This essay will try a brief reappraisal of the history of the construct ‘culture ‘ and its relationship with the construct ‘civilization ‘ , in order to understand the two constructs, without doing any claims towards offering anything new in the analysis of the chronological history of how the definition of civilization changed over clip.[ 1 ]Alternatively, the essay will try to research the harmoniousnesss and dis-harmonies in the use of the two constructs, as a manner of coming to footings with immanent ruptures and continuities which were explicated in assorted ways in which the logic and vocabulary of these constructs were deployed in the different anthropological traditions over the old ages.
From the beginning, I would wish to advert that I about abandoned this peculiar subject because of the troubles I encountered in happening a concise definition of, chiefly the construct of ‘culture ‘ . When, after several hebdomads of reading, it eventually dawned on me that really there was none, it wholly started to do sense – that the topic of specifying the construct of ‘culture ‘ has ne’er been closed and was ne’er intended for foreclosure. This meant that understanding how the construct was diversely deployed was every bit of import as appreciating the mode of its deployment, particularly in ways in which this was ever associated with the construct of civilisation, whose definition was more straightforward.
The impression of Culture:
Following a really unsuccessful hunt for a concise definition of the construct ‘culture ‘ , it dawned on me that Terry Eagleton and several others was after all correct when he said that ‘culture ‘ was one of the few really complicated constructs to hold of all time graced the English linguistic communication ( Armstrong, 2010: 1 ; Eagleton, 2006: 1 ; Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952 ) . Culture was a really hard construct to specify because the development of its etymology and its deployment varied in different contexts and anthropological traditions, both modern-day and classical. Its significance in one scene was frequently contested in another.
The word ‘culture ‘ was foremost used in America[ 2 ], and in etymological footings, its modern-day use has its beginning in efforts to depict adult male ‘s relationship with nature, through which resources were extracted. It depicted the results of extraction of resources from nature through a procedure of labour, for illustration, through harvest agriculture and farm animal production ( Eagleton, 2006: 1 ) . It was in this sense that the construct was foremost officially deployed in the nineteenth century in Germany, where the word used was ‘Kultur ‘ , which in German referred to cultivation.[ 3 ]The early German use of the word civilization was to a great extent influenced by Kant, who, like his followings, spelled the word as civilization, and used it repeatedly to intend ‘cultivation ‘ or ‘becoming cultured ‘ , which later became the initial significance of civilisation ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 10 ) . The manner the construct was foremost used in modern English borrowed from the use foremost made of the word by Walter Taylor, which dates back to 1871, although harmonizing to Kroeber and Kluckhohn ( 1952: 9 ) , Taylor ‘s usage of the word civilization, which was borrowed from German, was similar to the manner the word civilisation was used in Germany.
The above sense in which the construct civilization was for long deployed depicted it as an activity or business that entailed a materialist dimension related to the extraction of resources from nature. Coming from Walter Taylor, the modern scientific sense of the word civilization no longer refers chiefly to the procedure of cultivation, but more by and large as a manifestation of imposts, beliefs and signifiers of authorities ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 10 ) . The latter sense signifies some abstraction to the transcendent and godly kingdom of spiritualism. Over clip, the construct was besides deployed in other ways that depicted it as an entity ( Eagleton, 2006: 1 ) . There was besides a sense in which the construct of civilization besides depicted the transmutation that took topographic point in society ‘s experiences with altering engineerings of production as capitalist economy developed, although this apprehension was rather frequently deployed in racialist footings to distinguish between less industrialised states of the non-west from the more industrialised European societies.
It is true, as observed by Eagleton that the relationship between nature and civilization was such that ‘nature produces civilization which changes nature ‘ ( Eagleton, 2006: 3 ) . In this sense, there is a portion of nature that is cultural, and another that is non. The portion of nature which is cultural is that portion which labour transforms, for illustration, into plants of art, memorials, skyscrapers ( or edifice constructions ) or metropoliss. Such merchandises of civilization are every bit ‘natural as rural idylls are cultural ‘ ( Eagleton, 2006: 4 ) . Because civilization originally meant ‘cultivation ‘ , or pull offing the growing of harvests, which means ‘husbandry ‘ , the cultural therefore would connote that which was within 1s agencies to alter. As pointed out by Eagleton ( 2006: 4 ) , ‘the material to be altered has its ain independent being, which so lends it something of the refractoriness of nature ‘ in much the same manner as the extent to which civilization transforms nature and besides influences the strict bounds nature imposes on the cultural undertaking.
To this extent, I am in understanding with Eagleton ( 2006: 4-5 ) that the thought of civilization signified a dual rejection, of, on the one manus, the representation of civilization as an organic ( biological ) determinism ; and, on the other, as an reading of civilization as an incarnation of independent spiritualism. To this extent hence, civilization slights naturalism and idealism founded in biological determinism by take a firm standing that from the point of position of civilization, there was besides a representation within nature which exceeded and demolished nature. It besides represented a refusal of idealism because even the highest-minded human bureau had its low roots in our biological science and natural environment.
The ensuing contradiction from this rejection of naturalism ( emanating from organic determinism ) and idealism ( as a consequence of liberty of spirit ) led to a competition between what had really evolved and what ought to, which transfigured into what Eagleton described as ‘a tenseness between doing and being made, between reason and spontaneousness ‘ ( Eagleton, 2006: 5 ) .
Consequently, although the relation between worlds and nature was of import to an understanding civilization, in this paper, I consider the societal dealingss between worlds and nature in the class of pull outing from nature, through which worlds change nature to be the most of import. This is what is cardinal to understanding the construct of civilization, which makes it possible to see it as a systematic manner of life and life, that humans consciously develop that is transferred from the yesteryear to the present and into the hereafter. It depicts some gloss of historically assembled normative values and rules internal to societal organisations through which a diverseness of relationships are ordered. In this manner, it is possible to see how civilization becomes an abstraction of itself, in its ain right, which does non reify civilization as a thing as this essentializes civilization. I am inclined to hold with Armstrong ( 2010: 2 ) in her definition, which presents civilization more as a procedure of intending doing which informs our sense of who we are, how we want to be perceived and how others perceive us.
The above said, we besides need to acknowledge that while civilization is of import, it is besides non the lone factor that shapes societal dealingss between worlds in the class of impacting on nature in ways that change it. Several other societal, economic, political, geographical, historical and physical factors come into drama. It is necessary to acknowledge that civilization, which embodies every bit much as it conceals its specific history, political relations and economic sciences ; is, as besides pointed out by Franz Boaz[ 4 ], non inert. It is an inherently Boasian construct to see civilization as highly dynamic ; as holding life, and bing in a uninterrupted province of flux, as new impressions of and about civilization continues to emerge. This means that civilizations can non be expected to be inactive and homogeneous. As new civilizations emerge, tensenesss are normally generated. The entirety of any civilization and its single trait can non be understood if taken out of its general scene. Likewise, civilization can non besides be conceived as controlled by a individual set of conditions ( Benedict, 1934: fifteen ) .
It is besides Franz Boaz[ 5 ]who noted that civilization is some signifier of standardised or normative behaviour. An single lives in his/her specific civilization, in every bit much the same manner as civilization is lived by an person. Culture has a materiality that makes it manifest in diverse forms connoting that it meaningless to seek and generalise or homogenise about cultural forms ( Benedict, 1934: sixteen ) . Thinking of civilization as socially constructed webs of intending that distinguish one group from another implies non merely a rejection of societal development but besides an indorsement of ‘cultural relativism ‘ , which is besides a Boasian tradition.[ 6 ]Boaz[ 7 ]justly argued that perspectives that position civilization in evolutionary footings tend to stop with the building of a incorporate image of the history of civilization and civilisation, which is misdirecting. Inclinations which view civilization as a individual and homogeneous unit, and as an single historical job is highly debatable ( Benedict, 1934: fifteen ) . I consider the typical life-ways of different people as the most basic apprehension of the impression of civilization. ‘Cultural relativity ‘ is a acknowledgment that different people have civilizations and life-ways that are distinguishable from those of others.
The impression of civilisation:
The construct of civilisation, like civilization, besides has a complex etymology. By 1694, the Gallic were already utilizing the verb civiliser, and referred to the shining of manners, rendering sociable, or going polished as a consequence of metropolis life ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 11 ) . The Gallic impression of civilisation referred to the accomplishment of human promotion manifest in certain imposts and criterions of life. The Gallic considered civilisation as the terminal point of a procedure of cultivation that took topographic point over centuries ( Elliot, 2002 ) . The English lagged behind the Gallic.[ 8 ]In 1773, Samuel Johnson still excluded civilisation from his lexicon, preferring civility, and yet civilisation ( from the word civilize ) captured better the antonym of ‘barbarity ‘ than civility. The English later adopted the construct of civilisation deducing it from the verb to educate and tie in it with the impression of educating others. The 1933 Oxford Dictionary defined civilisation as: “ A developed or advanced province of human society ; a peculiar phase or type of this ” ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 12 ) . By the eighteenth century, the word civilisation in German was associated with the spread by the province of political developments akin to the German province to peoples of other states. It was slightly similar to the English verb to educate ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 11 ) . For the Germans and English, the construct of civilisation invoked an imperial political docket that was evident in the manner they deployed the construct.
The harmoniousness and dis-harmonies in deployment of constructs of civilization and civilisation:
The evolutionary thought about civilization and civilisation in the doctrine of Durkheim:
Among the bookmans who attempted a really strict narration intended to separate between civilization and civilisation was Emile Durkheim, whose Hagiographas were foremost published in 1893. In seeking to come to footings with the complex division of labour and associated behavioural alterations that occurred with the industrial revolution in England, Durkheim, argued that inside modern industry, occupations were demarcated and highly specialised, and while each merchandise was a forte, it entailed the being of others in signifier of the labour they input into its production. As society evolved from agribusiness to industry, so did civilization of the pre-industrial epoch give manner to civilisation associated with the conditions of advancement in human societies. Durkheim extended the construct of division of labour from Economics to organisms and society, from which its association with civilization was derived, reasoning that the more specialized an being ‘s maps were, the more exalted a topographic point it occupied in the carnal hierarchy. For Durkheim, the extent of division of labour in society influenced the way of the development of the development of world from civilization to civilisation ( Durkheim, 1984: 3 ) .
Durkheim used division of labour to do the differentiation between civilization as a preserve of the pre-modern mediaeval society and civilisation as belonging to the modern industrial society. Durkheim argued that all societies are normally held together by societal solidarity. In the pre-industrial societies, where societal bonds were based on imposts and norms, this solidarity was mechanical while in the industrial societies, which were extremely individualistic, the solidarity was organic, and societal bonds were maintained by contracts which regulated dealingss between extremely individualistic existences. To Durkheim, societies passage from comparatively simple pre-modern societies to comparatively more complex industrial societies ( Durkheim, 1984: 3 ) .
Durkheim argued that division of labour influenced the moral fundamental law of societies by making moral regulations for human behavior that influenced societal order in ways that made industrial societies distinct from the pre-industrial 1s. It created a civilised, single adult male, capable of being interested in everything but attaching himself entirely to nil, able to enjoy everything and understand everything, found the agencies to unite and typify within himself the finest facets of civilisation. For Durkheim, tradition and usage, jointly defined as civilization were the footing of differentiation of the simpler societies which defined their mechanical signifier of solidarity that they exhibit. The modern societies, harmonizing to Durkheim, were characterized civilisation ( Durkheim, 1984: 3-4 ) .
Durkheim advanced an basically Darwinian statement. In the biological determinism of Durkheim, it is argued that the displacement from mechanical to organic solidarity was comparable to the alterations that appeared on the evolutionary graduated table. Relatively simple beings demoing merely minimum grades of internal distinction ceded topographic point to more extremely differentiated beings whose functional specialisation allowed them to work more expeditiously the resources of the ecological niche in which they happened to be placed. The more specialised the maps of an being, the higher its degree on the evolutionary graduated table, and the higher its survival value. In similar ways, the more differentiated a society, the higher its opportunities to work the upper limit of available resources, and therefore the higher its efficiency in securing indispensable agencies of subsistence in a given district ( Durkheim, 1984: sixteen ) .
There were cardinal contradictions in the positions of Durkheim. If Durkheim denigrated civilization to the pre-modern, and viewed society as developing in evolutionary footings to the industrial, it could be assumed that he besides believed that the solidarity which was associated with the industrial society was better. What so explains the fact that Durkheim was profoundly positive of and concerned about the pathology of acquisitiveness in modern capitalist society? Durkheim did non believe that the pathological characteristics of the industrial society were caused by an built-in defect in systems built on organic solidarity. Rather, he thought that the unease and anomy were caused by transitional troubles that could be overcome through the outgrowth of new norms and values in the institutional scene of a new corporate organisation of industrial personal businesss ( Durkheim, 1984: twenty-one ) .
For Durkheim, the defects in industrial and category dealingss did non intend that the pre-modern characterized by civilization was better. That the category struggles which were built-in in the industrial society and were associated with the construction of capitalist society would be overcome by the outgrowth of a new corporate society in which dealingss between employers and employees were harmonized. Beholden to none of the political and societal orientations of his twenty-four hours, Durkheim ever attempted to look for a balanced in-between manner ( Durkheim, 1984: twenty-two ) .
The modern-day drama of relationships between civilization and civilisation has, to state the least, rendered wanting, the thoughts which were advanced by Durkheim. For illustration, if civilization is a preserve of the pre-modern, what explains the pervasiveness of brutality within civilised formations of the industrialised universe? Can we hold civilization in societies that are characterized as civilised or with civilisation? Or are societies that are said to possess civilization devoid of civilisation?
The contradictions in the etymology and deployment of constructs of civilization and civilisation:
The use of ‘culture ‘ and ‘civilization ‘ in assorted linguistic communications has been confounding. Webster ‘s Unabridged Dictionary for English defined both ‘culture ‘ and ‘civilization ‘ in footings of the other. ‘Culture ‘ was a peculiar province or phase of promotion in civilisation. ‘Civilization ‘ was called promotion or a province of societal civilization. In both popular and literary English, they were frequently treated as close equivalent word, though ‘civilization ‘ was sometimes restricted to ‘advanced ‘ or ‘high ‘ civilizations ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 13 ) . Equally early as the 1950 ‘s, there were some authors who were inclined to see civilisation as the civilization of urbanised societies characterized by metropoliss. Often, civilisation was considered a preserve for literate civilizations, for case, while the Chinese had civilisation, the Eskimo were seen as in ownership of civilization ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 13 ) .
The English linguistic communication differentiation between civilisation and civilization made in the yesteryear was different from that made in the German linguistic communication. In German, civilisation was confined to the stuff conditions, while the English look sometimes included psychic, moral, and religious phenomena ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 13 ) . The German Kultur besides referred to material civilisation, while civilization in English over clip came to intend something wholly different, which corresponded to the humanistic disciplines. The German Kultur besides related to the humanistic disciplines of barbarians and barbarian peoples, which were non included in any usage of civilisation since the term civilisation denoted a phase of promotion higher than savageness or brutality. These phases in promotion in civilisation were even popularly known as phases of civilization ; connoting that the word civilization was used synonymous with the German Kultur ( Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 13 ) . In English, ‘culture ‘ was a status or accomplishment possessed by society. It was non single. The English phrase ‘a cultured individual ‘ did non use the term in the German sense. There was a sense of non-specificity in the manner in which the construct ‘culture ‘ ( ‘Kultur ‘ ) was deployed in the German sense ( Krober & A ; Kluckhorn, 1952: 13 ) .
From its etymological roots in rural labour, the word civilization was first deployed in mention to ‘civility ‘ ; so in the eighteenth century, it became more or less synonymous with ‘civilization ‘ , in the sense of a general procedure of rational, religious and material advancement. In Europe, civilisation as an thought was equated to manners and ethical motives. To be civilized included non ptyalizing on the rug every bit good as non beheading one ‘s captives of war. The really word implied a doubtful correlativity between well-mannered behavior and ethical behaviour, which in England was equated to the word ‘gentleman ‘ . As a equivalent word of ‘civilization ‘ , ‘culture ‘ belonged to the general spirit of Enlightenment, with its cult of layman, progressive self-development ( Eagleton, 2006: 9 ) .
Form my reading of the literature on this topic, it was non clear at what point civilization and civilisation begun to be deployed interchangeably. Suffice to reference, nevertheless, that in English, as in French, the word civilization was non unconditionally interchangeable with civilisation. While it was non wholly clear, between the two constructs of civilization and civilisation, which predated the other, they both shared a nonnatural association with the impression of cultivation, as something which is done to ( or alterations in ) worlds in the class of demanding labour upon nature to alter it, that leads to the development of human qualities to accommodate the demands of corporate humanity. Culture, which emerged in German from the impression of Kultur, which meant cultivation, appeared as a signifier of cosmopolitan subjectiveness at work within the particularistic kingdom of our separate individualisms. For Eagleton ( 2006: 8 ) , it was a position of civilization as a constituent of civilisation which was neither dissociated from society nor entirely at one with it.
This sort of focal point besides portrayed an basically Kantian impression of adult male as going cultivated through art and scientific discipline, and going civilized by achieving a assortment of societal graces and polishs ( or decencies ) , in which the province had a function to play. This Kantian construct hence distinguished between being cultivated and being civilized. Being cultivated referred to intrinsic betterment of the individual, while being civilized referred to betterments of societal interrelatednesss ( interpersonal dealingss ) , some sort of ethical teaching method which served to emancipate the corporate ego buried in every person into a political citizen ( Eagleton, 2006: 7 ; Kroeber & A ; Kluckhohn, 1952: 11 ) .
There was a sense in which the construct of civilisation had an overpowering Gallic connexion ( coming from the construct civilizer ) , in the same manner civilization was associated with the Germans ( from the construct Kultur ) . To be described as civilized was associated by the Gallic with delicacy with respects to societal, political, economic and proficient facets life. For the Germans, ‘culture ‘ had a more narrowly spiritual, artistic and rational mention. From this point of position, Eagleton ( 2006: 9 ) was right when he observed that: ( I ) ‘civilization ‘ was deployed in a mode that played down national differences, while ‘culture ‘ highlighted them ; and, ( two ) the tenseness between ‘culture ‘ and ‘civilization ‘ had much to make with the competition between Germany and France. I am reminded here of Eagleton ‘s celebrated phrase that: ‘civilization was formulaically Gallic, while civilization was stereotypically German ‘ ( Eagleton, 2006: 10-11 ) .
Towards the terminal of the nineteenth century civilisation and civilization were constantly viewed as opposite word. If, nevertheless, the description by Eagleton ( 2006: 9 ) of Gallic impression of civilisation as a signifier of societal polish is acceptable, so one can besides accept Kroeber and Kluckhohn ( 1952: 14 ) description of civilisation as a procedure of dignifying ( or ‘creating aristocracy ‘ ) of humanity through the exercising by society of increased control of the simple human urges. This makes civilisation a signifier of political relations. In the same visible radiation, I besides agree with Kroeber and Kluckhohn ( 1952: 14 ) that civilization ‘s German connexions link it with the control of nature through scientific discipline and art, which means civilization embodies engineering ( including equipment ) every bit good as cognition systems ( including accomplishments ) relevant for repressing and employing nature.
The deductions of the above are double: ( a ) civilization and civilisation, can non be looked at as opposite word or binary antonyms, in the sense in which development theoreticians would desire us to see the relationship between these two constructs – with civilization as being kindred to an inferior position while civilisation is ascribed to the superior ; ( B ) both tend to picture non merely elements of normativity in progress in life-forms, but besides invariably bettering internal conditions of the internal elements of these constructs that define humanity which they embody. There is a manner in which the elements embodied by these constructs depict high quality in their several life-forms. Even when there are inclinations for convergences in the elements depicted by these two constructs, for illustration, their association with political relations, art, engineering and urban life, there is a sense in which both constructs can non be viewed as phases of development one from the other.
It appears to me that Eagleton viewed civilisation as a value-judgmental construct that pre-supposed an betterment on what went earlier, to whatever was non merely right, but a great trade better than what was ( Eagleton, 2006: 10 ) . Eagleton was besides non-presumptive when he pointed out that historically, the deployment of the term put it within the vocabulary of a pre-industrial European center category, which used the construct to warrant imperial aspirations of mercantile and early industrial European capitalist economy towards those they categorized as of inferior civilisation ( Eagleton, 2006: 10 ) . This fact has to be borne in head if the construct when the construct is deployed today.
Culture on the other manus, required certain societal conditions that conveying work forces into complex relationships with natural resources. The province becomes a necessity. Cultivation was a affair of the harmonious, all-around development of the personality. Because there was overpowering acknowledgment that cipher could make this in isolation, this helped to switch civilization from its single to its societal significance. Culture had a societal dimension ( Eagleton, 2006: 10 ) .
Whichever was, between civilization and civilisation, the primogenitor of the other, there is a double sense in which these constructs appear linked by their enlightenment epoch roots ; and besides non linked at the same clip. I agree with Eagleton that “ civilisation sounds abstract, alienated, fragmented, mechanistic, useful, in bondage to a crass religion in material advancement ; while civilization seems holistic, organic, sensuous, autotelic and retentive ” . However, I have reserves with Eagleton ‘s predication of, foremost, a struggle between civilization and civilisation, and secondly, presentation of this struggle as a manifestation of a wrangle between tradition and modernness ( Eagleton, 2006: 11 ) .
One of the greatest exports from the Enlightenment epoch was its universalism. Post-enlightenment political doctrine contributed significantly to reviews of enlightenment ‘s expansive unilineal narrations sing the development of cosmopolitan humanity. We can look at the discourse of civilization as a part to understanding the diverseness built-in in different life-forms with their specific drivers of growing. Increasingly, it had become highly parlous to relativise non-European civilizations, which some minds of the clip idealized as ‘primitive ‘ ( Eagleton, 2006: 12 ) .
In the twentieth century in the primitivist characteristics of modernism, a crudeness which goes hand-in-hand with the growing of modern cultural anthropology emerged, this clip in postmodern pretense, in signifier of a romanticizing of popular civilization, which now plays the expressive, self-generated, quasi-utopian function which ‘primitive ‘ civilizations had played antecedently ( Eagleton, 2006: 12 ) .
While todate the concepts ‘civilization ‘ and ‘culture ‘ continue to be used interchangeably, there is besides still a sense in which civilization is still deployed about as the antonym of civility ( Eagleton, 2006: 13 ) . It is non uncommon to meet civilization being used in mention to that which is tribal as opposed to the cosmopolite. Culture continues to be closed to rational unfavorable judgment ; and a manner of depicting the life-forms of ‘savages ‘ instead than a term for the civilized. If we accept the fact that ‘the barbarians ‘ have civilization, so the primitives can be depicted as civilized and the civilized as artless. In this sense, a reversal means that civilisation can besides be idealized ( Eagleton, 2006: 13 ) . If the imperial Modern provinces plundered the preA-modern 1s, for whatever grounds, is it non a statement of both being artless and deficiency of civility, rather antithetical to what one could see as civilisation of the West. What sense Department of Energy it hence make to pose as civilised and yet act in an artless mode?
Can sing civilization as civilisation, on one manus, and civilisation as civilization, on the other manus, aid to decide the deadlock in the modern-day deployment of these constructs? One fact is clear, either manner ; it has possible to engender ‘postmodern ‘ ambiguities of cultural relativism ( Eagleton, 2006: 14 ) . Alternatively, if civilization is viewed, non as civilisation, but as a manner of life, it merely becomes an avowal of sheer being of life-forms in their pluralities ( Eagleton, 2006: 13 ) .
Pluralizing the construct of civilization comes at a monetary value – the thought of civilization begins to entertain cultural non-normativities or ‘queer ‘ civilizations, in the name of diverseness of cultural signifiers. Rather than fade outing distinct individualities, it multiplies them instead than hybridisation, which as we know, and as Edward Said observed, all civilizations are involved in one another ; none is individual and pure, all are intercrossed, heterogenous, inordinately differentiated, and non-monolithic ( Eagleton, 2006: 15 ) .
Attempts to valorize civilization as a representation of peculiar life-forms associated with civility can besides be parlous. There is a post-modern sense in which civilization can be considered as an rational activity ( scientific discipline, doctrine and scholarship ) , every bit good as an ‘imaginative ‘ chase of such feats as music, picture and literature. This is the sense in which ‘cultured ‘ people are considered to hold civilization. This sense suggests that scientific discipline, doctrine, political relations and economic sciences can no longer be regarded as originative or inventive. This besides suggests that ‘civilized ‘ values are to be found merely in phantasy. And this is clearly a acerb remark on societal world. Culture comes to intend acquisition and the humanistic disciplines, activities confined to a bantam proportion of humanity, and it at one time becomes impoverished as a construct ( Eagleton, 2006: 16 ) .
From the foregoing analyses, it is clear that understanding the relationship between civilization and civilisation is impossible until we cease to see the universe in double stars in which the West ( Europe ) was constructed as advanced and developed with the non-West perceived as crude, brutal and heathen. Historically, the West ‘s claim of domination was ever predicated on their provincialization of the non-west, whose behavioural forms were judged from the experience of the West, and characterized in generalised footings as traditional imposts and hence civilization. I agree with Benedict, that the West did all it could to universalise its experience to the remainder of the universe, even when this experience was different from that of those from the non-west ( Benedict, 1934: 5 ) .
Premises of the common exclusivity of civilization and civilisation in society are premised on sensed irreconcilability of values and beliefs. Religion was ever used in the West to situate a generalised provincialism of the non-west. It was the footing of biass around which high quality was justified. No thoughts or establishments that held in the one were valid in the other. Rather all establishments were seen in opposing footings harmonizing as they belonged to one or the other of the really frequently somewhat differentiated faiths.
In this modern-day epoch of extremely globalized populations of footloose motions and assorted matrimonies, with high possibilities of cultural hybridity, how can anyone speak about civilization as being a preserve of the non-West and civilisation as happening merely in the industrialised West? This is where I agree with Geertz ( 1973: 14 ) that understanding a people ‘s civilization exposes their normalness without cut downing their specialness, and this renders those they seek to understand accessible, puting them in the frame of their ain platitudes by fade outing their opacity.
It would hence be a fatal sentimentalization of the modern-day kineticss of the globalized universe to presume that civilization merely belongs to the pre-modern societies and civilisation belongs to the industrial universe. To reason today like Durkheim that traditional civilization collapsed under the impact of industrialisation and urbanisation, and hence that civilised societies have no civilization is to lose the point. Unfortunately, such positions continue to repeat in this twenty-first century.