COMMENTS:
To generalise Western civilization is currently defined by the Classical Legacy's influence, the historic experiences of countries affected by Reformations of Catholicism and Protestantism which gave way to secularism, separation of spiritual and temporal authority, European languages, the rule of law, repersentative bodies, individualism, consumerism- as well as a nation having to identify itself as Western AS WELL AS the rest of Western civilization also identifying that nation as Western.
This is not to imply that none of these characteristics are not present in other civilizations. They do. Sharia acts as a rule of law for many Muslim countries, Japan and India are democracies. Individually, these factors are not unique to the West. The combination of them is.
It is also easier to define Western Civilization by juxtaposing it with other civilizations.
Is it polar in your opinion?
Are you either Western or not? Does everyone else fit in to any sort of labelled catagory?
I consider the West to be the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe (I will specify which parts of Europe further down).
I hesitate to consider Latin America a part of the West, as I am not confident that they strongly associate themselves as such, nor do I feel the rest of the West feel they are either.
I do not consider the following European countries as Western either: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montengro, Georgia, Armenia (these are part of Orthodox Civilization) or Greece (Greece could be considered as a bridge between Western and Orthodox Civilizations. Nor do I consider Bosnia, Albania or Turkey to be Western either. HOWEVER, civilizations continuously evolve- the boundaries are not static. In this era nations are increasingly Westernising- in the case of Europe- the EU is pushing that along. For that reason, I believe a few countries in Orthodox civilization are potentially experiencing a cultural/civilizational shift toward being part of the West- most notably Greece, and perhaps Romania and Bulgaria and others. Latin America could join the West, they have most of the attributes- all they really need is to identify themselves as such widely, as well as receive a wide aknowledgement from the rest of the West that they are part of it.
Mr_Susan- "Are you either Western or not? Does everyone else fit in to any sort of labelled catagory?"
- I would recognise these other civilizations: Orthodox civilization, Islamic civilization, Hindu (or 'Indic') civilization, Sinic Civilization, Therevada Civilization, Lamaist Civilization, Japanese Civilization, and Latin America either as a sub-civilization of the West or a separate one. I do not recognise an African civilization... but a sub-Saharan African identity is possible as potential for being claimed as a developing sense of identity... somewhat, although debatable.
Oh and maybe Jewish (or 'Israeli') civilization- but such an entity is closely affiliated with the West and could be argued to be a subcivilization as part of the West, or a separate sister civilization. I believe the latter- but the difference between the two ideas isn't that big.
^Socrates it is ridiculous to say that Greece is not Western for Western Civilization was founded and perserved by Greece.It was they who founded democracy,science,skeptism and yes even secularism.The Enlightenment philosophers who made the West secular all received a classical education and were inspired by ancient Athens to resurrect democracy and rid Europe of it Monarchs.
"The style of government"
- Not necessarily. Having a pro-Western government does not necessarily make one part of the West. What is important is the people- their values and how they identify themselves moreso than that of the governments or ruling elites (although they do have a role as well).
Corrupt- civilzations are not static. It wasn't long ago that modern Greece lacked all of those things. Just because the values were founded in a place, it does not mean they stay there. Greece is a case in point of this. Greece lost a lot of its influences following its classical legacy, while other places received and picked up on it. Greece is also mostly Orthodox Christian. Orthodox Christian countries ahd limited exposure to the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformations and other fundamental Western experiences (while ancient Greeks inspired these- these movements took the ideas much further, and was not mere parroting) - Orthodox Christianity has inly more recently been heavily influenced by Reformation and modern Greece the Enlightenment and reconnection with its antiquity values.
Besides which, Orthdox and Islamic civlizations were also greatly influenced by ancient Greek philosophers- but that doesn't necessarily make them part of the West either.
^ It is like arguing that India should be part of Therevada civilization because that is where Therevada Buddhism orginated. That cannot be so, because Therevada Buddhism while origniating in India, declined in this place of origin and came to flourish elsewhere. But certainly Indic influences remain in present day Therevada Civilzation.
For Greece, the philosophies may ahve some root in Greece- but a lot of it declined following antiquity and flourished elsewhere. Although, Greece is now been getting a lot of this influence and values back, and I would argue is in the process of joining the West, or if you like 'rejoining' it.
Socrates, does "western civilisation" even mean anything anymore? It's an antiquated term that doesn't relate to present-day realities. Maybe we should adopt the nore accurate terms of "North" (prosperous and resource seeking) and "South" (poor and resource providing). Western civilization maybe dead.
um__yeah - I disagree that the West is dead. If a Westerner were to go to a non-Western country they would probably feel more Western and perhaps experience a culture/values clash or two.
I agree that the Global North / Global South paradigm has its uses. But it cannot explain a lot happening in modern geopolitics. Such as the clashing of cultures and values- and this is not just the West clashing with the rest, but also the non-West culturally clashing with each other. Besides, all the North/South analysis really does is pull Japanese civilization in as being closely associated with the West in terms of consumerist values as 'Global North'.
I think you're confusing civilization with culture. The Mayas were a civilization, Rome was a civilization, Western Europe WAS a civilization...I think the only clash of civilizations today are between the advanced and the primitive. There are western-style democracies and western influenced cultures (ie. Japan) but western civilization is irrelevant. It's a dated concept.
*"advanced" and the "primitive"
Alright Socrates by your definition of Western from the fall of the Roman Republic to the End of the Enlightenment and rebirth of democracy Europe was not Western because she did not uphold traditional Western values (Secularism,demoracy,civil liberties etc).Does that make any sense?
Socrates - Which countries would you consider to be a part of the Hindu civilisation? Or the Islamic civilisation? And how would you determine what is required except religion, to be a part of these groupings?
Corrupt- Well Europe was very much made up of Christian theocracies during that time, and the values of the civilization had not yet evolved into what we now call 'Western'. One may argue that Europe was made up of Catholic civilization, etc. As religion back then did form the core of the social philosophies back then. This would later split into two (Catholic and Protestant) and then merge back as Secular 'Western'. And it seems many Orthodox countries are well on their way to merge into this as well (although others are not).
Mr_Susan- Well for Hindu civilization, the core state is obviously India. Hinduism has been essential to a civilization of the subcontinent- in terms of social philosophy, culture, and geopolitical identity. Hindu (or Indic) civilization is made up of India and Nepal. Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka can be argued to be bridges between this civilization and others- as although Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim- the Indic caste system is existent there as well- and the same applies to Sri Lanka (which is majority Therevada Buddhist). But for the most part, I would identify Bangladesh and Pakistan as being part of Islamic civilization- as Islam continues to play a major, major role in their social norms, politics, and legal system- but the Indic influences of the caste system do make them somewhat of a bridge between Indic and Islamic civilzations, although they are still nonetheless more closely indentified with Islamic civilization than the other. Sri Lanka is complex. It is arguably a torn country- in that half of the country (the North) is explicitly Hindu influenced, while the South is explicitly Therevada influenced. Northern Sri Lanka can be argued as directly belonging to Hindu civilization. The south on the other hand is part of Therevada civilization- but once again it is somewhat of a civilizational bridge between Therevada and Indic civilizations, as the South is explicitly utilising Therevada Buddhism for political identity- it also retains some characteristics of Indic civilization- including most notably that of the caste system.
It is complex- there are many other countries that can be considered bridges.
Islamic civilization is huge and vast, and arguably the most culturally varied. It spans from Morocco to Indonesia- it is pretty much all the Muslim regions of the world. While being diverse, it is still nonetheless a civilization- as Islam is the core of social philosophies, law and so on throughout all of them- and an international Islamic consciousness is increasingly evident.
Orthodox civilization is made up of the Orthodox Christian countries- it has Russia as the core state and also includes Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and Greece as a current civiilzational bridge between this civilization and the Western civilization.
Sinic Civilization is made up of central and eastern China, as well as Taiwan, the Koreas, Vietnam and Singapore. This is made up of varying characteristics- one of the most important being Confucianism. But Sinic civilization is more than just Confucianism- it also includes influences by varying religions- including that of Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism- as well as many legal and philosophical traditions and cultural assumptions that originated in historic Han China and spread out to the rest of Sinic civilization.
Therevada civilization includes Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, as well as Sri Lanka (most closely associated with this civilization, it still exists as somewhat of a bridge between it and 'Indic' or Hindu civilization- due to the ongoing influence of the caste system which is Hindu in origin.
Lamaist civilization- that is the regions that are influenced by Lamaist Buddhism- which is unique and is especially important as its intertwined with their politics, social norms, and law and such. It would include Tibet, Bhutan and Mongolia.
Japan forms a distinct civilization of its own. It is arguably a sister civilization to Sinic civlization, but its unique identity makes it a separate entity of its own. First of, there is the Shinto characteristics not present elsewhere. There are also the cultural values that developed historically that differ from the rest of Asia- including codes of pride, virtue, proper conduct, and the way of the warrior which developed of its own. It is not as heavily influenced by Confucianism as the nations of Sinic civilization are.
Latin American civilization is made up of the Latin American nations. Some argue that it is not really a separate civilization, but rather a subcivilization of the West. I disagree, as I don't feel that Latin Americans themselves identity themselves as part of the West, nor do I feel that the West considers Latin America to part of itself. For that reason, I do feel that Latin America is a separate entity.
Israeli (or 'Jewish') civilization is like Japan- a civilization simply made up of only one nation-state.
Some argue that that there is a sub-Saharan African civilization (as Northern Africa is part of the Islamic civilization). But I personally don't think it really is a civilizational identity yet (but that is debatable). But I do perceive an increasingly developed sense of African geopolitical identity emerging south of the Sahara.
um__yeah - I disagree. Civilizations are all about culture and identity- and where does this all stem from? It stems from: Social philosophies, social norms, ideas of 'right' and 'wrong', ideas of 'just' and 'unjust', ideas of 'polite' and impolite', on legal systems, expectations, cultural expression- all of these are what contribute to the kinsmanship and to group identity that make up a civilization. There are many civilizations in the world. And no, geopolitics is not only the 'developed' and 'developing' clashing. The developing clash with each other frequently- there are all kinds of ethnic and religious conflicts- eg, Sri Lanka internal conflict, Chechen-Russian conflict, Southern Thai separatist movement, the issue of Kashmir and the rest; there are so many problems of non-Western civilizations clashing with one another.
"Western civilization is global"
- This kind of rhetoric only provokes anger from those of other civilizations. The ongoing Clash of Civilizations includes a resistance to this idea, as well as all kinds of other cultural clashes. The rhetoric that Western civilization is global also reinforces Western imperialism as something legitimate- as it implies that the West has every right to impose its values because its values are supposedly 'universal'.
Visit Russia, China, Iran, Thailand, and India... I doubt one would conclude that they have all joined the West. And its not their economic status that makes me say this. Singapore is wealthy for example- but I would not say they are 'Western' because of it- they definitely retain their Sinic Civilizational identity.
Socrates - So our western civilisation could be actually called the Christian civilisation. As most countries in it have been predominantly christian.
India has a huge mix of religion, hinduism isn't as predominant there as Christianity is in the US.
Islamic civilisation is also whithin ewestern countries in bulk. the UK out of a population of only 60 odd million has several million muslims. Do they not count as citizens of a western nation, even though they, work, vote pay taxes and contribute to society in innumerable ways. Would they still be considered a part of an islamic civilisation seperate to the west?
Mr_Susan- No, the West is not Christian civilization. It is a civilization based on separation of spiritual and temporal authority. And yes, Muslims living in the West whom are also integrated into Western culture are Westerners. Any person of any faith in the West, that is integrated into Western culture are Westerners.
"India has a huge mix of religion, hinduism isn't as predominant there as Christianity is in the US."
- The other religions of India have been very much 'Hinduised'. This is because they have been integrated into the caste system as well. This includes Indian Christians- their communities do widely follow the caste system as well. As well as the Sikhs and the rest. The Muslim communites of India and their status vary. The Muslim communites integrated into India and the cultural mainstream are part of Indic civilization. The Muslim communities that are not and are hostile to such an identification such as Indian Kashmir, are more part of Islamic civilization. But they too could be considered to be a bridge between the two civilizations.
Voted : Division between the Old and New World Government
This is the definition.
Voted : The style of government
Standard of government and social respect for human rights.
Who ever thinks that is universal around the globe at the moment is very naive.
|
