Civilization and Its Malcontents

When I began my first year at Wheaton College (MA), I was required to take “Western Civilization.” The textbook for this class weighed at least five pounds and was about four inches thick. My god, the entire history of the entire world must be in there, I thought. How will I ever read this whole book? No way. I have since learned that the text was merely a CliffsNotes version. The two essays here reflect a depth of knowledge, scholarship, and eloquence that I wish my college text had been able to cover. I wouldn’t have understood at age 17 if it had. I am grateful to have this opportunity now—as well as to have the life experience to know what they are talking about!

That being said, I do have a few thoughts that modify, if not counter, what Drs. Elovitz and Fuchsman, two of our most prominent psychohistorians, write in their essays. Paul Elovitz’ view of Western Civilization is primarily through a lens of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which I believe is valid, since this is the dominant ethos of the Western world. However, he also represents a liberal progressive perspective that seems to exclude the other end of a spectrum—one that is dominated by a more fundamentalist and conservative viewpoint.

Not everyone agrees that we are better off. I am not in this conservative camp. However, there are those who view the tolerance of homosexuality and transsexuality, the liberation of women, and even civil rights, as signs that our civilization is breaking down. They would say that we are becoming less rather than more civilized. Rightly or wrongly, and sometimes vituperatively and violently, they assert that these changes represent a breakdown of long-standing norms and values.

While we might consider much of the behavior in the Middle East uncivilized, the feeling is mutual. Many in the Arab world perceive Western norms and customs, especially those of the U.S., as uncivilized. They protest our lack of modesty, our sexual mores, and aspects of our popular culture.

Page 275

Let me cite a paradox about what is civilized or uncivilized from a non-Western country, India, where the majority of the population prefers to defecate outdoors, even when they have indoor facilities. Due to the fact that this is an unsanitary practice that leads to death and disease, the government has allocated funds to educate the population about the need to change their practices. The government has also provided latrines for the people. As a result of the lack of running water, the latrine typically consists of a large, concrete septic tank with a ceramic squat-toilet on top, enclosed by a cement or brick cubicle with a narrow door. This is not seen as the civilized improvement we would assume it to be. As one resident complained: “Locking us inside these booths with our own filth? I will never see how that is clean.” She points to the field, “Going out there is normal.”

Thus, the lynchpin of Western Civilization seems to be to vanquish ignorance, and to further the goal of education on a democratic scale. Not just for some, but for everyone. In other words, for both Elovitz and Fuchsman, to some extent Western Civilization appears to be a matter of scale.

While Elovitz uses cultural norms and behaviors as a barometer of civilization, Fuchsman sees violence, and the value of human life, as a primary measure, particularly wars and genocide. Fuchsman cites the increase in the percentage of population who died as a result of war, tyranny, or genocide in between the 19^th and 20^th centuries. However, what is not recognized by him or his sources is that the tools of war have changed dramatically to allow for a broader sweep of violence. This seems to be true primarily because technology has enhanced the tools of war—airplanes without pilots that can drop bombs, atomic and conventional, or napalm, and material and equipment that can inflict death on a wider scale. It can now be done with less effort and greater efficiency. This raises the question of whether such technology, which increased deaths through war, makes us less civilized. Or, perhaps, it is a technological advance and a facet of improved contemporary civilization. Now we can go to kill with super stealth airplanes that fly at 65,000 feet without pilots. We can kill more people who we perceive are our enemies and lose fewer of our own military.

Both Elovitz and Fuchsman are brave in their attempts to

Page 276

answer the question, “Are we more or less civilized?” Their perspectives are educational and thought-provoking, so I am most appreciative that they have tried to answer this question. On the other hand, they have tackled a topic that is so large and complex, it is not possible to settle it once and for all. There are no right or wrong answers or conclusions. In the end it is a matter of perspective and judgment. It depends to a large extent on: Who is asking the question? Who is answering it? Or, as any experienced psychoanalyst might suggest: “It depends on your transferences and countertransferences, your history, your psychodynamics, and your character structure!”

Page 277