Repository | Book | Chapter

The question of the possibility of reconstructing a declined civilisation is important, especially in the current world-time where globalisation, the clash of civilisations and dialogue between civilisations figure high on the world agenda. But there is no clear-cut answer as to whether a reconstruction is possible. Much depends on what we mean by civilisation, decline and revival, and also on our understanding of reconstruction. Civilisation is often defined in vague and ambiguous terms: "The inevitable destiny of a culture",¹ "The kind of culture found in cities",² "Civilizations are invisible, just as constitutions",³ and so on. In reality, these kinds of definitions say nothing tangible and workable about civilisations. Fernand Braudel provides us with a better one when he defines civilisation as "both moral and material values".⁴ Immanuel Wallerstein, who is also sceptical about the various definitions of civilisation, makes a distinction between "historical system" on the one hand and "civilisation" on the other. In his view civilisation refers to a contemporary claim about the past in terms of its use in the present to justify heritage, separateness, rights".⁵ Wallerstein's definition refers only to the cultural dimension of civilisation, leaving aside its material (political, economic and military) component. We know that civilisation is broader than culture and historical systems considered separately; we also know that civilisation is not merely about the claimed heritage of the past. Civilisation may also be a question of present time and the future. Therefore, the inclusion of historical system or material dimension into the cultural body and memory seems indispensable, at least if we are to have a workable concept.

DOI: 10.1057/9780230286429_7

Full citation: