;-) ) but hopefully it explains more than the previous table, which had much useful information, but presented it as though these civilizations had rather crisply defined edges...Tom Radulovich 22:46, 25 Jul 2004

Nice Work. you've really added to the article by revamping that section. Unfortunately there's much more to the article, and it seems that it may need some fixing as well...:) Fishal 19:18, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A couple of nitpicks on an article that's well done. (I shudder to think what it must have been like when most of the comments on this page were written.)

Is it accurate to say that the monks were trying to get away from civilization? Lao Tzu (whom we are to spell Lao Zi this year) did that, according to legend; but the Christian monasteries stayed in contact with the local civilization and used its technologies. The hermits were a better example of rejecting civilization, and the organized monasteries were in some degree a reaction against that tradition. Or is my information all out of date?

As to Gandhi: is there any reason to believe that the wisecrack about Western civilization is authentic? I've never seen anything that looks like an attribution to a specific source, and I've never seen a reference to it that dates before the 1970s, by which time he'd been dead for decades. If it can't be authenticated, I'll volunteer to qualify the citation in this article. Dandrake 02:07, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the part about monastics, Taoists, and Transcendentalists "attempting to create societies apart from civilization." In my mind the key word was "attempting," because in all of those cases, getting away from civilization was the Ideal, but it was never achieved. My point was that in the ideas of these groups, Civilization was seen as a negative force. It was something to be, if not shunned, than at least resisted. Is there a way to make that more clear, or do you think the paragraph should be scrapped?

As for Gandhi: that's been part of the article since time immemorial, and I wouldn't be sad to see it go, especially if its authenticity is in doubt. Fishal 02:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spanish colonization

Can we find a nice alternative to "destroyed" without completely evading the issue as the article does at the moment? Before the Spanish colonization, these New World civilizations existed, and a couple of them were thriving. After the colonization began, these civilizations were no longer there. Perhaps someone (someone else, with a surname that's not a fighting word) could figure out a polite way of letting the article indicate clearly that the civilizations actually ceased at a particular time and for a particular reason. Dandrake 18:23, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Conquered?"

Peaceful, or civil interaction

"Perhaps, then, a more accurate and limited definition is needed. We must not mistake the results of civilization from the core concept. Civilization is peaceful, or civil, interaction of peoples, made possible by rule of law and property rights."

This is a completely new definition from the main one in the article ("a complex society"). It should be noted in the opening paragraph, moved to a different section, or be given its own secion. In my opinion it's a highly connotative definition, akin to the popular definitions in the "Problems with the term" section. Once you use "peaceful interaction of peoples" as the definition of Civilization, you have to start making judgement calls. Was the West a civilization when certain Westerners made money in the slave trade? Were the Japanese a civilization when the Japanese leaders mercilessly conquered other nations? Is the Muslim world a civilization when some Muslims belong to militant groups? In truth there never has been a society with completely peaceful interaction of peoples. "Complex society" is much easier to define and study and is, I believe, the more common meaning for the word when used academically. Fishal 19:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's been a long time with no comments, and the statement in question was put there by an anonymous user. I'm removing it. Fishal 03:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Racist/ethnocentric

I'm no anthropologist or philosopher, but this article presupposes that "civilization" means a certain level of technology. That's just wrongheaded. It would be more informative to tell whether anyone has determined that all human societies - whether hunter/gatherer, stone-age, or urban - share certain elements, and what they are, or at least to contrast the differing points of view on what constitutes "civilization." I just don't buy the point of view that it's not "civilization" unless you are urban and agricultural. The so-called "Bushmen" have a civilization, just one based on different means of obtaining sustenance. I hope someone with a stronger background on this topic offers a rewrite. I also corrected a number of grammar and spelling errors.

I also hasten to add that the Inca were not illiterate. They didn't write using pens and paper or the equivalent, but kept records, including stories etc., by using knotted string called "quipú."