Civilization in simple words. What is civilization

Are you familiar with the word "civilization"? What is “culture” and what is their relationship? In what context is it most often used? The common term is quite ambiguous and has more than a hundred definitions. But first things first.

Excursion into history

Let's start with the fact that in Latin “civilis” means “state, civil”. There is debate among scholars as to whether the word is synonymous with culture or signifies a historical milestone of human and technological progress.

And this is logical if we remember all the stages of human development. At first, people were not much different from monkeys. The primitive inhabitants did not have their own home, did not know how to talk, they simply had to survive. Further, in the process of their formation and development, ancient people received fire and began to produce the simplest tools.

They united in tribes and hunted wild animals as a group. They learned to cook food and make dishes, but for a long time they continued to remain in a primitive state.

Everything changed when they learned to mine and use copper, bronze and, finally, iron, making more advanced tools.

Humanity has invented writing, which has gone through a long path of development. At first these were drawings, then individual letters that formed the alphabet. This was the highest achievement. And some scientists believe that civilization began with the creation of writing.

The original meaning of the term

This word can also describe a separate society with its own culture and identity that existed or exists today. These are, for example, Chinese, Indian, Sumerian, Assyrian and other ancient civilizations that made a huge contribution to the development of humanity. Civilization presupposes a certain system of legalized rules to which a country or people are subject. If people accept someone else's cultural heritage and succumb to its influence, and do not support individual identity, this term does not apply to them.

Civilization has its own life cycle, consisting of certain time periods, during which it goes through successive stages: emergence - development - flourishing - decline - death. But, of course, not every society went through these stages to the end due to natural disasters, wars and clashes of cultures. But no matter the outcome, the originality of civilization was preserved. The movement is characterized by intrasystem patterns that are inherent in any society. Cooperation between them is based on the principle of self-determination and equality of peoples.

The life process of civilization is a whole system. Its components are mentality, the complex connection of relationships between people in society and the social community itself, as an independently developing mechanism.

History has known a huge number of civilizations, many of which still exist today. And everyone is unique, unique, has their own face and multifaceted individual characteristics and identity.

New meaning of the term "civilization"

The appearance of the concept itself in tandem with the term “culture” dates back to the 18th century. French philosophers called society "civilized." And the meaning of the word “civilization” was gaining momentum in its interpretation. D. Alighieri used the term when speaking about a single human ethnos. The Enlightenment people of France called this concept a society based on reason and righteousness.

Already in the 19th century, the meaning of the term was interpreted as a stage of capitalism. Russians in the 60s gave a definition to this word, and for the first time it was included in the dictionary of V.I. Dalia. Civilization was characterized as a common way of life, a developed sense of citizenship, awareness of generally accepted rules and submission to them by man and citizen. But this explanation has not become uniform.

Thus, no single holistic and generally accepted definition of the term has emerged. All authors do this based on their own beliefs.

The meaning of the concept "civilization" remains ambiguous. There are over a hundred different interpretations and explanations. But all of them can be classified into four approaches.

So, what is civilization? The most common options:

The historical era that replaced “barbarism.”
The highest stage of human development.
Cultural and geographical community (for example, Eastern, Chinese).
A concept that, within the framework of a global understanding, embraces the entire planet.

The most common modern interpretation

Civilization - what is it? This is the final stage social development, with a high level of scientific and technological progress amid a decline in the arts and literature.

Stages of civilization development

There are several of them, let’s look at them in more detail.

Pre-industrial

The evolution took place thanks to agricultural and craft production using hand tools. The fundamental form of social organization was the community. Everything new was alien. Humanity not only used the gifts of nature, but was subordinate to it, worshiping the gods of Earth, Water, Sun, Rain.

Industrial, or “technogenic”

There is already a dominance of innovation over tradition, which was interpreted as a source of regression. How more people dependent on customs, the more he lags behind in development. Religion fell out of favor because it also discouraged innovation. Extremely rapid technological growth can be observed. The political system is developing. A person does not belong to a certain social status; he is born free. Nature has finally been subdued. How? Humanity controls it using science and technology, and therefore with reason.

Anthropogenic

We live in a technogenic civilization and continue to develop in it. But our era is in a state of crisis. We have enslaved nature, we are using it priceless gifts, in particular, subsoil, minerals. They run out and are not replenished.

Nature is trying to protect itself from us, hence the ecological and economic crisis, a moral catastrophe caused by the rejection of traditions and the destruction of ethical standards.

About technogenic civilization

Scientists identify the following stages in its development:

Pre-industrial. The main resources are natural. These are wood, coal, clay, metal.
Industrial. At this stage energy rules.
Post-industrial. Information becomes the dominant resource.

How can humanity overcome a global catastrophe? Move to a new stage.

Anthropogenic civilization - what is it? This is the era in which man formed a philosophical attitude towards nature. Now he doesn’t easily control her, and maybe even obey her himself.

Scientists have suggested that a process of global integration awaits us. All peoples of the world will unite, ethnic and cultural boundaries will be erased, one language and economy will reign. If humanity merges into a single planetary community, one goal will appear. And the emergence of anthropogenic civilization will occur. But for now it is considered only a myth.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 1

✪ How the past civilization died

Subtitles

Origin of the term

An attempt to establish the time of appearance of the term “civilization” was made by the French historian Lucien Febvre. In his work "Civilization: the evolution of a word and a group of ideas" he recorded the first appearance of the term in printed form in the work "Antiquity Unveiled in Its Customs" (1766) by the French engineer Boulanger.

However, this book was published after the death of the author and, moreover, not in the original version, but with significant corrections made by Baron von Holbach, a famous author of neologisms in that era. Holbach's authorship seems even more likely to Febvre in light of the fact that Boulanger mentioned the term once in his work, while Holbach repeatedly used the concepts and terms “civilization,” “civilize,” “civilized,” and in his works “System of Society” and “System of Nature” " Since then, the term has been included in scientific circulation, and in 1798 he first appeared in the Academy's Dictionary.

The Swiss cultural historian Jean Starobinsky does not mention either Boulanger or Holbach in his study. In his opinion, the authorship of the term “civilization” belongs to Victor Mirabeau and his work “Friend of Humanity” ().

Nevertheless, both authors note that before the term acquired sociocultural meaning (as a stage of cultural development opposed to savagery and barbarism), it had a legal meaning - a judicial decision that transfers a criminal process to the category of civil processes - which was lost over time.

The word underwent the same evolution (from legal to social meaning) in England, but there in printed edition it appeared fifteen years after the publication of Mirabeau's book (). Nevertheless, the circumstances of the mention of this word indicate that the word came into use even earlier, which also explains the speed of its further spread as a term. Benveniste's research indicates that the emergence of the word "civilization" (one letter difference) in Britain was almost synchronous. It was introduced into English scientific terminology by the Scottish philosopher Adam Ferguson, author of the essay “An Essay on the History of Civil Society” (in Russian translation, “An Experience in the History of Civil Society”) (), where already on the second page he noted:

And although Benveniste left open the question of the authorship of the term, about Ferguson’s possible borrowing of the concept from French terminology or from the early works of his colleagues, it was the Scottish scientist who first used the concept of “civilization” in the theoretical periodization of world history, where he contrasted it with savagery and barbarism. From that time on, the fate of this term was closely intertwined with the development of historiosophical thought in Europe.

Civilization as a stage of social development

The periodization proposed by Ferguson continued to enjoy great popularity not only in last third XVIII century but throughout almost the entire 19th century. It was used fruitfully by Lewis Morgan (“ Ancient society"; ) and Friedrich Engels (“The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”; ).

Civilization as a stage of social development is characterized by the separation of society from nature and the emergence of discrepancies (even contradictions) between natural and artificial factors in the development of society. At this stage, they prevail social factors life activity of a person (or other intelligent being), the rationalization of thinking progresses. This stage of development is characterized by the predominance of artificial productive forces over natural ones.

Also, signs of civilization include the development of agriculture and crafts, class society, the presence of a state, cities, trade, private property and money, as well as monumental construction, “sufficiently” developed religion, writing, etc. The orientalist philosopher B. S. Erasov identified the following criteria that distinguish civilization from the stage of barbarism:

A system of economic relations based on the division of labor - horizontal (professional and occupational specialization) and vertical (social stratification).
The means of production (including living labor) are controlled by the ruling class, which centralizes and redistributes the surplus product taken from primary producers through dues or taxes, as well as through the use of work force for carrying out public works.
The presence of an exchange network controlled by professional merchants or the state, which displaces the direct exchange of products and services.
A political structure dominated by a stratum of society that concentrates executive and administrative functions in its hands. Tribal organization based on descent and kinship is replaced by ruling class power based on coercion. The state, which ensures the system of social-class relations and the unity of the territory, forms the basis of the civilizational political system.

Local civilizations and a plural-cyclical view of history

Study of local civilizations

The word “civilization” was first used in two meanings in the book “The Old Man and the Young Man” by the French writer and historian Pierre-Simon-Ballanche. Later, the same use is found in the book of orientalists Eugene Burnouf and Christian Lassen “Essay on Pali” (1826), in the works of the famous traveler and researcher Alexander von Humboldt and a number of other thinkers and researchers. The use of the second meaning of the word “civilization” was promoted by the French historian François Guizot, who repeatedly used the term in the plural, but nevertheless remained faithful to the linear-stage scheme historical development.

The term “local civilization” first appeared in the work of the French philosopher Charles Renouvier, “A Guide to Ancient Philosophy” (). A few years later, the book of the French writer and historian Joseph Gobineau “Essay on Inequality” was published. human races"(1853-1855), in which the author identified 10 civilizations, each of which goes through its own own way development. Having arisen, each of them sooner or later dies. However, the thinker was not at all interested in cultural, social, economic differences between civilizations: he was only concerned with what was common in the history of civilizations - the rise and fall of aristocracies. Therefore, his historiosophical concept is indirectly related to the theory of local civilizations and directly related to the ideology of conservatism.

Ideas consonant with Gobineau’s works were also expounded by the German historian Heinrich Rückert, who came to the conclusion that human history is not a single process, but the sum of parallel processes of cultural-historical organisms that cannot be placed on one line. Rückert was the first to draw attention to the problem of the boundaries of civilizations, their mutual influence, and structural relationships within them. At the same time, Rückert continued to consider the whole world as an object of influence of Europe (that is, European civilization as the leading one), which led to the presence in his concept of relics of a hierarchical approach to civilizations, the denial of their equivalence and self-sufficiency.

The first to look at civilizational relations through the prism of non-Eurocentric self-awareness was the Russian sociologist Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky, who in his book “Russia and Europe” () contrasted the aging Western European civilization with the young Eastern European - Slavic. The Russian ideologist of Pan-Slavism pointed out that not a single cultural-historical type can claim to be considered more developed or higher than the others. Western Europe in this regard is no exception. Although the philosopher does not fully support this idea, sometimes pointing out the superiority Slavic peoples over their western neighbors.

The next significant event in the development of the theory of local civilizations was the work of the German philosopher and cultural scientist Oswald Spengler “The Decline of Europe” (). It is not known for certain whether Spengler was familiar with the work of the Russian thinker, but nevertheless, the main conceptual positions of these scientists are similar in all the most important points. Like Danilevsky, resolutely rejecting the generally accepted conventional periodization of history into “Ancient World - Middle Ages - Modern Time,” Spengler advocated a different view of world history- as a series of cultures independent from each other, living, like living organisms, periods of origin, formation and dying. Like Danilevsky, he criticizes Eurocentrism and proceeds not from the needs of historical research, but from the need to find answers to questions posed by modern society: in the theory of local cultures, this German thinker finds an explanation for the crisis Western society, which is experiencing the same decline that befell Egyptian, ancient and other ancient cultures. Spengler's book did not contain many theoretical innovations in comparison with the previously published works of Rückert and Danilevsky, but it was a resounding success because it was written in vivid language, replete with facts and reasoning, and was published after the end of the First World War, which caused complete disillusionment with Western civilization and intensified the crisis of Eurocentrism.

A much more significant contribution to the study of local civilizations was made by the English historian Arnold Toynbee. In his 12-volume work “Comprehension of History” (1934-1961), Toynbee divided the history of mankind into a number of local civilizations that have a single internal development pattern. The emergence, formation and decline of civilizations was characterized by such factors as external Divine push and energy, challenge and response, departure and return. There is much in the views of Spengler and Toynbee common features. The main difference is that for Spengler the cultures are completely separate from each other. For Toynbee, although these relationships are external in nature, they form part of the life of civilizations themselves. It is extremely important for him that some societies, joining others or, on the contrary, separating themselves, thereby ensure continuity historical process.

Russian researcher Yu. V. Yakovets, based on the works of Daniel Bell and Alvin Toffler, formulated the concept "world civilizations" as a certain stage “in the historical rhythm of the dynamics and genetics of society as an integral system in which material and spiritual reproduction, economics and politics, social relations and culture are mutually intertwined, complementing each other.” The history of mankind in his interpretation is presented as a rhythmic change of civilizational cycles, the duration of which is inexorably shortening.

Criteria for identifying civilizations, their number

However, attempts to introduce criteria for identifying civilizations have been made more than once. Russian historian E.D. Frolov in one of his works listed their most common set: common geopolitical conditions, primordial linguistic kinship, unity or proximity of the economic and political system, culture (including religion) and mentality. Following Spengler and Toynbee, the scientist admitted that “ original quality civilization is determined by the original properties of each of the structure-forming elements and their unique unity."

Cycles of civilizations

On modern stage Scientists identify the following cycles of civilizational development: origin, development, flourishing and decline. However, not all local civilizations go through all stages life cycle, unfolding on a full scale in time. The cycle of some of them is interrupted due to natural disasters (this happened, for example, with the Minoan civilization) or clashes with other cultures (pre-Columbian civilizations of Central and South America, Scythian proto-civilization).

At the inception stage, social philosophy arises new civilization, which appears at a marginal level during the period of completion of the pre-civilization stage (or the heyday of the crisis of the previous civilizational system). Its components include behavioral stereotypes, forms of economic activity, criteria for social stratification, methods and goals of political struggle. Since many societies were never able to overcome the civilizational threshold and remained at the stage of savagery or barbarism, scientists have long tried to answer the question: “assuming that in primitive society all people had more or less the same way of life, which corresponded to a single spiritual and material environment, why haven’t all these societies developed into civilizations?” According to Arnold Toynbee, civilizations give birth, evolve and adapt in response to various “challenges” of the geographical environment. Accordingly, those societies that find themselves in stable natural conditions, tried to adapt to them without changing anything, and vice versa - a society that experienced regular or sudden changes in the environment inevitably had to realize its dependence on the natural environment, and in order to weaken this dependence, oppose it with a dynamic transformative process.

At the stage of development, an integral social order takes shape and develops, reflecting the basic guidelines of the civilizational system. Civilization is formed as a certain model social behavior the individual and the corresponding structure of social institutions.

The flourishing of a civilizational system is associated with qualitative completeness in its development, the final formation of the main system institutions. The flourishing is accompanied by the unification of the civilizational space and the intensification of imperial policy, which accordingly symbolizes the stop of the qualitative self-development of the social system as a result of the relatively complete implementation of basic principles and the transition from dynamic to static, protective. This forms the basis of a civilizational crisis - a qualitative change in dynamics, driving forces, the main forms of development.

At the stage of extinction, civilization enters a stage of crisis development, extreme aggravation of social, economic, political conflicts, spiritual rift. The weakening of internal institutions makes society vulnerable to external aggression. As a result, civilization perishes either during internal turmoil or as a result of conquest.

Criticism

The concepts of Danilevsky, Spengler and Toynbee were met with mixed reactions by the scientific community. Although their works are considered fundamental works in the field of the study of the history of civilizations, their theoretical developments have met with serious criticism. One of the most consistent critics of civilization theory was the Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, who pointed out that “the most serious mistake of these theories is the confusion of cultural systems with social systems (groups), in the fact that the name “civilization” is given to significantly different social groups and their common cultures - sometimes ethnic, sometimes religious, sometimes state, sometimes territorial, sometimes various multifactor groups, and even a conglomerate of different societies with their inherent cumulative cultures,” as a result of which neither Toynbee nor his predecessors were able to name the main criteria for isolating civilizations, just like their exact number.

Currently (2014) its activities continue " International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations”, which holds annual conferences and publishes the journal Comparative Civilizations Review.

Notes

Sources

, With. 28.
, With. 114-115.
, With. 152.
, With. 239-247.
Jean Starobinsky. The word "civilization"// Poetry and knowledge. History of literature and culture. In 2 volumes / Starobinsky, Jean, Vasilyeva, E.P., Dubin, B.V. , Zenkin, S.N. , Milchina, V.A. . - M.: Languages Slavic culture, 2002. - T. 1. - P. 110-149. - 496 s. - (Language. Semiotics. Culture). - ISBN 5-94457-002-4.
Benveniste E. Chapter XXXI. Civilization. To the history of the word = Civilization. Contribution à l "histoire du mot // General linguistics. - M.: URSS, 2010.
Ferguson A. Experience in the history of civil society = An Essay on the History of Civil Society / Ferguson, Adam, Murberg, I.I., Abramov, M.A. . - M.: ROSSPEN, 2000. - 391 p. - (University Library: Political Science). - 1,000 copies. - ISBN 5-8243-0124-7.
D.F. TERIN. “CIVILIZATION” AGAINST “BARBARISM”: TO THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE IDEA OF EUROPEAN UNIQUENESS
, With. 55.
Erasov B.S. Comparative study of civilizations: Reader: Textbook. manual for university students

CIVILIZATION

(from Latin civilis - civil, state) - one of the main units of historical time, denoting a long-existing, self-sufficient community of countries and peoples, the originality of which is determined by socio-cultural reasons. C. is similar to a living organism, going through the path from birth to death, constantly reproducing itself and giving a unique originality to all the processes occurring in it. Following A. Toynbee, we can say that each color goes through the stages of emergence, formation, flourishing, breakdown and decomposition (death). The word "Ts." sometimes it is also used as the word “”, and sometimes to denote the final stage of development of any culture (O. Spengler).
The concept of Ts. began to be used in the middle. 18th century Initially it designated the stage of human development following savagery and barbarism (Voltaire, A. Fergusson, A.R. Turgot, etc.). The differences between individual societies and their communities were associated with the characteristics of the environment and traditions and were considered unimportant from the point of view. movement one humanity along the path of Ts. and progress. On the second floor. 19th century the historical one noticeably faded away, progress began to be put under, although ideas about the integrity and coherence of history continued to be preserved. The theories of color put forward began to attach more and more importance to the geographical factor, which differs in the case of different societies, the structure of society was associated with its adaptation to environment, with the dominant religion, traditions, etc. (O. Comte, G. Spencer, G.T. Buckle, G. Rickert, etc.). All this gradually created the ground for the emergence in the beginning. 20th century ideas about history as a set of local values - sociocultural systems generated by the specific conditions of existence of societies, the characteristics of people inhabiting a particular region, the interaction of individual regions on the scale of world history (Spengler, Toynbee, P.A. Sorokin, etc.). More attention was paid to the analysis of the spiritual culture of various societies; the explanatory principle of history, which requires general truths about its flow, was replaced by a hermeneutic principle, which presupposes the identification of those common values which they are guided by. Not only has historical optimism dried up, but also confidence in the possibility of a rational approach to understanding history. The world began to be interpreted only as a derivative of the interaction of different values, but not as one in which they could be ranked on a scale of progress. Monistic history was finally supplanted by pluralistic history. From ser. 20th century a return begins to the idea of a single human history passing through certain stages, in which individual civilizations turn out to be only moments on the path to the formation of a universal world history. Within the framework of the linear-stage interpretation of the historical process, color is combined with the broader concept historical era: each includes many colors and at the same time has an undoubted internal unity (K. Jaspers, M. Blok, L. Febvre, F., etc.).
The interpretation of history in terms of local, little or not at all interconnected cultures, or cultures, received a cultural approach to history. The peak of its popularity was in the 1920s and 1930s. and is associated primarily with the names of Spengler and Toynbee. According to this approach, from purely natural or diffuse human existence, colors grow, like organisms, as independent forms of life. They have no effect on each other and can only occasionally come into contact and interfere with each other. Each C. has its own beginning and end. Spengler defined the existence of C. in a thousand years, Toynbee did not believe that it could be accurately indicated.
According to Toynbee, color is a closed system characterized by a set of defining characteristics. The most important are two of them: religion and the form of its organization and territorial. “The universal is the main feature that allows us to classify societies. Another criterion for classifying societies is the degree of distance from the place where the society arose... The number of known civilizations is small. We were able to identify only 21 civilizations, but we can assume that a more detailed one will reveal significantly fewer completely independent civilizations - about ten” (Toynbee).
Sorokin calls Ts., or socioculture, created by man. C. includes the following main parts: an infinitely rich ideological set of meanings, united in systems of language, science, religion, philosophy, law, ethics, literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, economic, political, social theories etc.; material culture, representing the objective embodiment of these meanings and covering everything from simple remedies labor and ending with the most complex equipment; all actions, ceremonies, rituals, deeds in which individuals and their groups use one or another set of meanings. Each of the cultures, or cultures, is unique; it is born, reaches its peak and then dies. It is being replaced by another culture based on new system values and creating its own, special world of human existence. C. as a type of historical integrity is based on several main premises: about the nature of reality, about the nature of basic human needs, about the degree and methods of satisfying them. The sequence of unique civilizations represents history. The unity of history, according to Sorokin, is teleological and is determined by its goal: the historical mission of humanity is the limitless creation, accumulation and improvement of truth, beauty and goodness, which brings man closer to the supreme creator, making him the son of God. The unity of history is indirectly indicated by the fact that the entire diversity of color can be subsumed under three main types: ideational (religious), idealistic (intermediate), and (materialistic).
The civilizational approach to history is implemented, therefore, in significantly different concepts. They are united only by the common idea that history is a sequence of discrete units of organization (“civilizations”), each of which follows its own unique path and has a unique system of values around which its entire structure is formed.
Formally speaking, the civilizational approach to history has many alternatives. One of them is antique. the idea of history as a chaotic interweaving of the destinies of individual peoples and states, which has no goal and in which no actions exist except one: rise and triumph are inevitably followed by decline. Dr. alternatives may be the idea of cyclical history, in which the same events are repeated with slight variations, the idea of a spiral historical movement, leading with each new round to a repetition of what has already been passed, but at a new, higher level, etc. Most often, the civilizational approach is opposed, however, only one of its alternatives is the linear-stage approach to history. According to the latter, history is composed of heterogeneous stages (epochs, formations, etc.) and has a certain internal unity, due to which individual cultures, cultures, etc., for all their uniqueness, turn out to be only fragments of an integral human history. Of all the variants of the linear-stage approach, the most famous is the so-called. formational approach developed by K. Marx.
According to this approach, history is a natural change of socio-economic formations, or eras, independent of the consciousness and will of people, ultimately leading to a perfect society, “heaven on earth.” The formal approach affirms the linearity of history (the presence of a common line of history along which all societies and peoples go), the direction of history (it moves along the path of progress, from lower forms to forms that are more and more developed in terms of the method of production of material life), history ( it is composed of qualitatively different segments separated by social cataclysms). In all these aspects, the formational approach (as well as the more linear-stage approach) is incompatible with the civilizational approach.
At the same time, the concept of centrality can be interpreted in such a way that it turns out to be an organic moment of the linear-stage approach to history.
Jaspers is skeptical about the theory of cultural cycles (C.), developed by Spengler and later by Toynbee, and believes that it has common origins and a single path of development, despite the differences in the lives of individual peoples and cultures. Jaspers's identification of cultures as specific wholes seems valuable, but only on the condition that it does not contradict the concept of universal history: neither scattered cultural organisms that do not correlate with each other, nor human history as such, can be raised into a principle.
Braudel understands color as a complex, ordered social system of prohibitions, commands, principles and categories for mastering the surrounding world, which determines the uniqueness of thinking, the structure of feelings and actions of its individuals. “Civilizations... represent an ocean of habits, restrictions, approvals, advice, affirmations, all these realities that seem personal and spontaneous to each of us, while they often came to us from a very distant past. They are heritage, just like the one we speak. Whenever cracks or gaps appear in society, the ubiquitous culture fills or at least masks them, finally locking us into the framework of everyday tasks” (Braudel). C. is both constancy and movement. Existing in space, it is held there, clinging to it for centuries. The fact that the concept of color is ambiguous and unclear is evidenced by the fact that Braudel uses different criteria when identifying different colors and speaks of “European civilization,” “Islamic civilization,” “Western civilization.” civilization" and notes that app. , who created a new and new type thinking, is nevertheless not a new civilization, for “civilization is an accumulation over a much longer period.” Along with C. Braudel also distinguishes epochs as larger units of historical time that can accommodate several different Cs.
A peculiar interpretation of the concepts “C.” and “culture” gives A.A. Ivin in his concept of “bipolar history”. He identifies two extreme types social order, persisting with some modifications throughout history: collectivist society and individualistic society. The first type of society is a social system that aims to be global, all-suppressive and focused almost exclusively on collective values; a society of the second type has no such goal and allows individual autonomy within wide limits. Depending primarily on the method of production of material life in history after the primitive-collectivistic primitive society, three main eras are distinguished: ancient agrarian, medieval agro-industrial and industrial. The values of each era are collectivistic, individualistic, or in between. Variants of the same color are called “cultures.” Thus, in the industrial era, along with the surviving cultures of previous eras, there existed individualist capitalist culture and collectivist socialist culture, represented by two cultures: communist and national socialist. This interpretation of the era, culture, and culture fits within the framework of the linear-stage approach to history. Since eras are distinguished, as in the case of the formational approach, by the method of production of material life, this interpretation can be assessed as a combination of elements of the formational and civilizational approaches to history ( cm. INDIVIDUALISTIC ), ( cm. ERA).

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

CIVILIZATION

(from lat. civilis - civil, state), 1) synonymous with culture. In Marxist literature it is also used to mean material culture. 2) Level, society. development, material and spiritual culture (antique C.). 3) Stage of societies. development following barbarism (L. Morgan, F. Engels).

The concept of "C." appeared at 18 V. in close connection with the concept of “culture”. Franz. Enlightenment philosophers called a civilized society based on the principles of reason and justice. At 19 V. concept "C." was used as a characteristic of capitalism as a whole, but this idea of capital was not dominant. Thus, Danilevsky formulated the theory of a general typology of cultures, or C., according to which there is no world history, but only the history of given C., which have an individual closed character. In Spengler's concept, Ts. is a definition. will conclude. development of any culture; its main features: the development of industry and technology, the degradation of art and literature, the emergence of huge concentrations of people in big cities, peoples into faceless “masses”. With this understanding, color as an era of decline is contrasted with the integrity and organic nature of culture. These and etc. idealistic concepts distort the nature of C., action. its development. The classics of Marxism analyzed the driving forces and contradictions of the development of color, justifying revolutionary transition to its new stage - communist. C. Marx K., Synopsis of Morgan’s book “Ancient Society”, Archives of K. Marx and F. Engels, T. IX, M., 1941; Engels F., The origin of the family, private property and the state, Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 21; Morgan L.G., Ancient Society, lane With English, L., 19352; Markaryan E. S., On the concept of local centers, Er., 1962; Artanovsky S.N., Historical. unity of humanity and mutual influence crops (Philosophical and methodological analysis modern foreign concepts), L., 1967; Mchedlov?. ?;, The concept of color in Marxist-Leninist theory, ?, 1979; his, Socialism-. new type Ts., M., 1980; Emge K. A., Die Frage nach einem neuen Kulturbegrifi, Malnz, 1963.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

CIVILIZATION

(from Latin civis citizen)

the stage of culture following barbarism, which gradually accustoms a person to planned, orderly joint actions with his own kind, which creates the most important prerequisite for culture. Spengler contrasted civilization as a set of exclusively technical-mechanical culture as a kingdom of organic life, and argued that culture, in the course of its development, is reduced to the level of civilization and, together with it, moves towards its destruction. In civilization, this is what gives “comfort”, this is the convenience that technology puts at our disposal. Comfort (its creation and use) makes such moral and physical demands on a civilized person and, thanks to it, merges to such an extent with the technical collective (see. Technique), that he has neither time nor energy left for culture and he often no longer feels the inner feeling of being not only civilized, but also cultured.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

CIVILIZATION

(from Latin civilis - civil, state), synonymous with culture;

the totality of material and spiritual achievements of society in its historical development. Marx and Engels used the concept of color to designate the stage of society. development following barbarism. Engels wrote that C. "...is that stage of social development at which the exchange between individuals arising from it and the commodity that unites both of these processes reach full bloom and produce a revolution in the entire previous society" ("The Origin of the Family, Private Property and state", 1963, p. 195). In their works, the founders of Marxism analyzed the driving forces and contradictions of the development of Central Asia, justifying the need for revolution. transition to a new, higher stage - communist. to society. In Marxist literature, the concept of culture also means material culture.

The concept of color appeared in the 18th century. in close connection with the concept of culture. Franz. Enlightenment philosophers called a civilized society based on the principles of reason and justice. In the 19th century C. denoted a high level of development of the material and spiritual culture of Western Europe. peoples and was part of the concept of Eurocentrism. At the same time, the concept of capital was used as a characteristic of capitalism as a whole.

In broad terms, various modern interpretations of C. in non-Marxist literature can be divided into analytical and synthetic. Analytical C., which essentially describes culture, is characteristic of the works of historians and ethnographers who have put forward dozens of definitions of culture and culture, in which these concepts are considered identical [see, for example, V. Malinowski, A scientific theory of culture and other essays, N. Y., 1944; A. L. Kroeber, S. Cluckhohn, Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions, Camb., (Mass.), 1963].

Among synthetic, so-called. integral definitions, we can distinguish different interpretations of C. (N. Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, P. Sorokin, L. White, W. Ogborn, etc.). Thus, N. Ya. Danilevsky put forward the theory of a general typology of cultures, or C., according to which there is no world history, but only the history of given C., which have an individual closed character; at the same time internal all C. is the same. In the same vein is the concept of O. Spengler, according to the cut of Ts. - this is a definition. will conclude. stage of development of any culture. Her characteristic features: the development of industry and technology, the degradation of art and literature, the emergence of huge concentrations of people in huge cities, the transformation of peoples into faceless “masses”. Europe C. is therefore an indicator of the death of the west. culture. All other nations go through the same stages. The concepts of Danilevsky and Spengler are close to the romantic. theories in which color, as an era of degradation and decline of society, is contrasted with the integrity and organic nature of culture.

A. Toynbee's concept differs from the theories of Danilevsky and Spengler. Highlighting the department Ts., Toynbee strove for a “metaphysical”, “metahistorical” study of them. World history, according to Toynbee, is something, parts of which we artificially “isolate” in the form of departments. Ts. for specific study.

Some synthetic materials are based on definitions of color lie materialistic. interpretation of the development of science and technology. So, for example, Amer. sociologist L. White believes that culture, or culture, is determined by three components: the development of technology determines social organization and philosophy (see L. A. White, The science of culture. A study of and civilization, N. Y., 1949). A similar concept to C., which is based on a technological idea. determinism, belongs to W. Ogborn. Thus, non-Marxist and bourgeois. concepts of color do not reveal the nature of color or the driving forces of its development.

Lit.: Marx K., Summary of the book. Morgan "Ancient Society", Archives of Marx and Engels, vol. IX, M., 1941; Engels Φ., The origin of the family, private property and the state, Marx K and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21; Morgan L., Ancient Society, trans. from English, 2nd ed., M., 1935; Arzakanyan T.G., Culture and Ts. Problems of theory and history, "VIMK", 1961, No. 3, his own, Interpretation of humanism in modern times. bourgeois concepts of culture and culture, in the collection: From Erasmus of Rotterdam to Bertrand Russell, M., 1969; Markaryan E. S., On the concept of local centers, Yerevan, 1962; Construction of communism and problems of culture. Sat. Art., M., 1963; Construction of communism and spiritual world person. Sat., M., 1966; Communism and culture, M., 1966; Artanovsky S. N., Historical. the unity of humanity and the mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern abroad. concepts, L., 1967 (rec. magazine "VF", 1969, No. 1); The cultural approach to history, Wash., 1940; Baur I., Die Geschichte des Wortes "Kultur" und seiner Zusammensetzung, Münch., 1951 (Diss.); Kroeber A. L., The nature of culture, Chi., 1952; Benveniste E., Civilisation. Contribution à l"histoire du mot, in the book: Eventail de l"histoire vivante, v. 1, P., 1953, p. 47–54; Callot E., Civilization et civilizations. Recherche d'une philosophie de la culture, P., 1954; Bickel L., Kultur, Z. - Konstanz, 1956; Marcuse H., Eros and civilization. A philosophical inquiry into Freud, L., 1956; Nef J. U., Cultural foundations of industrial civilization, Camb. (Mass.), 1958; Bidney D., Theoretical anthropology, 3 ed., Ν Υ., 1960; Landmann M., Der Mensch als Schöpfer und Geschöpf der Kultur, Geschichts- und Sozialanthropologie, Münch - Basel, 1961; Emge K. A., Die Frage nach einem neuen Kulturbegriff, Meinz, 1963; Jaeger M. A., Die Zukunft des Abendlandes. Kulturpsychologische Betrachtungen, Bern-Münch., 1963; Sauvy A., Mythologie de notre temps, P., 1965; Mead M., Continuities in cultural evolution, 2 ed., New Haven–L., 1965; Die Frage nach dem Menschen, Freiburg–Münch., 1966.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

CIVILIZATION

CIVILIZATION (from the Latin civis - citizen, civilis - civil, state) is a concept known since antiquity, where it as a certain order of life was opposed to barbarism, and as an independent term correlated with the concept of “culture”, it came into use and scientific in the 18th century It was at this time that it acquired a broad socio-philosophical meaning to designate a certain stage of the world-historical process and the values of civil society based on the principles of reason, justice and legality (Voltaire, V. R. Mirabeau, A. Ferguson, I. G. Herder and etc.). In the course of the evolution of the term, its semantics were discovered to be preserved to this day. The concept of “civilization” is often interpreted as a synonym for culture, essentially coinciding with one of its meanings - as a certain system of values, traditions, symbols, mentality and way of life of a given society or an entire era (for example, by A. Toynbee); or it is used to designate a very specific stage of development and state of local cultures - their degradation and decline (as in O. Spengler and N. A. Berdyaev). Particular attention should be paid to the interpretation of civilization as a higher stage of human development, which replaced savagery and barbarism, systematically presented in the works of L. G. Morgan, F. Engels and other researchers. As a typological unit for measuring the progress of human history, this concept is widely used to characterize the level, period and characteristics of the development of a particular region or superethnos (ancient, Western, Eastern, industrial, Russian civilization, etc.). The local approach in the study of civilization, which actively declared itself in the 19th century. under the influence of the idea of historicism, it gave birth to a whole literature: “The History of Civilization in Europe” and “The History of Civilization in France” by F. Guizot, “The History of Civilization in England” by G. T. Buckle, “The History of Spain and Spanish Civilization” by R. Altamira -Crevea et al. Based on these studies, the positivist philosopher E. Littre defined civilization as a set of properties belonging to a certain society located on a certain territory at a certain time in its history. A peculiar modification of the term “civilization” is the word formation “civility”, which captures a certain level of education, moral and everyday culture, lifestyle and behavior of people, different from the mores and habits of primitive, “uncivilized” communication and community life. If in the Anglo-French tradition and transcription the meaning of the terms “culture” and “civilization” coincide, then in Germany a different tradition has developed: “culture” (Kultur) acts as spiritual values, a container highest achievements human mind and the area of individual personal improvement, and “civilization” (Zivilisation) covers the sphere of material achievements that can crowd out spiritual norms and threaten a person with massification. Both of these interpretations have come into use in modern philosophy, sociology and anthropology, which is reflected in the variety of dictionary and encyclopedic definitions. Such ambiguity in the use of the term “civilization,” which creates the impression of its lack of rigor, has its own objective and cognitive grounds. The relatively “young” concept of “civilization” becomes paradigmatic and demonstrates broad operational capabilities as the objective in the integration of social systems is revealed and the level of social reflection and self-awareness increases. The term “civilization” denotes not only a special qualitative characteristic of society, but also a special approach to the historical process of the formation and development of humanity, in comparison, for example, with the formational (see Social formations) approach and division. The concept of “civilization” allows us to record the beginning of the actual social stage of the evolution of the human race, its emergence from a primitive state; dynamics of development of the social division of labor, information infrastructure, dominant form social connection And social organization within “ big society" Based on this extremely broad understanding of the phenomenon of civilization in modern historiography and philosophy, it is customary to distinguish three main historical forms (types) of the civilizational world order: 1) agricultural (agrarian), 2) industrial (technogenic), 3) informational (post-industrial). There is another, more “fractional” civilizational history of mankind, proposed by the Russian researcher Yu. V. Yakovets, author of “History of Civilization” (M-, 1995), who identifies seven historically changing forms of civilization: Neolithic, early slaveholding, ancient, early feudal, late feudal (pre-industrial), industrial and post-industrial.

None of the concepts and typologies of civilization presented in the scientific literature can be recognized as the only true and indisputable one. The fact is that, in its origin and structure, civilization is a collective, multifactorial phenomenon. Civilization is formed and characterized by the features of the natural environment (climatic, geographical and demographic factors), the achieved level of human needs, abilities, knowledge and skills, the economic, technological and structure of socio-political relations, the ethnic and national composition of the community, the uniqueness of cultural, historical and religious moral values, the nature and degree of development of spiritual production. If the typology of civilization is based on one or another technical and technological basis, then it is quite legitimate to divide the history of “civilized” humanity into three eras - agricultural, industrial and informational. But it is enough to recall Marx’s famous “three-fold framework”, where epochal differences are measured by another criterion - the type of social connection of people (deeper, “basic” than the method of production and technology), and the typology of civilizations acquires a completely different one. Finally, it is possible to highlight sociocultural factors and characteristics that have an undoubted advantage in explaining the “mystery” of the emergence, development and disappearance of civilizations, compared to political economic or sociological approach and criterion. The concept of “civilization” reflects a powerful integrative force, a tendency of universalism, which makes it possible to create a kind of super-unity, large-scale on the basis of a certain socio-cultural paradigm. The latter, in a “removed” form, represents all the main system-forming components of the life of society (technical and technological, economic, political, national-ethnic, demographic, etc., acting as subsystems of a broadly understood culture). IN Lately The “civilizational” approach claims more and more rights to the world-historical process, in some ways significantly complementing and enriching the “formational” approach. This is primarily due to the fundamentally different idea inherent in the concept of “civilization” about the relationship between the worlds of economics, politics and culture, and the role of the spiritual factor in history.

In this regard, it is necessary to highlight the concepts of civilization of N. Ya. Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, who laid the foundations of the cultural-historical approach to the problem of social development. Danilevsky put forward a theory of a general typology of cultures, or civilizations, according to which what is called “world history” is only the history of a local

cultural civilizations that are individually closed in nature and at the same time similar in their internal mechanism. He identified ten “full-fledged” original civilizations, or cultural-historical types of society: Egyptian, Chinese, Assyrian-Babylonian-Phoenician, or Chaldean, Indian, Iranian, Jewish, Greek, Roman, New Semigic, or Arabian, Germanic-Roman, or European. Paying tribute to the principles of economics and politics, Danilevsky compared the Slavic-Russian and Germanic civilizations through the prism of the mental system, religion, education and character cultural activities two communities of people.

The priority of the cultural principle was even more definitely defended by Toynbee, for whom civilization is a culture that has reached the limits of self-identification. All civilizations known in history are certain types of human communities, “evoking associations in the field of religion, architecture, painting, morals, customs - in a word, in the field of culture (Toynbee A. J. Civilization before the court of history. M., 1996, p. 133). This approach was used by the English historian as the basis for distinguishing between Western, Islamic, Orthodox, Hindu, Far Eastern and other civilizations. According to Toynbee, there is no single history of mankind, and therefore of world civilization. History as a whole in reality is just a “circle” of individual civilizations, closed on themselves and co-existing in parallel, sometimes synchronously. He first counted 21 such civilizations, then reduced this number to 13, excluding the “secondary” and “underdeveloped”. Toynbee's concept, in particular the idea of the “circle of civilizations,” was repeatedly criticized, to which the English historian often reacted constructively and self-critically. Over the years, he increasingly emphasized the possibilities of dialogue and mutual influence of civilizations, as a result of which certain universal human values can be formed. Thus, he foresaw and recognized the formation of world civilization (according to modern terminology, global society) with world religion and ethics.

Spengler, unlike Danilevsky and Toynbee, did not identify, but contrasted culture and civilization, since for him the latter is a product of the degeneration and degeneration of culture. In essence, Spengler picked up and developed the critical-pessimistic approach to the achievements of the civilization of J.-J. Rousseau, who in “Discourses on the Sciences and Arts” noted the “alienated and refined” nature of the connection between people in civilized societies, which acts as a cover not only for the moral imperfection of man, but also for the imperfection of the social state of humanity as a whole. How a purely artificial civilization opposes culture as the natural development of society. The dying of culture is the beginning and process of the emergence and triumph of civilization, replacing development with sterility and ossification. Culture bears fruit, creates, creates “in depth,” but civilization destroys, deadens; spreads “in breadth”. German identified eight “fruitful” and “powerful” cultures: Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greco-Roman (Apollo), Byzantine-Arab (magical), Western European (Faustian) and culture; the emergence of an as yet unborn Russian-Siberian culture is possible. Each of these cultures sooner or later enters a stage of decline and “death,” giving rise to a corresponding civilization. In the “Cat of Europe,” Spengler showed this on the fate of “civilized” Rome and the contemporary “civilized” West, touching on politics, morality, philosophy, and art. Spengler had his opponents and supporters who accepted some of his ideas, in particular his “apocalyptic” vision of the fate of the Western world (X. Ortega y Gasset, Toynbee, Berdyaev, etc.).

It is worth highlighting Berdyaev’s criticism of Pshengler’s thesis “culture turns into civilization.” Agreeing that civilization and culture are not the same thing, the Russian philosopher insisted on their opposition in literally all parameters and characteristics. Culture was born from a cult, its origins are sacred, it is hierarchical, “aristocratic” and symbolic in nature, due to which it is the source and carrier of the spiritual life of society and the individual. Civilization, on the contrary, is of purely worldly origin, an “upstart”, absolutely not connected with the symbolism of a cult, was born in the struggle with Nature, is thoroughly “bourgeois” and “democratic”. Any civilization means a general, repetitive monotony, the predominance of the material over the ideal, methods and tools over the spirit and soul, the standard over originality and uniqueness. Every civilization behaves this way, whether it was born today or yesterday, without knowing either graves or ancestors. In characterizing the concept of “civilization,” the Russian philosopher I. A. Ilyin agrees with Berdyaev: unlike culture, civilization is assimilated externally and superficially, without requiring the fullness of spiritual participation. A people may have an ancient and refined spiritual culture, but in the sphere of external civilization (clothing, housing, communications, technology, etc.) show a picture of backwardness and primitiveness. And the opposite phenomenon: it can be at the height of technical progress and external civilization, but in the sphere of spiritual culture (morality, science, art, politics) it can experience an era of decline. Such contrasts and disharmonies between “external” civilization and “internal” culture have been observed often in the history of mankind and are especially noticeable in our time.

Thus, historically, two trends in attitude towards civilization have formed, relatively speaking, positive and negative. The first, “phenomenalist” or “progressive”, in addition to the above-mentioned Morgan, Engels, Herder, Buckle and others, was represented and developed by L. I. Mechnikov (“Civilization and the Great Historical Rivers”), E. B. Tylor (“ Introduction to the study of man and civilization. Anthropology"), etc. The second tradition, which saw in civilization just an “epiphenomenon”, a by-product of historical development, carrying the threat of dehumanization, violence against surrounding nature and man’s own nature, the gap between reason and morality, were reflected in their writings by Rousseau, utopian socialists, and in our time - representatives of the philosophy of personalism, existentialism, neo-Freudianism. Currently, these trends, or traditions, in the interpretation of the relationship between civilization and culture have become extremely acute. In relation to the concept of civilization, it should be noted that persistent attempts to limit its meaning and scope material assets, technical and technological innovations and achievements of “comfort” are met with reasonable objections. Opponents remind that among the great discoveries of civilization are statehood, the market, money, legislation, the printing press, modern means information, etc. It is also obvious that modern, technical

Today we will talk about what civilization is. Many people say that some people are “civilized”, others are not. They also talk about “civilization.” Meanwhile, few people really understand the meaning of these concepts. In this post I offer you a scientific answer to this question. To do this, I propose to consider this concept in in the narrow sense and in a broader sense.

The concept in a narrow sense

Civilization in the narrow sense is the degree of development of the social form of matter, in which a set of norms of law, morality and morality are recognized by all members of society as necessary and binding. Here this definition from history is adjacent in meaning to the concept of “civilization” - the degree of assimilation of specific norms by an individual.

You also need to understand how civilization and culture differ: the latter is a system of values, and not some large communities.

The state opposite to civilization is called barbarism. I think it is clear that the more social values are cultivated in a society, the more developed a given civilization is. For example, Europeans have long been surprised that there are simply a bunch of homeless people and vagabonds on the streets of Russia, and that the state does not care about such people at all. They are also surprised that these tramps themselves do nothing to get themselves out of this state.

One can argue for a long time whether there is more civilization in Europe. But personally, I have been to France, Germany, and Eastern Europe. Frankly, people treat each other more comfortably than in Russia. For example, I witnessed such a situation at the railway station in the city of Metz (France). 11.30 pm. The station closes, leaving only those with tickets. A drunk man in a shabby coat is sitting next to me - apparently a local tramp. Four policemen come in and ask him for his documents.

Of course, the drunkard doesn’t have any documents with him. The police put on white gloves, take the man by the arms and lead him out of the station. Everyone is happy, everything is ok.

Yaroslavsky Station in Moscow is a similar situation. Heaps of homeless people and tramps sleep drunk at the station. The station manager comes in and yells that everyone who doesn’t have tickets must leave the station. The tramps were still sleeping. Next, the boss approaches one of the homeless people, pulls him down from the bench and kicks him a couple of times. The result, believe it or not, is zero. Then the boss leaves, leaving everything as it is. Well, where is there more civilization?

Concept in a broad sense

In broad terms, civilization is a group of countries and peoples that have general history and culture. This definition was expressed by Arnold Toynbee in his monumental work “Comprehension of History.” In the English version we are dealing with more than 12 volumes, and in the Russian translation - with one...

Following A. Toynbee, the outstanding American figure and historian Samuel Huntington expressed his vision in his work “The Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington identified the following of them: Anglo-American, Western European, Orthodox, Sino-Buddhist, Latin American, African, etc. It is clear that the criterion for division is not really clear: in one case, it is religion, in the other, geography and standard of living. .. In a word, everything is somehow strange. Nevertheless, this classification is not without meaning and very clearly outlines the features of each.

We should not forget about the third founder of the civilizational approach - Oswald Spengler. His fundamental work, “The Decline of Europe,” should, in my opinion, be read by every sane person. In a nutshell and very simplified - a book about the decline of Western European civilization after.

According to Shkengler, civilization is a living organism characterized by birth, growth, breakdown and decay. Actually, the history of mankind is the history of such formations. We learn about the ancient ones from the remaining ones. About others there are only persistent rumors. For example, about the legendary Atlantis.

Be that as it may, we are talking about objectively existing macro-unions. Although many historians are extremely skeptical about the existence of civilizations even today. In particular, some neo-Marxists argue that these macro-unions live only in the inflamed brain of civilizationists.

And what do you think? Subscribe in the comments!

At the end of the post, I suggest you watch the awesome, albeit old documentary film “Life After People”. The film gives an idea of the impact human civilization has on our planet:

Best regards, Andrey Puchkov

Cultural and material assets, society management organizations. These are certain priority areas, forms of activity and norms presented in various material objects.

Culture is a set of norms, rules and values that are entrenched in the consciousness and practice of society. For example, these are language, literature, type of thinking, technology, science and traditions.
Ideology is a system of social theories, ideas and views. In particular, this includes political views, religion, aesthetics, morality, philosophy and law.
Economics is a system of economic management. In particular, these are the division of labor, methods of production and forms of ownership.
Politics is a system of government. In particular, these are parties, the political system, social institutions and administrative arts.

The concept of civilization is also applicable to various societies that have gone beyond the level of the primitive communal system. That is, this is the stage of human development, following barbarism, primitiveness and savagery.

Let's consider the main signs of civilization. These are the presence of cities that are centers of cultural and economic life, the separation of physical and mental activity, and the emergence of writing. The concept of civilization is not a model. Therefore, here we can talk about different ones that can be classified as civilized. Let's consider: At various periods of time, Catholic, Chinese, ancient, ancient Egyptian, and Islamic civilizations existed in the world. They all had their own distinctive features, but also had much in common.

Civilizations are divided into two main types. Firstly, these are the primary civilizations. They arise in an ethnic environment and are also divided into two levels. Mother and original civilizations arise spontaneously. Daughter civilizations are formed from societies of the original type as a result of the interaction of the ethnic periphery and the sociocultural factor.

Secondly, these are secondary civilizations. They arise as a result of a qualitative restructuring and improvement of socionormative traditions, norms and principles in already sufficiently developed societies.

And civilization has some signs. For example, this is the spread of one’s social norms based on a certain way life. That is, there is a tendency to unite civilizations into one whole. Most often this happens through long wars.

Each civilization creates a sociocultural field around itself that influences neighboring ethnic groups. In a developed society there are religious and ethical systems, expressed in rules, traditions, values and norms.

What causes the difference in the main characteristics of civilizations? It is worth remembering that every society is formed in unique conditions. The development of civilization is influenced by economic and cultural potential, historical environment in the form of various ethnic groups, natural landscape and even climatic conditions.

So, we have examined the main features of developed societies. Here it is worth remembering another important definition. to the development of society has several important distinctive features. Firstly, it makes a person a creator of history and progress. Secondly, in the civilizational approach, the spiritual factor in the development of society plays an important role. Thirdly, the uniqueness of the history of individual peoples, societies and countries is also taken into account.