Barbarism, Civilization, and the Role of Scholar-Teachers

03 Jan

I am finally back at the Newberry and finishing research for the paper I am preparing for publication.  Currently, I am standing at my desk and enjoying the raised platform I created for my laptop.  It turns out that books are good for more than the advancement of knowledge and doorstops!

Recently, I ran across Tzvetan Todorov’s The Fear of Barbarians: Beyond the Clash of Civilizations, trans. Andrew Brown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). The first chapter is the only one directly applicable to my research, as he traces the notions of “civilization” and “barbarism” to their roots in ancient Greece, but the introduction and first chapter were so interesting that I bought the book so I can read the rest of it when I have more time. (I don’t know when that will happen, but it’s at least a theoretical possibility.) I would recommend the book to anyone interested in understanding the processes by which groups of people diminish others to justify invasions (yes, including the recent US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan), conquest, colonization, and atrocities.  His arguments are thought-provoking, and although not all of them are pertinent to my article, I would still like to spend some time grappling with them.

Todorov defined “civilization” as the act of treating others with dignity and respect, actions in accord with the perception of another person or people as human. “Barbarism” is an act that demonstrates the perpetrator’s perception of the victim as less than human and therefore deserving of cruel treatment. Neither a person nor a society can be accurately labeled “civilized” or “barbarian” since these terms designate singular actions that grow out of one’s perception of the humanity or inhumanity of another.  Equally important, Todorov notes that to be human is to be barbarian and that acts of barbarism and civilized behavior are both part of human nature.  Thus, the equation of barbarity with inhumanity is incorrect.

In describing the process of civilization, Todorov suggests that there is a moral demand placed on the “civilized” person that has an intellectual dimension: “getting those with whom you live to understand a foreign identity, whether individual or collective, is an act of civilization, since in this way you are enlarging the circle of humanity. Thus scholars, philosophers and artists all contribute to driving back barbarity” (10-11).

In this, I find the answer to a question I have been pondering since I began grad school – Why are scholars, historians in particular, important? (Are they?) I have been wondering for some time if I might better serve others in a different capacity. However, in this statement, I see that scholars’ pursuit of understanding serves a greater purpose and is not quite as selfish as it might first appear. Their efforts to teach people to see others in a new light and with greater sympathy, even empathy, is noble and necessary to help people progress towards more “civilized” mindsets and behavior. Todorov and his translator have eloquently stated why I found teaching high school history meaningful.  Exploring, discussing, and teaching history allows one to expand her view of the world, grow in her understanding of others, and consequently, make the world a better place through the compassion and empathy that greater understanding develops.

According to Todorov, an understanding of the past is a necessary component of the idea of civilization.  Those with limited historical knowledge and who have not learned about their own social codes, let alone those of others face significant obstacles on the path towards greater civilization.  Todorov goes further and states that they “will be inevitably condemned to moving only within his or her small group and excluding others from it,” doomed to a state of lesser civilization (12-3).

In a none-too-subtle shot at ethnocentrism in general, as well as French and American superiority complexes more specifically, Todorov asserts, “A culture that encourages its members to become aware of their own traditions, but also to be able to distance themselves from those traditions, is superior (being more ‘civilized’) to that which contents itself with pandering to the pride of its members by assuring them that they are the best in the world and that other human groups are not worthy of interest. We reach this critical distance by examining our traditions critically, or comparing and contrasting them with those of another culture” (23-4). [i.e. We become more civilized through education and encountering ‘others’, particularly in history, anthropology, sociology, and literature.]

While I agree that it is difficult to comprehend one’s own culture in relation to others without historical knowledge, I would contend that Todorov has overlooked the power of experiential knowledge.  Although he does not explicitly state that the knowledge to which he refers is transmitted through educational systems and books, it is implied.  However, informal education and first person interactions with people who practice different customs, speak other (foreign or barbarian, in the original sense) languages, and organize society in different ways can be just as powerful, if not more so, in reshaping one’s perceptions as formal education and knowledge acquired through reading.

To progress toward civilization, one must recognize the plurality of cultures and that this diversity does not make others more or less human.  One must also dissociate customs from value judgments.  For instance, the French could not see Amerindian marriage practices or sexual norms as anything but immoral.  However, since these customs did not violate social norms in Indian societies or consider some people as less than human or inhuman, these practices cannot be considered barbaric, according to Todorov’s modern definition.  Alas, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Frenchmen believed differently and linked the concept of barbarism with actions they viewed as immoral.

Claude Lévi-Strass wrote in “Race and History” (1952), “‘By refusing to see as human those members of humanity who appear as the most ‘savage’ or ‘barbaric’, one only borrows from them one of their characteristic attitudes. The barbarian is first of all the man who believes in barbarism’” (in Todorov, 38-9).  That is, by refusing to recognize the humanity of a person one categorizes as “savage” or “barbaric,” that person becomes a ‘barbarian’ herself. I understand where Lévi-Strauss is coming from and agree more with his statement than Todorov’s viewpoint in relation to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century perceptions.  Even more dramatically in the nineteenth century, Frenchmen considered those they labeled as barbarians to be either not quite as human or even inhuman and by this reasoning could excuse such cruel practices as torture, land appropriation, genocide during conquest, and unequal laws that contradicted their own Declaration of the Rights of Man.

On the other hand, Todorov makes a number of points that I wish more people understood in today’s society.  I wish they were understood in the past as well, but we can only change the present.  Most importantly, every person grows up in a particular culture, but she is only imprisoned by it if she so chooses.  Since it cannot be said that an entire culture is either civilized or barbaric, a person may develop more civilized principles grounded in his own culture, and this is true of any culture.

1 Comment

Posted by on January 3, 2012 in Books, Research, Society


Tags: , , ,

One response to “Barbarism, Civilization, and the Role of Scholar-Teachers

  1. Murakami

    January 4, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    The notion of “Civilization” vs. “Barbarism” is really one of the “insider” vs. the “outsider.” We treat those “in” with us as civilized and those “out” as barbarians. The grammarian that slumbers inside of me has issue with using civilization as a verb as Todorov does. I would argue that civilization is an arbitrary societal construct in which people participate in the act of… (His definition.) Your explanation and exploration of his definition needs a bit more to it as well: you need to acknowledge that one’s perceptions of the humanity or inhumanity of another grow singularly out of one’s own unique subjective experience (we always, even as the most well-intentioned objective researchers compare others to our own experience.) To some, actions that you might label as “inhuman” are perfectly “human” in their subjective conception of reality. Which is correct? Neither. It is all fluid. Or perhaps one can put their own culture on a pedestal and say that is correct?
    You justify one’s position as a scholar as being one of importance because that person can “make the world a better place through the compassion and empathy that greater understanding develops”, but I wonder if you understand how that would work outside of a theoretical construct? True empathy engenders moral relativity, which is inconsistent with the conception of the world as those who are “in” and those who are “out,” which you have just above embraced in your post as you have posited that you are one of the “scholars, philosophers and artists” who “contribute to driving back barbarity.” Are you not strongly embracing the conception of “othering” as you mark your right to drive back barbarity? Todorov’s moral demand placed on the “civilized” person reeks of the White Man’s Burden as you have described it. Even if the “civilized” person is working within her own culture, she is still marking herself as “civilized” as she seeks to enlighten her own brethren about their “barbaric” treatment of those who embrace a foreign identity. In fact, she is reclassifying herself as “civilized” as she marks those in her culture who are not as enlightened as her to be “barbaric.”
    Furthermore, your assertion that “we become more civilized through education and encountering ‘others’, particularly in history, anthropology, sociology and literature” is myopic. To simply become educated or to “encounter” others through those academic disciplines is a starting point for the type of true empathy that you seem to think that you’re actually talking about, but does nothing to ensure deeper compassion and understanding without some reflection and embracing of relevant cultural and personal norms. Knowledge does not engender compassion or empathy, and neither does an encounter; There are millions of educated fools who “encounter” others every day and still discount them as members of the same civilization because they neglect the individual wants, hopes and desires that occur on the only truly meaningful level: the personal one. You might encounter “others” every day, but as long as you see them as people who must be “saved” from not sharing your cultural values, then you have learned nothing from that encounter except the correctness of your own prior assumptions about them. If you want to achieve something positive, you have to go further.
    Lastly, I must take issue with your closing paragraph. You allow too much agency to your imagined protagonist. You write that “Most importantly, every person grows up in a particular culture, but she is only imprisoned by it if she so chooses.” In this statement you ignore the weight of expectation and tradition that the individual labors under in her culture. Often, there is no real “choice” involved – it is a false choice because she is chained by the threat of exclusion, of “othering” and of “barbarism” (by Todorov’s definition.) That is a powerful and dramatic determinant in one’s ability to choose. Often times it prevents an individual undertaking decisions that might be in her own best interests and instead pushes her into sacrificing for the sake of the group – particularly with women, as it is culturally their burden in Western Civilization to be the passive “glue” that binds man’s society. I disagree heartily too, with your last sentence. You might consider that there may be sub-cultures outside of your knowledge or understanding that are built on principles of acquiring and exercising power and control within that structure through cruelty or “barbarism” toward other humans. Given that root, that seed in that type of soil, an outgrowth is poisoned too like the fruit trees near Chernobyl (if you will allow me to indulge a metaphor.) There are cultures that are uniformly “barbaric” (dehumanizing) through their unwritten cultural norms. That person that you imagine developing “more civilized principles grounded in her own culture” is still operating within the boundaries of her culture and seeing everything through that cultural lens – thus operating with the same value judgments of good and bad. She may achieve sympathy for those “poor, lost souls” but she will never achieve true empathy. I do not know your particular culture – I do not know your foundations, but I would caution you against making such general cultural assumptions in absolute terms. Surely, you have learned through your studies that there is no “all” or “never” that exists in real world terms. The only thing that is true of “any culture” is that every one of them uses “barbaric” tactics and strategies on its own members in order to deprive them of the right to break cultural norms. The threat of exclusion from the group or ostracism is a “barbaric” behavior, but it is the norm in every “civilized” culture save those few indigenous ones that you have hopefully been studying there at the Newberry (as you mentioned in the first line.)

    In closing,I apologize if I have seemed cruel or condescending – that was not my intent. I merely wish to ask you to examine more deeply your thoughts on these issues. I don’t believe them to be as simple and straight-forward as you might wish them to be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: