The Middle East Imbroglio

The Middle East Imbroglio

People and news around the world are concerned recently about the savagery perpetrated in the name of religion in and the consequential migration from the ME. The present thoughts are a contribution to the ongoing debate on how to deal with the situation. We need to seek first the possible causes of this outburst against the contemporary civilization -leaving aside, of course, the distant and unfortunate occurrence that all three main religions were borne at the same location causing an eternal enmity between people.

The history of the period leading up to and including the aftermath of WWI are more relevant. 19^th century European powers’ preoccupation with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire without prior due consideration to the consequential vacuum may be considered to be the foundation of the ongoing conflict; a warning that Napoleon gave to the other leaders one century earlier. The dismantling nevertheless occurred, and the vacuum was filled by an idiotic plan that Britain and France put into effect on the advice of a shady adventurer, Lawrence of Araby, as well as by the creation of Israel. Disregard for local social and cultural realities in favor of the victors’ strategic and economic considerations started boiling the Middle Eastern pot.  The savagery of ISIS in the areas it occupied, and of its followers in distant places around the world is reminiscent of medieval crusades. Jihad may be a reverse crusade.

When terrorists do us harm we must certainly hunt them down wherever they are in the world. If any of our friends is attacked by terrorists and asks us for help, we should join the hunt. What we should not do, however, is to intervene when the powers to be in a country, like the majority or military or the ruler, terrorize their own citizens. It is up to the citizens to rise against the oppressors. Otherwise, they will never appreciate and cherish freedom and human rights. If people would like to have democracy for their freedom and human rights, they have to own it, not to have it handed to them. They have to be let to stew in their own juice until they reach the boiling point of starving for democracy for whatever it costs, and how long it takes. The choice of governing style must arise from within the society concerned, for it to have a sound foundation. If democracy is imported, it is often interpreted as a foreign object, or as the rule by majority, which leads to totalitarianism. In the Muslim culture, where they believe in being led rather than in leading, the majority’s rule turns into autocracy. Examples of failures of forming free and democratic systems in Muslim countries, which ended up with chaos or autocracy abound: Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, all of Central Asian countries, more recently Yemen and Syria, and finally Turkey. This does not mean to exclude from these failures the effects of the cold war competition and the pursuit by world powers their strategic and economic interests. Especially, the double standard applied to dictators makes the Western interventions in the name of freedom and human rights suspect at best, and incredible at worst. Locals then understandably perceive the interventions as an invasion of their culture, or as designed to serve the West’s nefarious interests.

The current operation to take down Assad of Syria is a sad demonstration that we did not learn from these very recent experiences. The fact that Assad regime is not legitimate does not make our intervention legitimate, even if we intervene for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarianism alone, vaguely formulated in diplomatic language in some international covenants, does not give us mandate to intervene. It is absurd to try to topple Assad because he has committed atrocities against his people while the vacuum we created ourselves right next door in Iraq by removing Saddam is filled by the savages of ISIS.

Furthermore, it was a great mistake to think that we could bring down Assad without the involvement of Russia, who has a Middle East beachhead in Tarsus since the Cold War days of 1977. Blurring our focus on the fight against the Islamist terrorists by including another target called Assad gave a chance to Russia to expand its presence in Syria. Russia swiftly built an air base in Latakia between Tarsus and Turkey’s NATO border, a mere 30-40 miles away.

On the other hand, an operation in Syria or anywhere, for that matter, is justifiable if it is a hot pursuit of terrorists, who cause damage or constitute a threat to us or to our friends –when they ask for help. We were to focus on eradicating the radical Islamist terrorism that burgeoned in the vacuum in Iraq. Yet, we were distracted from focusing on terrorists when Turks cried wolf about threat from Syria. We were misguided as much by the false Turkish propaganda as by the fear from Iran’s expansion, thus threat to Israel. Turkey’s real motivation is, as we all know, to block the Kurdish spread along its borders, and its, not so well-known, desire to form a Sunni Syria under Turkey’s wing. Turks bomb Kurds, provide material support to Sunni rebels in Syria, and refrain from any effective action against the Islamist (Sunni) terrorists whose aim is to rule over Syria. Accordingly, Turkey became a thorn on the side of the coalition fighting the Islamist terrorists. Turkey’s several attempts to get NATO involved in an operation against Syria -not against Islamist terrorists-, like the positioning of Patriot missiles at its southern border under the false pretense of threat from Syria, and the unnecessary downing of the Russian military plane with a flimsy excuse, are dangerous and irresponsible use of its membership position in NATO. NATO needs to wake up to the reality that Turkey is no longer Turkey of 1952 or even of 1992. It has been, at least in the last fifteen years, an Islamist oriented country. It became a liability on NATO who could condemn, instead of oblige, deceptions by Turkey.

I might add that the most important aspect of fighting the radical Islamist terrorists is that it is not a strategic fight. It is simply a hot pursuit of criminals. They are not limited in space and time. They are not limited with a compact organization, to a leadership, to a line of command, to a given location. They are in fact a worldwide network of groups with a fanatical religious mind-set (even the term “ideology” loosely used by commentators is misplaced). This mentality cannot be changed by foreigners, whether by force or by teaching. Foreign involvement will only exacerbate this fanaticism. These perverted minds may be changed by the leaders of Muslim countries in general, and by the Saudi Arabian leadership in particular. Whereas, those leaders stayed on the sidelines, gave lip service, tried to pacify us by distinguishing Islam from terrorists, or provided a halfhearted support to the fight against the latter. Therefore, a wiser approach by us to this fight would have been to form a coalition composed solely of the Arab countries in the region, including Syria and Iraq, without any overt military involvement of the West except for a heavy logistic support. Unless all Arab countries in the region actively and decisively fight against radical Islamist terrorism, the latter will never be vanquished. If the Islamists’ terrorism is not what Islam is about, other Muslims have to get their hands dirty and prove it.

Once a relative peace is achieved in the Middle East, hopefully a new political rearrangement in the region may be sought through an international agreement between all countries of the region, to which a guarantee of implementation may be lent by organizations like the UN and NATO. The main objective of such an agreement must be the avoidance of forming once again artificial states that would eventually fail and cause conflicts, like the ones caused by the Sykes-Picot folly.

December 6, 2015

Civilization Queried

Civilization Queried

Introduction

This essay attempts to find answers to the questions, What is civilization? - Is civilization real or ideal, or both? - Is civilization a matter of ethics, culture, historical evolution, social nature, or a reasoned behavior of co-inhabitants of the same space? - Is civilization a measurable and normative phenomenon, or an abstract and subjective fancy? – Is civilization specific to societies, regions, or is it common to all people? - Is the definition elusive because civilization may be individual, societal, or universal, singular or plural, dynamic but periodic?

These questions are inspired by horrific acts perpetrated by humans on fellow humans all over the world in this 21^st century of humanity on the one hand, and by the multiplicity of views that appear in the scholarly literature about civilization on the other. No day goes by without hearing an individual’s or a group’s action that destroys the lives, the well-being, the freedom, or the livelihood of a person or group of persons. Examples abound from a petty theft to a mass murder by fire bombs or chemical bombs. Declared reasons range from “mental disorders” to the imposition of an ideology (including religion). Loci range from the most advanced countries awash with prosperity, education, law and order, (like Germany where an individual commits cannibalism), to the poverty and illiteracy stricken countries (like Africa and the Middle East where sectarian factions slaughter each other by the thousands). The utmost savagery of murder methods currently used by some groups or individuals in the name of Islam led me to ponder over the state of mind of human kind and the meaning of “civilization”.[1]

The civilizational landscape seems to have changed little since 60.000 B.C. when, according to some scientists, humans started roaming the globe. The natural population growth has necessarily brought about innovations for the purpose of survival, like in agriculture and industry, but little else. Most of us may be outraged with the death of  twenty million people at the most recent two world wars and at their continuing consequential unrests, but this figure does not include the number of deaths and other types of injuries inflicted daily by deranged or anti-social people in times of peace. Although a counter-argument may remind us that many humanitarian acts also take place daily, do the benevolent acts outweigh or excuse the outrageous inhuman acts? It may be striking also to compare this landscape with that of the animal kingdom, where I suspect they rarely kill each other within the same specie, at the rate humans do.[2] By the way, the extraordinary efforts for animal rescues reported in the media and the increase in sales of pet products may suggest that respect for animals increases while respect for our own specie diminishes.

While the civilizational advancement appears to be embarrassingly slow, scholars cannot agree even on the definition of civilization. [3] Some see it in art and literature, others in the value system (ethics), some others in social status (economic), and some are doubtful whether -in the absence of established criteria- it can be debated at all scientifically. Being an inter-disciplinary subject, there is understandably a multiplicity of definitions. Historians and archeologists analyze human events in segments of geography and time. Anthropologists study the general social life and artifacts of settlements. Sociologists and philosophers discuss it in abstract. Political scientists view it through geopolitical or ‘world systems’ lenses. Some describe it in etymological terms. Targowski counts 31 definitions. This multiplicity leads to the perception that “civilization” is unidentifiable, relative, or subjective, therefore cannot be studied scientifically.[4] All views may be right in their own specialized perspective. It is noteworthy that most views depart from actions or achievements of groups of peoples; but, they neglect looking into the motivation of these human actions and achievements, which is the behavior of the individual in his interaction with the environment he lives in.

What civilization is not

A clarification of terms seems to be fundamental in any attempt to analyze civilization.

             1. Not culture

            There is, in the scholarly literature, sometimes a conscientious, sometimes a mistaken alternate use of the terms “culture” and “civilization”. The confusion becomes accentuated particularly when both terms are used in the plural. Many notable scholars in the field, including Toynbee, Melko, Huntington, did not try to distinguish cultures –social phenomena- from the civilization -a human trait. S. Huntington, for one, starts his famed treaties Clash of Civilizations with an accurate observation by distinguishing between civilization in the singular and in the plural”; but, thereafter he uses the terms civilization and culture interchangeably throughout the book. Wei and Cox do not distinguish them. Bots-Bornstein, not having found a solution to the confusion, suggests that the two concepts are identical.[5] S. Ito offers a valid argument for the distinction between the two concepts.[6] The fact is that cultures vary from society to society, because they are formed collectively by a society, as the expression of their identity; thus they are considerably homogeneous within the same society, but they are not “universalizable”, to use a term by Hare. Singularity of a culture or a combination of cultures (heterogeneity) never happened; clashes between them were and are more common than not. Cultures, being social phenomena, evolve. Cultures may die and sometimes are replaced by another culture, as some scholars suggest. Whereas, Civilization is not only what people physically create or produce, nor is it the traditions and beliefs they simply acquire by birth in a given society. Civilization is a product of peoples' intellectual interaction with their environment. This concept will be discussed in the following chapters. Consequently, civilization is singular, and does not die out.

           Tolerance, diversity, or dialogue are suggested as antidotes to clashes between cultures with the objective of achieving universality. None of these suggestions was successful as the human history abundantly demonstrates. Tolerance, diversity, etc. are passive tools, still based on the recognition of “them and us” concept, and thus cannot help eliminate cultural clashes.[7]

 However, cultures, being a part of human life, naturally have an effect on the civilizational development. They are dynamic like the civilization; but, if they are progressive, they assist the civilizational process, if they are regressive they are a drag on the progress of civilization.[8]

Some Eurocentric (or Westcentric) social scientists see civilization as composed of high and low cultures. High culture being Western is called the civilization, others are measured against it. Such an exceptionalist and hedonistic mentality is not civilized either; it is not conducive to the progress of global human civilization. Civilization is not the reserve of one or more cultures or societies. We cannot carry on an objective discourse on civilization with a Westcentric or any other self-centric state of mind. We must accept that all humans may be civilized to a degree, not all may be at the same civilizational level.

The EU experiment is a factual example of distinction between cultures and civilization. There are numerous cultures in the twenty-eight member states. Nevertheless, they are able to agree on a set of principles, standards, rules and regulations, for the ultimate betterment of their living conditions. Their inter-state agreements may be defined as their civilizational norms. They can achieve those agreements because their worldviews are reasonably reconcilable despite the differences in their cultures. On the other hand, the fifty years saga of Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership demonstrates the stark differences between the worldviews of the two sides. For example, the difference between the social status of women in Turkey and those in the EU is a civilizational issue for the EU. Whereas, Turkey sees the state of women as a cultural matter, blames the EU for discrimination against Turkey on religious and cultural grounds, and insists on being admitted in the EU with her own cultural values, like the other EU members were admitted with their differing cultures.

2. Not specific to nations, religions, or time

Many scholars, in particular those who equate the civilization with culture, claim the civilization to be specific to groups of people, to religions, or to periods in history. Accordingly, they use the term in the plural, and categorize civilizations in different perspectives.[9] Classifications are done mostly by historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists, because they necessarily study the past, when the world was not yet interconnected. The civilizational level was not common to humanity at first because of the absence of travel means. But, it must not have been limited to one person, family or the community either. If a person discovered or invented something, it must have been adopted by the neighboring communities with which there were contacts. As people started moving to more distant areas the knowledge of one group must have spread to the others. The civilization became regional to the extent that the means of mobility allowed. There were distant but contemporaneous groups at different levels of civilization. Hence, the assignment of human development in terms of different locations and different time-frames was unavoidable.
This does not mean, however, that civilization is plural.[10] It is correct to refer, for example, to Chinese or Indian culture, or to Islamic or Christian culture, but wrong to refer to Chinese or Indian civilization, or Islamic or Christian civilization. It is absurd now to slice the civilization in layers or categorize it in groups in an increasingly interconnected world. Transport and more importantly communication means having become increasingly global since the 20th century, civilization also became global, be it at different levels in different parts of the globe depending on the extent of the ability of the inhabitants of different parts to adopt the related knowledge. (See Attachment)

3.      Not modernization

Another serious mistake is to see the market (economic) globalization and/or urbanization as the civilizational progress itself.[11] Material advancements like industrialization, market globalization or urbanization are generally defined as “modernization”. While modernization in material and organizational terms is an important element in the civilizational progress, it is not civilization in and of itself. Modern living does not necessarily mean living with respect for humanity, for human environment, with a wide world-view, with an ability to think globally. How should we view the parents of two boys found in super modern New York, living at home in their own feces, emaciated, have not seen the sunlight, and cannot even speak properly? We observe also that most crimes are committed in modern cities. If you are afraid of walking at night in a “modern” city for fear of being attacked, how does this differ from walking in a jungle for fear of predators?

Only if material modernity is coupled with intellectual modernity, would it be only one of the measures for assessing the level of civilization; but it is not the civilization itself.[12]

What civilization is

If we, humans, introduced in many languages two distinct words one for culture and one for civilization, we must have observed two distinct concepts; no perception (or concept), no need for specific verbal expression. Therefore, “civilization” must be a concept distinct from culture, and a definable fact. Looking at the extensive scholarly debate on the concept of civilization, we can conclude that civilization is not a myth, but a reality. But, it must be unacceptable for social scientists not to be able to agree on a definition, and to allow the confusion to continue in such a fundamental matter of humanity. One difficulty in finding an agreed definition, I surmise, is that the definition is approached by each scientific discipline independently from the others. We may be able to agree on a definition, if we were to avoid mono-disciplinary subjectivity and limitations, like analyzing it solely on historical, archeological, socio-economic, socio-political, cultural, religious or moral perspective, and follow a common source, humans. Namely, studying civilization as an intrinsic human intuition, as an anthropic behavior, may clear the woods and help us see the tree.

To start with, I propose looking into the human behavior/demeanor, at the individual level, towards the environment in which he lives and shares with his fellow specie. While many other species are also social animals, they do not and cannot improve their environment for better living conditions, instead they adapt to their surrounding conditions. As to the relations with each other, they show a certain respect for each other, like not eating others within the same specie. Their intuitive actions are for safety and survival. Humans go beyond that point, they seek bettering their lifestyle, and during this process, they see that they cannot better life without a safer and better environment. They reason that they cannot have a better life-style if their neighbors are alienated and become enemies, or if their environment is deteriorated or damaged, (the term environment is used in this article in its widest sense including other humans). They reason also that unlimited desire for a better life may lead to damage to others or to the environment. Humans recognize that they are part and parcel of nature, they cannot exist without it, although nature can exist without humans. This reasoning for respect and responsibility towards the environment leads to reining in their uncontrolled desires and actions that may be detrimental to the society and the environment as a whole. We may conclude, therefore, that while the desire for well-being is intuitive, it is achieved with intellectual input, simply because men have the reasoning ability. In fact, the term civilization is used exclusively with respect to humans; we do not speak of a civilization of other species.

Accordingly, “civilization” may be described as the human intuition for the betterment of quality of his life with the consciousness (reasoning) that the latter is dependent on maintaining the quality of his entire natural environment, which includes also others of his own specie. The pivotal point here is the combination of the “intuition for betterment” with “reasoning”. They, together, signify the intuitiveness, reasoned process, and dynamism of civilization.

If we were to describe civilization with opposite terms, civilization is the opposite of irrationality, retrogression, and disrespect as regards the well-being of others and of the natural environment.

1. Civilization is a human intuition, thus singular and global

For all living things, living is the basic, and for some the only, natural instinct. Therefore, striving to secure it, if not bettering it, is also a natural instinct. In the case of humans, who are creatures with a reasoning ability, this instinct is combined with the reasoning that life cannot be at a desired level without an environment at the same desired level (Andregg calls this instinct or intuition “behaviour genetics”). Based on this postulate, there is no uncivilized humanity, there is the civilization of humanity. There are no “uncivilized people”, “barbaric” or “savage” societies that can be outcast, isolated or ignored by the rest of humanity. There are societies at a lower level of civilization relative to the others. Inhabitants of the Amazons or Papua New Guinea certainly progressed from the time of cave man as regards their self-grooming, creating tools and artifacts, living in peace with their more civilized neighbors, and managing their own environment. They were motivated to do so by their desire for a better life, but could advance in that direction only to the extent their mental development and their circumstances allowed. Similarly, we should not call our Western society “the civilization”, just because it is the most advanced and modern society. We may have achieved “modernity”, i.e. progress in material and organizational matters, but as long as we continue committing crimes against humanity, we cannot boast to have reached a desirable or appropriate level of civilization. We can only claim that we are comparatively at a more advanced level of civilization. In fact, the newly discovered Amazonian tribe (if they were to commit such crimes) may be excused for acts against humanity, because of being historically disadvantaged, but the more advanced societies should not and cannot be excused for such acts. For those who were able to reach a higher level of civilization to call “uncivilized” those who lagged behind on the civilizational ladder derogates from their own civility. The social behavior or quality of a society should mean nothing less or more than its current place at the civilizational ladder of progress.

There are still groups in different stages of civilizational development even in this 21^st century. Differences between the levels of civilization of societies may be explained by the fact that societies developed independently from each other at a different pace due to lack or paucity of communication between settlements. Nevertheless, differences in modernity, progress and civilization diminish with the increasing ease of communication, travel, migration, etc. The dynamics of civilizational evolution fueled by technological advance could exponentially expedite the global leveling of civility.

2. Civilization happens with the consciousness of dependency of our well-being on the well-being of the environment we live in (rationality)

            A person, for the purpose of civilization, is not a biological existence. A biological presence alone, without the ability to partake in the betterment of the environment (the civilization), cannot be distinguished from all other biological living objects in the environment. That is a being, not a person. The ability to amass knowledge and the ability to reason in processing and analyzing that knowledge, making deductions and creations from that knowledge make a being into a person. A person who uses this ability to improve the conditions of his environment, or at least to make sure that his action (or behavior) does not cause harm to it is a civilized person. Therefore, what makes civilization is the consciousness of the person of the importance of his/her environment for his/her well-being.[13] “ … not cultures or religions, but the intellect and science make the civilization ...”[14]

As such, civilization should not be measured by material advancements, but by the consequences of the advancements. For example, urbanization per se is not an indication of advanced civilization if it is the cause of high crime or degradation of the natural environment. Urbanization that contributes to the progress of civilization, or at least to its protection, is civilization. Manufacturing of technologically advanced new products also is not always an indication of the advance in civilization, if for example it adversely affects public health or the health of the natural environment. The measure of civility should be, therefore, the consequences of the manufactured product on the environment, not the product itself. Briefly, if the human action is for the good of his environment as a whole it is civilized, otherwise uncivilized. That is why rationality, especially education of rationality and humanity is the most important instrument for the civilizational progress.
Many thinkers believe that morality, or moral values are the foundation of a civilization. Such theories belong to those who confuse the concepts of culture and civilization, and are motivated by religious beliefs. Because, they consider morality being within the exclusive domain of religion. It is a fact that religions are the basic foundation of cultures. But, it has been historically and repeatedly proven that while religions preach morality, they do not always practice it. Morality is not the preserve of religions. After all, religions are also products of humans. As late political scientist Leslie Lipson wrote, we need a humanist moral system in place of an other-worldly moral system that makes no sense. Moral values are replaced increasingly by "human values" as a result of people's interactions within the society and with their environment as a whole, independent from religious dogma. 

3. Civilization is dynamic

I disagree with the proposition that civilizations are born, develop, decline, and eventually disappear by self-destruction, and give birth to a new civilization. Huntington ends his book (CoC) with a view consistent with ideas expressed in this essay, by referring to movement towards higher levels of Civilization.  But, he kills this idea of environmental consciousness and dynamism of civilizational process when he adds that Civilizations disappear under attack by lower level Civilizations.[15] The reason may be that Huntington, like many others, fell into the trap of confusing the concept of civilization with culture.

The civilizational advancement, although it is an intuition effectuated by reason, is not a planned technological, political, or otherwise, process. Ancient societies, like Chinese, Indian, Aztec or Roman, or contemporary societies did not set out to plan a targeted civilizational level. Civilization develops as human knowledge and intellect develops in reaction to ever changing circumstances in their environment. The contemporary civilization was in the making for millennia, with the contribution of many men from many societies from different parts of the world. The more people advance in knowledge, the more they become interconnected. The gunpowder invented for fireworks in China a little over a millennium ago determines peoples’ destiny today all over the world in many different ways, in battlefields or in a back alley of a big city. Einstein’s observation expressed this point well when he wrote about the interdependence between the members of the human society.[16] We owe a lot to the caveman who managed to light the first fire that led the entire humanity to today’s cooking, heating, etc. hence to better health. He may have made the biggest contribution to the contemporary and the future civilization. [17]

The civilizational progress is in the nature of men, as he/she evolved from the cave to mega cities, from the wheel to space shuttle. Man’s intellect, inquisitiveness, creativity for improving his lifestyle evolves him limitlessly into the future, into a perpetual change. Norbert Elias observed that civilization is a constantly evolving phenomenon.18] Civilizational progress and the state of environment affect each other in a circular motion. The more information and knowledge we acquire, the more the understanding of our environment and our reaction to it changes. If, for example, we create a hostile environment by our misjudgment (economic, political, etc.) our instincts will lead us to find ways to recover and –if we are clever enough- to prevent the recurrence of the misjudgment. Our new actions affect our environment. Our perceptions and knowledge of the new environment necessarily change with the changed environment. Our actions follow our new perceptions and knowledge, which in turn change the environment again. The cycle repeats endlessly. This is the perpetual dynamism of civilization. This continuous change can affect even the concept of civilization itself, thus its definition as well. This may be an explanation for different interpretations of the civilization, by different people at different times.

Contemporary Civilization

We can identify a few social standards the humanity eventually adopted over millennia of intellectual development and experiences.[19] These standards are the criteria against which we should measure the contemporary civilizational level. They are:

a)      Disrupting, damaging, or attempting to do so the life, health, and property of others are unacceptable to humanity. But, as mentioned above and for reasons given below, this standard is not respected by all authorities or peoples, despite its long history.

b)      Disrupting, damaging, or attempting to do so the natural state of the environment are unacceptable to humanity. The people have recognized this standard only about half a century ago, but it is not yet fully legislated by authorities nor internalized by all the people.

c)      Governance must be done by the people. This principle, although relatively new, seems to be widely accepted by people, including those under monarchical, clerical, or dictatorial regimes. However, neither the regimes provide all the legal means to exercise this right in its full sense, nor the people have fully understood and internalized this right in all countries.[20]

d)     People must be free to express their views, to assemble, to associate, to move, to receive education and to be employed. The current state of this freedom is similar to the state of self-governance principle.

e)      People must be treated equally by others and by laws, irrespective of any distinction between them, including race, nationality, language, gender, age, social and economic status. The state of this freedom is also similar to that of self-governance.

From this brief overview, we see that while a large portion of the humanity is of like minds on a few but basic issues concerning how the human race should behave, it could not achieve their full observance. We may then describe the state of contemporary civilization as unbecoming to the 21^st century humanity.

Obstacles to the civilizational progress

           It is unfortunate that there are many obstacles to the progress of civilization, other than the human imperfections, like mental illness. People whose mental capacity has not yet reached the level required for reasoning and responsibility, i.e. children, and those who are mentally deprived of reasoned will and action are obviously to be excused from being part of the civilizational process. That is 1,865 million (age 0-14) and 450 million people, respectively, according to the UN Demographic statistics 2012, and WHO Report of 2013. These numbers total to almost one third of the world population. This group cannot be expected to contribute to the civilizational progress, nor should it be considered as an obstacle to it.

On the other hand, anti-social people among the remaining 2/3 of world population, who knowingly harm the livelihood of the environment including that of fellow humans, are a drag on the progress of civilization. They fail to understand the nature of their relation to the environment, i.e. a self-destructive attitude. The International Center for Prison Studies website reports that there are about 9.5 million incarcerated people worldwide. While this represents only 0.2% of the adult and mentally capable 2/3 of the world population, there are also an unknowable number of non-incarcerated potential sociopaths (possibly more numerous than the incarcerated population). The two together constitute a clear stain on the status of contemporary civilization.

Anti-social (anti-environment or uncivilized) behavior (other than a mental condition) is attributed mostly to the social conditions surrounding the individual, either the environment in which the individual is raised, or his inability of finding his place in the society in later years. We can sift from the immense literature on social studies that inadequate education, economic and social alienation, and overpopulation are the most important causes for the current sad state of social conditions.

1. The absence of humanities education

At the root of disrespect for the human kind and for the common property called "the environment", lies the absence of or inadequate intellectual asset called knowledge and rational thinking ability, generally know as education in its widest sense.
The absence of a sound and basic humanities education paves the way to irrational blind belief. This is a fertile ground for retrogressive forces lingering in culture, like religion, to fill the void.[21] Because beliefs invested in the past (instead of the future) are more attractive for people who have no expectation from an unknown future; also because for an uncultivated or frustrated mind believing is easier than questioning and reasoning. Cultural or religious practices like, for example, “honor killings of women ”, “female circumcision”, inequality of women in all respects, execution of women by stoning, punishment by dismemberment, avenge by decapitation or burning alive should be unimaginable, to say the least, in a rational society. Such inhuman practices determine the lower civilizational level of the respective societies.[22] As if these cultural practices were not enough to upset the civilizational progress, the current inhuman savagery committed by militant fundamental religionists is indisputably a direct attack on civilization. Leslie Lipson was right when he wrote, the Enlightenment brought back humanism after one thousand years of sleep, but could not eradicate superstitious beliefs.

Those who do not use their reasoning ability may either adversely affect the civilizational progress, or do not contribute to it. According to The UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2010, adult (ages above 15) illiterate population totals 775.4 million. According to World Literacy Foundation, “Globally, more than 796 million people in the world cannot read and write. About 67 million children do not have access to primary school education. The cost of illiteracy to the worldwide economy is estimated at 2% of global GDP”. This represents roughly 11% of the world population, or 12.3% of the remaining 2/3 mentally healthy adults. Not all illiterates are an impediment to the betterment of society, since illiteracy does not necessarily mean deprivation of reasoning or potential sociopathy. Nevertheless, while unlike sociopaths, this group of people may not be a threat to civilization, we cannot expect them to make a meaningful contribution to it either. Unfortunately, there are no statistics on the number of sociopaths, and it may be impossible to collect relevant statistical information any way. However, when both groups, illiterates and sociopaths, put together there is at least a few percentage of the world population that might give us enough reason to query the state of the contemporary civilization.

The real obstacle to the civilizational progress, however, lies elsewhere. An education system non-conducive to the improvement of human behavior is the real threat to the civilization. [23] The worst of it all is that the education policy is used as a political tool in all countries, whether “democratic” or despotic, actively to keep the populace ignorant for the sake of re-election or for holding a firm grip on power, respectively.[24] Similar to non-transparency policies, policies of bad education make governance easier.

The absence of education of rationality, of humanities education, of an education for responsibility and respect for the “environment” (as the term is used in the sense of this essay), prepares the ground for anti-social, anti-human demeanor. “Education” became a routine of “education for education’s sake”, for both educators and students. The old-fashioned long years of education makes young adults disappointed and bored with education, at a time where there is increasingly easier access to knowledge and technology outside the classical education.[25] They break away from parental education and guardianship as early as at the age 12 or 13, and start asserting their individuality. In the increasingly faster pace of life in the 21^st century, already at 15 or 16, they are eager to earn money, they become inventors or entrepreneurs, they are sexually active, some are interested in community activities, and they are allowed to drive. All these activities carry serious responsibilities toward the society. If youth are restrained from undertaking such activities or, despite these responsibilities, are not granted equal treatment as adults, they feel as misfits, they lose respect for the society, and even resort to anti-social activities. Therefore, education of rationality, and respect and responsibility towards the environment (in the sense used in this essay), and integration in social life at a younger age than currently practiced become matters of urgent attention.

2.      Social alienation

There has been a great progress in the 20^th century towards legislation to eliminate discrimination –thus alienation- of people for reasons of race, belief, etc. Nevertheless,
a) Group alienation: Racial, nationalist, religious, gender, and even age (both against young and old) discrimination continue. Such discrimination is the cause of many uncivilized acts. Racial and nationalist discrimination have political roots; gender and age discrimination have traditional/religious roots; both mostly emanating from old male dominance.
b) Economic alienation: Business practices, more concerned with self-enrichment than the well-being of their workers and consumers, gradually created economically disadvantaged people, and a social divide in the society. Economic inequality together with a diminishing humanities education, both since the beginning of the industrial revolution, became the normal policies of greed-oriented businesses, and of governments influenced by such businesses.[26] These policies drive people to alienation, destitute, and desperation, who then defy and deny respect not only to authority or businesses, but also to the society and the environment. Degradation of the social status of individuals is as bad an enemy of civilization as the absence of rationalist education. The two have a symbiotic relation working against the civilizational progress. Employment policies and methods are extremely important matters that require urgent attention.

3. Uncontrolled population growth

In addition to the qualitative decline, there is also a quantitative problem that works against the civilizational progress. In the last approximately two hundred years, which is roughly ten generations, the world population grew by seven fold. This accelerates the exhaustion of natural resources for meeting the growing needs of masses, and translates into an exponential growth of uneducated and unemployed population, which increases the probability of anti-social behavior.[27]

 Within the same period, we saw the mechanical industrial revolution come, cause socio-economic divides, and replaced recently by the electronic revolution. Electronic technology’s opening up the advanced world to the larger disadvantaged populations caused the latter to migrate to the advanced world. This migration was faster than the receiving societies could absorb, thus it exacerbated the socio-economic division.

 4. Individualism

I would be amiss if I do not address another obstacle to civilization viewed as such by Post-modernists. They suggest that individualism, diversity, and differences make common civilization into a myth. I would argue that individuals constitute the core of a society and of civilization; individualism and differences are the active ingredients of the society, and are contributions to civilization. Living in a society makes people to distinguish themselves from the common, and it urges them to be creative or to excel, which in turn helps the progress of civilization.[28] Unless individualism is interpreted as being asocial, egotistic, or hedonistic, or refers to anti-social, and/or uncivilized individuals found in a society. But, such individuals are not the norm; when they are the norm civilization is then really a myth.

            

Instruments of the civilizational progress

The first measures that come to mind to ward off these obstacles are to introduce a limit to childbirths, to adopt a new employment method that would provide jobs to as many people as possible, and to adopt a new education policy as will be discussed below.

Since civilization is a human behavior, not specific to certain society(ies), but belongs to the humanity as a whole as discussed above, globalizing instruments are important in the civilizational progress. [29] There is a general agreement among scholars that several events in history helped open the world to isolated societies, facilitated inter-society contacts and interactions. Most prominent of those events were wars, religious missionizing, colonialism/imperialism, and trade/money. These events certainly helped increase contacts between people, and helped some societies to advance in their civilizational level. But, they also caused and continue to cause divisions like the creation of political borders, exceptionalist or exclusivist ideologies like religious or political distinctions, economic stratification of societies, and trade barriers. The method used in these events was mostly the use of force, which is not civilized either. The use of force for establishing trade was rare, like in the case of the Boxing war. Therefore, while these events achieved interaction between societies, they were not always conducive to the progress of civilization. In fact, wars, missionizing, and imperialism should be retired to the shelves of history for the method they use and for their negative effects on civilizational progress. Instead, we should use another globalizing instrument for the civilizational progress, the propagation of knowledge. This instrument became especially powerful after the explosion of communication technology. I propose to replace the list of forceful means of globalization, except for the global trade, with peaceful ones, science, education and civil societies.[30]

1.         Global trade

Inter-society trade inspired societies to find means to ease trade relations. The Gregorian calendar (although Iran, S. Arabia, Israel, India, China observe also a national calendar), the Greenwich Mean Time and Time Zones, measurements, and codes for international air and sea traffic, common money transfer rules, to mention a few, were adopted internationally. These standards provide a global common language also in science, and in information transfer.

Yet, some societies who are at the receiving end of market and information globalization view the invasion by foreign goods and information as, real or perceived, quasi-colonial and/or cultural invasion.[31] Such globalization solely for the purpose of economic expansion spawns nationalist reactions and, because national identity is mostly cultural, even religious reactions. A resistance to, instead of reception of, the civilizational transfer ensues. Furthermore, the current market globalization is based on the Utilitarian philosophy of Bentham and Mill, on Neo-liberal and capitalist policies (finance, industry, and trade), i.e. preference of greed over human considerations.[32] A market globalization insensitive to environmental/human interests widens the gap in wealth distribution and social opportunity and status, thus fuels opposition against trade and businesses. “Globalization became, in fact, the enemy of globalization itself.”[33]

There is, however, hope for course correction. After the emergence of the concept of human rights, public movements started to defend their rights in the global field already inundated with market globalization. If whatever is globalized embraced also individual’s rights, freedom from all sorts of fear, responsibilities to the world community and to its environment, equality in economic opportunity, justice, recognition and respect, and human dignity, then any kind of globalization would be received without opposition, and would succeed. For the sake of example, one method that comes to mind is for companies to channel at least a sizable portion of their profits made on their sales to an economically disenfranchised country, to activities in the same field of the product sold in that country. Say, a pharmaceutical company, transfers a percentage of its profits from the sales in an economically disenfranchised country to health services in that country. Similarly, an automotive company transfers part of its profits from car sales to that country’s traffic safety infrastructure. Such methods may even help increase the sale of their products in those countries.

In other words, for the market globalization to contribute to the civilizational progress it has to have human considerations.

2.         Science

Globalization through trade was slow and mostly regional in pre-industrial period, because it required a lot of time and effort to cover long distances. When science translated into technology, technology shrunk the world. First the industrial revolution, then the digital revolution shortened the time and effort for globalization. The spread of new products, news, ideas, knowledge, and information became instantaneous. Science and technology will continue to enrich our knowledge, and to change our environment and with it our perception of all things.

However, when science moves from the scientific laboratory to the industrial factory, it becomes industry’s partner in “crime”, such as causing socio-economic divides, depleting natural resources, and releasing toxic wastes into the environment. From another perspective, science and technology’s help to improve health conditions and food production causes population increase. Population increase stimulates, in turn, further expansion of industry together with its ill effects on the society and the environment, thus creating a vicious cycle.

It is fair, therefore, to say that science, like market globalization, also has a special responsibility to include human/environmental considerations in its work for it to be part of the civilizational progress. In fact, science is the most innocuous means for the spread of civilization. Science is not shackled by ideologies, like religion; it is not always motivated by greed, like businesses; and most importantly it has a common language throughout the world, and it does not recognize national borders.[34] As such, science is in the best position to serve the humanity’s interests and future.

3. Humanities education

 “Education” in this context means cultivation of the mind to become as knowledgeable and rational as possible about the inter-relation and inter-dependency between humans and their environment as a whole. It may be termed as being a “learned person” in addition to being otherwise professionally or vocationally educated person. Training the thinking, behavior, and worldview of people towards responsible, humanist, rational, progressive, and environmentalist direction is the most important instrument for improving the civilizational level.[35] It has been long overdue to break the shackles of the traditional approach to education, to be able to think outside the envelope (or the box) we sealed in ourselves, and rethink the education system. It is of the utmost importance and urgency that all education without an all- encompassing worldview, or of exceptionalist, absolutist, determinist thus divisive nature, like religious, racist, or nationalist education, must be banned for good.[36] In addition, all specialized (professional) education must be preceded with learning the environmental consequences of our actions (humanist and rational thinking ability). It is noteworthy that Harvard psychologist H. Gardner, in his 1983 classification of intelligence, included inter-personal, intra-personal, and naturalist intelligence. We need to cultivate these intelligence types more than heretofore.

Other than the content of “education”, the following ideas may be considered for remedying the ills of the current education method mentioned above. Young adults might be allowed to finish basic education already at age 16. A person who completes 16 years of age can be already conscious of and trained for his/her rights and responsibilities in society, be a full and an equal member of society. Every possible effort must be done to absorb him/her into the society, and to avoid excluding or estranging him/her from it. The system should be designed in a manner that students would not drop out of education for failure to learn; instead, they may be reoriented to the type of education which may be more suitable to their personality. They should be kept in the system at all cost. Otherwise, their cost to the society would be heavier. After the compulsory basic education, and prior to a four year higher education for specialized profession, a one year brake from education for avoiding a learning fatigue and putting his/her social relations and responsibilities to practice might be advisable. For example, some volunteer work in social services during this interim period may be envisaged. Such practice may help instill in individuals a stronger feeling of inter-relation and inter-dependence with the society, prior to entering in the service of that society. Furthermore, in order to ensure education for all, a national public education fund, similar to mandatory contributions to social security funds and to health insurance systems, may be established. These two funds, that we take for granted today, were introduced for concerns that the exposure of individuals to unavoidable risks would endanger the economic and social well being of people and of the society. Education is no less important element in the economic and social well-being of a society. The current practice of paltry tax breaks or child compensations as part of salaries do not guarantee education of children. In some extreme cases, they even help finance the bad habits of addicted parents.

4. “Pansociation”*

*This term is introduced to express the concept of a global association and consociation of the civil sector, distinguished from the term "globalization" used by business and political actors, from international used for inter-governmental relations, and from universal used as religious doctrine.

Person to person exchanges of goods, money and science across state borders started to alter and eventually to level the economic, cultural, and all other human interests, their definitions, their perceptions. Even the universalization of emotions, feelings, thoughts, decisions have taken a global life of their own, after the introduction of the electronic medium. Friendships, romances, marriages, solidarities, ideas, associations, education, inventions, discoveries, businesses, and even medical treatment or surgery are realized beyond (and irrespective of) national borders. A cyber-society is growing unhindered, without a central overseeing authority, and in some cases despite national attempts to obstruct it. Cyberspace is now the meeting place, the town hall, the Greek agora, the Roman forum of yesteryears. We cannot but notice and respond to this rapid development, to its impact on the social fabric of societies, and on the state of the civilization. “There is humanity above all nations”; above all races, ideologies and religions, I might add.

Worldwide interconnection of people is a powerful tool for the civilizational progress, but as in all human things, it may also be used for nefarious purposes. We need to be vigilant, and like in any rapid development, we need to be concerned with the orderliness of the process. There is considerable truth in the theory concisely formulated by Adorno, “mass culture … anesthetizes its citizens from the reality of their own oppression.” This thought developed earlier in different terms by thinkers like Heidegger (“the massification of man”), Nietzsche, Spengler and Zweig (the “monotonization of the world”), suggests that mass production and mass trade, i.e. globalization of unscrupulous business and consumption, as well as the dissemination of wrong or bad information beget public mediocrity. In agreeing with this observation, I would add that when the low quality of products and knowledge is combined with the equality principle of democracy, masses are equalized at a lower common denominator of socio-economic status. Some pundits even despair about the current state of civilization. However, to go so far as to draw a self-defeating conclusion from these thoughts, like Rosner did should be unacceptable to the human specie who should be advancing on the path to civilization unhindered. We should rather strive to improve the quality of life by way of some kind of oversight on the globalization activities.

Targowski suggests that dissatisfaction with the power of corporations in a globalizing economy is because of the absence of a “pseudo-global government” that could regulate the global economy. [37] Another defender of the idea of global government is Weizsacker (The Politics of Peril, Seabury Press 1978). Based on the centuries old experience that imperialism and religious missionizing did more harm than good to globalization, we can conclude that global governance would not serve the purpose. At any rate, global government is a fantasy in either individualist or pluralist world.

Internationally agreed regulations in specific fields have helped considerably to bring order to the development of human relations. The start of international cooperation may be placed at 1648 Westphalia Treaty, which recognized the independence and equality of states, thus established the principle of balance of powers, and also enunciated respect for religious freedom. Freedom of religion was the first freedom internationally registered (presumably, because the treaty was ending the 30 years religious wars in Europe). After several treaties concluded between states in the course of centuries, mainly for regulating the inter-governmental behaviors, the humanity issues finally found their way onto the international platform at the 1945 San Francisco Conference convened under the still hanging clouds of the atomic bomb. The 20^th century witnessed a much welcome internationalization of humanity issues.[38] Starting with the founding of the International Court of Justice in 1907, then of the UN in 1945, followed by several specialized organizations (like ILO, WHO, ITU, etc.), a wide ranging specific human activities were regulated. Many international covenants and regulations contain some principles for human dignity and freedom, for legal, racial, ethnic, age, gender, and educational equality. International standardization and regulation found its best example thus far in the EU regulations. The EU even recalibrated the European interstate conduct in the Charter of Paris of 1990[39] to adapt to the political changes occurred after the demise of the Soviet Union.

However, these international covenants are nothing more than expression of intentions by states. Even after being incorporated in national laws, the concept of national sovereignty still serves as an excuse for states to flout their international commitments. Governments are prejudicial by nature, they compete for economic, political, strategic superiority, to mention a few. International commitments made by governments without public contribution or support lack legitimacy.[40][41] The monolithic world-view of governments in their own image has long become archaic, and even obsolete. National exceptionalism expressed in national constitutions or in jingoistic sounding anthems are not anthems but anathemas. Therefore, after about a century of experience, we can conclude that the intergovernmental networking was an effort but not enough to pave the way to real globalization, thus to help the civilizational progress.[42]

Van Der Bly’s “Pananthropoi”[43] proposes orderly universalization by way of “all-encompassing society”. She expects to reach that objective through social interconnections, connection of minds, which she admits would not be easy. While I agree that connection of minds is necessary for globalization, it is only the starting point. It is in want of an institutional force behind it, for it to be effective. A global civil society organization is necessary for the connection of minds to become an effective power in globalization,[44] therefrom in the civilizational progress.

The very first show of people power in history was the Vindicie Contra Tyrannas declared by Hugenots in 1579, in the aftermath of the St. Barthelomeo massacre and presenting Hugenot commander Coligny’s head to the Council of Bishops in Rome. The milestones of the people power were the French and American Declarations of Rights, which succeeded in elevating the humanity to the contemporary state of civilization: some international covenants on humanity issues, and some random powerless regional or global civil society organizations.

There has been a promising development since 1970s, in that people power has been gaining inroads to politics. Public demonstrations that started during that decade in Paris, Rio, Warsaw, Budapest and Prague against uncontrolled growth of big businesses or intergovernmental decisions taken without environmental and social considerations, continue today on a variety of occasions and places. People around the world assert their power more and more by protests, and influence national and international actions. The public pressure on authorities became more effective with the spread of the convenience of instant electronic communication. Some local authorities took note of this change and turned it to their advantage by giving the public the possibility of direct participation in governance. Some cities in Norway, Spain, and Netherlands are experimenting with instant participation of citizens in the improvement of life in their communities. Those cities installed systems in public places through which citizens can report electronically and instantly anything they observe out of order, or make suggestions. Human Rights City initiatives in Eugene, Oregon, in Washington D.C., and in Rosario, Argentina are also examples of local social organizing.

At the international level, some civil society institutions, like social issue activist groups, professional associations, arts and sports federations, workers and industrialist unions, etc., have obtained an observer or consultative status at some international organizations in the last fifty years. It would be desirable that inter-governmental organizations recognize civil society organizations with an equal standing with governments in the deliberations of the organizations. 21^st century could be the right time to release the civil societies from governmental tutelage, and include them formally in national and international policy-making process. The initiative of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) is a good example of global cooperation promoting self-governance at the local level.[45] Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is the example of a civil organization working worldwide on the equality of genders (although as of Jan. 1, 2008 it transferred its management to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). CEDAW Ordinance adopted by the city of San Francisco despite the fact that the USA is not party to CEDAW is an evocative example of what I mean by borderless people power. The Transnational Advocacy Network, which advises activist groups around the world to monitor transnational corporations against breach of consumer protection, is an example of global watchdog over businesses.

Civil societies genuinely represent peoples’ interests, without being influenced by any factors other than human interests. Their information collection is also unbiased, rendering the basic information more legitimate and credible than the ones collected by authorities. Global decisions, actions, and authorities must take their legitimacy from the people, like local or national governments do take their legitimacy from the people. Self-governance principle, freedom of association in particular, practiced at the national level must be valid also at the international level. Technology and social information reached the level where people are now able to participate directly in governance, not only at the local, but also at the global level. Needless to say, there should be an oversight of national, regional and global civil organizations, but the oversight could be exercised also by dedicated non-governmental civil society organizations. [46]

I might add as a final note, a legal framework without enforcement capability cannot be expected to achieve its purpose. Some global civil societies, cognizant of this fact, have in place a strategy to monitor countries for compliance with the established principles and standards. However, the measurability of civilizational criteria is a major problem. There was a well-intended but impractical attempt by a mathematician, A. Perumpanani, to extend a helping hand to social scientists by proposing a mathematical formula to gauge “civilization”. Palmer Talbutt rightly proposes the following coordinates of cultures as changeable and measurable, which may be used also, I believe, for collecting data and statistics to measure civilizational level of societies: Status/wealth relation, generations relation, urban/regional relation, subject/ruler relation, self/other relation, male/female relation[47], humanity/nature relation, actual/ideal relation, natural/supernatural relation. One might add to this list education/social participation relation. The educational level of the society, contribution to science, the employment rate, the size of social services rendered by civil organizations, the number and type of homicides and other crime rates, the rate of misuse or over-use of natural resources, the rate of degradation of natural environment, could be among the measures to gauge the civilizational level. Obviously, the identification of some concrete sociometric (measurable) elements is needed for the credibility and the authority of the global civil society network.

The above-mentioned subject-specific civil society initiatives at local and international levels constitute examples of “Pansociation”. Their formation seems haphazard, but it is a good and strong indication of a need and of the future. An orderly transition to true humanist globalization may be possible through a formally recognized network of, for and by social organizations in all fields. Borderless people power, without an intermediary (like states), is the best hope for moving towards the next level of civilization.

Conclusion

I conclude from the arguments put forward above that civilization is a reality, and not historically finite but intrinsically future looking. I attempt to give concreteness to an abstract concept. While I found my argument of civilization on the human traits of intuition and reasoning, the sixty thousand year history of mankind does not convince me that this human trait was able to reach a level appropriate for the 21^st century humanity. Looking into the obstacles and instruments of civilizational progress, the present essay envisages some means to overcome the obstacles, and to assist the civilizational progress. First, industry and global trade, science and technology, as instruments of globalization, need to include humanity and civility in their global inter-actions. Next, “education” systems need to be revised to include teaching a rational worldview. Finally, the formation and formalization of global organization of civil societies need to be expanded and expedited.

Civilization is individual as much as it is social and global. The worldview of individuals defines their attitude towards the outside world. Hence, individual’s behavior is the determining factor in the evolution of civilization. Just as you cannot have democracy in a society without the democratically thinking individuals, you cannot have civilization without individuals thinking civility globally. At the same time, states’ worldview also must be global, so as not to stand in the way of civil society organizations in their global connections.

Legislators around the world also ought to legislate (self-governance) better for the interest of the entirety of humanity in mind as they started doing in recent decades for individual freedoms and equality. They have to acknowledge the need for official guidance to global trade, the encouragement of science, the redirection of education, and to international civil organizations. But, they need to be equipped with the right "education".

We may be able then to leave behind the contemporary acts unbecoming humanity, and to look forward to the next desired and deserved level of civilization.

February 2015

---

           Notes

           [1] The Editor of The Struggles of Civilization in Comparative Civilizations Review also seems to be perplexed, Comparative Civilizations Review (69), p. 3

[2] Jonathan Webb, Science reporter, BBC News 18 September 2014, Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees,   “. data from some 426 combined years of observation, across 18 different chimp communities. …..A total of 152 killings were reported. …… the team also compiled the figures for bonobos, with strikingly different results: just a single suspected killing from 92 combined years of observation at four different sites. ……. But rather than having deep implications for human nature, the authors of the new study suggest that chimpanzee homicide - which previous research has estimated to occur at a similar rate to that seen in hunter-gatherer human societies- goes up and down as a simple consequence of competition for resources.” 

[3] Vladimir Alalykin-Izvekov, Civilizational Science: The Evolution of a New Field, Comparative Civilizations Review (64), p. 104

Brett Bowden, Politics in a World of Civilizations: Long-term Perspectives on Relations between Peoples, Human Figurations Volume 1, Issue 2, 

[4] Ruan Wei, Civilization and Culture, Global Studies Journal. (24), p.10 

[5] Wei, supra,  pp. 1 and 2

Ruan Wei, Two Concepts of ‘‘Civilization”, Comparative Civilization Review Number 67, Fall 2012,  p.22

“Robert W. Cox, Thinking about civilizations, Review of International Studies (26), End note 15

Thorsten Botz-Bornstein, What is the Difference between Culture and Civilization? Two Hundred Fifty Years of Confusion, Comparative Civilizations Review (66),  p. 10

[6] Shuntaro Ito, What Is Civilization?— A New Approach, Comparative Civilizations Review (38),  p. 11

[7] J. Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion, Polity 2008, p. 260.

[8] Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, Penguin Books 1968,  p. 147

 [9] A. Targowski notes in The Civilization Index, Comparative Civilizations Review (57), p. 109

     See also Bowden and Katzenstein for different classifications.

     Lee Snyder, Civilizations and the Fourth Turning, Comparative Civilizations Review (57),   p. 6

[10] Matthew Melko, The Civilizational Concept, Comparative Civilizations Review  (47),  p.62

             [11] David Wilkinson, Civilizations Are World Systems, Comparative Civilizations Review (30),  p. 61

[12] Maurice Block, Dictionnaire de la Politique, O. Lorenz 1873, Entry on Progress by M. Block,  Vol. II p. 704, “The individual, while developing, is himself thus the objective and the end of his progress. … There is a common destiny of humanity, a depository of civilization passed on from a century to the next, which grows successively. Included in the word civilization is progress and development … We have to distinguish the society’s progress from that of humanity. … Humanity’s progress is the objective, society’s progress is the means.” (translation by the present author)

[13] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, Mentor Books, 9^th print 1959, p.103   

Gordon W. Hewes, Anticivilization, Comparative Civilizations Review, February 22, 1982,  p.7

Robert W. Cox,  'The International' in Evolution, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 2007 ( 35), pp. 517, 518

Robert W. Cox, Thinking about civilizations, Review of International Studies (26), Footnote 36,  p. 280

Targowski, The Civilization Index,  p. 94

[14] Militant Islam and Ataturk’s Political Philosophy, www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com

             [15] S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, Touchstone 1997, pp. 320, 321.

             [16] A. Einstein, The World As I See It, Citadel Press 2006, p. 10.

[17] Wolf Schäfer, Pangaea II – The Project of the Global Age, Global Studies Journal (36), p.5

[18] Botz-Bornstein, Thought on Religion, Culture, and Civilization, Comparative Civilization Review (71), (p. 19)

Wei, Civilization and Culture,  p. 1

[19] For Civil and Political Rights, see French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights; for social rights, see the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

[20] The Illusion of Self-governance, www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com,

[21] A. Kronman, Education’s End, Yale University Press 2007,  pp. 198, 199, and 207

[22] Leslie Lipson, The Ethical Crises of Civilization, Sage 1993,  p. 217

Michael Andregg, Why Population Pressure and Militant Religion are the Most Important Causes of the Developing Crisis, Comparative Civilization Review (61),  p. 82    

[23] The Illusion of Self-Governance, www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com

              [24] Crane Brinton et als., A History of Civilization, Volume II, Prentice-Hall 1984,  (p. 486)

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper & Brothers 1950, (p. 261)

Crane Brinton, The Shaping of the Modern Mind, Mentor Books, 1959, Quoting Samuel Smiles Self Help 1860,  (p.211)

J. Stuart Mill, On Liberty, F. S. Crofts & Co. 1947, ( pp. 117-118)

The Illusion of Self-Governance, www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, “The current inadequate type and quality of education is a fundamental, organic and qualitative problem of political systems around the world. Yet, there is not a general awareness of the problem. People are more interested in professional and vocational education for economic reasons, and politicians prefer an uneducated and uninformed public that they can manipulate easier. Therefore, civic and humanist minded masses will be very difficult to develop, and will necessarily take a long long time to come.”

[25] Kronman, supra,  p. 246

            [26] Whitehead, supra, p. 181

       

                Lester Thurow, The Future of Capitalism,  Penguin Books 1996,  p. 284

               J. Schumpeter, supra,  (p. 146)

                  Nancy Koehn, How mistaken greatness inflates pay, Washington Post June 15, 2014, “According to data released this month by executive-salary tracker Equilar. The 200 most highly compensated U.S.-based CEOs in 2013 received an average pay package of $20.7 million … At the top of the chart, Cheniere Energy’s Charif Souki pocketed $142 million … Today, the ratio between the pay of Fortune 500 chief executives and that of the average employee in these organizations exceeds 200 to 1. … If we want to slow – or better yet, reverse - accelerating income inequality, the most powerful lever we have to pull is that of outrageous executive compensation.” 

[27] Thurow, supra, (p. 90)

                J. Stuart Mill, supra, p.107  

 [28] Cox, Thinking about civilizations, (p.221)

[29] Cox, Thinking about civilizations,  (p. 229)

[30] Brinton, The Shaping of the Modern Mind, p. 159)

[31] Louis Baeck, Emerging non-western multiple modernities, Islamic views on globalization, Planetragora.org, 

Criticism of the dominant religion in some countries (certainly in religionist countries) is illegal as blasphemy, as hate speech or breach of freedom of religion. Criticism of an individual on unfounded grounds may be considered defamation or hate speech, but of an institution like a religion, a political party or a government should never be considered as such. Although institutions have been given many legal rights equivalent to individuals’, they still miss one thing that people have, feelings (including reputation). Therefore, as far as institutions are concerned, defamation should not be in question. Otherwise, the democratic right of oversight over institutions cannot be exercised properly.         

[32]  James Goodman, Solidarity and Recognition: The ‘long frontier’ of counter-globalism, PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies Vol. 3, no. 1,   (p.1).

Cox, Thinking about civilizations,  (p.218)

[33] International Migration - A socio-political Perspective, www.sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com.

              [34] Brinton, Science and the Modern World, (pp. 10, 11)

[35] Henri Bartoli, Repenser le Developpement, UNESCO/ Ed. ECONOMICA 1999, “It (education) must ‘be the catalyser for the desire to live together’.” (p.49) (translation by the present author)

Whitehead, supra, (p. 176)  

C. Nelson, Book Review of M. Roth’s Beyond The University, Washington Post May 25, 2014, “… it is the special task of education to offer the tools required to understand both oneself and the world in which one lives. … In the end, liberal education must take its bearings from the most fundamental question of all: What does it mean to be human?”     

              [36] Lipson, supra,(p. 296)

[37] Wayne M. Bledsoe, Globalization and Comparative Civilizations: Looking Backward To See The Future, Comparative Civilization Review (45), (p. 19)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in a speech in early Sept. 2007, suggested “to manage the world together” with the USA, because the superpowers had the joint responsibility to maintain the world’s strategic balance and stability.

[38] Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant, Oxford Un. Press, 20..?,  (p.10)

[39] “ … we will abide by the following: Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings, are inalienable and are guaranteed by law. Their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of government. Respect for them is an essential safeguard against an overmighty State. Their observance and full exercise are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. … Economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility are indispensable for prosperity.”

[40] Jean Tardif, The Hidden Dimension of Globalization : What is at Stake Geoculturally, Forum on Cultural Pluralism, Planetagora.org,   

[41] Cox, 'The International' in Evolution, Millennium - Journal of International Studies (35), p. 525

              [42] Cox, Thinking About Civilization,  (p.233)

[43] Martha C. E. Van Der Bly, Pananthropoi – Towards a Society of All Humanity, Globality Studies Journal (37), (pp. 2,3)

[44] Robert D. Kaplan, Why So Much Anarchy?, Stratfor website, “Thus, with insufficient institutional development, the chances for either dictatorship or anarchy proliferate. Civil society occupies the middle ground between those extremes, but it cannot prosper without the requisite institutions and bureaucracies.”

Cox, 'The International' in Evolution, Millennium - Journal of International Studies (35),  (p.525)

[45] www.uclg.org, “UCLG’s work programme focuses on: -Increasing the role and influence of local government and its representative organisations in global governance; -Becoming the main source of support for democratic, effective, innovative local government close to the citizen; -Ensuring an effective and democratic global organisation. United Cities and Local Governments supports international cooperation between cities and their associations, and facilitates programmes, networks and partnerships to build the capacities of local governments. The organization promotes the role of women in local decision-making, and is a gateway to relevant information on local government across the world.”

[46] Franziska Bieri, The Roles of NGOs in the Kimberly Project, Globality Studies Journal (20),  (p.3)  (p. 16)

Cox, The International in Evolution,  (p.525)   

[47] Lipson, supra,  (p. 217 )

                                           ATTACHMENT

Civilizational level of humanity expresses itself in different societies and in different times. In the B.C. era the civilizational advances were in Asia and the Middle East, then in Greece. The first 1300 A.D. years, the civilization went into darkness worldwide. In 1300s some European thinkers started questioning the Biblical assertions and the ecclesiastical authority. They started studying the previous Islamic and Greek civilizations. Knowledge, hence civilizational move, re-emerged in 1400s in Europe first with arts (Renaissance). While medicine, mathematics, and astronomy were developed and continue to be developed in many areas of the world, it is mostly the Europeans who contributed to the most recent advancement of civilization, and brought the humanity to the current level of civilization, as shown in the brief list below.
During 1500s there were the introduction of worldwide explorations, postal service, pencil, publications, the use of fork and WC, also philosophical discourse (leaving aside those in Antiquities and a few in the Dark Ages).
In 1600s started road building, hospitals, dailies, banking practices; along, however, with slave importation into the U.S., and belief based odd restrictions and wars in Europe; re- emergence of philosophical discourse.
1700s witnessed the recognition of the protection of thought, first copyright, and Fredrick the Great's freedom of press act.
1800s brought the industrial revolution, railroads, transmission of writing and voice (telegraph and phone), electrification of cities, food preservation methods, automobiles. It also heralded constitutional statehood, and abolition of slavery.
1900s bore fruit to the transmission of the visual (TV), airplanes, space exploration, computers, wireless communication, and nuclear energy. Also, international organizations, environmental protection, and human rights.