Tzvetan Todorov on Civilization and Dialogue

In The Daily Times (Pakistan):

What does it mean to be “civilised”? Obviously, being highly educated, wearing a tie, eating with a fork, or cutting one’s nails weekly is not enough. We all know that being “civilised” in this formal way doesn’t prevent people from behaving like barbarians. Everywhere and at all times, being civilised means being able to recognise and accept the humanity of others, despite their different modes of living.

That may seem like an obvious point, but it is not universally accepted. The idea of dialogue between civilisations usually gets good press, but it is also sometimes mocked. The conclusion of Elie Barnavi’s recent essay Les religions meurtrières (“Murderous religions”) is entitled “Against the dialogue of civilisations”. His argument is implacable: “There is civilisation on one hand and barbarism on the other. There is no possible dialogue between them.”

But if you look at this line of argument more closely, the flaw in Barnavi’s argument is immediately apparent. The meaning of the words civilisation and culture is very different when they are used in singular and plural forms. Cultures (plural) are the modes of living embraced by various human groups, and comprise all that their members have in common: language, religion, family structures, diet, dress, and so on. In this sense, “culture” is a descriptive category, without any value judgement.

Civilisation (singular) is, on the contrary, an evaluative moral category: the opposite of barbarism. So a dialogue between cultures is not only beneficial, but essential to civilisation. No civilisation is possible without it.