RECLAIMING CIVILIZATION

In this stimulating and wide-ranging study, Brendan Myers invites readers to consider the nature of civilisation, what is wrong with it and what can be done about it in a narrative that also includes pastoral interludes as well as contributions from his friends about absurdities and illusions associated with civilisation. One of the central paradoxes is that the word is on the one hand associated with monuments and cultural achievements, but also entails conquests, oppressions and widespread genocide.

In the first part, the author ranges widely in discussing views of civilisation, including the contributions of Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee, Albert Schweitzer and Kenneth Clark (Pitirim Sorokin is missing). The word itself is related to civis, or city, and also to citizen and by implication to walled cities that gave protection to those inside and defended the inhabitants from attacks from the outside. This represents psychologically an in-group and an out-group, friends and enemies, us and them, the 'civilised' and the barbarian, self and other. The distinction also gives us a key to a dynamic of extending compassion and expanding the circle of empathy as criteria for the advance of civilisation. The author cites Schweitzer as having grasped the essence of civilisation most completely when he states that the ultimate object is the spiritual and moral perfecting of individuals through the development of virtues. Curiously, he makes no mention of Schweitzer's own ethic of reverence for life. There is also an interesting discussion of Rousseau and the state of nature, including that this concept is misguided and that one should speak rather of a pre-urban condition. And incidentally, 'civilised' can indicate a socially acquired skill which in some contexts leads to an artificial sense of superiority.

The second part asks what is wrong with civilisation once it has been established in terms of architecture, agriculture and a place of belonging after wanderers settled down. We all have to face the implications of violence, evil and death. Myers quotes Girard on the projection of evil and the paradox of violent measures taken to combat evil that are themselves violent. He sees the inevitability of death as giving rise to the need for the idea of soul, although he himself is agnostic about its existence - he focuses rather on the idea as a psychological coping mechanism while maintaining that we deceive ourselves with illusions. He mentions other social illusions such as that of higher and lower men, the virtuous prince, also bringing in suggestions from his friends such as that the president actually runs the country, people come to be successful solely on the basis of merit and that those who govern us are honest; also the devious enemy, which justifies a multitude of misguided policies. One could add that the propagation of fear is one of the most dangerous illusions, along with the adequacy of rationality and the illusion that humanity can dominate the Earth.

Recent events have shown how the liberal idea of civilisation and progress can be reversed by resurgent barbarism. I appreciated the thoughts quoted from Jonathan Glover about our moral resources in terms of sympathy, respect and identity as the core of humanity contrasted with inhumanity. The author asks if there are new and better ways of facing reality and living flourishing lives, basing his argument on a number of negations such as impermanence, suffering, the nonexistence of a golden age and destiny. We have to loosen the power of the illusions he refers to and face what he calls the immensities with cautious optimism and the cultivation of empathy, cooperation and happiness. Some have tried to achieve this in small-scale communities while others - and this was not mentioned - plumbed the depths of culture at the series of Eranos meetings in Switzerland attended by Jung, Eliade, Kerenyi and other luminaries.

The author himself advocates virtue ethics, introducing a new term based on the Greek word for excellence – areteology. He categorises these in different contexts, beginning with a commitment to life and goodness, response and responsibility, wonder at the natural world, then the social virtues of care, courage, friendship, kindness and generosity; then integrity - oddly enough, Aristotle's own central virtue of practical wisdom or phronesis is missing, and a balance at the mean between extremes is surely critical for our time. His vision for society is a civilisation that deliberates, where thinking and talking replace fighting and killing, and it is indeed a source of optimism that we are already doing this in a number of respects. I found it a useful exercise to zoom out to consider the nature of civilisation, and agree with the author that a better world is indeed possible based on his idea of four lamps: human nature is sufficiently malleable for culture to change, even if slowly, we have made some progress in empathy, cooperation and compassion, we can find depth in life after casting away our illusions, and we can recognise and contribute to the progress that is already being made. At this dark time, it is useful to reflect on the case for optimism in relation to our future.