Civilisation is, I would suggest, a concept that eludes definition. After all, a definition risks being pretentious or subjective or incomplete, or a combination of these failings. I am even more sceptical of attempting a definition of �world civilisation�, which for me has rather alarming connotations of pan-uniformity. The best I can do is, first, to suggest that we should eschew homogeneity and embrace difference; and, secondly, to suggest that focusing on common perceptions of human dignity may be more fruitful than the pursuit of one world civilisation.
Furthermore, the difficulty of obtaining a satisfactory definition should not be used, or should not be allowed, to obfuscate the picture. For what I can tell you is that I know what is uncivilised: I have seen it. We all know. In my work with the United Nations, most of which I have spent in what we in peaceful and prosperous countries refer to euphemistically as �the field�, I have seen not only the best but also the worst of what we have to offer each other.
As a UN worker I have had to pause and wonder how different societies can develop such ruthless disregard for human life. Common perceptions of �civilisation� have largely positive connotations. They suggest both a moral milieu as well as the attainment of some sort of cultural summit: they evoke images of arts and culture, of enlightenment, of sophistication. They suggest evolution in a non-biological sense or progress in social development.
But I would suggest that the term civilisation risks, but by no means implicitly carries, worryingly negative notions. These are notions of cultural superiority, of elitism, of imperialism and � largely speaking � of western idealism. If one considers oneself civilised after all, then those who are different are not civilised: they are uncivilised.
Indeed, it was only a few years ago that it was suggested that western concepts were so dominant, so incontrovertibly accepted, that what we were witnessing was an �end of history� in the sense that there was no longer the fuel for a clash of civilisations. Who would really dare propound such hubristic notions now?
We must also acknowledge that the word �civilisation� has been used throughout the course of history to justify brutality, expansionist thinking and behaviour, colonialism, even slavery and genocide � as in my continent, the Americas. In carrying out these acts, these civilisations argued that they were, in fact, on �civilising� missions. Our discussion of world civilisation must bear these facts in mind.
Sergio Vieira de Mello 11 November 2002
reprint and links openDemocracy 21 - 8 - 2003
