Ideology, Economy, and Civilization

True civilizational bonds require shared culture.

By guest contributor The Politicrat.

“We no longer have to view the world through a prism of East-West relations;
the Cold War is over.”

– Margaret Thatcher, 1990

The concept of civilization has long been a contentious one, particularly in its relationship to ideology and geopolitics. Originally, “civilization” referred exclusively to modern European society, as opposed to the “barbarism” of uncultivated lands and peoples. This binary view influenced many 18th- and 19th-century thinkers, namely those already influenced by Enlightenment and/or progressive, determinist thought (including Karl Marx). However, emergent cultural relativism in the early 20th century expanded the definition. Rather than being synonymous with “European,” the term became more of a societal classification defined by high culture — echoing earlier conceptions of civilizational development found in the writings of John Stuart Mill and Max Weber. Scholars like Arnold J. Toynbee and Oswald Spengler offered fresh frameworks which acknowledged the complexity and diversity of cultural achievements worldwide, offering a more nuanced understanding of civilization that challenged older, simplistic dichotomies.

By the second half of the 20th century, this robust understanding of “civilization” slipped into heterodoxy. Following World War II, the term took on a connotation that was less organic, more constructivist, and, ironically, more Eurocentric once again. Furthermore, since the start of the Cold War, the common practice of dividing the world up between distinct “civilizations” has generally fallen out of favor, namely due to the world becoming more geopolitically aligned on the grounds of ideological and economic systems rather than on culture.

While contemporary thought is largely responsible for shaping this consensus on the nature of societal divisions, it was the political climate of the postwar era which broadly determined the solidification of that outlook. To classify “civilizations” as ideological/economic blocs is a historical perspective that usefully illustrates how our world was viewed in the context of the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the “civilized world” was divided between “West” and “East,” with all non-aligned nations of the “Third World” caught in between. The “West” comprised liberal democracies opposing communism, while communism characterized the “East.” However, use of “East” and “West” in this context primarily denoted geopolitical spheres of influence rather than cultural regions. Although China affirmed its distinct identity after the Sino-Soviet split, it was initially grouped with the Soviet Union despite cultural differences from Russia. Likewise, Russia shared more cultural similarities with Western nations than with her communist allies in East Asia. Thus, Cold War divisions of “civilization” were an artificial geopolitical construct dependent on a state’s political allegiance rather than on essential cultural classifications.

The concept of an “Eastern” communist civilization was built on shaky foundations from the outset. While early Soviets viewed themselves as distinct from capitalist Europe, the basis for their alleged civilization’s identity was flawed. Theoretically, it centered around “international proletarian unity” — the shared struggle of workers worldwide. But ideology alone cannot define civilization. True civilizational bonds require shared culture. In actuality, humans are, for better or worse, divided less by class and more by nationality.

The experiential plight of the British worker is far removed from that of the Chinese laborer. The conditions of the average U.K. factory, all the way down to the basic culture of the workplace, are not at all similar to those of a Chinese sweatshop or foundry, even if both manufacturing centers happen to produce the same basic industrial goods. Furthermore, the experience of a Russian farmworker differs significantly from the insights of a Kenyan who plows the fields of an estate in Nyanza. Finally — and this should go without saying — a hired hand on a Colombian coffee plantation would have very little, perhaps even nothing, in common with an industrial worker in Wuhan.

Work is culturally embedded. Where nationality shapes one’s perspective and circumstances profoundly, group identity demands firmer foundations than nominal class alignment. Physical location and societal norms surrounding labor couldn’t be more different for these individuals. They hail from opposite ends of the globe, and they experience quite dissimilar work environments. The sole aspect uniting them is common wage status — a designation too broad to anchor a culture’s identity. A civilization necessitates depth of shared experience beyond such superficial designations. Thus, a factor so vague as “international class struggle” isn’t a stable enough premise upon which to base an entire civilization’s identity. Civic systems are not quiddities of high culture, but causal fruits that derive from the natural cultivation of high culture itself.

The blocs of both West and East didn’t last long after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The Western Bloc’s centralized axis became unnecessary with the shift in the geopolitical climate. However, the postwar concept of “civilization” as an ideological grouping of nations persists today, albeit less prominently.

“The West” has come to be synonymous with the “Free World” — nations defined by democratic institutions, a commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and economic liberalism. Nonetheless, it’s misleading to label the entire “Free World” as “Western Civilization.” Although the “Free World” is Western-led, there are countries which are economically, diplomatically, and institutionally aligned with the West, but which aren’t culturally Western. These nations, while integrated into the West’s political and economic bloc due to historical European influence, maintain distinct cultural identities. This highlights the evolving nature of the concept of civilization, reflecting the complex interplay between culture, ideology, economics, and geopolitics.

In today’s interconnected world, military alliances, trade, and international bodies span civilizations globally. However, periods of large-scale connectivity between cultures occurred previously in antiquity. During the Bronze Age, the Mediterranean experienced significant globalization through powerful empires like Egypt and the Hittites. As these civilizations interacted, geopolitical blocs resembling modern forms emerged.

Notably in the Late Bronze Age, a 200-year struggle for dominance saw Egyptians and Hittites amass allies within and beyond their spheres to assert power. This demonstrated early geopolitical coalition-building, prefiguring modern international dynamics. While regional in scope, this “globalized” period still facilitated cross-cultural political alignments beyond strict boundaries. Relations have long incorporated diversity, as evidenced by diplomatic interactions between Mediterranean powers millennia ago. Contemporary global forces continue long-established patterns, with military pacts, trade, and international institutions connecting nations across borders and backgrounds today as in antiquity.

During this period, the New Kingdom of Egypt was at its peak, controlling territories from the Sinai Peninsula to Canaan. The Canaanites, culturally linked to Mesopotamia, belonged to Egypt’s empire. Similarly, the Hittites’ allies were primarily from the Northern Levant and Assuwa Empire. Although initially linked to Hittite culture, Assuwa had largely been assimilated into Greco-Aegean civilization by 1200 B.C., following the destruction of Troy VI.

Though there is no definitive proof of a formal military alliance between the Aegean kingdoms and Egypt, it is plausible. The Minoans and Egyptians were close trading partners, and Minoan culture was significantly influenced by Ancient Egypt. Additionally, there is evidence of Egyptian contact with Mainland Greeks, suggesting that the Mycenaeans may have established outposts or trading centers in northern Egypt.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Aegean-Greeks were also enemies of the Hittites, and frequently clashed with their client states around the same time as the Hittite-Egyptian Wars. In the 14th century B.C., during their wars against both the Assuwans and Hittites, the Mycenaeans were allied with the Greco-Aegean kingdom of Arzawa in southern Anatolia.

The complex foreign alliances of the past bear resemblance to those of our time. Since World War I, treaties and pacts have bolstered these connections. In ancient times, dynastic marriages strengthened alliances, particularly in the Near East. In the modern era, the U.S. has played a key role in organizing international agreements, establishing itself as the uncontested hegemon of the “Free World.” Consequently, several American allies have essentially become de facto vassal states. This mirrors Egypt’s strategy in the Bronze Age, asserting geopolitical dominance through dynastic marriages.

The Bronze Age Mediterranean world was a complex, interconnected network, resembling a sort of ancient globalization. Various kingdoms, empires, and states from diverse cultures belonged to this vast system. Just like in our modern times, their international trade was linked. There was a “worldwide” division of labor. Alliances spanned continents. People freely moved from one place to another. Communities exchanged culture. Eventually, individuals began identifying themselves, to some extent, as belonging to an “international community.”

But were they truly a single “civilization”?

Though considering themselves part of a broader “world community,” the reality is that, despite their interconnected networks and institutions, there was no unified culture. Cultural divisions were more significant than any other — more than class, genetics, or ideology. This held true for the Bronze Age World and remains relevant today.

The Egyptians and the Hittites were fundamentally different. Despite their ties, they didn’t share the same culture. Each had different worldviews, as did the Greeks and Mesopotamians. Their traditions, customs, religions, and values were distinct. Even though they were connected geopolitically and economically, they weren’t part of the same “civilization” in any sense. Arguing that the entire Bronze Age World constituted a single, all-encompassing civilization is as far-fetched as saying that the Western World, the Islamic World, and China all belong to the same culture, let alone the same ideological sphere.

Therefore, using terms like “civilization” and “the West” to describe geopolitical or ideological communities isn’t particularly helpful. These alignments are fluid and artificial, subject to change over centuries. While not static, human cultures cannot seamlessly merge into a single entity. The concept of a “global civilization” — a world community bound by universal values — stems from a Eurocentric view of society… a utopian vision driven by Western aspirations.

Every world culture is unique in its own right. This uniqueness makes it challenging for societies to grasp fully the intrinsic worldviews of other civilizations, leading to misunderstandings. It’s regrettable, but nature is full of such realities. Ideological blocs disintegrate, returning geopolitical alignments to their natural form — cultural spheres of influence.