Western Civilization - the Self Perception Effect

Humanity, it seems, has an insatiable need to categorize, classify, and label. We all share an inherent bias that has as many variations as there are people on earth. But it also seems, that every once in a while, a group will come together, and claim a singular definition as their own out of the many. 'E pluribus Unum,' 'Out of many, one,' comes to mind. This is a good way to view civilization in general. For how else, but in such broad terms, could we define such an expansive idea as civilization? Mr. Birken states that civilization is very simply, "the largest cultural unit about which a linear history may be written." If we take that definition on its face, then he could be referring to humanity at large, all the way back to Adam, for some, or Africa, for others. But, for the sake of sanity, a more limited meaning of the definition is apropos. Civilization is for me, the largest cultural unit that shares the greatest majority of self-perceived biases as fundamentally one. For example, 'Civis Romanus', 'I am a Roman citizen', encapsulates this idea. Oversimplified, it becomes 'us' and 'them'. The argument for this definition directly leads to another that mirrors Birken's. Because of this inherent judgmental attitude, humanity has classified itself into several constituencies, and the ones we studied from ancient Mesopotamia to 1648 CE are distinctly different civilizations. But at times they spiral back toward each other, touching off from one another, sharing ideas in an intellectual dance across the scope of history. Western Civilization has taken its turn in this grand ball, but remains distinct, for the majority, while remaining in erstwhile effort to reclaim the secular and divine right of the long lost classical world.

Throughout my admittedly limited study of history conducted by way of the public school system and now college, I have sensed an overriding yearning from later civilizations to return to the glory of Rome. Of course, Alexander the Great conquered the world before them, but the lasting governance that Rome provided is the ideal to which many of these later civilizations aspire. And so we see a connection between Greece and Rome. This could be perceived as an inherent kink in the system that I have proposed, a sort of reality check. Did the ancient world come together under a banner of peace and prosperity with delegates from all places being represented equally? No, they were brought together under such a banner, but only by their conquest by either Alexander or Rome. The system worked though, and Rome endured for a thousand years in various sizes in its western manifestation and fifteen hundred years in the east. The influence still exists today, and had a great impact on the peoples of the so called successor states. Focusing on Western Europe, we see the Germanic people's efforts towards a return to Rome. They succeed with Theodoric ruling Italy from 493 to 526 CE. While vengeance may have played a part in the return of the gothic children to the roman father, it is more an appeal for validation. By taking Rome, the imperial crown of the classical world, and heir to Greece, the Germans appear just in their cause. And why shouldn't they? After all, regardless of any position on the successor states, Rome is father of Italy, France and Germany. This also explains Charlemagne's return to Italy from France. Rome is the standard.

Roman secular law also provides the basis for religious power. Often, religion is used to control the state. In Pope Gelasius I letter to Emperor Anastasius, the pope recognizes two supreme powers in the world, that of princes and priests. He places the priest's as higher because they have to give an account for even kings. Only the clergy has the means for their salvation. This has long been the standard throughout history. The Islamic world only gains the power and prestige it held because a new faith inspired and unified a people. The separation of church and state the modern world enjoys is a far ways off. This new Muslim state not only recognizes individual prayer, but supports the idea of a communal effort. This idea becomes jihad, which often turns to war. Their method of conquest, much like the Persians, often allowed conquered communities to live much in the same way they had if they paid a tax to their overlords. This is illustrated in their Terms of Peace to any newly conquered society. Because of this system, much of the Hellenistic and Roman world survived. But one civilization mimicking another does not represent a continuation of the same civilization. Ideas may be passed along, but the new perceptions through which those ideas flow signals a clear departure from the original.

Birken also raises the issue of geography. This is important because a civilization must have a basic starting point to exist physically. For example, Christendom may exist in the minds of Medieval Europeans, but it is not actually a geopolitical unit, like France or Britain. If the position that Islam was truly a successor state is to be taken, then an intrinsic flaw surfaces. This is the problem of ancient Mesopotamia. Are we to simply marginalize them as too old to be included or as having been wiped out by Roman or Persian conquest? The geopolitical theory of the continuity of civilization does not hold true for even a majority of the time. If this is to be accepted, then Islam would be Mesopotamia's heir. The break is not as complete as it may seem though. It could be compared to the transformation of the Roman Empire with the conversion of Constantine. With a new prophet for this particular group, Muhammad, they adapt quite well to their surroundings by conquering most of them. There is some validation for the geopolitical theory. To see Rome at its greatest extent, and to have rulers such as Charlemagne and Justinian attempting to re-conquer that land, we see that continuation would have been present if those empires had held. Unfortunately for this theory, like Alexander's empire, the Carolingians' and Byzantines' fractured, not being able to hold for an extended period of time like Rome's. They put forth a strong effort to avert this. In Procopius's Buildings, Justinian's efforts to hold his society together with public works projects are displayed. In Charlemagne's Capitulary for the Missi, we see his intent to forge a lasting society. Chief among his concerns is the fidelity to be promised and held to the lord emperor. Only through this pledge can his people truly be defined, for any wayward loyalty would constitute an enemy and introduce enmity to kingdom.

Rome seems to be an anomaly, holding together in its western and eastern halves. And this is where the geopolitical theory is validated. Byzantium is not an heir to Rome, as some would have you think, it is Rome. Constantine changed the face of the Mediterranean world forever by instituting Christianity, and naming his sister capitol Constantinople. This city is the Rome of the east, sharing the same governance for many hundreds of years. This striking similarity is not the case in Europe overall. Though Germany, France and Britain were all part of the Roman Empire, Britain in particular has too many other influences to be considered truly Roman. From Celts to west and north, and everything from Vikings, Jutes, Friesians, and Angles to the north and east, many other societies played an important role in the formation of Britain. And in the end it was Angles and Saxons that defined the country from the dissolution of the Roman Empire to the conquest by the Normans. And to not include Britain in an idea of Western Civilization would be absurd. But you cannot label the nation as a successor state, or a part thereof, of Rome. So again, an irreconcilable break occurs.

Authority is a central tenet of any civilization. A difference in perceived authority between the Roman Empire after 4^th century CE and Medieval Europe is again the success of Rome and the failure of Europe. The crises of the 14^th century had a significant impact on religious authority and reform. But many other factors played a role in the perceived authority of the church during this time period. From the 1100's to the 1400's, people started to search for truth themselves. This just was not done in Roman times. People reached out to the church for absolute guidance. This is evidenced by St Jerome's Letter 107, a response to a woman asking him how best to educate her child. Jerome tells the woman to put the girl in a monastery, the only place where she could be properly trained. In contrast, Europeans are suffering an overall crisis with the many claimants to divine truth. Five major concepts vie for supremacy: Hierarchical (popes and bishops), simplicity and poverty (St. Francis), wealth and beauty (Abbot Suger and St. Denis), the scholastics, and the mystics. Hadewijich claims her authority from a personal relationship with God. Only He can impart divine truth. This is similar to Catherine of Sienna, but the difference being her call to action. She is not content to lie back and simply accept divine truth, she feels compelled to rise against the tide of evil with that new found knowledge. She calls for a return to the Roman papacy. In Roman times, the Avingnon papacy would never have taken place. And the growth of power and the papal court leads some intellectuals to question papal authority. Marsillius, in his Defender of the Peace states that religious authority is limited to religious affairs. Therefore, even popes must obey princes. In Petrach's scorn of the Avingnon papacy he refers to it as the Babylonian Captivity. The idea is that worldly opulence has distracted the pope and that only the congregation of the peaceful has authority. All of these ideas are truly un-Roman.

Scholastics take a different view. They argue that only reasoned logic leads to divine truth. Abelard also doubts the previously 'blind faith.' In Sic et Non, he says that "by doubting, we come to examine. And by examining, we find truth." This view is echoed somewhat in Medieval University Life Letters. Though perhaps they do not all doubt, they are searching for a universal truth that everyone can use. They are attempting to forge a greater understanding that would inevitably lead to greater inclusiveness among Europeans and therefore, a whole new civilization. These letters incorporate the authority of kings. They state that these students must be protected because of their enlightened search. And if authority is part of civilization, and kings epitomize authority, then kings are a very important part of civilization. But the students fail to live up to their ideal, whether they were aware of it or not. Aquinas made a breakthrough though. Through his melding of Aristotle and the teachings of Christ, he attempts to set accepted but pagan ideas upon the revelations of Christ, to take them to the next level. The ideas of his Summa Theolagie work for many, but still are not universally accepted.

Some leading church statesmen saw the way to divine truth through wealth and beauty. Abbot Suger rebuilt St. Denis to incorporate new technologies that allowed for greater light and height, and started the gothic style. Birken states that this difference in the development of technology is a vital line that must be drawn between the classical world and Medieval Europe. If authority is claimed through the betterment of technology, and therefore society, then we see this dividing line all the more clearly. However, another inherent problem rears its simple head. People like St. Francis put forth, among many other ideas, that if you need all that wealth, you can never truly find divine truth. You have to find it through poverty and simplicity, the very opposite of the authority claimed by the application of science for the betterment of society. And we are back to square one again. However, continuation is found in the authority of the church itself. Now over 2000 years old, it is the common link between the old world and the new, though altered by the reformation. Classical Christian thought was unified in its own truth of apostolic succession; from Christ to Peter to the world. A break with that tradition did not occur in Rome, but it did in the new societies of Byzantium and central and northern Europe. This alteration is an unavoidable breach with the classical world. Protestant Rome simply cannot exist by the very definition of the authority that Rome claims through its Catholic nature. And if a 'Protestantization' of Rome were to come about, Rome as we know it would cease to exist, much the same as the fall of the empire around 452. Rome as it understood itself, stopped, and a new society, a new civilization, was born.

Adaptation is a vital component to survival. But sometimes the change is irreversible, in regard specifically to the history of these civilizations. To categorize and classify them, we must understand how they understood themselves. When a people come together to define themselves as one, a new civilization is formed. And when they no longer recognize themselves as such, the civilization dies. Culture survives. Though an inborn need to belong manifested subconsciously and geopolitically as a desire to return to the glory of Rome may exist, we, as the modern heirs to all these societies, need to recognize that irreconcilable breaks have occurred. Birken is correct in this evaluation, but I find his evidence lacking in regards to the ethnocentrism he proposes current Western Civilization courses present. It is culture's survival that connects us all. The shared components of the many cultures that a Western Civilization course examines refute that claim. Though the society may cease to exist, many times its greatest ideas and accomplishments become incorporated into the new society that rises to fill the void. Hagia Sophia still stands. Cicero is still quoted. The Catholic Church is thriving with a membership of over 1 billion. Hellenistic virtues and artistic qualities continue to stand as a measure for all others. The Olympics play out their ancient games every four years, etc. Perhaps the question should not be, "What is western civilization; a continuation of classical societies to the early modern era or a distinct break between the two?" Perhaps the question should be, "What is western civilization to me? Who are these Romans? Why was Alexander so great? What's all this about a schism? Who's this Aquinas fellow, and what on earth is he talking about? Why do I find parts of Utopia funny? What's with the poverty, St. Francis? How come all these guys got to be king? How did this idea of democracy come about and why do we practice it, etc? What does all of this mean to me?" At the end of the discussion, the important questions are the self referencing ones. For how can we perceive ourselves as part of any civilization if we have no idea what came before and why? And until we can see ourselves as civilized, distinct in many ways, but with a shared commonality, then civilization cannot exist in any definition.

Works Cited

Lualdi, Katherine J., Sources of The Making of the West Peoples and Cultures, Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005

Simpson, William Kelly, ed. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973

Pritchard, James B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3^rd ed, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969

Adkins, Arthur H. W. and White, Peter, ed., The Greek Polis Vol 1, University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986

Wender, Dorthea, translator, Theogony and Works and Days, London and New York: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1973

Thucydides, Jowett, Benjamin, translator, The Peloponnesian Wars, New York, Twayne Publishers, 1963

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Genesis 1-9