CIVILIZATION: CURSE OR BLESSING?
In all civilizations there have been poets and thinkers who have looked to the past with longing. They have regarded prehistoric man as the "noble savage," untainted by the corrupting influence of civilization. Long ago, "in the beginning," during that wonderful first chapter of human existence, there was paradise on earth. In the Hindu epics there are passages extolling an idyllic past in which
castes were absent and man could enjoy life in freedom and security. Likewise Hesiod, an eighth-century-B.c. Greek poet, described a Golden Age of long ago and then traced man's declining fortunes through the Silver and Iron ages to the deplorable present in which the authorTived. This concept of original bliss had some basis in historical fact. So far as economic and social relationships were concerned, the tribal peoples before the advent of civilization had enjoyed free and equal access to the natural resources necessary for livelihood. Economic equality and social homogeneity had been
the hallmark of their Neolithic villages. But when the tribal peoples became
peasants they no longer had free access to land and they no longer enjoyed the
full product of their labor. Their specific obligations varied from region toregion, but the net result was everywhere the same. After making the payments
required by the state, the priest, the landlord, and the moneylender, they were
left almost invariably with only enough for sheer existence. In contrast to the egalitarianism of the Paleolithic hunting bands and the Neolithic villages, all the ancient civilizations divided people into haves and have-nots. What this meant in human terms was expressed as early as the third millen- nium B.C. by an Egyptian father sending his son to school. He tried to convince
his son to study hard and urged him to compare the wretchedness of both
peasants and workers with the blessings of learned scribes and officials.
Put writing in your heart that you may protect yourself from hard labor of any kind and
be a magistrate of high repute. The scribe is released from manual tasks; it is he who commands. . . . Do you not hold the scribe's palette? That is what makes the difference be- tween you and the man who handles an oar.
I have seen the metal-worker at his task at the mouth of his furnace, with fingers like a
crocodile's. He stank worse than fish-spawn. . . . The stonemason finds his work in every kind of hard stone. When he has finished his labors his arms are worn out, and he sleeps all doubled up until sunrise. His knees and spine are broken. . . . The barber shaves from morning till night; he never sits down except to meals. He hurries from house to house
looking for business. He wears out his arms to fill his stomach, like bees eating their own
honey. . . . The farmer wears the same clothes for all times. His voice is as raucous as a
crow's. His fingers are always busy, his arms are dried up by the wind. He takes his
rest —when he does get any rest —in the mud. If he's in good health he shares good health with the beasts; if he is ill his bed is the bare earth in the middle of his beasts. . . . Apply your heart to learning. In truth there is nothing that can compare with it. If you
have profited by a single day at school it is a gain for eternity.' The coming of civilization brought drastic change in political relationships as
well as economic. The Neolithic villagers had been subject to only a few controls, whether internal or external. But tribal chiefs and elders now were replaced
by a king or emperor, and by an ever-present bureaucracy, including palace functionaries, provincial and district officials, judges, clerks, and accountants. Working closely with this imperial administration was the ecclesiastical hierachy
that was also an essential feature of civilization. In place of the former shaman who had been a "leisure-time specialist," there was the priest, a "full-time
specialist."^ Now it was possible to develop an official theology and a priestly hierarchy. Both the theology and the hierarchy served to buttress the existing
social order. They gave political institutions and leaders divine sanction and at- tributes. For example, the Egyptian pharaoh was not only the ruler of his country but also the "living god." This coupling of divine and secular authority pro- vided most powerful support for the status quo. It was a rare individual who
dared risk both swift punishment in this life and everlasting punishment in the
afterlife. The transformation of culture wrought by civilization was fundamental and
enduring. The culture of a Neolithic village had been autonomous and
homogeneous. All members had shared common knowledge, customs, and at- titudes and had not depended on outside sources for the maintenance of their way of life. But with civilization, a new and more complex society emerged. In addition to the traditional culture of the village agricultural people, there was now the new culture of the scribes, who knew the mysterious art of writing, of
the priests, who knew the secrets of the heavens, of the artists, who knew how to paint and car\'e, and of the merchants, who exchanged goods with lands beyond
deserts and seas. So there was no longer a single culture. Instead there developed what has been called high culture and louo culture. The high culture was to be found in the schools, temples, and palaces of the cities; the low culture was in the
villages. The high culture was passed on in writing by philosophers, theologians, and literary- men; the low culture was passed on by word of mouth among il- literate peasants. The high and low cultures of the various civilizations differed in details but were all similar in essentials. They were all based on "sacred books," such as the Indian \'edas, the Buddhist Canon, the Chinese Classics, and the Christian Old
and Xew Testaments. Since these texts were the basis of knowledge, they dominated education. Anyone who wished to get ahead had to memorize large portions of them. The sacred books also were used to enforce loyalty and obedience. Repudiation of official teachings or challenge to the social order were branded as crimes puni****le in this world and in the next. The "hells" which
were so prominent in all high cultures were eternal concentration camps for those who dared resist their secular or religious leaders. The low cultures of all civilizations also were essentially the same. Peasants everywhere had a considerable body of factual information concerning the care
of animals and plants. They all regarded hard work as a virtue and looked dov\Ti upon town people as weaklings who tired easily. All peasants also had a com- mon passion to own a plot of land, a few animals, and the simple tools of field and shop. These meant independence and security, and to attain them all peasantries stubbornly resisted, and still resist, intervention, whether by a landlord or by today's government-run collective. The "rugged individualism" of the peasant was balanced, however, by the communal life and relationships of the village. The good neighbor was always ready to offer aid and sympathy when needed, as well as to participate in house raisings, warmings, harvest festivals, and other community affairs. Relations between the high and low cultures usually were strained. On the one
hand, the peasants felt superior, regarding country life and agricultural work as morally "good," in contrast to urban life and professions. On the other hand,
the peasants were economically and politically subject to the city. The landlords,
the tax collectors, the' church officials, and the soldiers all came from the city. Their arrogance and arbitrariness made it crystal clear who were the rulers and who the ruled. VVTiereas the elite viewed their rich life as the product of their own
superior mental and moral qualities, their good life was actually made possible
by the exploitation of the peasantry. Inevitably, in the course of millennia, the peasants internalized the attitudes of the elite towards them and became servile and obsequious.
It is clear that the coming of civilization was a setback for equality between human beings. Yet civilization also brought great gains and achievements. Viewed in the light of historical perspective, it was a major step forward despite
all the injustice and exploitation. In this respect it resembled the industrial revolution, which at first caused painful social disruption and human suffering, but which in the long run decisively advanced human productivity and well- being. So it was with the coming of civilization. The average Neolithic tribe member probably led a more rounded and satisfying life than the average peasant or urban worker. But precisely because tribal culture was comfortable and
tension-free, it was also relatively unproductive. The demands of the tax collector, the priest, and the landowner were harsh, but they were also effective in stimulating output. Positive proof of this enhanced productivity can be seen in the enormous population increase in the agrarian river valleys. Living standards
also rose along with population figures. Certainly the monarchs and the top officials, both secular and ecclesiastical, enjoyed a variety of food and drink, along with richness in clothing and housing, that no tribal chieftain could ever have
imagined. The new middle classes —merchants, scribes, lower officials, and
clergy —also were able to lead lives that probably were as pleasant and refined as those enjoyed by their counterparts today. Even the masses may in some cases have been better off in the material sense, if not the psychosocial.
Civilization, with the new art of writing, made it possible to accumulate more
and more knowledge and transmit it to successive generations. Various sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, were able to take root and to
I flourish. Also the appearance of wealthy upper classes gave opportunities for the
creativity of architects, sculptors, painters, musicians, and poets. The results of
j this creativity we can see today in masterpieces such as the Parthenon, the Taj
I Mahal, and the Notre Dame Cathedral. These precious gains benefited the few much more than the many, who, in the
final analysis, bore the costs of the high culture. But the important point insofar
as the whole history of humanity is concerned is that the advances were made. And it was these advances, accumulating through the millenia, that finally allowed us to gain such mastery over nature and to attain such productivity
through science and technology, which today benefit the many along with the few.
It is true that many millions of people are still illiterate, diseased, and hungry.
But that condition is very different from the mid-fourteenth century when a third
to a half of Europe's total population was wiped out by the Black Death. It is dif- ferent also from 1846, when a million Irish died of hunger because of the potato
blight, and from 1876, when five million Indians starved to death when their crops failed. These victims of plague and famine could not possibly have been
saved because the people of those times lacked the necessary knowledge.
Today we have that knowledge, and therefore we have the potential to free ourselves from millenia-old scourges. It is tragic that the potential has not yet been realized, but the fact remains that it does exist. And it exists because of the advances made possible in the past by the different civilizations of the human
race. Therefore —to answer the question, has civilization been a curse or a bless- ing? —in the past it has been both. What it will be in the future depends on
whether the knowledge accumulated from past civilizations is used for destructive or constructive purposes.
In all civilizations there have been poets and thinkers who have looked to the past with longing. They have regarded prehistoric man as the "noble savage," untainted by the corrupting influence of civilization. Long ago, "in the beginning," during that wonderful first chapter of human existence, there was paradise on earth. In the Hindu epics there are passages extolling an idyllic past in which
castes were absent and man could enjoy life in freedom and security. Likewise Hesiod, an eighth-century-B.c. Greek poet, described a Golden Age of long ago and then traced man's declining fortunes through the Silver and Iron ages to the deplorable present in which the authorTived. This concept of original bliss had some basis in historical fact. So far as economic and social relationships were concerned, the tribal peoples before the advent of civilization had enjoyed free and equal access to the natural resources necessary for livelihood. Economic equality and social homogeneity had been
the hallmark of their Neolithic villages. But when the tribal peoples became
peasants they no longer had free access to land and they no longer enjoyed the
full product of their labor. Their specific obligations varied from region toregion, but the net result was everywhere the same. After making the payments
required by the state, the priest, the landlord, and the moneylender, they were
left almost invariably with only enough for sheer existence. In contrast to the egalitarianism of the Paleolithic hunting bands and the Neolithic villages, all the ancient civilizations divided people into haves and have-nots. What this meant in human terms was expressed as early as the third millen- nium B.C. by an Egyptian father sending his son to school. He tried to convince
his son to study hard and urged him to compare the wretchedness of both
peasants and workers with the blessings of learned scribes and officials.
Put writing in your heart that you may protect yourself from hard labor of any kind and
be a magistrate of high repute. The scribe is released from manual tasks; it is he who commands. . . . Do you not hold the scribe's palette? That is what makes the difference be- tween you and the man who handles an oar.
I have seen the metal-worker at his task at the mouth of his furnace, with fingers like a
crocodile's. He stank worse than fish-spawn. . . . The stonemason finds his work in every kind of hard stone. When he has finished his labors his arms are worn out, and he sleeps all doubled up until sunrise. His knees and spine are broken. . . . The barber shaves from morning till night; he never sits down except to meals. He hurries from house to house
looking for business. He wears out his arms to fill his stomach, like bees eating their own
honey. . . . The farmer wears the same clothes for all times. His voice is as raucous as a
crow's. His fingers are always busy, his arms are dried up by the wind. He takes his
rest —when he does get any rest —in the mud. If he's in good health he shares good health with the beasts; if he is ill his bed is the bare earth in the middle of his beasts. . . . Apply your heart to learning. In truth there is nothing that can compare with it. If you
have profited by a single day at school it is a gain for eternity.' The coming of civilization brought drastic change in political relationships as
well as economic. The Neolithic villagers had been subject to only a few controls, whether internal or external. But tribal chiefs and elders now were replaced
by a king or emperor, and by an ever-present bureaucracy, including palace functionaries, provincial and district officials, judges, clerks, and accountants. Working closely with this imperial administration was the ecclesiastical hierachy
that was also an essential feature of civilization. In place of the former shaman who had been a "leisure-time specialist," there was the priest, a "full-time
specialist."^ Now it was possible to develop an official theology and a priestly hierarchy. Both the theology and the hierarchy served to buttress the existing
social order. They gave political institutions and leaders divine sanction and at- tributes. For example, the Egyptian pharaoh was not only the ruler of his country but also the "living god." This coupling of divine and secular authority pro- vided most powerful support for the status quo. It was a rare individual who
dared risk both swift punishment in this life and everlasting punishment in the
afterlife. The transformation of culture wrought by civilization was fundamental and
enduring. The culture of a Neolithic village had been autonomous and
homogeneous. All members had shared common knowledge, customs, and at- titudes and had not depended on outside sources for the maintenance of their way of life. But with civilization, a new and more complex society emerged. In addition to the traditional culture of the village agricultural people, there was now the new culture of the scribes, who knew the mysterious art of writing, of
the priests, who knew the secrets of the heavens, of the artists, who knew how to paint and car\'e, and of the merchants, who exchanged goods with lands beyond
deserts and seas. So there was no longer a single culture. Instead there developed what has been called high culture and louo culture. The high culture was to be found in the schools, temples, and palaces of the cities; the low culture was in the
villages. The high culture was passed on in writing by philosophers, theologians, and literary- men; the low culture was passed on by word of mouth among il- literate peasants. The high and low cultures of the various civilizations differed in details but were all similar in essentials. They were all based on "sacred books," such as the Indian \'edas, the Buddhist Canon, the Chinese Classics, and the Christian Old
and Xew Testaments. Since these texts were the basis of knowledge, they dominated education. Anyone who wished to get ahead had to memorize large portions of them. The sacred books also were used to enforce loyalty and obedience. Repudiation of official teachings or challenge to the social order were branded as crimes puni****le in this world and in the next. The "hells" which
were so prominent in all high cultures were eternal concentration camps for those who dared resist their secular or religious leaders. The low cultures of all civilizations also were essentially the same. Peasants everywhere had a considerable body of factual information concerning the care
of animals and plants. They all regarded hard work as a virtue and looked dov\Ti upon town people as weaklings who tired easily. All peasants also had a com- mon passion to own a plot of land, a few animals, and the simple tools of field and shop. These meant independence and security, and to attain them all peasantries stubbornly resisted, and still resist, intervention, whether by a landlord or by today's government-run collective. The "rugged individualism" of the peasant was balanced, however, by the communal life and relationships of the village. The good neighbor was always ready to offer aid and sympathy when needed, as well as to participate in house raisings, warmings, harvest festivals, and other community affairs. Relations between the high and low cultures usually were strained. On the one
hand, the peasants felt superior, regarding country life and agricultural work as morally "good," in contrast to urban life and professions. On the other hand,
the peasants were economically and politically subject to the city. The landlords,
the tax collectors, the' church officials, and the soldiers all came from the city. Their arrogance and arbitrariness made it crystal clear who were the rulers and who the ruled. VVTiereas the elite viewed their rich life as the product of their own
superior mental and moral qualities, their good life was actually made possible
by the exploitation of the peasantry. Inevitably, in the course of millennia, the peasants internalized the attitudes of the elite towards them and became servile and obsequious.
It is clear that the coming of civilization was a setback for equality between human beings. Yet civilization also brought great gains and achievements. Viewed in the light of historical perspective, it was a major step forward despite
all the injustice and exploitation. In this respect it resembled the industrial revolution, which at first caused painful social disruption and human suffering, but which in the long run decisively advanced human productivity and well- being. So it was with the coming of civilization. The average Neolithic tribe member probably led a more rounded and satisfying life than the average peasant or urban worker. But precisely because tribal culture was comfortable and
tension-free, it was also relatively unproductive. The demands of the tax collector, the priest, and the landowner were harsh, but they were also effective in stimulating output. Positive proof of this enhanced productivity can be seen in the enormous population increase in the agrarian river valleys. Living standards
also rose along with population figures. Certainly the monarchs and the top officials, both secular and ecclesiastical, enjoyed a variety of food and drink, along with richness in clothing and housing, that no tribal chieftain could ever have
imagined. The new middle classes —merchants, scribes, lower officials, and
clergy —also were able to lead lives that probably were as pleasant and refined as those enjoyed by their counterparts today. Even the masses may in some cases have been better off in the material sense, if not the psychosocial.
Civilization, with the new art of writing, made it possible to accumulate more
and more knowledge and transmit it to successive generations. Various sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, were able to take root and to
I flourish. Also the appearance of wealthy upper classes gave opportunities for the
creativity of architects, sculptors, painters, musicians, and poets. The results of
j this creativity we can see today in masterpieces such as the Parthenon, the Taj
I Mahal, and the Notre Dame Cathedral. These precious gains benefited the few much more than the many, who, in the
final analysis, bore the costs of the high culture. But the important point insofar
as the whole history of humanity is concerned is that the advances were made. And it was these advances, accumulating through the millenia, that finally allowed us to gain such mastery over nature and to attain such productivity
through science and technology, which today benefit the many along with the few.
It is true that many millions of people are still illiterate, diseased, and hungry.
But that condition is very different from the mid-fourteenth century when a third
to a half of Europe's total population was wiped out by the Black Death. It is dif- ferent also from 1846, when a million Irish died of hunger because of the potato
blight, and from 1876, when five million Indians starved to death when their crops failed. These victims of plague and famine could not possibly have been
saved because the people of those times lacked the necessary knowledge.
Today we have that knowledge, and therefore we have the potential to free ourselves from millenia-old scourges. It is tragic that the potential has not yet been realized, but the fact remains that it does exist. And it exists because of the advances made possible in the past by the different civilizations of the human
race. Therefore —to answer the question, has civilization been a curse or a bless- ing? —in the past it has been both. What it will be in the future depends on
whether the knowledge accumulated from past civilizations is used for destructive or constructive purposes.
