'Civilization begins with the domestication of warriors': José Emilio Burucúa
The highly respected art historian José Emilio Burucúa appeared on La Repregunta in Argentina's La Nación newspaper , speaking about civilizations and barbarism, liberal democracies and capitalism, and freedom and equality. Burucúa holds a PhD in Philosophy and Literature from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), where he was a professor of Modern History. He was also a professor of Problems of Cultural History at the National University of General San Martín. He was Director of Studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. He has just published Civilization: History of a Concept (FCE).
The global debate is returning insistently to the notion of civilization. How does a society move from barbarism to civilization? What must a civilization have to be considered as such? The first point was elucidated in the 1930s by the German sociologist Norbert Elias in his book The Civilizing Process . He called it "the domestication of warriors," as warriors became part of the Prince's court and had to begin submitting to a power that did not extend beyond their own ranks. This contributes to pacifying society without the warriors disappearing, because society always needs defense mechanisms. This process allows for a social peace that leads men and women to engage in a series of activities that go beyond satisfying needs, such as survival, food, clothing, and housing. At first, this possibility was restricted to a very small group, the aristocrats and nobles, but it later spread.
That is to say, first of all, there is a process of pacification. And this allows for the replacement of the mere satisfaction of needs with the development of other modes of expression. Yes, from other ways of living that seem like superfluous activities because they aren't linked to necessity. But if you look at it from another perspective, when it evolves and enriches, it's nothing less than the realm of freedom. At first, only a few enjoy freedom. The interesting thing is that, in every long-term process of civilization, this group expands and involves other people, other classes and social groups. Thus, in that society, the margins of freedom expand.
Do today's civilizations, which engage in dialogue around the world and, in the worst cases, dispute each other for moral superiority, have the same degree of pacification of customs? All my efforts in this book were aimed at overcoming the question of the moral, technical, or scientific superiority of one civilization over another. Other things collide: powers deeply rooted in reality collide. Civilization is a slightly more unstable, rather dematerialized product. Civilizations exist in time, in which processes of decivilization can also occur, sometimes chaotic or catastrophic. This means that the social peace that enables human beings to think beyond confrontation in order to survive would be shattered. Some Islamic countries have suffered a process of decivilization, as Euro-Atlantic civilization suffered so many times in the 20th century. The existence of Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza are examples that there is no domestication of warriors there.
Is it an accident that there are civilizations that have an organization very centered on religion? It's unacceptable to think that one civilization is globally superior to another. There may be some factors that end up being superior, not so much in terms of human wealth, but rather in terms of human balance, harmony, even human kindness. I'll give you an example: with regard to hospitality, which is precisely a byproduct of the pacification of societies; few civilizations are comparable to the Arab one.
When you say 'hospitality', what exactly do you mean? I mean welcoming the foreigner, protecting him, sheltering him, meeting his needs for a time, and then letting him go his own way or decide to join that civilization.
How does this equity in the appreciation of civilizations fit with Sharia Law, the subjugation of women and girls, and the impact on gender freedoms in the Islamic world? Precisely in partial aspects, there is a moral and existential superiority.
Are you referring to a superiority of Western civilization? Not just Western civilization, that's why I started with an example where moral superiority isn't on the side of the West, but I took the example of hospitality among the Arabs. You won't find those levels of hospitality in the West today. In that respect, there would be a superiority of that culture. But in another aspect, such as the legal status of women, I have no doubt that it's deplorable in Afghanistan. And it's also so in other regions controlled by Islamic extremism. In that sense, the West has reached levels that are unparalleled. The only similar thing one could find in the past is 10th or 11th-century Japan, where women played an extraordinary role, not so much in politics, but certainly in culture.
Is there any relationship between the place given to women in terms of political and cultural power and the degree of civilization achieved? In the first stage of the civilizing process, which is the domestication of warriors, the role of women is fundamental. Women will be great tamers of warriors. Therefore, in all known horizons where a civilizing process has been attempted, women are present, especially in the fields of the arts, poetry, and music: they are the ones who govern certain customs such as kindness, gentleness, and consideration for others. Let's talk about other later stages, for example, the emergence of lyric poetry, which does not self-represent anything beyond the individual with their inner dilemmas. In other words, it does not satisfy a primary need, as do epic and dramatic genres, which self-represent the warriors themselves or urban groups.
It is a self-contained universe... Yes, it's an autonomous universe. In the civilization of the ancient Mediterranean, the great founder of lyric poetry is Sappho, who says: "I'm not going to sing of Achilles or Odysseus; I'm going to sing and speak of my own emotions, and of the person I love." That's where the world of lyric poetry is established. And the same is true in Japan, where lyric poetry is strongly linked to feminine sensitivity. The masterpiece of Japanese literature and one of the most extraordinary in all of world literature was written by a Japanese woman between 1000 and 1002 AD: The Tale of Genji.
If one extends the concept of civilization outside of art, is there no other possible culmination for civilization? In 1989, Francis Fukuyama published The End of History , with the idea that the Western world, with liberal democracy and capitalism, was beginning a process that would surpass fascism and communism. First of all, Fukuyama was obviously wrong, because thirty-five years have passed, and it's clear that history didn't end with what he assumed was the end. The West has achieved a very high level of civilization with liberal democracy and what we might call the social market economy.
In this Welfare State, capitalism plays an important role. Capitalism is the core of the Welfare State. Keynes never intended to abolish capitalism, but rather to give it a human face and open a path to equality without compromising freedom, which was the great ideal of the best political thinkers of the 1930s. With liberal democracy and social capitalism, or Keynes's capitalism, so maligned at the moment, a civilizational pinnacle was reached: of that I have no doubt. But that doesn't mean that the model has to be adopted by other civilizations to reach the same stage. To a large extent, this virtuous combination of liberal democracy and a social market economy also has much to do with secularization.
It's unacceptable to think that one civilization is globally superior to another. There may be some factor that ends up being superior, not so much in terms of human wealth, but rather in terms of human balance, harmony, even human kindness.
I have no doubt that without the radical secularization that existed in the West, and instead with a very strong religious foundation and an active religious presence, it is also possible to achieve the same high levels of development in other areas, such as politics and economics.
But not dominating the scene of political and social logic. No, but it has helped. In our case, secularization has been radical because states tend to be secular. But I don't think such secularization is necessary in other contexts or horizons, in other civilizations, to also achieve the values of active freedom as liberal democracy has and the values of economic progress as the social economy can have.
Are there any examples of countries that constitute a civilization where religious presence is a major driver of life and that have achieved levels of development in terms of equal rights and quality of life comparable to those in the West? Japan is a good example. Religion plays a significant role in everyday life, and of course, there must be connections that extend into political and economic activities. Religion is a fundamental element.
'Civilization and Barbarism' or 'Civilization or Barbarism'? Civilization and Barbarism. Domingo Faustino Sarmiento argues that the desideratum would be civilization, which will lead us to greater levels of social peace, freedom in society, and also progress. But our barbarism is always there. In reality, it is both civilization and barbarism in any nation.
Does it imply coexistence and an always imminent risk? Exactly. There is a seduction of barbarism, as Rodolfo Kusch so aptly studied in Argentina. On this path toward greater peace, in this evolution based on cordial relations between human beings, we must occasionally pay attention to the old barbarism that, in political terms, implies the imposition of the will of the strongest.
The great global discussion is that the desire for equality ends up producing highly abusive hegemonies in societies. For example, President Milei's narrative is the restoration of absolute freedom that repairs the damage done. How do you see this process? The discussion about liberty and equality is at the outset of the French Revolution. This is the central problem of all political thought from that period: how do we reconcile the liberty of citizens with the pursuit of equality? Because inequality, at some point, will explode and destroy liberty. It is for the sake of liberty itself that we must pay attention to equality. And this is the theme of Benjamin Constant, Alexis de Tocqueville, and François Guizot.
Inequality, at some point, will explode and destroy freedom. It is for the sake of freedom itself that we must pay attention to equality.
In these circumstances, and after having seen that it is possible to achieve high standards of freedom with high standards of equality, as in the welfare state, proposing either freedom or equality as the only possible horizon is disastrous. The great politician pays attention to both freedom and equality. In the midst of World War II, Churchill, who was an archetype of conservative thought in England, commissioned a socialist to draft a plan for economic restoration after the disaster and calamity of war.
Is October 12th, which some consider Columbus Day, Hispanic Heritage Day, or Indigenous Resistance Day, the birth of a civilization or the meeting of two civilizations? To say that Spain brought civilization to the Americas on October 12th has no historical basis whatsoever. For starters, great civilizations existed here, the core of Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations. Technically, they couldn't compare with the state of civilization brought by the caravels. In the artistic sense, the formulas and paradigms were completely different, but in the Americas, extremely high levels of civilization were achieved in art and gardening, for example. In Europe, the garden was still an enclosed garden. In the 16th century, the garden integrated with nature emerged. In the American case, Tenochtitlan was a garden city. Or the gardens in Cuzco.
For the Nation (Argentina)
eltiempo
