Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T01:20:05.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barbarity as the Reverse Side of Civilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Nelli Motroshilova
Nelli Motroshilova*
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes philosophical discussions on the problem of barbarity as the reverse side of civilization in general, and of the modern civilization in particular (as exemplified by the works of K. Offe, L. Klausen, K.-Z. Reberg, M. Miller, H.-G. Soeffner, S.N. Eisenstadt and Z. Bauman. Joining in these discussions, the author makes a critical appraisal of these works and presents (in brief) her own conception of civilization which she has been elaborating for the last 25 years. Particular attention is drawn to the studies of barbarity implanted in the development of the modern civilization and revealed in the various forms of present-day barbarism (ecological, political, militaristic violence, utter dereliction in daily life, etc.), especially evident in ‘outbursts’ of violence, suppressing and violating legal rules and moral principles (fascism, totalitarianism, international aggression).

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 56 , Issue 2-3 , August 2009 , pp. 72 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauman, Z. (1996) ‘Gewalt - modern und postmodern’, in Miller, and Soeffner, (1996), pp. 36–67.Google Scholar
Bonss, W. (1996) ‘Gewalt als gesellschaftliches Problem’, in Miller, and Soeffner, (1996), pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Clausen, L. (1996) Barbarei und Eisenstadt, in Miller, and Soeffner, (1996), pp. 130–136.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1978) Revolution and Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1980) The Axial Age, Rise of Transcendental Visions, The Emergence of Intellectuals and of Clerics, and the Structuring of World History. S.L.: s.n.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1986) The Origin and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1996) ‘Barbarei und Moderne’, in Miller, and Soeffner, (1996), pp. 96–117.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1999) Fundamentalism, Sectarianism and Revolution: The Jacobin Dimension of Modernity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fedotova, V.G. (1997). Moscow.Google Scholar
Miller, M. and Soeffner, H.-G. (1996) Modernität und Barbarei. Soziologische Zeitdiagnose am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Motroshilova, N.V. (1991) in. Moscow.Google Scholar
Motroshilova, N.V. (2007). Moscow.Google Scholar
Nunner-Winkler, G. (1996) ‘Gewalt - ein Spezifikum der Moderne’, in Miller, and Soeffner, (1996), pp. 81- 95.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1996) ‘Moderne “Barbarei”: Der Naturzustand im Kleinformat’, in Miller, and Soeffner, (1996), pp. 258–289.Google Scholar
Poliakov, L. (1998). Moscow.Google Scholar
Stepin, V.S. (1996). Moscow.Google Scholar