What is 'civilisation'?

Question

So we've had a series of questions recently that seek to clarify some of the terminology that anarchists use routinely.  I've not had the time to participate in these discussions as fully as I'd  like but I've found them really useful, so here's another topic that could probably benefit from some clarification:

What exactly are anarchists referring to when we use the term 'civilisation'?

Some potential talking points -

At what point in human history/prehistory did we start civilising ourselves? Is there a particular historical marker we can use as the beginning of civilisation (eg agriculture)?

Do humans (for the most part) civilise themselves or is it something that's imposed?

How do we de-civilise ourselves? Must it be done socially, individually or both?

What does/could uncivilised life look like?

Comments

Civilization means living in cities; agriculture predates cities, although civilization is impossible without agriculture.

You have illustrated part of the problem, in that there are many different definitions of civilization (usually depending on whether one is vaguely for or against it). Then there are the distinctions between definitions and characteristics; definitions require all aspects to be the same, while characteristics allow for particular quirks and/or idiosyncrasies (and more unfortunately, analogies).

---

The british way to spell 'civilization.' :-p

---

Yosemite- This is a really great, and sorely needed, question. Totally upvoted.

Answer 1

another beginning of an answer:
a. the source of all evil (for anarcho-primitivists)
b. a symptom of all evil (for anti-civ folks)
c. the process that will save us (for techno-philes)

civilization the word has become enlisted in the struggle to find a word that covers all the ills that we are heir to (and participate in). i have been reminded recently that fredy perlman's word was leviathan, and other people use words like kyriarchy, etc.
it is useful to have a word that means all the bits and pieces we are fighting against, but of course A Word will always be simplifying the issue(s).

so, all that said, i'll say (more or less off the top of my head) that civilization is the combination of the structures and the relationships that enable/force us to live in mass society, to treat each other and ourselves only as parts of a whole, all of which is alienated from and stupid about our connections to the planet (ie the world as it would exist without people).

not sure how satisfying that is, but a start.

Comments

A good start Dot, i look forward to you fleshing it out.  :)

I wonder though, if the technophiles notice the process?  Or if they're too mesmerised by the shiny toys?
Like how many use "civilization" as a code-phrase for the 'good stuff' produced by Modern Industrial Capitalism; while they conscientiously ignore the tailings-ponds, slag heaps, and all the other 'economic externalities' necessary to the creation of their fucking toys?

---

"I wonder though, if the technophiles notice the process?  Or if they're too mesmerised by the shiny toys?"

I live in what's become an 'extreme sports'/tourist mecca, though I moved here before it became so. I can tell you one thing, hardly any of these "bro's/bro-ettes" notice anything. They *do* the landscape around them, not inhabit it. Their interaction is always mediated through toys.

It's a subject which stirs up a great deal of passion...usually hate, since their excuse for turning the place into a upper-crust, global capitalist playground is bound up with finger-wagging 'green' moralism.

---

not a bad start at all, dot.

and don't forget jz's favorite word for it:  totality.  :-)

amorfati: you touched on the "mediation" aspect, and i think that is HUGE when talking about civilization. i see a very strong correlation between civilization and mediated living.

Answer 2

Civilization -- is not the same thing to everyone

In addition to concepts of social hierarchy, state, agriculture, domination, separation, cities, technology, etc., written language is often referred to as a characteristic of civilization. If so, then attempting to answer this question through language is perpetuating civilization, rather than living in some fundamentally different way. Color me guilty.

Is there a particular marker in history - no
Is civilization chosen or imposed - both
Does de-civilizing happen socially or individually - both
What does de-civilizing look like - as unique as every individual/community

I think the difficulty with naming things (i.e. civilization, good, bad, trees, whatever) is our confusion, or at least, our forgetfulness about the transitory and unique nature of things. Things are always in a state of change and transformation. Thinking they are independent of one another  (civilization/de-civilization, choice/imposition, social/individual), or are stuck in time (a definition of civilization, a particular marker to the end/beginning of it) is an illusion. Simply by virtue of discussion we tend to attempt to fix things in time and space and measure.

When would someone be able to say that civilization has ended? When the S&P500 is again under 100? When electrical blackouts in metropolitan cities in the U.S. are happening every month? When  borders between certain countries are no longer maintained by the state? When a particular polar ice cap has completed melted? When a particular number of governments or currencies collapse? When only 20% of the world population is driving a vehicle?

There may be dominant forms of social structure at any given moment, but even within hierarchies there are many differences, and there have always been people living in different ways from the majority. So maybe it’s not so important to be able to label something or determine when it originated or ended. It is our concept of linear time that tells us we must do that. We often learn more from observing and doing than from thinking. I know the most powerful things in my life have come via dreams and emotions and relationships and experiences, fighting and loving, all the beauty and ugliness that is possible at any moment. Words and descriptions can reveal those experiences and feelings and the thoughts about them, they can spark more feelings and actions, but they seem to me to fall short if they become a rigid, static picture, rather than an ever-changing story that we're telling that shapes our lives.

We can get lost in words and numbers and time. How do I live today in this moment, in my relationships with other beings and the planet? What am I resisting letting go of or fighting for? What am I willing to actually experience and observe and feel? These seem to me to be more important questions. But still I can easily find myself talking to someone about “the collapse of civilization” or the “end of money” or some such thing (I don't want any more debt or interest or lawnmowers or McDonalds or borders), until I realize again that I am a unique person telling a story that is part of the collective consciousness, and my focus can move back to a more open state of being, rather than saying "this is how it is or was or will be".

Despite my thoughts about the limitations of language, I often find it quite useful (like on this website), and especially in music and poetry where at least part of the brain turns off for a while. To use Don Henley’s words (despite that they come from a song that appears to be about an individual relationship), I think it sort of sums up my answer to the question posed here about historical markers...

I don't know when I realized the dream was over
Well there was no particular hour, no given day
You know, it didn't go down in flame
There was no final scene, no frozen frame
I just watched it slowly fade away


edited: to more directly answer the question.

Comments

:)

edited to acknowledge editing.

---

Thanks for your comment, dot. It was helpful to get me to clarify my thoughts.

---

baa (or is it boa?):

i appreciate your thoughtful answer. however i do disagree with some aspects of it.

" Is civilization chosen or imposed - both"

i find it dishonest to say that any of us have "chosen" civilization. i don't deny that we all live in it, and in many ways perpetuate it. even, many folks do/would choose it if they had the choice. but to say we (all) "chose" it...?  nah, sorry, that doesn't work for me. would you also say that i chose my parents and where and when i was born? i find that a useful analogy in this case.

also, your examples of "When would someone be able to say that civilization has ended?" seem absolutely unrelated to the end of civilization. the s&p below a certain level? some blackouts? a few borders dissolved?

i don't claim a monopoly on any definition (or projection), but the idea that a (always potentially temporary) reduction in the stock prices of some group of highly regarded corporations could in ANY way signify a change on the scale of the end of civilization is a joke to me. i would say the same of everything you mentioned in that paragraph.

i do appreciate your desire not to reify or make things static and rigid. i just have a hard time when that begins to leak into the post-modern(like) wishy-washiness of, eg: "nothing can be defined". don't get me wrong, i absolutely think everything is subjective. there may be conflicting ideas of what constitutes civilization (and therefore, what would constitute its demise). but just like defining anarchist ideas, there are some baseline facets of it that cannot be denied and still use the word with any meaning at all (can you hear me, an-caps?).

but again, i appreciate your answer. i haven't come up with one myself. :-)

---

funky, thanks for your reply.

I never said "all choose" civilization. I realize that I have chosen it at various times in my life, sometimes perhaps not very consciously, but nonetheless I have. So, it's not dishonest. My point is that every day I still have a choice in regards to how I interact with other people, whether I decide to work at a job or not, whether I allow myself to be dominated by thought or action or if I do things that perpetuate domination. At the same time, I was born into a world of corporations and laws and government and money so it was also imposed. And yes, I do believe that on some level I "chose" my parents. Either/or black/white thinking is what seems to me is the backbone of hierarchy. Everything I do affects the world, and likewise, I am affected by it. That's how I see it. I don't know anything about "post-modern", but I see the world as living in paradox. Everything matters and nothing matters. Human beings are important, and they're not.

My examples of when civilization can be determined to be "ended" is exactly to point out that it isn't a definitive thing. Either things happen that perpetuate a way of thought/life, or they don't. But to claim that we can tell when the world is "de-civilized" is an illusion, in my opinion. If "civilization" is defined as jobs and money government and hierarchy, and the destruction of the natural world, or if it's "evil" or "the structures that force us to live in mass society" as dot mentioned, how would one ever know when the overall turning point of 7 billion people would be away from those concepts? And how would the beginning of civilization be determined? By the first rows of vegetables planted, or the very first city constructed? And what about all the other people who were still living differently? I think in large part it's our conception of time that allows us to think of the idea of these types of delineations, and I can't see the usefulness in that.

When I answer questions, I am saying from my point of view, not from everyone's perspective. To claim I know what is true for everyone would be the hierarchical type of view that I wish to avoid. So, if you read my short answers to the questions, know that they are true for me. Your experience may vary.
Things can be defined, but I only see those definitions as being useful for telling a story, and that story ends up being the fabric of our lives. If "civilization" is imposed on me, I still have a choice if that's the story I want to tell of "the way things are", or if I believe something else, despite what the hierarchies (and friends or people I pass by each day) tell me, and I choose to tell and live that story.

The other thing I was trying to get across was that thinking and words and language don't always essentially change the way we operate. In fact, they can easily lead us back into the sort of thing we're trying to eliminate - absolute concepts of right and wrong, ideology, authority, etc. I think I'm going to shut up for a while now and go walk in the forest. Thanks for listening. :)

---

funky@- The notion of 'choosing' is an interesting one for me. Many critiques of civilization (particularly this current civ) I've encountered really focus on the soul concept usually in the form of 'narcissism.'  The problem I see with this type of critique, aside from originating within monotheism, is that it plays into the hands of rulers. It rationalizes the notion of a human nature as well as its moral evaluation as 'bad.'

When I read Quentin Skinners' _Liberty Before Liberalism_ some years back, I was struck by how horrible 'human nature' was believed to be to the proto-liberal thinkers (ex: Milton). This belief remains the justification for our States today. 'Narcissism' simply plays into that narrative, side-stepping any critique of mediation, power, domination, etc., which is all interwoven as 'civilization.'

---

AmorFati, can you expand on your thoughts a little bit? I'm not sure if you're relating any of it to what I wrote or not. Thanks.

---

ba@-  Sort of. I was tangentially responding to funky@'s critique of your comment.

The notion of 'choice' is prevalent within the current paradigm and, to me, is really nothing but ye olde tyme soul concept in a more modern lingo. It's as if an individual simply sees two (or perhaps more options) and decides between them in a very arbitrary manner without the mediations of language/concepts, political/social histories, narratives, architecture, and so on, which totally preceded the individual in question. It's almost as if these mediations are presumed to be a blank slate, neutral. Any 'evil' is on individuals and their shared human nature rather than the structures/institutions, mediations, etc. As such, this notion of choice forms the basis of notions such as crime, which is  an obvious example of it being used to justify State power.

However, critiques of (current) civilization which rely upon narcissism are simply talkin' the soul concept shtick yet again in atomizing the interiors, if you will, of human life without the web of interrelated mediations in which every individual inhabits. As such, these latter critiques also justify State power as well as deepening the process of domestication in every individual and simultaneously rationalizing the presumed necessity of civilization.

Edited for clarity.

---

hmmmm...I'll have to think about that some more. But I don't think what you're talking about is at all what I meant.

To me, if I don't think I have a choice, it makes me powerless, at the mercy of the corporations and state and the prevalent way of life. That isn't to say I am not affected by all of that. "Choice" may not really be the word I'm looking for, because it still implies a mental process. What I'm talking about is mostly letting go of mental processes. How that is done, in my view, is primarily through paying attention to feelings and dreams, through observation, by sensing the pain and despair that comes along with "civilization", and then acting in ways that are true to those sensations. Words can get in the way. We can talk all day about what civilization "is", but what is more important is how we are in one another's presence.

I'm not saying that all "evil" is on individuals. I don't believe in the concept of evil. I don't see the structures/institutions, etc as being separate from individuals. Individuals comprise those structures and concepts and either give them more power or not. I'm certainly not attempting to justify the concept of state (far from it), it's just that I can't neatly separate the concept (and the current reality) of it, from human beings.

---

af, i think i agree with your point(s) about choice, as well as ba@'s response above, and have (i think?) a third take on "choice" (one i also agree with, so they call can contradict each other, yay?) which is the acknowledgement that we all participate in perpetuating the things we reject. perhaps the word "choice" is hard stretched to cover all these, but they all seem like valid responses to it.

---

ba@ - i basically agree with your followup points. and if i projected your personal perspective into something more "objective", my bad. of course words and thoughts do not inherently translate into behavior. in fact, that is the response i have to your idea of "... believe something else, ... and I choose to tell and live that story."  the scope/breadth/reach, and ultimately control over so much of life, of civilization (including civilized thinking) is such that believing and telling another story is great, but actually living it is damn near impossible. at least as i see it. my good friend says, and i agree: we (humans raised in civilization) can never be truly wild (devoid of all aspects of civilization), we can only be feral. and that, only with major effort.

af - yes, the question of "choice" is indeed a complex one. even re-reading my comment, it was absolutely incomplete. i did not have any choice whatsoever about being born into the family i was born into, or being born into "civilization". however, at a certain point, i CAN make certain choices. i can move away from my family, i can choose to TRY to think and behave in ways that are not considered "civilized". given the right skills and desire, i could even probably live almost entirely outside of civilization. although the most difficult aspect of that is probably not the practical matter of physical survival outside of civilization, but of freeing myself from *thinking* in civilized ways. which is not to say that i might not choose to retain certain aspects of civilized thought. but maybe then, i wouldn't consider them "civilized".  :-)

this is a great question. how about you all come hang out around my fire pit and we can talk about it through the night, under the stars and the endless sky, eating and drinking and challenging and dancing....

---

did i say "my" fire pit?  how fucking civilized of me!

---

ba@: Again, I wasn't responding to you directly, but to funky@'s critique, adding to it in a tangential way. For my purposes whether or not funky@ got your meaning in using 'choice' is irrelevant. My response to funky@ was simply to point out one aspect in common underlying of the fables of 'human nature,' and 'choice' which pro-civilization rhetoric, particularly in defense of the modern liberal State, uses to justify itself and deflect criticism of its mediations, institutions and structure. I think this dimension, which I see as an expression of the 'soul' concept is important to critique civilization as a whole, but even more importantly, potentially freeing ourselves (even if gradually) from the confines of domestication or at least make an attempt to refuse its deepening in each of us.

---

"although the most difficult aspect of that is probably...freeing myself from *thinking* in civilized ways.

And this definitely is near the heart of what I was attempting to express. Thinking and critiquing civilization on its own terms, particularly in ways that uphold the soul concept (ex: 'narcissism') always justifies pro-civ arguments for civ's reason for being, particularly the liberal State, which has grounded itself in terms of a 'evil human nature,' 'sin' and so on.

---

Thanks to all of you for the thoughtful responses. The open and exploratory way in which most people seem to write on this site is the primary reason I've "chosen" to participate here. :)

dot, I resonate with your idea of participating in that which we reject.

funky, I appreciate your additional descriptions. And I think I  have a better understanding of what you were saying. If at some point you'd like to hear more of my "story", I'd be glad to share it with you, and I would like to hear yours.

Amor, I'm a little closer to grasping what you're saying (I think :)). I think it's easy to use words in completely opposing ways - for example, "choice" could be used to strengthen hierarchical thinking on one hand, and to weaken it on another. So I'm often looking to describe things in ways that don't use labels, or at least are words strung together that don't immediately trigger a response based on someone else's definition. What does "sustainable" even mean any more, for example?

I guess the bottom line for me is this....after we've discussed what civilization is or isn't, when it started, or how it's changing....how does that impact my life or yours in the world of form, of what use is it to me or you after we've discussed it?

Funky, I'm all in for the fire pit, the sky, laughing and arguing and dancing and partaking of food and beverage...and I'm not kidding.

Be well all of you...I'm thankful for the conversation.

edited: for grammar