Introduced by: Lene Nielsen
Moderated by: Steve Palmquist
In preparation for defending a "yes" answer, Lene pointed out that people need a social structure of some type. She proposed to provide simple definitions of the two key terms. "Civilisation" refers to a certain type of attitude that includes characteristics such as compassion for others. When being civilised is defined in this way, some primitive societies, such as Australian Aborigines, must be judged to be more civilised than many developed Western societies. She cited the high suicide rate in Denmark as evidence of a loneliness that comes from a lack of participation in a genuinely civilised society. Defining "natural" as anything that has its base or origin in nature, Lene concluded that it is natural to be civilised, because people in societies that lose touch with nature tend to lack this attitude more than people in societies that remain close to nature.
Peter opened the first stage of the discussion by suggesting we distinguish between "civilisation" and "being civilised": only the latter should refer to having a "civil" attitude; the former refers to the result or product of our social behaviours. Lene accepted this distinction, provided that civil behaviour is associated with positive regard for one's neighbour. Kelly commented that this is essentially a distinction between the "focus" and "development" of a civilisation.
Paul observed that civilisation must refer to more than just a random association of animals. The latter constitutes merely a "social" group, whereas civilised behaviour must move beyond this level. The question is how this movement works, and whether or not it is natural. On the issue of what makes something natural, Erik commented that this term usually refers to something that comes from nature, which in the case of human societies suggests the period of development prior to when people begin living in cities. He questioned whether Lene's view might be a logical inference stemming more from her own Danish background than from societies in general. A person living in a warring state, for example, might draw a different conclusion about whether or not it is "natural" to be "civilised". Lene responded that the two stages of a society's development are closely related and seem to follow naturally, one after the other. Austin summed up this part of the discussion by pointing out that the question could be rephrased as "Is nature evolving towards a civilised world?"
Simon claimed that everyone so far had been assuming a collectivist standpoint, focusing on society and our role in it. He maintained it would be better to focus on the individual, so that the question would be rephrased "Is it natural for the individual to be civilised?" Kelly responded that even in this form the question presupposes a social context. Simon argued that this is not necessarily the case, because the individual can choose to turn away from society and become a separate entity. But Austin clarified that the word "civilisation" is what presupposes society, and that word is essential to the topic under consideration. Steve noted that the word "it" in the title remains ambiguous, having no clear referent, and suggested this may have been intentional. Lene asserted that in any case the individual mirrors his or her society, so both perspectives must be taken into account. But Tom warned against viewing society as a "super-organism", the way the Nazis did. Kwok opined that the best approach is to regard individuals as using society.
Steve summarised the key distinctions that had been made so far, reminding everyone that we were still in the part of the meeting devoted to clarification of preliminary distinctions, and asked if there were any other foundational questions or observations before we split into small groups. Peter suggested that it may be helpful to determine what constitutes uncivilised behaviour, citing random killing as an obvious example. "Why do individuals do such things?" He postulated that individuals act in uncivilised ways when they feel threatened or deprived of something, adding that people who answer "no" to the question "Are my needs being met?" are less likely to be civilised, in Lene's special sense of the term.
Some discussion then followed on the topic of whether the question is best answered by looking at how people react in crisis situations, such as wars or natural disasters, or by focusing instead on ordinary situations. Paul contended that situations involving societal breakdown are crucial, because this forces people to rely on their instincts, which in turn lets us see what kind of behaviour comes naturally to them. Erik pondered whether perhaps women are civilised by instinct, whereas men are naturally uncivilised. Yvonne countered that perhaps it is natural for everyone to be both civilised and uncivilised. Edmund claimed, by contrast, that people tend to behave in civil ways to people inside their own social groups, while being less likely to do so with people outside the group. Another person added that this is because social groups tend to establish agreed upon systems of morals and other behavioural norms.
At this point we divided into about five small groups and carried on the discussion in this format for approximately 45 minutes. After reconvening as a single large group, Steve asked representatives of each group to watch for opportunities to share essential insights from their small group discussions during the remainder of the meeting.
Paul began by giving an extended summary of his group's discussion, which focused on general issues. First, they recognized a need to define how instinct relates to this issue. Like many other animals, human beings have a natural herding instinct, they maintained. This instinct is what initially drives us to form societies. They then hypothesized two levels of societal development. At the initial, lower level, social states should probably not be regarded as civilised. This is because we expect a higher level of sophistication from a civil society, including factors such as a system of law and order, explicit rules guiding moral behaviour, a sense of history, and (perhaps most obvious of all) a physical presence in the form of buildings, writings, or other artifacts that can be left behind after a civilisation (a higher level society) collapses. Forming low level societies is natural, but transforming these into civilizations is not. This is why some societies, such as the Aborigines, never reach the higher level of development.
Austin alleged that this view equates "civilisation" with "being civil", but Paul denied this interpretation, explaining that one of their intentions in making the two-level distinction was to clarify the difference between these two terms. When someone asked him to cite examples of societies that would not qualify as civilisations, Paul replied that any nomadic societies, such as the Aborigines, would qualify. He also mentioned the Incas, noting that low-level societies often differ markedly from each other. And when further challenged to defend his list of characteristics, he added that his group regarded each item on their list as necessary for building a civilisation, though none is sufficient on its own. Steve explained that such an approach is sometimes called a "phenomenological" definition, and is usually regarded as more philosophical than simply describing characteristics observable in different specific examples.
Tom then pointed out that nomads typically adapt to the environment whereas civilised people typically make the environment adapt to them. One gentleman objected that such a view gives too much weight to the role of technology and contended that the Aborigine society must be viewed from a different perspective. Following this line of reasoning, Peter asked us to consider how many thousands of years the Aborigine society survived, in contrast to highly civilised societies that typically rise and fall in a much shorter time span. "Who's doing what right?" he asked. Paul replied that the Aborigine society survived because of its extreme simplicity and Simon added that it actually broke down very quickly once it came under the influence of the higher-level western civilisation. Guy asked: "Should we be proud of this?" Simon explained that his point in saying this was to warn against making an improper comparison between the conflict between Roman and Greek civilisations and the conflict between Aborigine society and the civilisation brought in by the Australian settlers.
At this point Austin gave a brief summary of his group's discussion. They avoided such general issues on the grounds that what it means to behave in a civilised way will be different for different civilisations. Instead, his group came to the conclusion that civilisation requires the intent to organize in such a way as to promote the self-preservation of the society. This will involve making rules that limit the liberties of each individual and, in turn, encourage people to subjugate their instincts in various creative ways.
Paul opined that this view fits his group's definition of "society" more than that of "civilization". Austin replied by emphasising the key point, that civilization is a natural drive made by societies in order to promote their own survival. Edmund assessed both these positions as being correct: the formalization of survival strategies marks the point at which societies become civilized; yet civilizations reach their highest expression only when they begin to produce artifacts that will survive even beyond the society's own collapse--especially the products of culture, such as language, art, poetry, etc. He agreed with Paul that these higher levels of civilisation are not natural, inasmuch as not all societies produce them.
Yvonne suggested that from a rather different perspective, the perspective of eternity, the Aborigines may well be the most civilised of all societies. Who knows? she mused, modern western civilisations may well be headed for their type of society, even though we (wrongly) label it as "primitive" from our limited perspective. Tom disagreed, pointing to the basic differences that obviously exist between the two. But Lene responded more sympathetically, expressing dislike for the tendency to define civilisation in terms of what we make, because the effect of this technological emphasis is to make people unhappy. She reminded us that this was the point of the reference to suicide in her introduction. Someone pointed out that in Japanese culture suicide can be an honourable act. Lene agreed, but clarified that her example was intended to refer only to the kind of suicide that stems from problems such as loneliness.
Steve summarised some ideas shared in his small group, relating to Freud's claim that civilisation necessarily makes people unhappy. In his book, Civilisation and Its Discontents, Freud argues that civilisation develops as a result of the superego's repression of our instinctual drives (the "id"). Satisfying the id brings us pleasure, so paradoxically, the very psychological processes that prompt people to create the great works of civilisation also inevitably produce displeasure. As a result, the more civilised a society is, the more unhappy its members are bound to be. Although Freud encouraged individuals to challenge the superego's claim to superiority over their id, he believed societies must protect the superego in order to promote the development of civilisation: civilisation is worth the sacrifice of personal happiness, in Freud's view. Steve maintained that this could be used to support or explain Lene's observation that people living in highly developed societies tend to be lonelier and paradoxically less "civil" than people living in more primitive societies.
There followed a brief debate over whether or not civilised societies are using the earth's resources in a responsible way. While Tom argued that technology enables us to use fewer and fewer resources to accomplish the same results and Simon suggested that it may not matter since we'll inevitably find ways of transplanting civilisations onto other planets, Guy expressed concern over the widening gap between rich and poor. Tom accounted for the latter as a localised result of improperly applying technological methods. Guy responded that there are bound to be victims whenever civilisations advance, but Tom passed this off as the responsibility of each individual.
Rose asked whether it is possible for a highly developed society to behave in an uncivilised way. Tom affirmed that it is, citing Nazi Germany as a prime example. Steve clarified that they were "civilised" yet not "civil". Guy then warned that we are in danger of committing the same mistake as long as we keep labeling others as "they".
Along these lines, Paul observed that everyone appears to agree that forming societies is natural. If we apply evolutionary theory to this starting point, we end up with the view that the strongest society will impose its structures onto the weaker neighbouring societies, at which point the former becomes a civilisation. On this basis he extended the position he had expressed earlier to become a three-part theory: first individuals exist in a natural state; then the stronger individuals join together to form societies; finally, the strongest societies develop civilisations by imposing their structures onto the weaker societies. Erik concluded the evening's discussion by adding a supplementary observation to Paul's view: the original distinction was probably between nomadic and agricultural societies, with the chief difference being determined by the right conditions existing for the latter type to develop; only at this point do the societies begin the sort of conflict that Paul's three-step theory describes.
+++
Steve announced that the details for the December meeting had not yet been determined. Having circulated a list of topics suggested at all past Open Kitchen meetings, he asked for suggestions on which ones are most appealing. The following suggestions were made:
Does the MPF violate human rights? (not on the list)
Should we be allowed to patent nature?
What is the value of time?
A formula for happiness
How much power is good?
After some discussion, the first topic was selected on the grounds of its timeliness and because Simon volunteered to introduce it. However, he and Steve agreed to come up with a less provocative title, in the hope of not attracting people who might have political rather than philosophical reasons for attending.
This page was placed on this web site on 11 February 2001.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.