Civilizations and value 5 ( civilization and hegemony )

3 　Civilization as it is

 

First, let's classify them by ideological type . By doing so , we will be able to pay attention to the various forms of life that exist in various civilizations. I have been thinking that I will be able to reflect on the state of existence . However, these civilizations are beings whose lives have been observed through formal classification . In a different sense from this , they are themselves subjects that act as life phenomena . Therefore, research that captures the true state of civilization is also necessary .

 

The classification of civilizations may be rather static . However, unlike the classification of plants and insects, civilization has  thick layers of time. Just as geological formations have a history and stories, civilizations also have a history and stories. In other words, in the case of civilization, even though it is called classification, it cannot be simply a formal or completely static science. Research that captures such biological phenomena will have aspects of dynamic research .

 

The four civilizations are formally classified as ``local civilization'' and ``cosmopolitan civilization .' ' Local civilizations are controlled and concentrated (or bandwagoning *when viewed externally) , and Chinese and Indian civilizations fall under this category . In ``Study of Civilization,'' I wrote that China had integrated through politics, and India had integrated through religion and culture .

 

In contrast, cosmopolitan civilization is decentralized and expansive, and European civilization and Islamic civilization have been considered to fall under this category . I assumed that chemical changes occurred due to contact between these cosmopolitan civilizations . In other words , Western civilization became the strongest due to the history and results of conflicts (war) and exchanges (peace) between European civilization and Islamic civilization . Capital accumulation and military commercialization occurred in European civilization . I believed that the strongest civilization, Western civilization, was born by combining these two elements . At the same time, these are the cancerous cells that are currently eroding peace and are a major issue on Earth.

 

*Bandwagoning-like 

Nations follow emerging powers, adapt to them, take a secondary or subordinate position to emerging powers, and expect their fundamental interests to be protected.

 

For a while after that , Western civilization was dominated by hegemonic struggles within itself *1. This has now turned into a struggle for supremacy , not just within civilizations, but between civilizations (the West and China) . In addition to the traditional struggle for economic hegemony, the United States and China are now beginning to recognize that there is a struggle for supremacy .

 

But will this situation continue? Will Chinese civilization be followed by Indian civilization, followed by Islamic civilization, and so on ? *2 Is the struggle for supremacy an inevitable form of life phenomena between civilizations ? If capital accumulation and military commercialization are the characteristics of Western civilization, which is rooted in a sense of scarcity, then a world dominated by Chinese, Indian, and Islamic civilizations may become a different world. Or perhaps these civilizations have learned capital accumulation and military commercialization from Western civilization. If that is the case, the struggle for supremacy will not be revised in the future . Nor will there be an end to proxy wars or civil wars in developing countries . Weapons will continue to be manufactured and sold . Is civilization as it is a world where the fittest survives, just like the animal kingdom? MacNeil used the concepts of micro-parasitism and macro-parasitism as tools to explain the transformation of civilization, but is that the whole world?

 

*1　 It was all about hegemony struggles within civilization.

Hegemonic control refers to the control of products, distribution, and finance, and the focus has shifted to Venice, Umbel, Genoa, Amsterdam, London, and New York. At one point, there was a momentum that Tokyo seemed to be taking over the hegemony, but unlike China, Japan did not step into the path of hegemony and put the brakes on it.

 

*2　 Will this situation continue , with Chinese civilization followed by Indian civilization, followed by Islamic civilization ?

Japan did not set out on the path to hegemony. Democracy had already pervaded Japan, and there was no intention at all of militarily to confront the United States. However, China seems to be different. Party rule is used to govern the country, but since it is not a democracy, it is impossible to let off steam and has no choice but to make external enemies. Compared to that, India is a democracy, so it may be less likely to move toward hegemony like China. Democracy has not yet fully penetrated Islamic civilization. It may be the Chinese civilization and the Islamic civilization that are most likely to be in conflict over a change in hegemony . However, Islamic civilization is still fragmented and may never emerge as a unified civilization like Chinese civilization. This is because Islamic civilization was a cosmopolitan civilization, just as it had always been.

 

All  rights  reserved to M Ariake