In Search of Civilization: Remaking a tarnished idea [Paperback]

The aim is to reflect on the term 'civilization'.People will know Kenneth Clark's`Civilization' as a benchmark. There is a need to reason the term `civilization' because as an ideal it has become tarnished,associated as it is with cultural imperialism, colonialism and geo-politics.Asked about Western Civilization,Ghandi said:"It would be a very good thing."Armstrong tells a story about going to an academic conference at Getty Institute, Somerset House.He found the academics contemptuous of `civilization' as a notion.As a person from the modern era, he refreshingly rescues words like `wisdom','beauty',and 'refinement' -all out of fashion-to argue for us to make the best of ourselves.Civilization depends upon the widespread sharing of what is best.Quantity in step with quality.

He contradicts the notion that this is some elitist past-time,to criticise elites for losing the distinction between `populism' and `popularization', and calls for a civilizing mission which argues that civilization is a democratic ideal associated with freedom.That everybody,the whole world can have the best.A platform for the universal aspect.Although he's dealing with philosophical themes,he embodies them in himself,a personal mark carrying an argument with the shadowy interlocutors who are cynical,debunking and ironic.No civilization is only about Empire.Why we need those things associated with civilization,which are beauty,art,love of higher things,a sense of inner depth.Taking a lead from Clark,he wants to search for a philosophical definition rather than a historical one.

The work has beauty and great clarity and is very accessible.The great heroes are Mathew Arnold and John Ruskin. Arnold intimates the limitations of practicality with a code word `machinery':this allows you to work faster,to operate on a larger scale, but these matters do not touch upon why this product is good.This doesn't address whether we're doing the right thing or moving in the right direction.An example of modern machinery is mobile phones-allowing us to communicate more often,take more photos.But such resources do not allow us to to reach the ends they should ideally serve:good conversation,better relationships,convivial evenings, things of beauty.The pursuit of ideas is not always about practicalities.

He rescues Arnold from being a conservative,because to better oneself can make you a rebel, civilization and civilizing oneself.Orthodoxy means often what people want is all they can achieve and that they cannot go further than themselves.It's only after having a deeper/higher sense of an interaction with ideas,books,art that one can have the flexibility of mind to reject orthodoxy.From Freud he takes the human being who lives with tension,inner conflict and wants things that are incompatible,that you can live with that stoically,and still pursue things that are beautiful and have good relations.The shadowy interlocutors,steeped in post-modernist relativism,say everything,from Britany Spears to Beethoven,is equal.He wants to say these things aren't necessarily equal,there are differences,and one can make that difference.

He praises stoical virtues.It's about having a decent inner life,being confident in the things you think are true and beautiful and to try and get other people to appreciate them.He says we have to be enthusiastic about civilization.He says the cultural elite are negative,have not got the confidence,are fatalistic about the capacity of others to become civilized and to enter into the great goods.His section of decadence and barbarism go hand in hand.Civilization can be overcome by barbarism.Inner life versus energy.If we want to ask how civilized a modern civilization is,we need to ask how well does it support widespread flourishing.

He argues in defence of material prosperity.To want material progress is not about civilization coming to an end. You cannot have spiritual prosperity without material prosperity.Although aware of inner beauty,he's not unaware of the real world.To appreciate others,art,books contributes to the flourishing of being.The book that gives a sense of the need for and pleasure of civilization can't be a bad thing.I liked the idea behind the book, to rehabilitate the idea of civilisation from daily reality to notions of high culture and spirit,but at times I felt the gear changes wrench as he tries to keep the thesis alive,swapping between personal anecdotes and exemplars of Civilization like Clark,Plato,Suger,Cicero,Berenson and then marrying the treasure house of the humanities to the worlds of business and advertising.We should concentrate as much on spiritual prosperity as on material drives is the message.

This is in some ways a brave book, challenging the Postmodern assumption that the notion civilisation necessarily implies elitism and that everything is on a level playing field culturally, whether it be soup can design or Beethoven's late string quartets. It is in some ways the opposite of John Carey's "what good are the arts?", which critises the notion of high culture. Armstrong puts forward convincing philosophical reasons mixed with personal accounts to back up his case for civilisation. As ever Armstrong has written an interesting and informative text, showing that some philosophers are still willing to tackle big subjects, and that real philosophy continues despite its virtual absence in present day academic debate.

I was disappointed by this book. The author attempts to define civilisation, particularly as the outcome of economic development and the cultural preferences of those who benfited from that, and he does draw together some things that economists, historians and aesthetes have said, but it all seems to evaporate into idle musing.