Bonificación sistema de Bienestar del Personal

A few basic cautions attach to the use of civilization, aside from the importance of making sure a civilizational framework does not take over the whole world history presentation. Civilizations themselves must not be seen as entirely differentiated, for the very process of reacting to shared exchanges and even creating integrating institu- tions and values generated a surprising range of common features, which comparison must identify along with differences. And civili- zations are not constants: not only do they change, but they sometimes disappear outright. The roster of civilizations that can be identified today is not the same as that of earlier periods. Mergers and new entrants spice the civilization panorama as well, ever since civilization as a phenomenon first emerged about 5500 years ago. Deciding to use civilization is only the first step: one must then proceed to the challenging task of deciding what civilizations, at any given time, best explain how key regions were structured.

There are two other preliminary issues – as always, both con- ceptual and practical– that can be identified before a more precise process of definition begins. All civilizations balance core features with several types of internal differences and disputes, and it’s not always easy to strike a balance between the more obvious general aspects and some of the less uniform realities. It’s sometimes tempting to present civilizations as uniform, tidy entities– but they never are. And second, all civilizations involve some particular ten- sions in dealing with change over time, and these must also be built into the overall approach to the whole civilizational phenomenon.

Demonstrating that a civilization shares certain internal char- acteristics is crucial to using civilizations as active components of world history presentations and as guides to regional definitions. But any civilization, and particularly a large one, will also incorpo- rate a number of variants, based among other things on geography and politics. For post-classical Western Europe, for example, it’s valid to point to an overall civilization based on shared Catholicism

and political and economic forms like feudalism and manorialism. But France, gradually forming a feudal monarchy, and Germany, more divided internally within the loose Holy Roman Empire, were hardly the same, either politically or culturally, and they developed different specific languages. They also recurrently fought each other directly (though this also means they shared considerable warlike propensities – civilizations do not necessarily depend on internal harmony). Regional complexities apply even where there are no formal internal political boundaries. China can often seem to be a highly centralized civilization, and it often aspired to be: but south China embraces diverse languages and population groups compared to the north, quite apart from outright frontier regions in the west or southeast. Civilizations must be understood as providing some overarching characteristics which do not, however, define each internal region uniformly.

Civilizations also include different social groups, and these may participate more or less fully in some of the defining overall char- acteristics. Confucianism, for instance, marked Chinese culture and politics from the classical period onward. But particularly in the early phases Confucianism was much more fully integrated by the upper classes, especially the famous scholar gentry who staffed the bureaucracy, than by common folk. Ordinary people picked up elements of Confucianism– and arguably, for a civilization to hold together, there must ultimately be some cultural sharing among different social segments. Never, however, did full uniformity emerge. Defining a civilization assumes that several core features and shared experiences did unite a region – sometimes, as with China or India, a large region– at least to some degree. These qualities are arguably more important, particularly at the world history level, than the regional and social divides and the internal differences and variants. Using defined civilizations is nevertheless a bit of a com- promise, even in the most clear cut cases like China, as against a number of more fine-grained options. Exactly how the compromise is shaped depends in part, on the time available for detail, though the generalizations should never be allowed to oversimplify unduly. The danger of overdoing continuity within civilizations captures thefinal general problem within the civilizational approach, though it is probably easier to deal with than with the challenge of striking the balance between the general and the divisive. Here’s the issue:

MANAGING SPACE

106

defining a civilization makes it essential to show that some features last over time – unless the civilization, as an entity, disappears almost entirely, which does happen (witness ancient Egypt, or Byzantine civilization). If there’s not some continuity, and the civilization changes stripes entirely with each passing period, it’s hard to argue that the civilization really exists at all. But civilizations are not and can not be stagnant. They all must balance important changes against some durable characteristics. So the analytical use of civilization, over time, must capture this tension as well.

The precise nature of this problem varies with the case. China established successful traditions fairly early on, and we have seen that some scholars argue that it was particularly immune from challenge by frequent invasion (though breakdowns did occur). It can be tempting to see Chinese qualities as virtual constants, at least until the past century or two. But China did change while retaining key features from the past, in part because of shifts in patterns of contact, and it’s essential to capture the interaction between change and continuity. In other instances – Western civilization may be a case in point – openness to change may be seen as a dominant feature, which makes it more difficult to determine what qualities, if any, really define the civilization over time. Here, then, it is vital to counter too much fascination with how much the West could shake off past systems by noting at least a few features that, from one period to the next, still made the West a common civilization in more than geographic terms. No civilization escapes the need to capture a mixture of continuity and change.

THE ROSTER OF CIVILIZATIONS: FORMATIVE