thabet
-
10:24:50 am on May 7, 2008 | # | |
“Western civ”: an American war baby
In both its remote and immediate origins, “Western civ” was a war baby. The first such course was instituted at Columbia immediately after World War I, as a continuation of the “war issues” course offered during hostilities. It defined the traditions of the West as those for which the Allies had fought against the Hun. The course had few imitators between the wars, but after World War II it became the most widely taught history course on American campuses. Courses of this type were strongly urged by the influential report of Havard’s General Education Committee in 1945, whose principal concerns, according to a sympathetic commentator, were “‘why we fight’, the principles of a free society, the need to provide a consistent image of the American experience, the definition of democracy in a world of totalitarianism, the efforts to fortify the heritage of Western civilization, and the need to provide a ‘common learning’ for all Americans as a foundation of national unity.
- Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession
-
Tag this post
Comments
Join the Discussion
razib 11:07 am on May 7, 2008 | #
also see from plato to nato. there has been a shift from emphasizing rome to athens also….
aziz 2:14 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
Odd that the concept of The West would arise due to WW1, when that was essentially (by modern “definitions” of the West) a purely intra-Western conflict.
razib 5:00 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
the west replaced christendom.
thabet 8:20 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
‘Eastern Europe’ has a strange relationship with The West — remember in this self-definition Marxism etc are not ‘Western’, but false ideologies to be defeated. That is why some proposed ‘Atlantic Civilization’ to replace ‘Western Civilization’ — Western Europe, it was argued, had stronger cultural and historical links to North America than it ever did to the rest of Europe and, of course, Russia (which has never really been ‘Western’). Even for Germany it took a time and effort following WWII to become ‘westintegrated’. Germans had opposed ‘civilization’, which they saw as an Anglo-French project, with their own unique kultur.
From a non-Western view point (Chinese, Islamic etc) this might all be just infighting.
razib 8:25 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
‘Eastern Europe’ has a strange relationship with The West. Even Germany took a very long time following WWII to become ‘westintegrated’.
hm. point taken. but i think the catholic-orthodox, and to some extent those lands ruled by the ottomans, is the big gap. many poles complain that they are part of central europe, not eastern europe. same with czechs and hungarians. the point is that these regions were part of the intellectual culture of catholic christendom for a ~1,000 years, and the communist interlude when they were lumped in with russia, romania, bulgaria, etc., were exceptional. to illustrate the importance of religion, transylvania has long had a strong calvinist hungarian presence. during the 16th century many young men were educated in england, and arrived only with knowledge of latin, which was sufficient at the time (remember that before the rise of anglo-catholicism and the tractarians the anglican church had a strong calvinist tinge, something still evident in its confessions).
thabet 8:31 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
Ah, but here is my contention: Ottomans should be considered part of ‘Europe’ (the narrative).
razib 8:38 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
Ottomans should be considered part of ‘Europe’ (the narrative).
sure. ‘europe’ as such has always been subject to debate. e.g., peter the great apparently lobbied cartographers to push it to the urals. prior to his westernization strategy poland-lithuania was the frontier european state. for much of its history the ottoman empire and poland shared a border, and much of what is ukraine was under ottoman overlordship. only in the late 19th century did the ottoman empire because mostly a muslim & non-european state in terms of numbers and area….
aziz 8:47 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
Maybe we need to define a new “middle kingdom”. Would cover everything east of Germany, west of Turkey, south of Finland, and north of the Mediterranean. Then the Chinese could really be confused.
razib 8:59 pm on May 7, 2008 | #
mitteleuropa
thabet 5:33 am on May 8, 2008 | #
only in the late 19th century did the ottoman empire because mostly a muslim & non-european state in terms of numbers and area….
More than that the Ottoman Empire was written out of Europe (like Muslim Spain became an anomaly or a reduced to a footnote) when there was a good deal of cultural traffic either way. Of course, Muslims, especially those coming out of colonialism, were also keen to do the same.
One thing forgotten (not by anyone here in particular, more generally) is that the definition of ‘the West’ was also important to other nations and peoples in terms of their anti-colonial struggles or those trying to play catch-up. Japan, I think, is a good example of the latter.
Personally, I think the idea of Western Civilization is too intimately tied with the post-WWII consensus and the Cold War — I get a little annoyed about reading some 11th-century battle between “Islam and Western Civilization”, when what they’re really talking about are Europeans and an Arab, Arabised or Islamic (use of one of these needs careful consideration) political power.
And yes: the idea of ‘Islamic Civilization’ needs debunking too.