We are always talking about ‘civilizations’, and we cannot even agree on the definition of the term or determine what substance the concept might have. Some refer to more or less precise definitions, or refer to a set of ideas which they relate to the notion of ‘civilization’, whilst others rely upon the ‘intuition’ that ‘somewhere’ there is an entity that expresses the natural bonds that exist between men and societies that share the same values. The alternative view is that ‘civilization’ is part of the paternalist vocabulary of the dominant. Whilst this confusion is disturbing, it is still true to say that the constant reference to the concept of ‘civilization’ has indeed created categories and perceptions that recognize the existence of entities, large groups and frames of reference in which people say ‘we’ and use that word to identify ‘them’.
The concept’s etymology and evolution, and the different ways in which it has been interpreted in the course of history are illuminating. The Latin root relates to civilis, which is the adjectival form of civis (‘citizen’): it refers to a society that is regulated by law, that allows the emergence of a civil or public space and that organizes interpersonal relations between its members. To begin with, we therefore have human beings, a legal framework, the establishment of a differential status for individuals (inside and outside the group in question) and, at a later stage, an organized society with formal or informal behavioural norms (a ‘civility’, to use the term we used earlier). We have here a preliminary definition that attempts to determine objectively the elements that turn a collection of human beings into a society that is ‘civilized’ in the sense that it is regulated by laws. And yet it quickly becomes apparent that this way of describing the preconditions for the emergence of a civil space and civility can give rise to value judgements as to the extent to which any given society is ‘civilized’. Is there in fact any such thing as a human society, or even what is pejoratively termed a ‘primitive’ society, that is not regulated by laws and that does not give its members a specific status? In that sense, all societies, and a fortiori ‘primitive societies’, are ‘civilized’ and display the characteristics and conditions of ‘civilization’.
The point is that the very origins of the concept lie not only in the way we see ourselves’ but in an implicit comparison with those we see as the ‘other’, the other society of ‘foreigners’ and ‘barbarians’. The definition of the term ‘civilization’ is therefore very relative, which is why the use of the concept can change, depending on how we see ourselves and others, and, of course, on historically defined power relations. The relativity of the definition does not, however, detract from the imperative nature of the process. That is what Ibn Khaldûn is trying to explain in his
Al-Muqaddima or ‘Introduction to Universal History’. Societies, dynasties and civilizations all have a primal need for a bond that can unite them, for a sort of common social point of reference based upon blood ties or a common feeling of belonging (asabiyya) that is reinforced by shared interests, the organization of a hierarchy and sovereignty (mulk) and the integration of religion as an additional factor that supplies meaning and cohesion. The psychoanalytic analysis made by Freud in the twentieth century demonstrates the same historical need for the process of
‘civilization’, but in Civilization and Its Discontents, he explains that need in terms of fear and anxiety. Our bodies, the outside world and other people can be the source of pain and trauma, and we therefore have to protect ourselves from them. We therefore quite naturally seek out a structured society, civilization or religion in the same way that we seek out a father who can protect and reassure us (by supplying order, laws and a morality). To revert to the image we used in the Introduction, human beings need a frame or window (which identifies and protects the self) through which they can see and contemplate the ocean. And Freud does in fact refer to the ‘oceanic feeling’ that comes from seeing ourselves as part of a whole or of being ‘at one with the world’, and asserts that it can only be something that is understood and accepted after the event. The ‘civilizing’ process that gives us protection is, in other words, precisely the opposite of the process that gives us access to the ocean, but paradoxically, we need protection before we can go to the ocean. It is only when we have protection that we dare to expose ourselves to danger.
