Date: June 12
Author:
Meredith McKittrick
Southwestern University
Georgetown, Texas
mckittrick@aol.com
As a newcomer to this list and to the field of world history, I'm hoping that those more experienced in this subject can help me out of a dilemma I've encountered while perusing my school's required text and wondering how to organize the world history course I'll be teaching for the first time next year. Because I'm new to this list, it's very possible this subject has been addressed before. If so, please let me know when and I can consult the list archives.
I'm an African historian by training, and just finished my dissertation in Namibian history. I was pleasantly surprised to see that world history texts have gotten *somewhat* better on Africa and other parts of the world, but dismayed to see that the definition of "civilization" to which they adhere has changed very little and still excludes enormous areas of human settlement and experience. Those societies which fit into a pre-existing definition of civilization have been added, but no fundamental rethinking appears to have taken place -- or maybe it has and I am unaware of it. In particular, I am thinking of the book that my school uses, Stearns, Adas, and Schwartz, which defines as a civilization a society that contributes in some way toward "progress" -- usually technological, but also in the formation of world religions, it seems. In this respect, the book hardly seems unique among the crop out there. Compounding the problem is the organization of the book, which starts with hunters and gatherers and then conflates the developing technological spectrum with chronological time, ignoring the fact that groups exposed to agriculturalists chose to stick with pastoralism, while groups exposed to pastoralism nonetheless remained hunters and gatherers.
A historical atlas I received with one world history text speaks eloquently for the problems a historian of Africa inevitably finds in these texts, since it looks almost exactly like a historical atlas for western civ would look. But I was wondering if anyone out there has suggestions for readings I or my students could consult which outline the problem and possible pedagogical solutions more thoroughly. I want students to think about how people decide what is and is not necessary in the study of world history, to make them sensitive to the fact that we are imposing order on a huge subject and, in so doing, excluding and making judgements -- while still relying on the required text for the core of the class!
I look forward to hearing people's ideas.
Date: June 12, 1996
Author:
randolph.head@ucr.edu
Randy Head
UC Riverside
Re: Meredith McKittrick
> In particular, I am
>thinking of the book that my school uses, Stearns, Adas,
>and Schwartz... which starts with hunters and
>gatherers and then conflates the developing technological
>spectrum with chronological time, ignoring the fact that
>groups exposed to agriculturalists chose to stick with
>pastoralism, while groups exposed to pastoralism
>nonetheless remained hunters and gatherers.
It's very interesting to see the different perspectives that arise from different experience. We have used Stearns, Adas, Schwartz for several years, and it always seemed to me to be quite good at showing the continuity and ongoing importance of non-settled societies... so good, in fact, that we sometimes joked that the authors were obsessed with nomads. Clearly, my perspective reflects a speciality in regions where settlement was taken more or less for granted (wrongly or rightly).
Nevertheless, I'm still troubled by the problem that Prof. McKittrick raises: should a "World History" course in fact try to cover the history of all the world, everywhere and in all ways? Or should it consider those aspects where different cultures interacted across larger regions, peacefully or in conflict, and give a disproportionate share of time to the cultures that developed large-scale organization extending across extensive regions (Han China, the Mongols, various Mediterranean civilizations)? That selectivity is needed should be indisputable. As someone who also wrestles with how to teach such a course, I have decided that an approach that acknowledges hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and (so-called) "stateless" societies, but then turns its main attention to the more traditional kind of "civilizations," is justifiable for an introductory course... though I would never claim that such a definition is complete or comprehensive for coping with "World History"
Date: June 12, 1996
Author: C J GARTON-ZAVESKY
Ms. McKittrick:
My focus is French Reformation-era History, so I'm not sure what I can say will be much help -- and besides, I'm leery of "world history" and outright hostile to "multiculturalism" -- but for what it's worth, I would like to offer the following observation:
Any definition of "civilization" will, almost of necessity, exclude someone or something at some point in history: the purpose of definitions is to give clarity and form to discussion and argument. So that "civilization" and "culture" don't become indistinguishable from one another, can you propose some definition? [I'm not going to smash whatever you propose, contrary to my reputation on this net, so please make whatever tentative step you are able to make.]
Date: June 13, 1996
Author: Meredith McKittrick
McKittrick@aol.com
Southwestern University
Thanks to Professor Head for sharing what has worked in his classes; I suspect this is similar to what I will seek to do. But in the process I want to impress upon students that this is not the only way to study the world's history. That in *this* class, we will emphasize among other things linkages between societies over large spaces, as opposed to something else, such as how people in different places have come up with unique solutions to common problems. The strength of this field is that it can serve as a forum for questioning assumptions about what is worthy of study -- and also that it brings together historians from very different fields in the discussion of how we teach and do history.
I would never argue that we should "cover the history of all the world, everywhere and in all ways," because of course such an undertaking would be impossible. I suppose my question came down to the basis for selection, and how widely it is questioned or remains rooted in (for lack of a better word) "eurocentric" values. My only exposure to world history so far has been through Stanford's "World outside the West," which takes a different approach from most of these texts.
As for what my definition of a civilization would be -- probably similar to C.J. Garton-Zavesky's. Generally speaking, a large society of concentrated settlement which has reached a high level of "organization" or "complexity" by virtue of its size. And one which *usually* exists by virtue of expansion through violence, is fairly stratified, and lasts for a (relatively) brief period in historical time. The original meaning seems to have been simply what we would term a society. But the more specific meaning which became common usage is, for me, inextricably linked to European ideas equating difference and barbarity. Definitions which seek to get beyond this legacy have their own problems. Jean Maquet, who writes of the "civilization of the bow" to describe hunters and gatherers, includes everyone in his model but defines a society through its technology.
To attempt a wholesale redefinition seems inevitably to return us to something so broad as to be meaningless -- the equivalent of culture or society. For the moment, my solution is to avoid conflating "world civilizations" and "world history," by making explicit what is and is not going to be emphasized.
Date: June 13, 1996
Author: Meredith McKittrick
McKittrick@aol.com
Southwestern University
Thanks to Professor Head for sharing what has worked in his classes; I suspect this is similar to what I will seek to do. But in the process I want to impress upon students that this is not the only way to study the world's history. That in *this* class, we will emphasize among other things linkages between societies over large spaces, as opposed to something else, such as how people in different places have come up with unique solutions to common problems. The strength of this field is that it can serve as a forum for questioning assumptions about what is worthy of study -- and also that it brings together historians from very different fields in the discussion of how we teach and do history.
I would never argue that we should "cover the history of all the world, everywhere and in all ways," because of course such an undertaking would be impossible. I suppose my question came down to the basis for selection, and how widely it is questioned or remains rooted in (for lack of a better word) "eurocentric" values. My only exposure to world history so far has been through Stanford's "World outside the West," which takes a different approach from most of these texts.
As for what my definition of a civilization would be -- probably similar to C.J. Garton-Zavesky's. Generally speaking, a large society of concentrated settlement which has reached a high level of "organization" or "complexity" by virtue of its size. And one which *usually* exists by virtue of expansion through violence, is fairly stratified, and lasts for a (relatively) brief period in historical time. The original meaning seems to have been simply what we would term a society. But the more specific meaning which became common usage is, for me, inextricably linked to European ideas equating difference and barbarity. Definitions which seek to get beyond this legacy have their own problems. Jean Maquet, who writes of the "civilization of the bow" to describe hunters and gatherers, includes everyone in his model but defines a society through its technology.
To attempt a wholesale redefinition seems inevitably to return us to something so broad as to be meaningless -- the equivalent of culture or society. For the moment, my solution is to avoid conflating "world civilizations" and "world history," by making explicit what is and is not going to be emphasized.
RANDYP@cc1.uca.edu
Randall L. Pouwels
Department of History
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035-0001
Dear Mr. Garton-Zevesky:
In addition to your avowed hostility to multiculturalism (and I'm not at all certain what it is you're hostile to) and doubts about teaching world history, your point about needing to make a distinction between culture and civilizations is something of a Trojan Horse for, in fact, excluding everything but Western History. The reason, of course, is that often-stated, but very true, fact that we Westerners take *our* civilization as *the* standard by which all others are compared. To me, one could start with any civilization in making such comparisons, since what values and standards one applies are somewhat arbitrary and very much a matter of perspective.... hence, it would probably be better, if nothing else but for argument's sake, we might take a different perspective. Why not, for example, tailor our definition around, say, African or Native American civilizations and see how European "culture" might stand the test -- just for a refreshing change? I think you will, if you think about it, find plenty in European history that wouldn't stand the test.
> Any definition of "civilization" will, almost of > necessity, exclude someone or something at some point in > history: the purpose of definitions is to give clarity and > form to discussion and argument. So that "civilization" and > "culture" don't become indistinguishable from one another, > can you propose some definition? [I'm not going to smash > whatever you propose, contrary to my reputation on this > net, so please make whatever tentative step you are able to > make.]
**************************************************>
Date: June 13, 1996
Author:
randolph.head@ucr.edu
Randy Head
UC Riverside
I tend to agree with Prof. McKittrick that wholesale redefinition... or perhaps even wholesale *definition*, causes almost as many problems as it solves.
One other thought seems worth noting: I've taught mostly the ancient part of World History, and one point that has grown on me is how important the *cumulative* dimension of what we call civilizations is. I would argue that the existence of mechanisms for the long-term preservation (and thus transmutation) of information, techniques, technology and so forth is central to the definition of "civilizations." Moreover, it seems that in many cases, the greater the accumulation, the greater the possibility for rapid change. (Or perhaps, the greater the accumulation, the more likely it is that rapid change can be recognized as such over more than a generation). In this respect, I'm hesitant about the "lasts for a relatively brief period" criterion for "civilization". Isn't it precisely the long-term accumulation (despite battles, conquests, revisions, etc.) that characterizes what we generally refer to as civilizations?
The problem with this observation is that it might lead to the kind of progressive triumphalism and teleology that anyone teaching world history should be careful about... (as in Prof. McKitterick's initial comment). After all, accumulation of information has been accompanied by hierarichal stratification, wars of conquest, etc.,... not perhaps in a necessary way, but the correlation is pretty high! At the same time, it is not necessarily Eurocentric to point to positive developments that the long-term accumulation of cultural techniques makes possible; after all, Europe is only one of many regions where such an accumulation has taken place.
Date: June 13, 1996
Author: RANDYP@cc1.uca.edu
Randall L. Pouwels
Department of History
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035-0001
Having read Meredith McKittrick's latest on this subject, I wish to reemphasize by previous remark that the entire issue of teaching about "World Civilizations" is a red herring for teaching, first and foremost, about Europe and then querying the rest of the world in terms of how it measures up to our "standard" and, hence, how much it deserves coverage. Furthermore, I would argue that the issue that is central to this discussion is not the organization of such courses (which is, of course, *still* important), nor even defining what "civilization" is. Rather, it concerns more importantly one's attitudes and assumptions concerning what history is, what is needed to talk about history, and whether or not one is willing to recognize that the world has changed a great deal and that Western history and civilization themselves deserve critical scrutiny. Why, for instance, should we start with the history of Western civilization as our touchstone? Why put Europe at the *center* of such courses, whilst putting Africa, for example, at the periphery; why couldn't the placement be reversed?
Experience has shown me that Europeanists, for one, would be more than just a little uncomfortable with this approach for many reasons, but mainly because they are unwilling to question deeply-seated assumptions they work with day in and day out that it is the Europeans who are the protagonists in the historical narrative and not the barbarians, or, even if they have been occasionally or temporarily barbaric, their history is like a morality play, one in which truth ultimately wins out and the hero always vanquishes those less favored by God and destiny.
Don't mistake me in thinking I'm European-bashing. Though trained as an Africanist, I enjoy teaching the history of Europe as much as the next person. However, why must we start our approach to World History or Civilizations by excluding people? Why not take a regional approach, say? Or maybe a change in title would help. Instaed of calling our courses the History of World Civilization, why not can this loaded term once and for all and rename it something like Comparative World History or the History of World *Cultures*?
Date: June 13, 1996
Author:
Chris Garton-Zavesky
gartoncj@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu
Dr. Pouwels:
I shall, for the moment, cut straight to the chase. What I suggested is that we must have a definition of civilization such that it is broad enough to be applicable on more than one continent, but not so broad as to apply to every hutch. I did not suggest that the definition should be eurocentric -- but of course it should include european civilization. Neither did I suggest that OUR definition is the only possible one (although I would be fascinated to know exactly what OUR definition is!). Civilization might differ from continent to continent, within certain parameters. All I meant to address with my comment about civilization and culture is that if the two terms are interchangeable, why have two terms?
THOMAS M MARTIN
tmm@mercury.sfsu.edu
>definition of "civilization"
I don't propose to provide any definitive answers, but I will try to define the problem and bring it into focus a little better.
Culture or Civilization?
First of all, we must recognize that we tread on a conceptual 'turf war' between historians who make a fundamental distinction between primitive cultures and civilization, and anthropologists who don't.
The traditional basis for the historical distinction between culture and civilization is based upon the following, admittedly incomplete, "inventory".
To a certain extent, the traditional distinction is based upon the presence of not just some, or most, but *all* items collectively.
Date: June 14, 1996
Author:
RANDYP@cc1.uca.edu
Randall L. Pouwels
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035-0001
Dr. Garton-Zavesky:
In principle, a definition of civilization would be a sine qua non of any course designed to cover world "civilizations." However, I am suggesting that, to make for an even field, let's NOT start with a definition (which is ALWAYS weighted towards one's own civilization; it's a universal problem called ethnocentrism, and in this instance specifically Eurocentrism), but with world CULTURES. Let's forget this emotionally charged word and reduce all to the same standard, i.e. an examination of world cultures assuming none, to begin with, qualifies as a "civilization." The problem is, as you yourself indicate, we (i.e. we Europeans) have made this distinction between what we have chosen to call "civilizations" and what we have chosen to label merely as "cultures." The difficulty is that it's intellectually questionable and unfair to reduce some societies to an existentially lower order by making such value judgements based primarily on our own, implicit notions of what is "civilized" and what is not -- i.e. merely "cultures" or, as you state, merely "every hutch." So, as I said earlier, why not redesign a course to teach the history of world "cultures," and after critical examination and debate, let students decide after critical examination what cultures merit elevation to some higher existential plane deserving of a label like cvilization or whatever else they/we might wish to call them.
As I read your message, I would say your biases are all too evident. Consider, for example, that you feel we must continue with a history of this heuristically questionable concept called civilization, that we can assume that European culture qualifies as civilization, and that "of course any history of civilization should include European civilization" whilst we leave out those hutches to which you refer.
I realize that to many ears and eyes this all seems very radical. I suspect that it will be at least another generation before we even have a textbook which begins to address these issues.
Date: June 14, 1996
From: McKittrick@aol.com
Meredith McKittrick
Department of History
Southwestern University
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Chris Garton-Zavesky writes, <<All I meant to address with my comment about civilization and culture is that if the two terms are interchangeable, why have two terms?>>
They aren't interchangeable; if they were, I'd be less disturbed. "Civilization" is a judgment call, not an analytical term; it is rooted in exactly the sort of chauvinism that I think world history should be employed in fighting. The standard definition (and if yours differs substantially, please let us hear it), is a society which has reached a high level of technological and cultural development. Textbooks try to broaden their base by arguing that it is a society which can produce goods beyond its subsistence needs, resulting in concentrated settlement and specialization. This eliminates much of Africa, whose climate and terrain are rarely suited to such organization. One could posit a reverse definition, making hunter/gatherers the most civilized on the basis of minimizing accumulation, stratification, and hence conflict and demands for rapid change. But it doesn't remove the chauvinism, because "civilization" is *meant* to group societies into two classes of importance. I heartily agree with Dr. Pouwels that we really need to toss out this term, and our concern with it, for good and think about how else we can teach our students about the world. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.
Re: Professor Head's comment: << I would argue that the existence of mechanisms for the long-term preservation (and thus transmutation) of information, techniques, technology and so forth is central to the definition of "civilizations." In this respect, I'm hesitant about the "lasts for a relatively brief period" criterion for "civilization". Isn't it precisely the long-term accumulation (despite battles, conquests, revisions, etc.) that characterizes what we generally refer to as civilizations?>>
I think most societies have techniques for the long-term preservation and transmutation of information, including those without writing. In terms of *accumulation* over time, in spite of dramatic changes -- this limits the definition more than the textbooks do. The Shona people in the 19th century claimed not to remember anything about Great Zimbabwe's origins. Would you call this a "civilization"? What about the Mayan empire? Rome and the Dark Ages that followed? What I meant by relatively short-lived is that large, highly stratified empires achieved through conquest often seem volatile and unstable as, say, compared to what we know of pastoralist or hunger/gatherer societies.
Date: June 14, 1996
From: C J GARTON-ZAVESKY
Thank you, Mr Martin, for helping to clarify the issue at hand. The criteria you have suggested are equally applicable around the globe. Furthermore, they neatly establish a distinction between culture and civilization which, being a student of intellectual history, I find necessary.
Date: June 14, 1996
FROM: Randy Head
randolph.head@ucr.edu (Randy Head)
UC-Riverside
Building on Meredith McKittrick's comments:
> In terms of *accumulation* over >time, in spite of > dramatic changes -- this limits the >definition more than > the textbooks do. The Shona people in >the 19th century > claimed not to remember anything about >Great Zimbabwe's > origins. Would you call this a >"civilization"? What > about the Mayan empire? Rome and the >Dark Ages that > followed? What I meant by relatively >short-lived is that > large, highly stratified empires >achieved through > conquest often seem volatile and unstable >as, say, > compared to what we know of pastoralist or > >hunger/gatherer societies.
The volatility of the political structures of empires is clear, and I heartily agree. Though again: are the political structures of pastoralist or hunter/gatherer societies *less* volatile? I'm no expert, but I have the sense that recent studies have emphasized the mutability of social structures in such cultures, as well (as opposed to the potentially patronizing view of "changeless" peasants and nomads, who are by that very moniker excluded from "historical progress". I know that's not what you're suggesting, but that picture, say about peasants, lingers with pernicious effects at least in European historiography).
As to limiting civilization even more than the textbooks do by focusing on "cumulation": perhaps my suggestion would do so, but perhaps not. I would think that the Shona were a *different* culture than the builders of Great Zimbabwe, to a considerable extent, insofar as they neither had any memories of the civilization that built the complex, nor showed evidence of a train of connections in iconology, texts, or practices. (I don't know enough about the exact subject to know whether this is the case, and I don't mean to insist on some kind of "tabula rasa"). This situation would appear to be different than the the break between Late antiquity and the following period in the Mediterranean. Think, after all, of the extensive continuity of texts, images, and practices not only between Rome and later Western Europe, but also from the Late Antique Roman world to the Eastern Mediterranean during the Byzantine and Islamic periods. The Mayan example is also an interesting one: it seems possible that there was considerable continuity up until the dislocations caused by European intrusion in the mid-16th century, despite political decentralization since the Classical Mayan period... but we can't really know because of the systematic destruction of texts by people like Diego de Landa.
Clearly, accumulation can be interrupted, and just as clearly, accumulation does not imply static forms of knowledge or practice: everything is transformed even as it is propogated, expanded, or bowlderized. Still, teaching the ancient world (not my own field) has convinced me that the accelerating rate of (discernable?) change from the Neolithic through the 16th century or so has a lot to do with the kinds of cultural accumulation that took place in large scale systems.
Ken Wolf
>Experience has shown me that Europeanists, for one, would
>be more than just a little uncomfortable with this approach
>for many reasons, but mainly because they are unwilling to
>question deeply-seated assumptions they work with day in
>and day out that it is the Europeans who are the
>protagonists in the historical narrative and not the
>barbarians, or, even if they have been occasionally or
>temporarily barbaric, their history is like a morality
>play, one in which truth ultimately wins out and the hero
>always vanquishes those less favored by God and destiny.
>
>Don't mistake me in thinking I'm European-bashing. Though
>trained as an Africanist, I enjoy teaching the history of
>Europe as much as the next person. However, why must we
>start our approach to World History or Civilizations by
>excluding people? Why not take a regional approach, say? Or
>maybe a change in title would help. Instaed of calling our
>courses the History of World Civilization, why not can this
>loaded term once and for all and rename it something like
>Comparative World History or the History of World
>*Cultures*?
I'm a Europeanist, but one who agrees with Randy that we do make many assumptions, some of which at least, ought to be challenged. I wonder if Randy, other any other non-Western (forgive me) historian who teaches world history has available a reasonably detailed syllabus or course outline for a course in "World Cultures." I'd like to look at it since our school is in the process of evaluating our required world civilization course. If anyone has such a thing, you could send it to me by email (KWOLF@Racer1.Mursuky.edu) or by smail: Department of History, Murray State University, PO. Box 9, Murray, KY 42071. Thanks.
Date: June 15, 1996
Subject: a definition of Eurocentrism
From: RANDYP@cc1.uca.edu
Randall L. Pouwels
Department of History
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035-0001
The "traditional basis" (i.e. traditional to Europeans for defining civilization has been very well evinced by Professor Martin. Therefore, tailor-fitted as it has been to *European* civilization, it constitutes, I would suggest, the very essence of Eurocentrism. (Why, for example, literate methods of preserving the past should be preferred over oral methods isn't as apparent as some people might think. Lies, biases, and distortions in written form are every bit as hard to deal with as lies, distortions and biases recorded in other media.)
I might also propose an eleventh characteristic of civilization; namely, a culture which exhibits a marked capacity for the encouragement of values and beliefs which foster humane and "civilized" treatment of one's fellow human beings. Could anyone who has read the history of Europe and Europeans in the world over the past century or two doubt that our civilization might be be eliminated from the list if one includes this criterion of judgement? I rest my case......
> The traditional basis for the historical distinction
> between culture and civilization is based upon the
> following, admittedly incomplete, "inventory".
>
> 1) Agricultural surplus
> 2) Division of Labor/Specialization
> 3) Social Stratification/Classes
> 4) Population concentrations/Cities
> 5) Centralized government/State Structures
> 6) Written language (not oral traditions)
> 7) Calendar
> 8) Cosmology
> 9) Law
> 10) Monumental Architecture
>
> To a certain extent, the traditional distinction is based
> upon the presence of not just some, or most, but *all*
> items collectively.
Date: June 16, 1996
Subject: Anti-European bias
From: RANDYP@cc1.uca.edu
Randall L. Pouwels
University of Central Arkansas
Dear Dr. Berenson,
You seem to have gotten a few things confused. First, I freely admit to being anti-Eurocentric, which is not anti-European nor anti- Europeanist.
Secondly, your first quote about "changeless" peasants isn't mine. You read that somewhere else.
Thirdly, my responses specifically have been to one contributor to this list. I realize that not *all* Europeanists have Eurocentric biases, though many, perhaps most, do. My evidence? Personal experience and the state of World Civ. textbooks which have been largely authored by Europeanists.
Fourth, whilst some Westerners teach/preach what we might call Christian values, there have been no other world civilizations whose *record* of actions have so proven the hypocrisy of their teachings as has Western civilization. Good intentions noth withstanding, no other world civilization has a record for genocide and the cynical exploitation of other societuies as has our own civilization.
> I write now to respond to what seems to me an > anti-European bias on the part of Randall Pouwels. I > am, subscribers will suspect, a Europeanist, although I > now teach both Western Civ and World History and have > contributed to the creation of the national standards in > world history. In reading Randy's comments, I wonder > about the accusation that a "potentially patronizing view > of 'changeless' peasants . . . lingers with pernicious > effects . . . in European historiography." Which > historians writing today are guilty here and what > precisely have they said? As someone who has written > about peasants and is not unfamiliar with the literature, > I find few such "pernicious" views. In the absence of > evidence and examples, comments such as Randy's seem > gratuitous at best. > As for the pronouncement that > "Europeanists . . . are unwilling to question > deeply-seated assumptions" that place Europeans as the > "protagonists in historical narrative," again precisely > who is being accused here and what evidence is there of > the crime? I'm talking about historians writing today. > It is, of course, all too easy to find examples of > matter-of-fact ethnocentrism among European historians of > earlier generations. > Prof. Pouwels's claim that European > historians present their history as "a morality play, one > in which truth ultimately wins out and the hero always > vanquishes those less favored by God and destiny" can, I > hope, be ascribed to the hyperbole that the informality > of cyberspace sometimes encourages. > Finally, I question > the intellectual utility of the notion that > twentieth-century Euopean societies might not count as > "civilizations" because they supposedly fail to exhibit > "a marked capacity for the encouragement of values and > beliefs which foster humane and 'civilized' treatment of > one's fellow human beings." Even a superficial knowledge > of European intellectual history makes clear that there > has been long tradition in the West of respect for human > rights and encouragement of humane values. That Europeans > have often failed to practice what they preach makes them > like most other people in the world. > It makes no sense, > moreover, to tar all Europeans with the same brush. Life > is complex; while European governments undertook to > conquer and plunder other societies, individuals and > groups in England, France and elsewhere sought to > prevent--sometimes successfully--their leaders from doing > so. When Germany turned to fascism, other states > mobilized against Hitler; in the midst of slavery and the > slave trade, prominent Europeans succeeded in putting an > end to both, and so on. The twentieth century is full of > terrible crimes against humanity committed by Europeans, > but such crimes do not, alas, make Europeans unique. The > Khmer Rouge, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, religious > strife in south Asia, murderous ethnic conflict in > Africa--all these phenomena hardly exhibit the "civilized > treatment of one's fellow human beings." By Pouwels's > definition of civilization, who in recent times would > measure up? To single out the Europeans is to be biased > by definition.
Date: June 22, 1996
Subject: Biases in world history texts
From: A28443F@MSUMUSIK.MURSUKY.EDU
Bill Schell
I promised myself that I would read all the posts in this debate (a good one, as always) before putting my two-cents in, but I also promised I would lose weight ... Meredith writes that "civilization is a judgement call." No, its not. If one has cities or a city, one has civilization. All the rest of the defining features will then be present. A written language is optional, at least in the case of the Incas. There is also the case of the Greek "dark ages" when the greeks are said to have returned to illiteracy but not, presumedly, to have become "uncivilized" (that is, cities remained, though with reduced populations).
Date: June 22, 1996
Subject: Biases in world history texts
From: "Pier M. Larson" <PML9@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
The debate about civilization as an appropriate historical concept is as fundamentally important as reading our postings about it has been fundamentally unenlightening. The problem is, here is a case in which the most boring, or more appropriately, mundane, is highly charged.
We talk past each other, and, I suppose, we will continue to do so.
Let me simplify and generalize in order to communicate.
There are largely two "takes" on civilization.
The fact is, those who support the first definition of civilization are either uninterested in the history of the word, or they don't care. If they're uninterested, they make poor scholars. If they don't care, they make poor citizens.
We are fighting, of course, and will continue to do so. Given the way that those of us who are severely critical of "civilization" have already turned the debate (and the production of world history textbooks to first be inclusive in their classification of "civilized" societies, and then begin to question the concept at the edges) we will continue to win ground on this issue. And we will continue to be opposed.
The most interesting point in this important yet so mundane fight is the fact that those who see civilization as merely a descriptive concept are willing to fight tooth and nail to retain it. Such adamance, in turn, only confirms the suspicions of those who see "civilization" as a discursive tool of power that their opponents are in fact much more committed to retaining the concept than their nonchalant presentations of it would, on the surface, suggest.
Would that such fundamental fights consist of more interesting content!
Date: June 23, 1996
From: kwolf@racer1.mursuky.edu
Ken Wolf
Without getting into a major argument over the term civilization, I would like to respond to Piers Lawson by only making one point: whatever the intellectual history of the term "civilization," it is no more loaded or potentially confusing or divisive than other terms used in social science. What about the terms "society" or "culture", both of which are defined differently by those even within the same disciplines? If we choose to use the term "civilization" as a descriptive term, why does that make us bad scholars or bad citizens? Not all "good" citizens or scholars define words the same way. The important thing, it seems to be, is that we be clear with ourselves and our colleagues and students about what definition we are using. Schell was. BTW, my students do not see the term as perjorative, but that may just prove (to some anyway) that we are all just benighted redneck chauvinists, even though I did vote for McGovern and Mondale.
Date: June 28, 1996
FROM: Bill Schell
History Dept phone: (502) 762-6572
Murray State University fax: (502) 762-3424
Murray, KY 42071 email:
a28443f@msumusic.mursuky.edu
Recently Pier M. Larson wrote the following as part of the "debate about civilization":
>There are largely two "takes" on civilization.
>1. It is purely a descriptive category. Like Bill
>Schell's city, civilization is a state of achievement which
>a society reaches when it becomes heavily populated,
>hierarchically organized, produces permanent architecture,
>produces writing systems, etc. -- or at least some
>combination of the standard civilization checklist. As a
>descriptive category it applies across the world whever a
>society displays or has displayed such features. It is
>simply a word with a definition, totally neutral.
>
>The fact is, those who support (this) definition of
>civilization are either uninterested in the history of the
>word, or they don't care. If they're uninterested, they
>make poor scholars. If they don't care, they make poor
>citizens.
>
>We are fighting, of course, and will continue to do so.
>Given the way that those of us who are severely critical of
>"civilization" have already turned the debate (and the
>production of world history textbooks to first be inclusive
>in their classification of "civilized" societies, and then
>begin to question the concept at the edges) we will
>continue to win ground on this issue. And we will continue
>to be opposed.
>
>The most interesting point in this important yet so
>mundane fight is the fact that those who see civilization
>as merely a descriptive concept are willing to fight tooth
>and nail to retain it. Such adamance, in turn, only
>confirms the suspicions of those who see "civilization" as
>a discursive tool of power that their opponents are in
>fact much more committed to retaining the concept than
>their nonchalant presentations of it would, on the surface,
>suggest.
>
Pier's diatribe has gone unanswered because I have been unable to strike a tone that suits the editor of this list. Perhaps this will pass muster. Because I offered a neutral, universal definition of civilization that could be applied to the Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, Chinese, Japanese, Mali, Songhai, Zimabawe etc etc, I was subjected to an ad hominen attack by Pier who questioned my scholarship and my political character, both of which he is ignorant. For Pier, only the most politically loaded definition of the word will do. I cannot use the term civilization, he informs me self-righteously, because I (but not he) am Eurocentric. How Arrogant. How Smug.
For Pier, the term civilization is a power tool ("tool of power") but what will be build with it? Pier is "severely critical of civilization" but which one? Indeed, what human society/culture/whatever can meet his high standards (whatever they are) to be called civilization? Pier's is a violent intellectual world; he sees himself in mortal combae t, "taking ground" in the culture wars, an intellectual guerrill at odds with a profession of hidebound reactionaries (except his crowd, of course). I believe that most on this list (whether they agree with Pier's "take" on civilization or not) find his remarks obnoxious.
Date: June 29, 1996
From: tburke1@cc.swarthmore.edu
Timothy Burke
Swarthmore College
Bill Schell wrote:
> I believe that most on this list (whether they agree with >Pier's "take" on civilization or not) find his remarks >obnoxious.
I think if there is *any* exercise which is perilous and indeed potentially "obnoxious", it is trying to speak for "most on this list".
For myself, I didn't find his remarks obnoxious at all. Perhaps that is because I largely agree with them, but in any event, I thought his comments were well within the bounds of appropriate discourse.
It all depends upon what you think the purpose of historical scholarship is. I suppose if you think it is merely a Gentlemen's Club where issues are debated within genteel restraint and largely for their value as intellectual curios, then you might be disturbed.
But Pier's post reflected his sense--a sense that I share--that there's a lot at stake around past and present uses of the term "civilization"; it reflected the sense that the practice of history must be an engaged practice to be a worthwhile enterprise, that history is necessarily about critique.
Perhaps we might move the discussion further by talking about some specifics. What happens, for example, to the discussion of West African societies between 1000 and 1800 CE if we take "civilization" as the organizing rubric of our pedagogy and scholarship? Well, it means that states like Mali and Oyo come to occupy our attention while equally complex societies of the sort found in Igboland move to the margins or offstage entirely. In southern Africa over a similar time period, for another example, the Shona states would receive attention while the historical development and complexities of San societies get reduced to a few banal generalizations.
Now, in practical terms, this is going to happen anyway, but we need to be clear on WHY it will happen. It will happen because of the abiding scholarly conventions that govern the production of historical knowledge, in particular our standards for what constitutes "evidence". I most accept those standards; I mostly think those conventions are worthwhile.
But it would be a mistake to confuse the availability of evidence for a general methodological principle. We will never be able to say all the things we want to say about the complex historical development of Igbo or San societies, because the evidence isn't there. That absence is nothing MORE than a question of evidence, however. The use of the term "civilization" typically tends to imply that the tendency of some societies to leave material remains that present-day academic historians happen to find useful somehow makes those societies systematically and categorically more important and accomplished, inherently worthy of greater attention than any others. I find that a deeply troubling implication, just as Pier does.
Date: July 1, 1996
From: A28443F@MSUMUSIK.MURSUKY.EDU
Bill Schell
Recently Timothy Burke wrote:
> I think if there is *any* exercise which is perilous and > indeed potentially "obnoxious", it is trying to speak for > "most on this list".
I agree and believe that most on this list do too.
And Timothy Burke also wrote:
> Abiding scholarly conventions govern the production of > historical knowledge, in particular our standards for > what constitutes "evidence". I mostly accept those > standards; I mostly think those conventions are > worthwhile. But it would be a mistake to confuse the > availability of evidence for a general methodological > principle. We will never be able to say all the things we > want to say about the complex historical development of > Igbo or San societies, because the evidence isn't there. > That absence is nothing MORE than a question of evidence, > however. The use of the term "civilization" typically > tends to imply that the tendency of some societies to > leave material remains that present-day academic > historians happen to find useful somehow makes those > societies systematically and categorically more important > and accomplished, inherently worthy of greater attention > than any others. I find that a deeply troubling > implication, just as Pier does.
I understand. At one level, however, there is interest in these societies/cultures. You're interested; Pier is too
[an error occurred while processing this directive]