Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 11th, 2012, 09:16 AM   #121

Tuthmosis III's Avatar
His Royal Travesty
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: the middle ground
Posts: 2,813
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloc View Post
Thanks. I've been meaning to read over stuff from that publication for some time, although it seems the articles won't not download.
Hmm. Yeah, I just had to update my PDF reader to access them.

Last edited by Tuthmosis III; September 11th, 2012 at 09:22 AM.
Tuthmosis III is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 24th, 2012, 05:33 PM   #122

Tuthmosis III's Avatar
His Royal Travesty
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: the middle ground
Posts: 2,813
Blog Entries: 3

Comparative Civilizations Review #66, Spring 2012,
"The 1961 Conference of the ISCSC [International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations]: Notes and Summaries" by Michael Palencia-Roth, pp. 106-142

Day 1, Monday Oct 9:
"Pitirim Sorokin: There are two main approaches to the study of civilizations. The one is that represented by Danilewskij, Spengler, and Toynbee, ... identifying civilizations as a 'spatially bounded entity somehow located within a part of the population occupying certain territory'. This conception of civilization mainfests itself in a concern to classify civilizations: Danilewskij's nine different types; Spengler's Apollinian, Magian, Faustian and so on; Toynbee's 21 or 26 different civilizations.
"A second approach does not try so much to locate and classify civilizations; rather it disregards 'the spatial distribution of civilizations' and 'tries to find in the total human universe of social and cultural phenomena main systems of high cultures or high civilizations as a unified body,.... This second approach is illustrated by F.C. Northrop 'in his fundamental division of two types of civilization, in his terminology 'aesthetic and theoretic' or by the anthropologist A. Kroeber, who looks at 'master types or patterns of civilization'." (p. 117)

I stand corrected. Apparently the roots of the civilization vs world-system argument goes back further than I'd thought!
Tuthmosis III is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 08:19 PM   #123

Belloc's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: USA
Posts: 5,122

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuthmosis III View Post
Comparative Civilizations Review #66, Spring 2012,
"The 1961 Conference of the ISCSC [International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations]: Notes and Summaries" by Michael Palencia-Roth, pp. 106-142

Day 1, Monday Oct 9:
"Pitirim Sorokin: There are two main approaches to the study of civilizations. The one is that represented by Danilewskij, Spengler, and Toynbee, ... identifying civilizations as a 'spatially bounded entity somehow located within a part of the population occupying certain territory'. This conception of civilization mainfests itself in a concern to classify civilizations: Danilewskij's nine different types; Spengler's Apollinian, Magian, Faustian and so on; Toynbee's 21 or 26 different civilizations.
"A second approach does not try so much to locate and classify civilizations; rather it disregards 'the spatial distribution of civilizations' and 'tries to find in the total human universe of social and cultural phenomena main systems of high cultures or high civilizations as a unified body,.... This second approach is illustrated by F.C. Northrop 'in his fundamental division of two types of civilization, in his terminology 'aesthetic and theoretic' or by the anthropologist A. Kroeber, who looks at 'master types or patterns of civilization'." (p. 117)

I stand corrected. Apparently the roots of the civilization vs world-system argument goes back further than I'd thought!
That's interesting, I wonder whether the two concepts are necessarily mutually exclusive. Certainly there could be a synthesis of sorts between the two approaches.
Belloc is online now  
Old November 15th, 2012, 12:30 PM   #124

Tuthmosis III's Avatar
His Royal Travesty
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: the middle ground
Posts: 2,813
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloc View Post
That's interesting, I wonder whether the two concepts are necessarily mutually exclusive. Certainly there could be a synthesis of sorts between the two approaches.
Michael Mann's attempt at a synthesis is thought-provoking:
"Societies are constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power. Societies are not unitary. They are not social systems (closed or open); they are not totalities ... Because there is no system, no totality, there cannot be 'subsystems,' 'dimensions,' or 'levels' of such a totality. Because there is no whole, social relations cannot be reduced 'ultimately,' 'in the last instance' to some systemic property of it." Sources of Social Power, Volume I (1986, p. 1), quoted in An Anatomy of Power: The Social Theory of Michael Mann (2006, p. 72)

For Mann, societies are integrated but only variably coherent depending on connectible but potentially autonomous developments in "relations of social power". It will be interesting to see where he goes with this; he seems to be throwing out Spengler's closed 'Great Cultures', Toynbee's coherent-once-established (albeit prone to disintegration) 'civilizations', and Wilkinson's all-inclusive global system!
Tuthmosis III is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 01:48 PM   #125
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 13
Check this out!


I stumbled upon these blogs by the same author. He seems to believe that Spengler and Toynbee are still relevant today, but that the future development is avoidable.

I tend to aggree, but I am not quite sure about the exact picture of the single civilizations.

polybios-2100.blogspot.com

And especially:

polybios2100.blogspot.com
Joernry is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 10:56 PM   #126

Belloc's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: USA
Posts: 5,122

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out tomorrow.
Belloc is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 12:10 AM   #127
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloc View Post
Is this viewpoint still considered valid? One main counterpoint I can think of off hand is how could the Mesoamerican civilizations like the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas forge through influences from Mesopatamia? It makes more sense to say that civilization in varying forms emerged in various spots, which would explain many of the various characteristics found in each region.
The Incas are not mesoamerican... They are from Peru and extended northward and southward and a little eastward... Definitely not from mesoamerica... They also lasted 500 years, nor more nor less, they were quickly destroyed by the Spaniards...
coldshot is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 07:00 PM   #128

Belloc's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: USA
Posts: 5,122

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuthmosis III View Post
Michael Mann's attempt at a synthesis is thought-provoking:
"Societies are constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power. Societies are not unitary. They are not social systems (closed or open); they are not totalities ... Because there is no system, no totality, there cannot be 'subsystems,' 'dimensions,' or 'levels' of such a totality. Because there is no whole, social relations cannot be reduced 'ultimately,' 'in the last instance' to some systemic property of it." Sources of Social Power, Volume I (1986, p. 1), quoted in An Anatomy of Power: The Social Theory of Michael Mann (2006, p. 72)

For Mann, societies are integrated but only variably coherent depending on connectible but potentially autonomous developments in "relations of social power". It will be interesting to see where he goes with this; he seems to be throwing out Spengler's closed 'Great Cultures', Toynbee's coherent-once-established (albeit prone to disintegration) 'civilizations', and Wilkinson's all-inclusive global system!
Very interesting. I really do need to read up on some of his work. I did find this interview of him(at least I presume it's the same Michael Mann) on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWnXX6cTVWg
Belloc is online now  
Old November 21st, 2012, 11:57 AM   #129

charles brough's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2008
From: California
Posts: 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuthmosis III View Post
Michael Mann's attempt at a synthesis is thought-provoking:
"Societies are constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power. Societies are not unitary. They are not social systems (closed or open); they are not totalities ... Because there is no system, no totality, there cannot be 'subsystems,' 'dimensions,' or 'levels' of such a totality. Because there is no whole, social relations cannot be reduced 'ultimately,' 'in the last instance' to some systemic property of it." Sources of Social Power, Volume I (1986, p. 1), quoted in An Anatomy of Power: The Social Theory of Michael Mann (2006, p. 72)

For Mann, societies are integrated but only variably coherent depending on connectible but potentially autonomous developments in "relations of social power". It will be interesting to see where he goes with this; he seems to be throwing out Spengler's closed 'Great Cultures', Toynbee's coherent-once-established (albeit prone to disintegration) 'civilizations', and Wilkinson's all-inclusive global system!
It seems to me such efforts to extract a useful definition of civilization are doomed to fail. I think that if we were to, instead of classify the main religions as being merely a part of a civilization and its society's culture that, instead, the culture be regarded as the product of the religion.

Such a chainge in no way stretches the truth. Its just a different way of defining both terms but has the advantage of being fully justified iake a biological-evolutionary approach. For one, it explains why we have always had common ideological belief systems or religions. They serve to bring people together and bond them into larger groups than we evolved to live in. It is impossible for people to agree on and work for common goals without some sort of ideologically common way of thinking.

That in turn leads to defining civilization as the product of a society and a society as the bond of the more successful religions.
charles brough is offline  
Old December 9th, 2012, 03:34 PM   #130

Tuthmosis III's Avatar
His Royal Travesty
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: the middle ground
Posts: 2,813
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles brough View Post
It seems to me such efforts to extract a useful definition of civilization are doomed to fail. I think that if we were to, instead of classify the main religions as being merely a part of a civilization and its society's culture that, instead, the culture be regarded as the product of the religion.

Such a chainge in no way stretches the truth. Its just a different way of defining both terms but has the advantage of being fully justified iake a biological-evolutionary approach. For one, it explains why we have always had common ideological belief systems or religions. They serve to bring people together and bond them into larger groups than we evolved to live in. It is impossible for people to agree on and work for common goals without some sort of ideologically common way of thinking.

That in turn leads to defining civilization as the product of a society and a society as the bond of the more successful religions.
Mann (so far) is arguing that there is no one basis for defining a society at all. We only have less-than-predictable relationships among people - upon which are based the ideological, economic, and political bonds that we call society. These bonding processes often seem to work at crossed purposes, but in reality are too intertwined to truly say where the lines are.
Tuthmosis III is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
21st, century, spengler, toynbee


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
21st Century will not belong to China? unclefred Speculative History 98 November 19th, 2012 03:25 PM
Law Code of Ur-Nammu (21st century BC) Thessalonian Ancient History 0 September 5th, 2011 03:53 AM
What has been the most significant event of the 21st century so far? Traz06 General History 53 February 19th, 2011 10:30 AM
The long 21st century jduster General History 13 September 27th, 2010 04:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.