What are the Hallmarks of Civilization?

[Traitorfish]

Do Europeans really think they're the most civilised? I struggle to think of any culture which has produced well respected thinkers that puts other cultures on a pedestal higher than themselves. Not even the most right-wing, outwardly racist would claim that the Egyptians or Babylonians didn't have a superior civilization (what ever that means) for millennia before European. Heck, the very fact we're having this discussion here and now shows that people aware of what biases they have and can try to correct for them (or even over compensate)

The question isn't really what Europeans think of the world map circa 1000BCE, it's what they think of the world map today, or at least in the last five hundred years. Babylon and Egypt fit into a narrative of "Western Civilisation", a steady march from Sumer to Paris, with Europe and, in some versions, to North America, as the true and first-born heirs to those ancient cultures. The very achievements of Asia become justification for the superiority of Europe, on the grounds that Europeans alone have built on those achievements. The common belief in the West is that the Middle East never really improved upon the Achaemenids, and even that it slid backwards, that whatever modernity they possess is a recent, Western importation.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're point is @Traitorfish or @JohannaK?

"Civilisation", as usually understood, is not a useful concept. Classifying cultures into "civilised" or "uncivilised", even if we could find a coherent method for doing so, and we cannot, doesn't tell us anything about those cultures that isn't better articulated in other ways. As I pointed previously, of the criteria for civilisation generally introduced, you will find at least one exception, until it becomes clear that no given criteria is necessary, that a given culture need fulfill only enough to satisfy a gut-sense of civilised-ness, which as I suggest above is usually based more ethical and aesthetic considerations than on political, economic or sociological ones.

There are, I think, scholarly concepts of "civilisation" which are useful, however, these are often at odds with the concept of "civilisation" as represented by, for example, the Civilisation series, and certainly with the aesthetic and ethical priorities it expresses. They are called "civilisation" partly out of conservatism, partly out of a lack of a better name; most often, they frame "civilisation" as a practice, while pop culture defines it as a thing, like "Western civilisation", or a quality, as in "civilised versus uncivilised". The name "civilisation" is not really necessary and, I would argue, carries more in the way of baggage than it offers in the way of clarity. We have more to win by abandoning the term and just talking about the cultures themselves.

It seems to be that civilization is a messy and biased concept, therefore it isn't worth discussing. The former is definitely true, but the latter doesn't follow. *Everything* is a messy and biased concept outside perhaps pure mathematics. That doesn't mean they are not worthy of discussion. Make your point as well as you can, while getting rid of whatever biases you can. Somebody else can then do the same thing with their biases. This was you can then find out what the difference is and both move towards an answer you both agree on while - even more importantly - becoming aware of your own biases. If everyone involved has the same biases this doesn't work. So you try and diversify the people taking part (say, by doing this on an internet forum), or accept that your answer isn't perfect but at least satisfies as many people as possible.

The refusal to approach a topic because you cannot individually be impartial, unbiased, or it is impossible to define terms properly is ridiculous. That rules out a discussion of everything in history but the driest and shallowest of timelines. The interesting part of history is how cultures, peoples and ideas develop. We can never approach this from a completely detached point of view. So what? It's still fun and enlightening to do so.

We gave our opinion, and our opinion is that "civilisation" is not a useful concept. You can't accuses us of dogmatism because we don't automatically accept your categories.

I agree, we can't approach history with a totally detached point of view- but why not approach it with our own view, with the authentic perspective of the year 2017, rather than allowing the obsolete theories of some long-dead philosopher to hang around our neck like an albatross?

 

[JohannaK]

Incans, Chinese, and Americans are already united by a certsin category: culture.

Within your analogy, civilisation would be more like noble gases, except there is something that makes noble gases useful to distinguish from the rest.

What has been explained to exhaustion already in this thread is that there is no single set of traits that allows us to say that this or that culture is civilised.

 

[innonimatu]

Besides, every criticism that has been levied at the concept of civilization in this thread can also be applied to culture. Its impossible to define precisely, it carries over huge moral connotations (nobody wants to be considered uncultured), it has a racist and unsavoury past, etc... Yet everyone is happy to use the word culture in this thread without objection. Why is that?

Because some people on board have not yet crossed from port-modernist into... whatever came next and is (based on past trends) some kind of critique of post-modernism?

It had become "cultured", by the 1960s and 70s in (former ) "avant-garde" circles, by the 1980s and 90s generally, to criticize "established truths". Whichever ones you fancy (or rather, not fancy). They called that "post-modernism", which was supposed to some kind of reaction against "modernism", or "structuralism" or whatever. All very academic - some people made a living making this up. And some had useful insights - I had my time of discovering Foucault, Deleuze, etc. But mostly it was about intellectual masturbation. Which was nothing new. Basically they noticed that the world was more complex, when looked at in detail on any one topic, that the models used in intellectual discussions at the time. Duh!
Any model is by definition imperfect, and is useful insofar as it is, well, useful for the purpose at hand! Resorting also to physics for a picture of this, we may talk about "probability density" and atomic orbitals for electrons in atoms, or we may talk about stationary orbits, depending on what is our purpose. We may make calculations of movement using newtonian mechanics, or we may use relativity, depending on whether we want to launch a probe to another planet, or shoot a shell here on earth. It is good that people keep in mind that models and inaccurate representations of reality chosen for their usefulness for some purpose, and post-modernist critique came as a good reminder or that against a certain "positivism" (always dangerous) in social sciences. But then, as it became a fashion, it was overdone. And we came to see entirely useful concepts being denied as valid, by people who use in their arguments other concepts that they would also decry as invalid in separate discussions (as you point out here). Everything became quicksand for the committed post-modernist. Obviously this too turned out to be unproductive. But in the meanwhile kept lots of professors, students, printers, members in on-line forums , etc, busy.
I've had it with post-modernism a long time ago, and it became one of my pet peeves. Nothing can be achieved by criticizing everything - except getting oneself ignored as noise! But before people learned that post-modernism colonized intellectual circles, took over the "new" "protest" left of the 70s onwards, and seems to still be present today among the "social justice warriors".

I do not mean this as an attack on Traitorfish or anyone else here. Genuinely some people consider it useful to keep questioning concepts and models of human affairs, lest society again falls for believing that models = reality (as a lot of people still do with "economics", unfortunately). And I should know, because I am guilty of often raising questions about things here. But it can be overdone, because other people involved in the discussion can very much be aware, from the start, that a concept (in this case civilization) will mean different things to different people or at different times (it represents nothing absolute), while still having some vague meaning. Perhaps discussing what it means (as in this thread) is also a kind of "intellectual masturbation"? But so what, we're here and have the free time to do it, it's entertainment and even instructive to see each person's idea of it!

 

[JohannaK]

Culture is literally anything that leaves a distinctive trace. Bits of pottery? Culture, buts of pottery with a different decorative pattern found not far from the first? Another culture. Etc. etc.

Of course the precise extent of a culture is as hard to determine as the precise boundary between languages, but it's in no way a competition like you purport civilization to be. Nevermind that whatever culture defines the parameters of civilization (i.e. Western Europe) will inevitably be also the 'most civilized' precisely because it gets to define what makes and doesn't make civilization.

 

[innonimatu]

Of course the precise extent of a culture is as hard to determine as the precise boundary between languages, but it's in no way a competition like you purport civilization to be. Nevermind that whatever culture defines the parameters of civilization (i.e. Western Europe) will inevitably be also the 'most civilized' precisely because it gets to define what makes and doesn't make civilization.

And what are those parameters that you denounce? Let's have a real example.

We are in civfanatics, therefore I will use Civilization's original intro. We have a quote inspired from the bible, but may as well be inspired in one or many creation myths from around the world. Then we have some basics from cosmology and biology, on how planets may be created and life emerge (imagined by europeans, possibly). Then we have a reference to Darwin's theory (created in Europe). Then it mentions "Fire, tools, and weapons, the hunt, farming, and the sharing of food, the family, the village, and the tribe." That is kind of universal, is it not? And finally a leader to unite the tribes and build a civilization that would stand the test of time. Meaning a polity and some enduring cultural artifacts.

Now, exactly what do you object against in this example?

 

[JohannaK]

Absolutely nothing (aside from the Bible). When will the Guaraní civilization be added to the game? What about the Wurundjeri?

 

[innonimatu]

When their "inheritors" are wealthy enough to buy lots of copies? If Australia was added...
More realistically, when someone volunteers to make a mod and makes it available for those interested to use.

No one has an obligation to pay attention to all the civilizations that ever existed.

 

[Kyriakos]

When their "inheritors" are wealthy enough to buy lots of copies? If Australia was added...
More realistically, when someone volunteers to make a mod and makes it available for those interested to use.

No one has an obligation to pay attention to all the civilizations that ever existed.

The first one is the reason why Norway is its own civ in Civ6

 

[Traitorfish]

If we're criticising the way "civilisations" are delineated in Civ, then I'd say it's more dumb than simply Eurocentric, at least in the sense we're talking about here. It's absurd that somebody thought CiV needed six different entries for Germanic-speaking Europe, but one was more than enough for the entire Indian subcontinent. But it's also a little absurd that somebody thought the Shoshone or Huns needed a unique civ. The latter is at least a bit more colouful, so it's a reasonable choice from a game design point of view- anything that isn't another white guy with a ruff is good for the game- but it suggests that the selection process is not based in a rigorous sense of what delineates an individual "civilisation".

I've had it with post-modernism a long time ago, and it became one of my pet peeves. Nothing can be achieved by criticizing everything - except getting oneself ignored as noise!

I mean, that's just modernism. There's no "post".