“We must be careful here. Any attempt to confine civilization and modernity to a certain specific era and geographic location may risk error. The question I would like to ask is whether the possibility of making this trace is imminent, then do we relinquish the ‘Dark Ages’ of Europe and focus on the “Enlightenment” period, or do we choose the “Enlightenment” over the ‘Dark Ages’?”
It was an intense beginning when this topic crossed my mind. I really do not want to write about it because there are thousands (if not millions) of theses on civilization and modernity out there, doing quite well or perhaps failing. Interestingly, I have been dreading it after a few days of thinking about how and where to begin acknowledging the coherence of the either/or factors. This topic employs planetary motion harnessed upon sketchy ideas as bizarre as oddities. Nonetheless, it has become part of my ‘goings-on.’ The plugins for the “doing quite well” and “failing” are strangely occasioned by the negligence of “other minor gestures,” which, in my view, formed the thriving ‘pathways’ in storytelling civilization.
I believe that no matter how distant our perspectives may be and the efficacy of theoreticians in applauding concepts and opinion sampling, there is always a gap — this I may call “impasse” — that this essay does not pillory. Yet, for emphasis, impasse has different facets. Moreover, there is no idea that is fully formed. So, if this essay makes it to the top three-tier ladder of epistemology on civilization and modernity, then this essay deserves a seat at the table and universal acceptance, or rather, it can sit side by side with other epistemologies that do not seek to dominate other assemblages.
In general, civilization represents the refinement and organization of human psychology, emotions, and actions. In its significance, it is intimately connected with the concepts of modernity and evolution. “It signifies the ongoing evolutionary journey that has led humanity away from its primal, animalistic nature toward a more enlightened state—progressing from ignorance to wisdom, and from barbarism to civility.” Its paralysis forecloses tender movement that appeared ‘amok-ish’ at its showing-up-ness.
As a brief reminder, the ontology of Brown-Roofing Politics (BRP) is lightly featured in all matters of civilization, from the cadence of the ‘lower and upper cases’ on my keypad to everywhere else. The BRP made the availability of the mundane practices of civilization from its grandstanding — i.e., the global South. Mezhuev nailed it when he pointed out that Europe cannot be considered the basis for a full-fledged civilizational choice, indicating that other choices have always existed. This is why the inroads made in this essay do not have any point of connection, yet do not stand on their own.
In support of Mezhuev’s, I would draw attention to the beginning of the ‘impasse’ under the auspices of secluded civilization and the world as a scapegoat. Leonardo et al. believe that the ecological space for the growth of modern urban civilization is at its breaking point, and modern/colonial civilization has already breached several planetary boundaries, and its ecological footprint is overwhelming the Earth’s carrying capacity. Both Mezhuev and Leonardo overstretched this age-long debate, and I would not put myself between them. Here, they wanted to give history a meaning.
Sabet explores three dimensions of civilization, thus (i) the spiritual dimension, (ii) the behavioral/social dimension or human civilization, (iii) the scientific and technical dimension, and I would include (iv) the moral dimension. Pointedly, I do think there is no appropriateness in ‘dimensioning’ civilization, and we have no reason to do that. This is why I wrote at the beginning of this essay that some perspectives on civilization are going places, others are falling behind. One among many of the rarely mentioned dimensions going places (and succeeding) is religion. Religion plays an indelible role in societal structuring; hence, we cannot entirely neglect its impact on civilization. It fosters a balance between material and spiritual needs.
What this essay attempts to do is to ‘de-center’ the minor gestures — that the cultural programs of civilization are heavily implicated in the crystallization of Western Europe as the bearers of light in the world’s civilizational history. We must be careful here. Any attempt to confine civilization and modernity to a certain specific era and geographic location we risk error. The question I would like to ask is whether the possibility of making this trace is imminent, then do we relinquish the “Dark Ages” of Europe and focus on the “Enlightenment” period, or do we choose the “Enlightenment” over the “Dark Ages”?
Once again, Sabet’s work demonstrates that “intercultural interactions and exchanges among different civilizations have taken place sporadically across various geographic locations and historical epochs. However, in the modern era, intercultural contact has accelerated the processes associated with modernization. Contemporary social scientists are now pointing to the emergence of a global civilization on the horizon, signaling the inevitable reality of a unified global human society.”
Some de/colonial writers thus (a) through evidence-based research have responded to this and prove the above to be a false narrative (b) the coalescing of the world economy and the introduction of the concept of globalization using forceful apparatus like psychological invasion, material, and immaterial patterns to centralize the accumulation of capital — thereby creating a space for financial hierarchy — is a major epoch in the subject of modernity. As Jonathan reminded us in The Implosion of Modernity, “this is the formation of hegemonic center/periphery structures that characterize the social and economic field of the modern era,” and it has been sustained for decades by the purveyors.
It is difficult to imagine what the world would look like if we had not taken the “leap of faith” in the modern and postmodern world — “a strange symbol-making postulation.” Just think about it for a minute. Even though some cosmologies perceive civilization as a new entrant in modern epistemology, the secret is that the global South (and others) is not playing the “catch-up” game. Believe me, they are not. While it is easy to judge my point, this does not occlude the fact that some actors in the global South are not far from breeding the ‘catch-up’ narrative in the system and making it the epicenter in development studies. In fact, institutional practices across nation-states of the South infuse the ‘catch-up’ syndrome in their DNA. We cannot be the judge and the jury at the same time.
