|
|
Civilized?
Thomas Fillitz (thomas.fillitz@UNIVIE.AC.AT)
Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:41:03 +0100
* about "civilized": the differenciation between "civilized" and "culture"
goes back to Kant - in 18th Century Germany the opposition was then used to
define a contradiction between Intellectuals ( who had "culture") and the
Nobility who claimed to be "civilized" (i.e. sophisticated behaviour,
French as language).
In Europe the opposition is today on the level of visible features (i.e.
technology) as belonging to "civilization" and inside qualities (i.e.
beliefs, knowledge, etc.) as belonging to "culture".
<Isn't it true that humans are supposed to exhibit less aggression as
<"civilized" beings?
* If we consider, as you did as well, that "civilized" is connected to
"technological advancement", nothing is actually said about the "cultural
values". The correlation which you express draws us back to the -
ideological - vision that we could reach the perfect society through
"technological perfection". This implies that technology is still the
principle mover for "culture" - welcome to old evolutionism!
The question is also of *which* "technological advancement" we are speaking
- is there just one? Is it only the problem of capitalist logic? To me the
point seems to be that there is a certain logic in how "technological
advancement" is implied socially. If learning is also a means for "human
advancement", it nevertheless is a means of social differenciation - i.e.
of concurrence. Would it be free of social constraints and based upon a
"free" concept of humanity, your correlations seem right, but learning is
not free in that sense and I guess that aggression is a welcomed aspect
(how to get people to kill for the sake of their country?)
Thomas Fillitz Institut fuer Voelkerkunde
thomas.fillitz@univie.ac.at University of Vienna
|