What makes a Civilization?

[Ozymandias]

What does "removal from nature" mean though, exactly?

Essentially, it means that the more "buffers" there are between you and nature (when did you last hunt and slaughter an animal for its meat?) the greater your degree of "civilization" (note that, in this context, "civilized" is a value-neutral term).

The thesis is considerably elaborated in Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's Civilizations - Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature.

Best,

Oz

 

[Blue Monkey]

"Nature" itself is pretty hard to define. I'd be willing to wager that most of us in this discussion would say the the rain forest on Kauai is "natural". Yet something on the order of 70% of the plant species on the Hawaiian Islands were imported by the Polynesians*. As Alan Kay pointed out, "Grass is technology".

The Oxford American Dictionary defines civilization as "1 an advanced stage or system of social development." I see nothing there that at least some nomadic cultures do not satisfy. The American Heritage Dictionary has "1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions." The only one I can't think of a nomadic example for, off the top of my head, is writing, although record keeping is certainly present both in the form of oral transmission of knowledge and such things as the Lakota winter count. I also note that neither of those definitions requires permanent settlements, let alone cities.

* I realize they don't meet the common definition of "nomad". I do think that they're one of the closest non-nomadic societies to that end of the spectrum because of the importance of long distance travel and the social status of navigators in the phase of their culture that lasted up to about 700 CE.


@ Plotinus: is there any way to move this threadjacked portion & attach it to the other thread?

 

[innonimatu]

Just a few days ago I was thinking about what defined a civilization, and how "civilization" and "culture" differed.

My conclusion was that a civilization was the result of technological and geographical (perhaps I should say instead the physical environment) constraints on human societies. Societies sharing the same constraints developed similarly, and were part of the same civilization. They might have had different cultures, developing different forms of religion or political organization. But their civilization was the same, and someone who moved from one to another would easily understand it, despite differences in cultural rules.

A whole people could change its civilization simply as a result of a migration (the ottoman turks after leaving the central asian plains, the desert arabs after leaving their peninsula and taking over urban centers, the german barbarinas who settled in the souther territories of the Roman Empire), or as a result of acquiring new technology - including social ideas.
The trend has been towards a single civilization, driven by easier communication (technology is now easily accessible throughout the world) and greater human control over the physical environment (we can now maintain similar lifestyles almost everywhere, except in the most extreme climates).

 

[Blue Monkey]

Your ideas bear validity, but I think you have the labels reversed. We speak of urban culture or the culture of the web. I've never heard anyone use the phrase "Hip Hop Civilization".

 

[Mithadan]

What does "removal from nature" mean though, exactly?

I suppose we'd have to hire some analytic & environmental philosophers to sort that out for us. In the meantime, we could make do with our commonsense understanding of the phrase as a useful heuristic, no?

Edit: whoops, didn't realise there was a whole other page to this thread.

2nd Edit: Here are some really elementary (i.e., not too esoterically academic) quotes I dug up and used not long ago:

The revolutionary change from a food-gathering to a food-producing type of economy made possible the next stage in humankind's cultural evolution, riverine civilization. ... Historians do not agree on how best to define the term civilization. But most would accept the view that a civilization is a culture that has attained a degree of complexity, characterized by urban life. In other words, a civilization is a culture capable of sustaining a great number of specialists to cope with the economic, social, political, and religious needs of a large social unit.
From Palmira Brummett, Robert R. Edgar, Neil J. Hackett, George F. Jewsbury, Alastair M. Taylor, Nels. M. Bailkey, Clyde J. Lewis, and T. Walter Wallbank (Late), Civilization: Past & Present, 10 ed., vol. 1. (New York: Longman, 2003), 10.​

By culture I mean the whole of any society's knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Culture is everything: from veganism to cannibalism; Beethoven, Botticelli, and body piercing; what you do in the bedroom, the bathroom, and the church of your choice (if your culture allows a choice); and all of the technology from the split stone to the split atom. Civilizations are a specific kind of culture: large, complex societies based on the domestication of plants, animals, and human beings.
From Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress (Toronto: Anansi, 2004), 32-33.​

Seems to me that 1) the genera-species distinction between "culture" and "civilization" respectively, and 2) the etymological link to cities ("civitas"), are good places to start for a definition. Furthermore, plant and animal domestication is another interesting aspect of "distance from nature," along the lines of that imported Polynesian grass mentioned above.

 

[aronnax]

So what is civilization?

There is a native tribe in Africa where the boys of the tribe "become" men by performing oral sex upon the senior cheiftans of the tribe

Is that a civilzation?

Or is a civilzation is a place of where there must be more such as law and order, a goverment, a social structure, learning and a economic development?

 

[CaptainF]

A beer brand and an airline.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Yes, but that definition is too vague when you think about how to demarcate one civilisation from another. [...] There's no right answer to any of these questions, I think.

That's not a problem, it's the solution. Namely, arbitrarily choose one of the equally good answers and that's that.

 

[Angst]

I think Gaius has a definition on the term, but I'll just wait until he gets here himself...

 

[Maimonides]

Blue Monkey, I've always been taught that for a people to be considered "Civilized" they have to have cities.

Well, even if that's true, how do you define a "city"? In America, the word can refer to something that no-one else would call a "city"...

...I agree that in the context of this game, a "civilization" has to have cities, since the game revolves around them, but it does not necessarily follow that that is part of a general definition.

I think it's "permanent settlement" more than "city."

Historians consider the beginnings of civilization to date to the times & places when humans 1st built & lived in permanent settlements. Permanent settlements don't work without some kind of agriculture as hunter/gatherers would quickly eliminate local, wild food sources. Looking at examples of the 1st permanent settlements, some form of writing appeared quickly after their establishment-cuneiform in Mesopotamia & glyphs in Egypt, Asia & Mesoamerica.

Based on this definition, I think civilization simply requires permanent settlement, agriculture & writing. A small group of Neandertals or Homo Erectus may have resided year-round in a cave, but they had no agriculture or writing &, hence, were uncivilized.

Maybe someone who knows some Latin can answer: Doesn't the root word of "civilization" have something to do with "city" like "civic" does?

There is no clear-cut definition for any of these things, partly because calling someone "civilised" is in part a value judgement. Robert Moffat thought that civilisation involved (among other things) dressing like an English gentleman at all times, even if you were a Zulu.

It sounds like Moffat's definition was blatantly ethnocentric &, thus useless. He would have been more accurate to say that the Zulu weren't civilized, even though they had agriculture & permanent settlements, because they were entirely illiterate. There are other examples of this such as ancient Greeks & Romans considering anyone who wasn't part of their cultural group barbarians. The Japanese thought of the Portuguese as barbaric when they met even though the Portuguese had a higher level of technology. The truth is they were both civilized.

Essentially, it means that the more "buffers" there are between you and nature (when did you last hunt and slaughter an animal for its meat?) the greater your degree of "civilization" (note that, in this context, "civilized" is a value-neutral term).

The thesis is considerably elaborated in Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's Civilizations - Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature.

That seems to define whether or not an individual is civilized, but not an entire cultural group. By that definition, I am civilized, but the farmer I buy food from is not. I disagree with that, too, but Plotinus seems to be asking what makes a group a civilization not what makes an individual civilized.

Perhaps it needs to be clarified. Are we asking what a civilization is or what makes an individual civilized? Those may be two different subjects.

So what is civilization?

There is a native tribe in Africa where the boys of the tribe "become" men by performing oral sex upon the senior cheiftans of the tribe

Is that a civilzation?

More information is needed. Are they nomadic? Are they literate? Manhood rites don't portray the presence or lack of civilization.

Or is a civilzation is a place of where there must be more such as law and order, a goverment, a social structure, learning and a economic development?

A group of people living together permanently must have some type of social structure & economy I would think. Either that or they would have to go about their daily business completely ignoring each other...

 

[Mithadan]

Maybe someone who knows some Latin can answer: Doesn't the root word of "civilization" have something to do with "city" like "civic" does?

I made just such a suggestion in my post earlier:

the etymological link to cities ("civitas")

The odd thing is that in Latin, apparently the original word for city was "urbs" (thence urban I daresay) whereas "civitas" indicated a citizen. That apparently changed, however, after Rome became a less important city: "The L. word for "city" was urbs, but a resident was civis. Civitas seems to have replaced urbs as Rome (the ultimate urbs) lost its prestige."

 

[Blue Monkey]

@Mithadan: Would the Romans have used "Civitas" as a quality, in the way that today we speak of "Gravitas"? And thanks for the link! I'm a big etymological dilettante (and autodidact).

Keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate by pushing the "Nomads are civilized" argument. I actually largely agree with the anthropological definitions Mithadan posted. Still, these points come to mind:

0) The literacy requirement lets Socrates & the boys right out. Of course, maybe that's why he had to drink the hemlock.

1) Isn't it at least an oversimplification, if not an error, to equate urban society with civilization? I'd much prefer to live in Deadwood, Oregon (with about 80% PhDs on the farms & in the woods) than the South Bronx.

2) There is a definite distinction between permanent and durable. If we really mean permanent then the Babylonians weren't civilized, since their settlements aren't still occupied; and neither are we, since our cities aren't going to exist in 2-3 millennia. If durable is meant, then distinguishing between nomads & "aggies" on this basis is a question of quantity, not quality.

3) Do we really want to say that a galaxy-spanning & well-cultured society, that considers planets mere vacation stop-overs or sources of raw materials, is, by definition, not a civilization?

 

[Kozmos]

The distinction between a barbarian and a civilized man is the ability to employ sarcasm and recognize irony.

 

[Maimonides]

I made just such a suggestion in my post earlier:The odd thing is that in Latin, apparently the original word for city was "urbs" (thence urban I daresay) whereas "civitas" indicated a citizen. That apparently changed, however, after Rome became a less important city: "The L. word for "city" was urbs, but a resident was civis. Civitas seems to have replaced urbs as Rome (the ultimate urbs) lost its prestige."

Thanks!

The literacy requirement lets Socrates & the boys right out. Of course, maybe that's why he had to drink the hemlock.

I don't understand this. The Greeks of Socrates' time were definitely literate. In fact, they were literate long before Socrates going back through Linear B & Linear A. It's been a while since I studied this, but I'm pretty sure Linear B was in use around 1400 BCE. How on Earth did you get the idea that the ancient Greeks were illiterate?

Isn't it at least an oversimplification, if not an error, to equate urban society with civilization? I'd much prefer to live in Deadwood, Oregon (with about 80% PhDs on the farms & in the woods) than the South Bronx.

Again, Deadwood, Oregon is a permanent settlement with literacy & agriculture therefore, it's civilization. It doesn't matter if the population is 1,000 or 1,000,000. The idea that someone who farms isn't civilized is outrageous as agriculture is a prerequisite of civilization.

There is a definite distinction between permanent and durable. If we really mean permanent then the Babylonians weren't civilized, since their settlements aren't still occupied; and neither are we, since our cities aren't going to exist in 2-3 millennia.

You can't be serious... "Permanent settlement" means occupied year-round. It doesn't mean that the place is protected by an everlasting, impenetrable force field.

If durable is meant, then distinguishing between nomads & "aggies" on this basis is a question of quantity, not quality.

I don't understand this staement. Can you elaborate? Quantity or quality of what?

Nomads require moving from place to place to sustain themselves. Permanent agriculturalists require staying in one place to protect, raise, harvest & store the crops.

Do we really want to say that a galaxy-spanning & well-cultured society, that considers planets mere vacation stop-overs or sources of raw materials, is, by definition, not a civilization?

To get to that point, they must have exhibited the requirements for civilization at some time & advanced beyond, therefore, they would certainly be a civilization. Furthermore, they would certainly be capable of all of the requirements of civilization even though they had chosen to be interstellar nomads.

Uncivilized peoples don't even know how to raise crops.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I don't understand this. The Greeks of Socrates' time were definitely literate. ... How on Earth did you get the idea that the ancient Greeks were illiterate?

Personally, I find it objectionable to misquote my point in order to refute it. I never said the Greeks were illiterate. I was alluding to the Socratic argument (maybe it's more Platonic, since we have no writings of Socrates) that literacy was bad because it reduced the mnemonic abilities of a cultured individual, leading to the degeneration of society. In other words, the proposition that to read and write is barbarous.

Again, Deadwood, Oregon is a permanent settlement with literacy & agriculture therefore, it's civilization. It doesn't matter if the population is 1,000 or 1,000,000. The idea that someone who farms isn't civilized is outrageous as agriculture is a prerequisite of civilization.

A careful reading of the posts to which I was responding will make clear that the dichotomy I was addressing was not Cain/Abel but urban/rural (the propositions were that cities are a requirement for civilization).

You can't be serious... "Permanent settlement" means occupied year-round. It doesn't mean that the place is protected by an everlasting, impenetrable force field.
...I don't understand this staement. Can you elaborate? Quantity or quality of what?

Duration of settlement as opposed to type! As soon as it is conceded that "permanent" is not "permanent" the issue shifts to how long the settlements of a society must endure in order for it to be considered a civilization.

Nomads require moving from place to place to sustain themselves. Permanent agriculturalists require staying in one place to protect, raise, harvest & store the crops.

Using the phrase "permanent agriculturalists" automatically implies that there are agrarian societies whose settlements are not permanent. Is this a shift from the argument that agriculture is a requirement of civilization? If nomads can be agrarian then agriculture is no longer a distinguishing feature.

At this point we've got Islamic nomads that are literate (literacy as white crow) and agrarian nomads (agriculture as white crow), and the concession that permanent isn't permanent. This starts to sound like the same sort of recursive shift of definitions that keeps cogitative devices such as properly programmed computers from meeting the criteria for intelligence.

To get to that point, they must have exhibited the requirements for civilization at some time & advanced beyond, therefore, they would certainly be a civilization. Furthermore, they would certainly be capable of all of the requirements of civilization even though they had chosen to be interstellar nomads.

Uncivilized peoples don't even know how to raise crops.

That last sentence sounds suspiciously like a regression to the discredited 19th Century definitions of civilization. They don't raise crops, therefore they don't know how to raise crops, therefore they're uncivilized. Where's your evidence that nomads are incapable of being sedentary, have no knowledge of horticulture, and have not chosen their lifestyle although comtemporaneous permanently settled agrarian societies have?

If they are nomadic by choice, then they are as clearly a civilization as the hypothetical interstellar gypsies. No offense intended to the Romani. I mean the word in a descriptive, non-pejorative sense (although the allusion to a civilized nomadic culture was intentional).

 

[Angst]

To be civilized.

 

[Izmunuti]

[..]As soon as it is conceded that "permanent" is not "permanent" the issue shifts to how long the settlements of a society must endure in order for it to be considered a civilization.

[..]

If they are nomadic by choice, then they are as clearly a civilization as the hypothetical interstellar gypsies. No offense intended to the Romani. I mean the word in a descriptive, non-pejorative sense (although the allusion to a civilized nomadic culture was intentional).

Permanent in this sense is used in opposition to migratory so there's nothing to concede. If it makes you feel any better think of it as "settlement intended to be permanent"

As far as the space civilisation example goes it's irrelevant as that would be a phase 2/3 civilisation anyway.

 

[Swedishguy]

I think "Civilization" is a term that we can use whenever it fits us. For example, there is a thing called the "European Civilization" or the "Western Civilization". I think a group of people can belong to a multitude of civilizations, there are no set limits.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I consider someone a civilization if... they aren't savages.

 

[Blue Monkey]

Okay. With sound academic backing from the relevant disciplines of archeology and anthropology, the sedentary=civilization argument boils down to must have cities. And that's certainly the way Civilization (the game that is our mutual obsession) is set up.

But here's the question. Put aside the legitimately falsified hypotheses. Brainstorm, especially those of us that are skeptical. Can we create a working definition of a civilization that would fit nomadic cultures.

For example, apart from the Polynesians version of plant domestication by transplant - allowing their continued voyaging because of predictable availability of standardized resources there is also the Samis domestication of migratory reindeer. Traditional shepherds such as the Basque, who do have permanent settlements, also engage in seasonal migration to follow their flocks' food supply.

So let's try to create a new definition that is inclusive of nomads, that can then be implemented; stretching Civilization 3: Conquest in a new direction.