Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Mazlish and Freud on Civilization
In this week's individual webbog post I am eager to learn of your interpretations and/or readings of "civilization" as this phenomenon is understood by Mazlish and Freud. There are key differences between these two figures as well as significant similarities, so make it your goal to offer meaningful reflection on what they have to say about the advantages and disadvantages offered by the historic invention of this key concept. Both men convey distinct concerns about civilization and its implications for the modern quest for individual liberty and self-flourishing. And, in the course of our reading of their critiques of civilization, we learn much about the complex, intertwined history of self and its other. Clearly, civilization is not innate, a product of human invention, and its naming (as Mazlish frequently points out) has a distinct, and curious historicity. I cannot help but wonder if Freud would subscribe to Mazlish's recommendation that we jettison the term civilization, in order to replace it with a Norbert Elias-inspired "civilizing process"? Perhaps Freud's own conjectural history of the origins of human civilization in the ominous, unchecked aggression of the"brudderbund" and the longer evolution of human repression offers a prototype of the "civilizing process"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my reading of Freud and Mazlish, I couldn’t help but note how two men approaching the idea of “civilization” from two very different origins (psychoanalytic versus historical-anthropological) still came to some strikingly similar conclusions. Both recognize that civilization is a construct of mankind created by a process that could have produced different results than it did. For example, Mazlish recognizes that although non-European cultures all had some concept of “civilization,” they do not necessarily share all the characteristics that the Euro-centric Enlightenment concept of civilization takes to be intrinsic qualities of civilization. Similarly, Freud talks about civilization as an abstraction, in some ways acknowledging that the mode of civilization he is most familiar with is not necessarily the only form of civilization. Additionally, both authors begin their separate analyses with the idea of religion as the progenitor of civilization, but ultimately end with a much broader view of civilization as a process that suppresses “animal” instincts and imposes rules of etiquette and conduct. Since “civilization” is constantly working to enact social norms and control behaviors, both Freud and Mazlish see civilization as a dynamic process rather than a static state. Freud would likely agree with Mazlish that Elias’s formulation of manners as central to the civilizing process is a very appropriate characterization of the civilizing process, since Freud is chiefly concerned with the ways in which civilization imposes behaviors on the individual. However, Freud and Mazlish, although they arrive at similar conclusions about what civilization is, do not necessarily agree in their concerns about the ramifications of civilization.
ReplyDeleteMazlish is very concerned with the problems that can and do arise from the fact that civilization as an idea inherently sets the people of a “civilization” apart from those others who are “barbarians.” This can create problems in world politics and diplomacy, since civilization, especially as a Eurocentric concept, cannot escape its roots to become a universally applicable idea. This can lead to the severe bigotry and racial superiority theories that in many ways defined the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Essentially, civilization as an idea enables hostility towards out-groups that are not part of the civilization, enabling destructive bigotry.
By contrast, Freud does not focus so much on the interactions between groups as large as nations or countries, but rather focuses on the individual and his (Freud did not study the psychology of females in any particular depth) interactions with other members of his “civilization.” Freud concerned himself with how expectations that a man form friendships with other males as professional contacts and make gestures of friendship towards his neighbors affected his libido, that is, his sexual instinct. Freud also considers the possibility that man has an innate aggressive instinct, and this instinct is repressed and frustrated in psychologically damaging ways by the restrictions of society. Freud, as a psychoanalyst, could not be expected to focus on anything larger than an individual person or a small group of people, after all.
Mazlish and Freud, although looking for the ramifications of civilization as a concept for very different entities (whole cultures as opposed to individual people) nonetheless find that civilization can hold inherent dangers for mankind, either in the form of Eurocentric bigotry or neuroses.
Bruce Mazlish and Sigmund Freud certainly take different approaches in their respective discussions of civilizations, however many of the meaningful solutions which they come to are very similar. One mentality which both men seem to share but which, at the same time, goes against the views of many in society, is that the development of civilizations can have deleterious effects on humanity. Mazlish argues that not only can civilization progress, but that it can in fact regress as well. Freud would agree with this perspective, believing that civilization comes about from repression and coercion and a sense of unconscious guilt. Freud definitely viewed “civilization” as having a negative connotation, going so far as to say that “civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up.” Yet, at the same time, Freud still admits that civilization is a necessary sin.
ReplyDeleteMazlish and Freud also share the belief that civilization is a social construct which is developed by humanity. Furthermore, even though Freud is very opposed to the idea of religion, both he and Mazlish still see man’s concept of religion as a major force behind—and a defining feature of—this development of civilization. Even though religion may have been a major factor in civilization’s beginnings, however, neither man believes that civilization is by any means stagnant. It is their views of how civilization changes and evolves, however, which distinguish Mazlish and Freud from each other.
Mazlish’s view of civilization comes from a more historical perspective than that of Freud. Mazlish looks at some of the great civilizations of the past, such as those of Rome, Christianity, and Feudalism, and tracks the evolution of civilization over time. He comes to believe that after the Enlightenment, civilization drastically changed and came to be used as a means of a group of people to express their superiority over others. Freud, on the other hand, saw the development of civilization as a means of people to not so much express superiority over other people, but rather as a way to conquer nature and death. Thus, people developed tools and other technologies to increase the power of humanity as a whole. Even though civilizations help us conquer nature and death, Freud argues that despite the illusion of greater freedom which may result from these supposed victories, civilizations ultimately restrict us more by limiting the freedom of our instincts without actually completely repressing our aggression. It is this focus on man’s instincts which also sets Freud apart from Mazlish. While Mazlish focuses on the over-arching evolution of civilizations and humanity over the course of history, Freud looks to the mind of each individual for the roots of civilization and makes claims about universal aspects of the minds of men. For example, Freud argues that the two goals of man are utility and pleasure, neither of which, he points out, is aided by the development of a neat and beautiful civilization. Mazlish also viewed human reason as being universal, a view which is supported by Freud’s analysis of the human mind.
Even though Freud and Mazlish offer unique approaches to the development of civilizations, the perspectives which they offer are not necessarily completely contradictory. It even seems that, perhaps, their two views could be combined on many levels to provide a fuller view of the constantly developing “civilizing process.” Although Mazlish bases this process off such aspects as social morality and a sense of superiority while Freud focuses more on the suppression of instincts, it is possible that these ideas could go hand in hand and that, in order to feel superior humans have come to feel that they must suppress their basic instincts of aggression. Thus, Freud and Mazlish come to much the same conclusion that, not only does civilization have its significant downfalls, but that civilization is also a continuously developing process.
In comparing the stances on civilization by Bruce Mazlish and Sigmund Freud, one needs to first define their complicated stances. Starting first with Bruce Mazlish, he has a historical view of civilization. He traces the meaning of civilization throughout the history of philosophers such as Guizot, Gobineau, and Darwin and comes to the conclusion that civilization is simply a social construct of historical time. Its meaning cannot help but change as society itself changes. For example, Guizot’s “civilization” was founded on the basis of religion, while Gobineau’s “civilization” was based off of the racist views of the time. Mazlish says that both are correct about what civilization is and these meanings evolve from one another. He also points out that the term “civilization” is a European view and other parts of the world have just naturally accepted the term.
ReplyDeleteFreud, on the other hand, takes a much stranger stance on the meaning of civilization. He believes that civilization stems from the conflict between two natural instincts: eros (the object instinct) and thanatos (the ego-instinct). Basically, civilization is the constant flux between love and destruction. Freud says that this may be difficult to grasp, but it is an innate fact that humans are presupposed to destroy. He believes that the laws that civilization creates to control the destructive instincts of humans make us depressed and unhappy with our lives.
Despite the far different ways in which Mazlish and Freud tackle civilization, there still exist many similarities. The primary point on which both agree upon is that civilization is a social construct. Mazlish believes that people create civilization based upon the feelings of the era and Freud thinks that civilization is created to stabilize the quest for destruction. Another similarity as pointed out in the earlier blogs is that both see civilization as a necessity. Although Freud believes that civilization leads to discontentment among the people, he still sees it as a necessary evil in the world. Mazlish’s need for civilization is more evident in his work as civilization has existed throughout the course of history.
Personally, I feel that Mazlish offers a much better definition of civilization. Not only is the definition more optimistic than the depressing works of Freud, it is also more reasonable and easily understood. The possibility for change allows for the instant turnaround of a society from bad to good. In a world like today where the economy is down and terrorism threatens the well being of innocent people, civilization can eventually change to a new world of peace and prosperity. Quite frankly, I am not sure why anyone would choose to believe in the gloomy prospects of Freud’s civilization. Why would someone side with Freud who says that we seek destruction and civilization does nothing but restrict our sexual instincts? He even goes as far to say that religion is a construct that comes from the need for the father on an infant level. He reduces the human race to such a low level and does not give credit to what the human species has done as a whole. I cannot side with such a pessimistic view of human civilization when man has done so much and achieved such high levels of happiness. Maybe I am just an optimist, but Freud’s civilization just points out the crude and nasty things in life, and Mazlish’s civilization offers a great alternative.
Bruce Mazlish and Sigmund Freud approach the concept of civilization from nearly opposite directions, yet their conclusions curiously overlap and involve many similar concepts. Mazlish evaluates the historical context of civilization, particularly in the European realm, much as an anthropologist would. He follows the progress of the term itself and the manner in which it has been utilized. Freud, meanwhile, turns his focus to the origin of civilization from within the individual and the manner in which it has manifested itself throughout the world community.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that is vital to the arguments of both authors is the purpose civilization serves. Mazlish explains that civilization as a European concept was exploited to support colonial ideology. He states, “The only way to eliminate the ‘barbarism’ of the others now would be for them to be swept aside in the name of European civilization, a possession only possible for Europeans” (72). Thus, the notion of civilization was created to justify European oppression of “lesser” people groups. Freud, on the other hand, sees the purpose of civilization as that of suppressing instinct and aggressive behavior. Civilization serves as an aid in the sublimation of destructive tendencies. These ideas of civilization’s purpose present a stark contrast. Mazlish views it as a means to justify one’s aggressive instinct. Freud believes it to be a method of suppressing that same instinct.
Importantly, both Freud and Mazlish recognize the fact that civilization is not a concept that has reached equilibrium and a state of constant being. Rather, it is a process of perpetual occurrence. This idea is in union with Sahlins’ idea of categories in action, as the course civilization has taken is just one of numerous possibilities. Mazlish recognizes the presence of ancient civilizations and the extent to which civilization has progressed. Thus, though the term is a European creation, civilization itself is not unique to, nor did it originate in, Europe. Freud also recognizes civilization as a process. He explains that civilization has its roots in man’s love, or sexual desire, and has grown as a means to provide humanity with a sense of security greater than can be achieved by the individual. An important difference between these two theories arises though, as Mazlish recognizes the ability for a reversion of civilization. Darwin and Elias, among others, saw civilization as the idea of progress. In regards to Norbert Elias and his presence in Nazi Germany, he states, “Elias turned a blind eye to the decivilizing process, the way in which civilization could break down” (87). Similar to Noel Perrin’s view of technology and Japan’s reversion from the gun, Mazlish recognizes that civilization is not an unstoppable force. It can, in fact be abused to the point of near destruction, as witnessed with the Nazis. Freud, though, does not appear to offer such a possibility. He fails to address the idea of civilization as a reversible process. However, one can infer the feasibility of such a breakdown if the inclination of aggression within humans were to overcome the Eros principle Freud puts forth.
(Cont’d) Both authors present compelling arguments as to the nature of civilization. I personally agree with portions of both theories. Mazlish presents a convincing case regarding civilization’s purpose as a means to satiate the conscience through imperialistic endeavors. Additionally, the breakdown of civilization seems entirely possible in the modern day with the threat of nuclear war. Though at first glance Freud’s concept of the personal origin of civilization seems quite abstract and overly theoretical, further inspection proves his theory to be very logical. I now find myself agreeing with his assertion that man is naturally aggressive and civilization serves to mitigate and sublimate that aggression, along with the idea that man accepts civilization for the benefit of safety over a portion of happiness. However, Freud does seem to underestimate the extent and power of good will. Though I do agree with his idea of an aggressive instinct, I cannot believe that all humans are naturally beasts and have no sense of consideration or empathy. Thus, both authors present compelling arguments that, though approached with different methods, contain resoundingly similar conclusions.
ReplyDeleteMazlish and Freud approach the means of explaining civilization in separate ways, one historically this other psychologically, but both reach similar findings of the foundation of civilization. At the same time, Mazlish warns that civilization may no longer be applicable to today’s society while Freud explains the development in such a way that leaves one to question whether anyone can pry themselves from its grasp.
ReplyDeleteMazlish attempts to determine the root of civilization through a historical means by studying the writings of authors who lived before and during the development of the word but also goes as far back as the Roman Empire the help explain how the term came about. From this, Mazlish offers two keys to development which come out in Freud’s discovery as well. The first push for civilization came from the idea of moving from military law to a civil rule of law. Mazlish takes this idea from Hume and Mierbow, and as the change suggests, civilization is on the basis of a community being civil and avoiding the aggressions of war. The push for the civility came from Mazlish’s second key to development which is religion as a stabilizer of civilization. He suggests civilization works towards the highest forms of ethical monotheism. Without religion, there would be no force guiding the people to a civil life. The government alone had no influence but with its armies and one cannot militarily direct people away from military rule and into civil rule. This push for a monotheistic religion is a factor in Mazlish’s view that civilization is a Eurocentric means of evaluating others.
Freud also feels religion and a move away from aggressive actions play parts in the foundation of civilization; however he does not address the issue of it being Eurocentric, but looks at it as a product of human condition. Freud states suffering comes from fear of death, the superior power of nature, and inadequate relationships. Religion is used to overcome the fear of death by putting forward the idea of a never ending life. Even after death one lives. It also harnesses the power of nature by accepting it as a creation of God, and thus a part of a greater plan. Any power that nature appears to have can be attributed to God. The aggression present in military power overturned by Mazlish into civil rule is addressed by Freud in a multi-step process. The first step is that the individual must recognize the need to continue the human species and balance the continuation of the population with the instinct of killing the other. Civilization circumvents this problem of murder through the second step of applying the rule of loving the neighbor as the self. The final step is to turn the aggression that was directed toward the neighbor inward thus creating the consciousness. This consciousness kicks into action when the human feels guilty for a thought of aggression on the neighbor which causes the consciousness to buckle down even more.
In what seems to be distinct opposition to each other, Mazlish and Freud disagree on where civilization stands today. Mazlish warns civilization cannot be applied to today’s culture. He views civilization as a concept as a social construct of a specific historical time; its meaning cannot be eternal. Thus he sees civilization as a process which can either be progression or regression. Freud, however, suggests civilization, and more importantly its product of conscience, is a cycle which cannot be broken. Whether guilt or consciousness came first, when a human feels guilt for the instinct of aggression, the consciousness becomes tighter and more actions cause guilt. It is a deepening hole which Freud suggests can be relieved only temporarily and only by acting in opposition to the directions of the consciousness. Freud clearly sets forward a process of civilizing the population, but the track it follows inevitably flows in the direction of a repression of aggression, and, while there is a way to
jump backwards releasing the consciousness temporarily, there is not a clear path of steadily moving backwards or regressing to a time pre-civilization as Mazlish suggests.
ReplyDeleteSigmund Freud and Bruce Mazlish’s writings about the notion of civilization contain similar themes in their analysis of the roots and implications of civilization. Their approaches for analyzing civilization are different due to the dissimilar nature of their fields of expertise. By having a similar theme put forth by two experts in completely different fields, adds legitimacy to their assertion that civilization is not the pinnacle of human society as many people believe.
ReplyDeleteBoth Mazlish and Freud believe that civilization is not something that is inherent to mankind. Civilization is something that is created by man in order to limit his own freedoms. Mazlish focuses on the historical context of civilization, and the fact that civilization is a historical term rather than a trait of mankind. He explains that “civilization” was a term coined by Mirabeau in 1756 that came to describe the structure of European societies at this time. Therefore, civilization was used as a “universalistic measuring rod against which all societies could be compared” (17). The issue is that this measuring rod is based off of European societies, so non-European societies are considered uncivilized unless they conform to European standards. Therefore, Mazlish asserts that the term civilization is Eurocentric and a biased way to analyze various cultures. Mazlish feels that the use of the word civilization leads to racism since describing other cultures as uncivilized carries negative connotations.
Both Mazlish and Freud saw morality and the repression of natural tendencies as a distinguishing aspect of civilization. Mazlish is describing this when he says, “…civilization serves two purposes. The second is that it allows the European to make sense of the universe. It gives him a moral footing and prescribes manners and modes for the proper conduct of social life” (Mazlish 40). Mazlish is saying here that civilization allowed the European to understand the meaning of his life, and it gave him rules to live his life by. This purpose is very similar to that of religion. Therefore, Mazlish finds that religion, and the civilizing process that religion plays a part in, as one of the core purposes of civilization.
Freud would agree with Mazlish that civilization works to repress the inherent nature of man, through the “civilizing process” which is the result of religion. Freud feels that religion limits man pursuit of happiness, and is therefore not a worthwhile venture. The reason that religion limits this pursuit is that it restricts choice and imposes a uniform moral code on all believers in an equal fashion. Freud felt that religion could provide a form of happiness by allowing its believers to live in a state of infantilism due to the religion making decisions for them, but this was not true or guaranteed happiness. Freud claims that religion and civilization play similar roles in their repression of the free will of individuals. Freud has much stronger accusations about civilization than about religion. Whereas he sees religion worthless, he feels that civilization is “responsible for all of our misery”. This is because civilization represses inherent aggression and demands things from its inhabitants that Freud deems worthless (beauty, cleanliness, and order). This forced restraint tends to lead to neuroses and unhappiness in its inhabitants no matter how many material goods the inhabitants may have.
Through the ways that Mazlish and Freud describe civilization, the reader becomes aware of each writer’s respective expertise. Mazlish chooses to focus on the historical consequences of civilization and how it is merely a European creation used to define their particular way of life. Freud’s psychoanalytic tendencies become apparent to the reader since he chooses to focus on how civilization affects the minds of its inhabitants, and the neuroses that result. Although the details differ, both of these writers share a common opinion. This opinion is that civilization limits the freedom of those who live in it by making inherent tendencies socially unacceptable through a supposed civilizing process. Civilization is also something that should not be honored as the culmination of human society, but rather a European model for constructing societies since the 18th century.
ReplyDeleteAs noted by many of my classmates, both Freud and Mazlish agreed that the concept of civilization is a social construct. Both agree that civilization is a process that has been created by a society for suppression. Mazlish believes civilization is one of the justifications for the suppression of other people, while Freud argues that civilization came about for the suppression of the self, specifically the suppression of the aggressive instincts. Freud focuses on the psychology behind civilization while Mazlish outlines the history. This makes sense considering their backgrounds, Mazlish is a historian whose focus is modern European history and Freud was a neurologist and physiologist.
ReplyDeleteFreud believes civilization is a form of sublimation. His belief is that humanity is at a constant struggle between Eros and Thantos, or love and death. Civilization is the work of Eros to force the aggressive instincts of man into a more ‘acceptable’ course of action. Freud also believes that humanity is bound together by necessity. The strong are suppressed in order to help the weak, all in the interest of conquering nature and death. Civilization is held together by Eros and necessity while Thantos works against civilization. Yet, Freud argues that necessity also inhibits love. Though the process of civilization is the work or libido, or Eros, it also works to restrain it by constraints placed on the relationships. Also, Freud believes that the aggressive instinct, or Thantos, can be channeled to the super-ego such that it works for the civilizing process instead of against it. Freud addresses the individual psyche of civilization and the reasons why each person would seek to advance the concept of civilization. However, Freud’s book also offers the warning that it is necessity that dictates civilization and that there is a constant rebellion against civilization within a person. This could, of course, be problematic when considering the future of civilization because there is always the possibility that Thantos will win out.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteMazlish on the other hand looks at the historical aspects of civilization. Mazlish believes that civilization is word that is packed with a history of superiority and so it should now be called the civilizing process. He writes of the change from a militaristic society to a civil-ruled society. Unlike Freud, Mazlish believes that religion is a driving factor behind civilization and that religion is employed to allow one society to view themselves as superior to another. Mazlish considers Norbert Elias’ writings, particularly the quote, “The concept of civilization expresses the self-conscious of the west. One could even say: the national conscience. It sums of everything in which Western society… believes itself superior to earlier societies.” Mazlish considers historical examples of civilizations ranging from Egypt to Japan to Europe. He writes that superiority has manifested itself in a number of different ways from China, ‘The Middle Kingdom’, who regarded themselves as beyond comparison, to Medieval Islam who was only concerned with its own affairs. Mazlish writes all of this in the hope that this new understanding will lead to a global dialogue. He believes that by redefining the concept of civilization, nations that had once viewed it as noun, or state of being, would then be moved to action. With this new understanding, Mazlish hopes these nations will recognize that each society is a part of the civilizing process and the historical superiority of concept of civilization will slowly diminish.
Freud and Mazlish have both defined civilization so as to fit with their area of study. Freud looked as the internal struggle while Mazlish concentrates on the external forces. Mazlish believes religion is a driving factor for religion while Freud believes it is driven by instinct, both aggressive and object related. Although, Freud makes some allowances for religion by referring to civilization as a process that is based on ideas and ideals, Freud also regards civilization as progress and Mazlish believes that the primitive society is just as worth for consideration as the modern one. Freud writes in order to explain why civilization exists and Mazlish draws on Freud’s work to try to develop a solution. Freud is unconcerned with solutions, his work focuses on the reasons. Mazlish believes that these reasons will pave the way for a new understanding. In the end, both agree that civilization is a process that depends on both internal and external forces. Although Freud may be writing to inform the reader and Mazlish writing to spurn the reader to some sort of action, in the end they both try to explain civilization as they see it.
Though civilization is an institution that pervades a large part of modern human life, its foundations and nature are very ambiguous. Thus, there is great discourse over these topics, including the prominent arguments of both Bruce Mazlish and Sigmund Freud. Mazlish advocates the removal of the term “civilization” as a level of classification. He argues that such use only leads to superiority complexes. For example, if civilization is held as a plateau of development, it is thus viewed as a mark of achieved progress, of superiority over those in the tribal “lowlands”. Mazlish says that such is not the case; he states that civilization arose from the experienced benefits of sedentary societies and working openly with others, thus making it a social construct. The illusion of superiority becomes evident only when these benefits are taken as progress and imposed upon non-aggregated peoples, in which these “barbarians” are seen as embryonic for maintaining a different approach to life. Instead of the static classification of “civilization,” for Mazlish this gathering is better represented as a derivation of Elias’s “civilizing process.” Such a process entails not only an enlargement of the community, but also an improvement of in the effectiveness of relationships. In order to have a more efficient and productive community, violence must yield to peace. Such changes lead to a development of manners and reason in the stead of violence. While Mazlish repeatedly states that the package of achievements are not progress for the human race, as non-civilized humans often maintain unparalleled happiness and openness to others while civilized humans are prone to racism and war, he does not discount the usefulness of civilization’s achievements in uniting people. He states, “It is time that we aim at going back and being ‘civilized,’ but now in a new and expanded sense that encompasses all human beings, everywhere” (Mazlish 161). In his eyes, the superiority complexes brought about by “civilization” are the biggest obstacle to complete unity, but that switching to recognition of the “civilizing process” and “civility” will allow humans the access to worldwide inclusiveness.
ReplyDeleteThe basis of Freud’s civilization stems from the conflict between love and death. He argues that humanity’s main pursuit is that of sexual pleasure, which in itself contains both love (through the uniting of one with another) and aggression (through the subjection of another for personal pleasure). This love aspect often extends beyond the basis of sex and acts as a driving force of aggregation, yet in doing so causes a “death” of individuality. This death of individuality fuels the instincts of aggression, whose aims are to destroy communal bonds in favor of the survival of the independent self. Thus, in Freud’s eyes, the civilizing process is merely the redirection of the focus of these aggressive attitudes from external bonds to the internal self, which in turn produces a conscience. The conscience binds the individual to the civilization by means of guilt, which takes aggression in its form of intent and focuses it on the self rather than the community. For Freud, civilization is simply a large collection of consciences, which are driven by the civilizing process’s repression and sublimation of externally aggressive instincts. Freud’s key implication is that this process is not instinctual, and that it actually harms humanity rather than producing beneficial achievements. The civilizing process only leads humans further from their naturally intended primal states, and in doing so “Civilized man has exchanged a portion of his possibilities of happiness for a portion of security” (Freud 73). In Freud’s mind, neither the state of civilization nor the civilizing process can produce an increased satisfaction in humanity; rather they force unions that temper the potential of human pleasure.
Both Mazlish and Freud view civilization as the result of an overarching historical process that aggregates humans into associations with one another. They also agree that it is a social construct rooted in the self-driven repression of aggressive instincts, which in turn substitutes violence for more peaceful cooperation. Nevertheless, Freud and Mazlish lie in direct opposition over their personal values of civilization and its process. Mazlish does note that the civilization as an institution is a direct cause of racism and war, yet he is inspired by the achievements of unity that civilized peoples have produced. He is very optimistic that civility can act as a catalyst to link all of humanity together in peace and unity: a global civilization. Yet in direct opposition, Freud pessimistically rebukes civility as a delusion created for humans to protect them from reality’s’ harshness. Such forced peace and cooperation limits the experience of life by catalyzing internal destruction. Even so, he does not say that dismembering civilization is a viable option for humanity at this point in history; rather he is advocating for a realization of civilization’s true nature of repression.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, Freud does set a strong and valuable precedent for viewing civilization as a flawed social construct, yet writing off civility as a defect is a disservice to humanity’s achievements thus far in history. A more advantageous approach would be in line with Mazlish: one that uses Freud’s body of work and history to demonstrate the flaws of reified “civilization,” yet one that notes how much progress humans have made towards universal cooperation. Through such a stance, humanity can work towards freeing itself of intolerance by making civility an inclusive bridge to unity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael Collins
ReplyDeleteIt is a distressing sign that more than forty years after Freud published Civilization and its Discontents Mazlish still felt the need to write a book arguing that "civilization" was not the inevitable and best state of mankind. It seems like Freud's efforts to warn us of the evils of civilization were in vain because we have not been able to shake the idea that civilization is the best possible way to achieve our happiness. Even though Mazlish and Freud use different methods to define the term "civilization," they ultimately come to a very similar conclusion. In the end, they both believe that "civilization" is the cause of much of mankind's suffering.
While Mazlish uses a historical perspective to define civilization, Freud attempts to use his work on psychoanalysis to define the term. The first major difference I noticed in Freud and Mazlish's definition of civilization was that Freud's "civilization" was much more broad. For Freud, civilization exists wherever people are joined together by necessity and love and wherever the community holds more power than the individual. By this definition, there is no group of people on Earth that is not civilized. Mazlish on the other hand, believes that the term "civilization" is uniquely European and was created partly to give Europeans a sense of identity that distinguished them from savage "others." According to Mazlish, "civilization" eventually came to mean nothing more than how closely you resembled European culture. When it was first created, civilization could be achieved by any group of people. For example Europe originally recognized China as a fellow civilization. However, as the age of imperialism began, the term was twisted to give Europeans a sense of racial superiority over other people. In essence, the only requirement for civilization was being white. This exclusive definition of civilization gave Europeans the justification to exploit and dominate the rest of the world. Freud's civilization is a universal characteristic of mankind. Mazlish's civilization is anything but universal and it was used to subjugate large groups of people. The racism inherent in civilization is the major reason that Mazlish considers civilization to be a cause of mankind's suffering.
Another interesting difference between Mazlish's and Freud's definitions of civilization is that while Mazlish's "civilization" helped colonialists ignore their guilt, Freud's "civilization" was the reason for that guilt. Mazlish believes that European imperialists felt shame at their domination of other people. The idea of civilization, or more specifically "the white man's burden," gave them justification for their actions. If they believed they were helping other cultures develop toward the natural and best state of man, namely civilization, they could justify even slavery. On the other hand, Freud believes that European imperialists wouldn't have felt that guilt in the first place without civilization. In Freud's model of civilization, the European subjugation of native peoples was the sublimation of the innate aggression instinct. People needed to express their anger toward their fellow man but European civilization forbade them from expressing it towards other Europeans. However, there was no such ban on aggression towards non-Europeans. In Mazlish's eyes, the age of imperialism was a system of economic and political domination of non-Europeans justified by the European concept of civilization. According to Freud, colonialism was a channel for the escape of aggression held back by civilization. Either way, it was "civilization" which was partly responsible for the age of colonial domination.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteMazlish and Freud take different routes but they end up in the same place. They conclude that civilization has failed in its purpose. Civilization is a social construct designed to give us the greatest possible chance of happiness. It has not only failed to give us the greatest chance of happiness, it has brought us a lot of suffering. Mazlish has the hopeful belief that we are well on our way to abandoning the racist and Eurocentric view of civilization that characterized our predecessors. However, Freud doesn't believe that we will ever again be free from civilization. We have internalized civilization as the superego and we will never be able to get rid of it. We have created this monster and we must learn to live with it for the rest of our existence. One can only hope that Freud is wrong.
When considering the implications of the language of civilization, Sigmund Freud and Bruce Mazlish offer complex contrasting views. Each man considers the artificial concept in the context of development. Both Freud and Mazlish subscribe to development of "civilization" as a fairly modern idea created by the want to suppress. Freud and Mazlish both possess positive and negative views of civilization that embody the entwining language of civilization.
ReplyDeleteTo begin his discussion of civilization, Mazlish dissects the concept and language in a historical context. In Mazlish's view, civilization developed over time both as a concept and in actuality to its current form. The roots of the word appear in the European ideas of the late nineteenth century, and because of the Eurocentric ideas embodied by the term "civilization," Mazlish argues that the term embodies the Eurocentric sense of superiority; race and religion embody social constructs that create superiority of "civilization." By using the examples of Guizot and Darwin, he shows the cultural arrogance of the early European thinkers. Through this progression of ideas, his historical sociology, Mazlish purports that civilization "progresses" and occurs more through a "civilizing process" than an instantaneous manifestation. To uphold this claim, he present Mill's and Elias's ideas that the "civilization" is intertwined with the partial withdrawal of the self's desires. Mazlish cites these figures to uphold his idea of the intertwinement of ideologies and "civilization." Mazlish says self and other must cooperatively produce civilization.
Freud throughout his dissection of the idea of civilization supports the idea of the human psychosis creating conditions. Just like the Darwinian theories written about in Mazlish, Freud insinuates a development of the human mind to the point of civilization. He analyzes the psychology of people scientifically and creates his conclusions. Amongst these major conclusions, Freud argues for the development of civilization from the suppression of instinct. To create civilization, people oppress their innate sexual and aggressive desires. He proposes that civilization weaves these instincts into malicious entities; civilization suppresses the self's ego to satisfy these needs and suffuses this discomfort in favor of the civilization, the superego. He also contrasts death and love to create a dialectic that displays this suppression of self. In the end, Freud indicates the self sacrifices in favor of an oceanic feeling, i.e. civilization, and because of this, civilization is "a repressive burden that brings unhappiness and lies heavily on the human spirit" (Mazlish 78).
The theme of these two thinkers supports the entwinement of self and other in civilization. As indicated by both Mazlish and Freud, civilization neglects the self in favor of the other; the self becomes suppressed by the other in order to benefit both the self and the other. However, the ideas of Freud superficially appear much more pessimistic toward the concept. Mazlish upholds the need to sacrifice to find civilization, but he never indicates degradation of the individual because of this phenomenon. Freud, conversely, indicates the individual must suppress all innate desires and create unhappiness to sow civilization. Also, the men's sources contrast the development of civilization sharply. The anthropological basis of Mazlish steers him to noticing a social change that created civilization. For Freud, the human mind serves as the basis for creating society; it wishes to conquer external forces through civilization. However, in both cases, the individual's entwinement with the other appears fecund.
ReplyDeleteWith both men compared and contrasted, the "truth of civilization" combines the disparate ideas. Mazlish traces the "development" of civilization through history to create the evident outcome of today's society. He especially does well in saying that civilization never remains static. However, Freud's ideas appear to trace the origins further than Mazlish ever could. Although his words frequently resonate destruction, Freud defines the interaction of self and other incredibly well. His ideas explain the changes as observed by Mazlish. From the self as defined by Freud's "ego," the changes in the other, Freud's "superego," as seen by Mazlish become more apparent and orderly. By intertwining the two different ideas of civilization, the "truth of civilization" appears in the entwinement of the self and the other, the individual and the society.
(Cited in first part)
Mazlish, Bruce. Civilization and Its Contents. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2004.
After reading through both Mazlish and Freud, I find both of their takes on civilization to be very interesting as well as both giving quite believable support for their understandings and definitions. For Mazlish, his definition and basis for civilization is historical. He finds civilization to be a made up concept by Europeans throughout history. I understood his reasoning for their creation of “civilization” to be the excuse Europeans came up with for their exploratory and imperialist actions. Throughout history, he says, civilization has adapted slightly, but is still primarily a man-made term that is often used as an excuse. Freud on the other hand takes civilization to come from a psychological struggle. He finds the struggle between our nature, instincts, and death to lead us into civilization. Our interactions with each other are complete suppressions of our instincts, which we must do in order for such a civilization to work. This makes a lot of sense if one first accepts the two aspects of humans he believes are completely innate: desire for sex and aggression. So, for Freud it makes sense that in order for us avoid death, we must form some sort of social organization, a civilization, in which we repress our aggressive instincts towards others as well as our desire for sex in order to keep this social organization functioning. However, clearly this leads Freud to have many problems with civilization. Freud believes that by forming these civilizations, people must repress their most human instincts, which is unnatural and leads to neurosis. What then becomes quite paradoxical is that Freud dislikes the idea of civilization, but also previously stated it was necessary and probable for us to have in order to avoid death. Mazlish also has a problem with how he sees civilization coming about. Going off of his historical take and definition, it is clear that civilization for him is seen as a way for people to create boundaries and almost a class system between themselves, leading to current problems we face today. So while both of these men have quite different ideas of what civilization is and where it came from, both have problems with the way it appears to force people to act.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as how they both have created complex reasoning for why we have such a thing as civilization and both then reject the idea of it, it is an interesting question to ask if Freud would agree with Mazlish on dismissing the term of civilization and replacing it with “civilizing process.” I do not see Freud as accepting this. For Mazlish, civilization is constantly changing and moving, he might imply progressing, I disagree, but for Freud, civilization is just a constant struggle of repression. He never sees the struggle as progressing or leading us towards a good compromise between our instincts and a cohesive social organization, but rather as a struggle that cannot be a compromise. For Freud there is no part-way or progress because as long as even the slightest struggle still exists between our innate nature and what civilization demands, there will still be people suffering from neuroses and not staying true to their nature. So, while both men would like to find a different way for people to live rather than in the current ways civilizations deem appropriate, I don’t believe they would agree on calling it a civilizing process, as both men have different solutions to the problems they see.
The approaches Mazlish and Freud employ in analyzing civilization are quite dissimilar. Mazlish traces the development of “civilization” through history discussing different periods and the transition from its roots in religion through the complex idea it represents today. He analyzes numerous works that talk about the Eurocentric view civilization, the development of the nation state, and other ancient civilizations to elucidate this phenomenon. On the other hand, Freud’s method involves discussing the innate instincts he believes human’s have and describing how these instinct lead to the development of civilization. Mazlish would probably disagree with this more abstract approach since he states at beginning of Civilization and Its Contents, “I want to argue that we must define civilization initially and mainly as a historical phenomenon, rather than seeking to treat the concept in an abstract fashion and then imposing it on the materials.” Though Freud studies civilization starting within the individual and Mazlish looks at historical information, both men come to multiple similar conclusions and discuss related concepts.
ReplyDeleteIn both works, it is strongly emphasized that the word civilization developed because of relationships between people which makes civilization a socially constructed concept. Mazlish strongly emphasizes that civilization came about due to “reflection on the bonds that hold people together.” This idea coincides with Freud’s view that it started because men wanted their sexual partners to stay close, and women needed to stay close to their children. Because in both cases it is a social construct, civilization is constantly changing. For Freud, the complex relationship between Eros and Thanatos creates a civilization which is constantly trying to mediate these instincts. Mazlish also presents an ever-changing view where civilization appears to be morphing into a form that losing meaning in today’s society. This dynamic concept resembles the categories in action Shalin’s discusses in Island’s of History. Whether for better or worse, the civilization will never be a static term with an exact definition.
Civilization attempts to protect humans from suffering which according to Freud come from the power of nature, inevitable death, and relationships between people. However, ironically these ideas are still wrapped up in the civilization which shows how unsuccessful it has been. Civilization seems to essentially be a delusional attempt at happiness and order. Religion likewise, while it played an important part in the development of civilization and is still a major component, is based off of delusion at least according to Freud. Mazlish looks at the first accepted use of the word civilization in Mirabeau’s work, “Religion is without doubt humanity’s first and most useful constraint; it is the mainspring of civilization.” Religion like civilization promises to offer answers and provide a purpose for life but fails. Since religion is so entwined in civilization, at least according to Mazlish, it is easy to see how Freud is against religion since he dwells on the extreme unhappiness of civilization.
For both men, civilization seems to evoke numerous negative feelings. Freud believes that civilization leads to unhappiness since it is based on the restriction of natural instincts. Though the aim of civilization is to improve happiness by attempting to overcome nature and death and help remedy relationships, this has not been successfully accomplished. According to Freud, though civilization was established due to the natural instinct of the male sex drive, it now represses this and myriad other instincts, most notably aggression. The suppression of aggression has led to guilt caused by the conscience and even more unhappiness. In fact, Freud mentions that this increased guilt might “reach heights that the individual finds hard to tolerate.” According to Mazlish, the realization that civilization is a social construct leads to individuals being “haunted by that awareness.” Both Freud’s and Mazlish’s discussions involve how consciousness in relation to civilization leads to unhappiness since it strongly encourages repression of instincts and the restriction of individual freedom
ReplyDeletePersonally, Mazlish’s conception of civilization seems to be more beneficial than Freud’s. While Mazlish has shown where the term civilization started and how it has morphed and expanded over a couple centuries, Freud’s civilization seems to be very broad. In fact his idea just seems to be a group of unhappy people linked together. I believe Mazlish’s in-depth analysis of the Eurocentric development of the term and how groups have responded to this “civilization” provides better insight into the future world and interactions between people today.
When discussing the differences and similarities between the views of civilization presented by Freud and Mazlish, it is first important to compare the differences in their views on what it does as well as how it affects the people inside of it. Mazlish explains that civilization came about as a way for 18th century Westerners to distinguish themselves from their newly discovered ‘barbarian’ counterparts. This self-aggrandizing development led to a number of significant offshoots, including the idea of civilization as a process. Mazlish explains how civilization eventually led to things like racism and nationalism as people were taught that their way of living was ‘better’ than others because they had the magic gift of civilization. In short, ‘civilization’ as we know it came about as a completely artificial construct in the early 1700’s as a way to separate the new Other in the savages of Africa, North America, etc. Then, civilization morphed from being a purely psychological barrier to a concrete barrier in the form of things like racism and the process of ‘civilizing’ those people who were previously thought to be savage.
ReplyDeleteFreud takes a much more psychological view of civilization. He claims that civilization started way back in the times of early man, when people began to group themselves together. Over time, civilization gave people more and more refuge from the forces of nature and the decay of our own bodies. The consequence of gaining this safety was to sublime one’s instincts towards competitive aggression as well as sexual drives, and to subject one’s self to the pain that comes from relationships with other people. Thus, civilization, to Freud, became an inhibitor of instincts that prevents us from ever being truly happy, while giving us the illusion of being away from the other two forms of pain in this world.
These two views on when and why civilization came about are not directed towards different definitions, but both use different ways of getting around to the same point. Both agree that civilization is something that controls how people act, and both also see it as restrictive of how people view the world. It is no doubt inconceivable for me to go around raping and killing everything that I see. Freud would argue more on the subconscious level, saying that my instincts have been repressed to the point that I cannot do those things anymore. Mazlish, on the other hand, would consider it to be more of a conscious decision, arguing that I am not doing these things because a) I know that this is not the way to move up in society and in the end the consequences would be worse than any short-lived pleasure that I would get out of it and b) I have identified myself as a ‘civilized person,’ and these actions would not fit in with my self-prescribed definition of who I am. In the end, both see my civilized state as what controls what I do and how I do it, but they both see if as having different mechanisms of controlling these things. In the end, for all their differences in how they view its birth and devices, both men believe that civilization exists for the same reason, and that is to prevent humans’ threats to its overall existence.
Freud and Mazlish come to a variety of similar conclusions, despite vastly different backgrounds in psychoanalysis and criticizing the “West”, respectively, resulting in theories of the repressive, controlling nature of civilization – Freud declaring its repression towards its members, and Mazlish trumpeting its oppression of those not included in its definition. Both do note the universality of civilization, Mazlish arguing that it is a global condition containing cultures within it, as does Freud, noting that these cultures tend to oppose those most like them through the “narcissism of minor differences”. Freud’s definitions of civilization are more concrete – he uses his interpretation alone to support his arguments, making for a clearer discourse, while Mazlish picks and chooses from amongst thinkers throughout modern history, including Freud himself; Freud’s “narcissism of minor differences can explain Mazlish’s note of the oppressive nature of how civilization is defined, the definition of a word being a social construct actively given meaning by the members of a society. This also means that Freud would disagree with Mazlish’s suggestion of changing the terminology we use to “civilizing process” – that term would simply acquire a different meaning with time; Mazlish himself should have noted the futility of forcing a definition, as his entire piece is an analysis of how one word changed in meaning over time, at the liberty of those using it rather than by the influence of any single individual. Besides, with knowledge of anything concerning the origins of words, it should be obvious that –ion is a root denoting a process, making this change redundant at the very heart of the argument.
ReplyDeleteAs for civilization not being innate, Freud does examine its formation as an overarching pattern , like the formation of ice – water does not “know” to form hexagonal ice crystals, it simply follows the path of least resistance. Since there is such a general trend, Freud is thus enabled to examine it across a range of subjects and cases in order to draw general conclusions.
ReplyDeleteBoth note the nature of civilization as a process with a natural propensity for stripping the individual of its freedom, yet I would note, as Mazlish and Freud seem to do partly, that this is a condition of all social groups: Mazlish notes the formation of laws and rule both martial and civil, and Freud notes the inherent vulnerability of love, which must necessitate regulating measures to protect the parties involved, at peril of their survival and/or pursuit of pleasure.
Freud’s attempts to identify all phases of the transition from the native Self to a “civilized” state provide an excellent framework for defining civilization or “the civilizing process”, both in a general sense (the repression/sublimation of Todestrieb and the generalization/redirection of Eros) as well as in the degrees achieved by various members of a “civilized” group (the increasing guilt of the most blameless, the total generalization of love among some individuals) with examples of its successes (sports, art, etc.) and its failures (war, sadism, etc.). His definition of civilization through the terminology and ideology of a discipline he himself conceived makes for a more directed, consistent, and comprehensive concept than Mazlish’s conglomerate of other’s ideas.
Nevin Peeples
ReplyDeleteWhen we were in grade school many years ago, our teachers all taught us about history and the diversity of people in the world. We learned basic facts about cultures ranging from ancient Mesopotamia to modern industrialized society. To better understand and describe these cultures, the term “civilization” was first introduced to us. Grouping the diverse cultures of the world into civilizations made it much easier for us, as young grade school students, to understand history and our relationships with each other. Using the term “civilization” allowed for the study of the history of this world, which contains an incredible amount diverse people, to be reduced to a simple puzzle piece model, that a child could easily understand. The exclusivity of the world’s cultures was easily lost as they were geographically and chronologically grouped in “large cultural bins” or, more specifically, civilizations. While these “large cultural bins” may seem harmless, they can greatly alter the way one thinks about the world, posing a serious threat to intercultural relations and one’s self-identity.
Bruce Mazlish and Sigmund Freud both comment on the origin and usage of the term “civilization” in their works, Civilization and Its Contents and Civilization and Its Discontents, respectively. They both agree that civilization is merely a social construct, however they differ in their reasoning.
In his work, Bruce Mazlish aims to uncover the origins of the term “civilization” and what it entails. He spends a great deal of time discussing a Frenchman Marquis de Mirabeau, the first person to use the term. Mirabeau defined civilization as cultural differences arising from religion. Hesitant to accept this definition, Mazlish seeks to redefine civilization in a modern sense. Civilization is, in his mind, a reflection of the change in human consciousness. While he recognizes civilization as being affected by religion, Mazlish believes that there has been a transformation of civilization from religion to colonial ideologies. In other words, civilization has changed from being defined by religious values to more centered on political ideals, such as freedom and equality. Additionally, Mazlish sees civilization as a definition of one’s superiority and cultural division. It aims to define itself against the backdrop of other civilizations, and pounces on other’s weaknesses to confirm itself. As such, civilization acts as a measuring stick by which to measure ourselves, measure others, and be measured. Civilization imposes a pressure on its members to act in a way that is considered “civilized” or else face rejection.
Sigmund Freud in his book Civilization and Its Discontents spends a great deal of time reflecting on the idea of the measuring stick of civilization, as Mazlish presents. In Freud’s mind, civilization is solely a social construct employed for the preservation of the species. Civilization acts as the overriding authority that keeps its members in check and restricts their freedom. Freud sees freedom and civilization as incompatible: “The urge for freedom, therefore, is directed against particular forms and demands of civilization or against civilization altogether” (50). He sees the human race as fundamentally animal-like and therefore needs no regulation. Freud defines civilization as “the whole sum of the achievements and the regulations which distinguish our lives from those of our animal ancestors and which serve two purposes—namely to protect men against nature and to adjust their mutual relations” (42). While Freud hates the idea of a civilization because of how it leads to the “sublimation of instincts” and restricts what he sees as our animal nature, Freud recognizes its importance in preserving the species. Additionally while Freud opposes religion, he acknowledges its foundation in civilization because he sees both civilization and religion as social constructs, with religion and political ideologies as a reflection of the social construct through the means of civilization.
ReplyDeleteWhile Freud and Mazlish both arrive at their conclusions regarding civilization differently, together they believe civilization to be a social construct that shapes the lives of people today. The measuring stick that civilization provides could be useful in keeping people in check, however in the two authors minds this is not always the best thing. In other words, actual cultural identity and cultural relationships are much more complex than the simple model of civilization presented to children in grade school social studies classes. Civilization is not a grade school topic and, therefore, must not be treated like one.
Sarah Forde
ReplyDeleteToday’s American society takes many things for granted. For example, the previous statement makes an assumption about the nature of what I see as one of my own spheres of belonging. Each of these unique spheres, as we have analyzed through discussions on metageography and the Other as a whole, is intertwined with countless other spheres of differing diameter and concentration. The largest sphere of belonging, below that of belonging to the human species, can be seen as civilization. However, it is so much more complex than this. The subtle undertones which color the connotation of the word civilization are, of course, widely varied from person to person. It is the job of some to look into the understanding of this meaning and explain it so that, by their ideas, we may form ideas of our own and attempt to gain a more complete understanding of ourselves within the context of our lives and the lives of those we interact with. Mazlish and Freud each spend enormous amounts of time and energy attempting to pin down, define, and analyze the meaning of the abstract and elusive concept known as civilization. However, both men do so in a completely different way. Mazlish focuses on a historical, etymological understanding of civilization, while Freud places his interest on the psychological nuances that define civilizations and the people within them. At the same time, by virtue of the fact that they are both discussing the same term, there is some overlap, including the fact that civilization is a social construct which has been fabricated over the course of human existence.
In the book Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud’s primary concern is the examination of the psychosomatic implications that humans and civilization have on each other. One of his main and initial points is the fact (in his opinion) that civilization only causes unhappiness, or discontent, among humans. He goes on to discuss the reasons for this, which include the fact that humans are naturally inclined to dislike other humans, and by conforming to the social fabrication of civilization, they must suppress this instinctive desire to lash out against their fellow man. In later chapters, he points out that civilization is the product of the continual battle between death, or “thanatos” and love, or “eros.” Because of the stress stemming from said struggle, as well as the limitations placed on them by civilization’s stringent grasp, humans are not able to express fully either their love or destruction instinct. This suppression is forced to find outlets in other forms by sublimations, but still results in a byproduct of unhappiness with life in general.
Sarah Forde (continued)
ReplyDeleteMazlish’s main focus in his book, Civilization and Its Contents, is to trace the origins of the word “civilization” and then to find both the denotation and connotation as seen today and throughout its usage. He questions whether or not the word civilization is even the correct word to use in accordance with the meaning it conveys to many today, especially with relation to the racist and ethnocentric tone it has accumulated in its centuries of use. When Mirabeau concocted the word “civilization” in the 1750’s, it was taken to mean, simply, the opposite of barbarism, or that which is civil. Mazlish looks at the word itself as seen from various perspectives and through a number of different lenses, including the Christian vs. Islamic (and associated) viewpoints, as well as the general categories of opinions linked with different civilizations, including racism. Civilization, in Mazlish’s opinion, is a representation of the groups of people Europeans see as “worthy” of equal rank. However, based on the qualifications of a civilization, it is only European countries themselves which may gain this lofty title. These credentials include, but are not limited to, believing in the Christian religion (as discussed through Guizot) and the universal superiority of the European race (seen through analysis of the writings of Gobineau and Darwin in the context of the culture of their time).
Despite the fact that both authors have many differences in their method of analysis and argument, there are a number of similarities between them. Namely, both Freud and Mazlish look at the way civilization (as a social construct) relates to the emotions and nature of the people who exist within its bounds. Also, the differences between the perspectives, while they exist aplenty, are not necessarily contradictory, and can be studied in tandem to gain a more enriched picture of the nature of civilization.
Freud and Mazlish differ on not only their definitions of civilization, but also the process of its formation, what it ostensibly offers, and what accomplishes. On Mazlish's side, he argues that the term came about as a result of 18th century Westerner's need to distinguish themselves from other "savage" cultures. Having set out to see more of the world, Western explorers found themselves confronted with a number of new ideas about what a society could look like. Regardless of the perfect functionality of these other cultures, a need was immediately established to confirm our way of life as superior. The term "civilized" was thus born, used to label the "better" half of mankind: the washed, or literate, or wealthy portions of humanity.
ReplyDeleteMazlish argues that now, with so many more groups falling into this civilized category, a need for more boundaries has become a theme in the modern world. Though Mirabeau asserted that these boundaries fell into place around religious differences, Mazlish seems to think otherwise. He claims that cultures are now divided more by political issues than religious ones. If this is case, a given society can call itself civilized if it can promise a certain combination of liberties, luxuries, and other good qualities of life.
Freud's argument is that civilization is not so much a club that one might consciously step into at any time, but a process that human nature leads many to inevitably fall into. He defines civilization as a refuge from the pains of life: nature and impending death. It started as groups forming for convenience's sake or, subconsiously, the sake of preserving the species and quickly turned into a huge social construct which, in his opinion, is writing a check it cannot cash.
Freud argues that civilization is offering its participants a protection from nature by means of bending it to our will with progress in technology. Additionally, it offers connections with other people, in some ways providing a legacy or feeling of escaping full death from world. Freud incorporates religion into his argument, as well, stating that he, too, sees religion as a central part of civilization. While it might not be a defining feature, it is just one more way that society is trying to protect us from accepting our mortality.
Both Freud and Mazlish agree that the creation of civilization has it's negative effects, though each seem to see a different result. Mazlish claims that racism, nationalism, and ethnocentricity as a whole find their root in civilization and the need to put down as many marks of delineation as possible. The idea of the measure stick of civilization is succeeding only in dividing mankind. Perhaps for now, we can all lay insouciant in our safe and Western world, but it should take nothing away from the validity and success of other nations.
Freud says that civilization is in fact a detriment to mankind as it is forcing us to suppress our natural instincts of aggression and sexuality, among others. By following social protocol, we are going directly against our human nature and its inclinations. He claims that it indulges the idea that our lives have a purpose, and that that purpose is to achieve happiness, when in fact "every force in the universe is acting counter [to that idea]."
In summation, though Freud and Mazlish see civilization's history in very different lighting, they both seem to agree that they do not like where it has brought us.
Although it is probably not an issue that is on the top of most people’s mind, the concept of “civilization” pervades so much of our everyday life that it is hard to ignore. Have you ever considered such simple things as why we shake hands with someone when we first meet them? Or why it is that we excuse ourselves after coughing or sneezing? These both seem like such common, ordinary occurrences, but yet these practices are so ingrained in our minds that it just becomes natural. However, they are not part of the natural human instinct. Civilization places us within a certain social structure, defining a great portion of our actions and how we go through life. It provides us with something larger than the individual, a shared framework that we can follow. We must ask the question though, is this framework beneficial to mankind, or does it lead to suppression? This is one of the questions that both Bruce Mazlish and Sigmund Freud explore in their respective writings on civilization.
ReplyDeleteBecause they come from two very different fields of study, Mazlish and Freud naturally take different approaches in their discussion of civilization. Mazlish, being an anthropologist, discusses civilization (mainly European) more in the terms of its historical context and cultural relevance. He argues that civilization, a term invented in the eighteenth century, has changed significantly throughout the course of time, reflecting the changes in human consciousness of the era. Citing other famous thinkers throughout history, such as Hume, Gobineau, Mill, and Guizot, Mazlish explores the differing opinions and definitions of civilizations relative to their historical context. Overall though, Mazlish considers civilization as a means of measuring your own society in the world. After all, the term “civilization” is a Eurocentric one, so it only makes sense to regard it as a justification for a way to separate “modern” society from barbarism.
Freud takes a different approach in his writing. He discusses the origins of civilization in more individual, psychoanalytic terms. He believes that civilization is the result of two human desires, Eros (love) and Ananke (necessity). Together, these two facets of the human mind spurred the formation of durable relationships and communal life among human beings. Civilization, he argues, is a construct created by humans that, in order to maintain stability, places a social framework and limits upon humanity. He discusses the “sublimination” of human instinct, the idea that civilization suppresses natural human desire and tendencies and, as a result, leads us away from happiness. While it does help keep man’s natural aggression in check and preserve order, it has a negative impact on all of its members.
While the approaches that Mazlish and Freud take differ, the conclusions that they both reach are quite similar. One of the main points to take away from both scholars is the notion that civilization is merely a construct created by man, rather than a natural trait of humanity. While they explain the origins of civilization in different terms, they both emphasize how civilization overall leads to repression. Mazlish discusses this idea in more relational terms, showing how civilization has lead to conflict between cultures and societies in the way that they compare themselves. Freud, as aforementioned, shows how civilization leads to an overall diminution of happiness in society, as desires and instincts are restrained and limited. Both scholars, however, also believe that civilization is a necessary evil. It does its job in maintaining order and creating a complex for humans to fall back upon, while at the same time leading to conflict and suppression of happiness. It may not be the best thing, but at this point, civilization is better than a lack of it.