Civilisations as Contrasting Cosmocracies

Michael Rowlands Zhang Yuan Zhang Yuan

（1.Department of Anthropology， University College London，UK; 2. Southwest Nationalities

Research Academy， Southwest University for Nationalities; 3. University College London，UK）

JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL. 6， NO.4， 01-07， 2015 （CN51-1731/C， in Chinese）

DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2015.04.01

Abstract：

Since the 1960s， as an idea，civilisation has been a rejected concept in anthropology and sociology because of its evolutionary and Eurocentric misuses.However， the question of scale implied by the term civilisation remains significant.More recently， other more historically informed approaches have resuscitated the concept on more sustainable grounds.In order to renew a discussion of its usefulness as a concept， we will start with the most promising， least Eurocentric， conception of civilisation in classical sociology and anthropology， the one forged by Marcel Mauss.Mauss stressed the histories of civilisations in the plural and rejected connecting them to some hypothetical， generalized evolution of humankind. As Mauss defines it， a civilisation consists of “those social phenomena which are common to several societies”. However， we should notice how he then insists that they are also socially linked by adding that they must be “more or less related to each other” by lasting contact “through some permanent intermediaries， or through relationships from common descent”.On the next page of his discussion， he further refines the concept and calls civilisation a family of societies.

Mauss inspiration in thinking about civilization is clearly ethnological instead of sociological. He constantly emphasizes that phenomena exist that are not limited to a specific society. Instead they are phenomena common to larger or smaller societies. These are the phenomena-particularly material practices-that he calls “fit to travel”， i.e. they overflow boundaries， or do not have fixed boundaries. Accordingly， the distribution of large scale practices of making and doing things that exists prior to the formation of “society” is included in his non sociological definition of civilisation.Mauss makes the startling point that far from being forms of society， civilizations are prior expositions of the binaries that are necessary forerunners of the societies that historically form within the spread of civilization. “The form of a civilization is the sum of particular features of ideas， practices and products which are more or less common to a number of given societies. We could say that the form of a civilization is everything which gives it a special feature， unlike any other， to those societies which compose this civilisation”.

Possibly the most interesting characteristic of his concept of civilisation is one that Mauss would consider to be a weakness. It is the loose integration of civilisation selements， i.e. it is not a holistic integration. Even though it can be said that a civilisation can be reproduced， just as social relations， or systems of meaning and material practices can be reproduced， we need not feel compelled to put all of these together into a single totality.

So what features might be shared in the spread of a civilization？ One， possibly the most important thing， is what we currently use the term “cosmology” to describe， i.e. ways of knowing and transmissions of knowledge which exists as a shared set of dispositions. Since these usually relate to creation myths-myths of origin， etc.， and particularly to origins that evolve from chaos， sources of misfortune and disorder as well as narratives about the emergence of order-it is not surprising that from Durkheim， to Mauss， and to Mary Douglas， the term cosmology has been collapsed to the study of society， and reserved for the attachment of moral principles to knowledge as order. We， on the contrary， set our sights on the chaos/orderly binary of cosmologies， and using this and other binaries， on the always partial nature of a culture and a society within the  spread of a civilisation， in which one is a version of the next， and refers to， even as it distinguishes itself from the other （neighbor， outsider， chaos）.

The problem of recognizing uniformities within large areas that also take into account localized differences has been considered creatively within the framework of social knowledge. Barth （1987）， for example， accounts for cultural variation in Inner New Guinea by showing how many different groups draw from a similar vocabulary， material cultures and social practices. A similar attempt to grasp a sense of higher unity shared by particular local traditions can be seen in Tambiahs （1973） writing on Therevada Buddhism in Thailand， Burma and Sri Lanka as a collective tradition that takes different forms or divergent trajectories from within these three settings. Both of them argue that cultural difference occurs as a result of transmission of knowledge， although this is only possible because they already share cultural commonalities. The particular attraction of Barths approach lies in the recognition of how deep analogues in substantive ideas can be combined and shown by comparing the modes by which knowledge is transmitted， adopted and transformed over time.

We now turn to two， moredetailed illustrations， to show how our re-evaluated version of Mauss concept of “civilisation” might be useful. We dwell in particular on the production of material objects and the performance of rituals as ways within each civilisation for making the visible， the invisible， the world of the dead and of invasive powers.

West Africa

In Africa， “civilisation” connotes recognition that “ancient Africa” was originally a unity with its own civilisation recognized as encompassing ancient Egypt to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe， and having its own internal dynamics and relations of exchange with the outside， in particular the Indian Ocean.The perspective adopted here is that there is no single temporality， but multiple ones， each with ruptures， and where internalities and externalities are matters of reflection and contention， forming the realities in which knowledge of the pasts are created.

Since Frobenius [1898;1913]， there have been numerous attempts to describe a symbolic repertoire of common elements for Africa as “ways of knowing” that can pass back and forth across different regional and social boundaries.Symbolic repertoires or cultural reservoirs require a more Fredrik Barthian approach to knowledge as actively engaged identities in and appropriated within a certain commonality or spread of a civilisation. Taking one example， Harry West discovered that the life-world dichotomy the Muedans make through sorcery discourse comprises two domains， one visible and one invisible.Sorcerers use a medicinal substance，shikupi， to make themselves invisible and in order to leave the visible world normally experienced by Muedans.The ambivalence of the soccerers power comes from the belief that sorcerers and anti-sorcerers must share the same power through their ingestion of medicinal substances， but it is their intentions that separate them.

The invisible/visible dichotomy and their mediation/interpenetration is-I would argue-core to many versions of African civilisations. It is the basis of statements on the fundamental powers of life and death is general among the speakers of Western Bantu from Cameroon to Angola.In one part of this vast area-in the forest region of the Cross River （Nigerian border） and in the Cameroon grasslands- the interface between the visible and invisible worlds takes the form of ritual cults and associations.Exchange and trade in cults-drawing form the same “symbolic reservoir”-circulate the objects and paraphernalia much more widely as esoteric objects rather than the knowledge needed to reproduce them. The visible is the materialization of the invisible-of locating it and grounding it as a means of controlling and managing it-and manifested as cults and associationsthey share considerable continuities in form and function over the entire area of the Cross River and Grasslands regions. At the same time， strong continuities in cults and associations-dealing with the basic ontologies of life and death/misfortune-are contrasted by strong differences in social forms.Hierarchies and palace organizations in the Grasslands contrast with the acephalous more egalitarian social forms in the forest zone.

Classifying cults and associations are the ways in which the invisible civilisations and their benefits become societies， i.e. as concrete moral communities. There are several local ways of classifying cults and associations-keeping them separate maintains the distinction between the ambivalence of witch finding functions from those of divination， healing and curing. It also serves to maintain more egalitarian forms of association since it also separates control over the unification of these functions. Fusing them together-as happens with the Grasslands palaces-creates hierarchy and palaces and centres.

China

West and McGaffey and others make a valuable point in emphasising the distinction between the visible and the invisible as the distinctive feature of African cosmologies， or more dynamically what we might call cosmocracies. The ways in which African cosmologies visualise， or materialise， the invisible may be distinctive， but it is likely that every cosmology can be described as a distinctive materialisation of what is deemed to be invisible， as a way of knowing and conveying and controlling invisible forces and principles. I now want to quickly move to a more comparative perspective.

We should also highlight the fact that claims to the same civilisation are often made from several centers， and are critical of the established centers. Civilisation is not only a spread of styles， norms of conduct， distinction and knowledge， it is also an arena of contention regarding the same spread， from several centres of the same civilisation， in the same way that the charismatic promise of a religious tradition is taken up outside its established centers.

Comparatively， it is more usual to witness the condensing of a civilisation as a single cosmological centre to a single political centre （Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia， etc.）. Here we are used to calling this identification of a civilisation with a political centre-a theocratic state or an empire or some such name. Chinese civilisation and cosmology also envisages a single political centre and it is a vision that has been realised. But， Chinese imperial civilisation was not a theocracy， like Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. It was a regime of orthodoxy， but not of doctrine， of an emperor who was the chief human mediator between heaven and earth， but who was not divine. Chinese hierarchy is a hierarchy of asymmetrical reciprocities and obligations， and another of a status hierarchy of distinctions of literay accomplishment and knowledge， and another hierarchy of sage rule， in which sagehood is achievable by anyone with the discipline and opportunity to pursue the requisite self-cultivation.

Making visible the invisible in Chinese civilisation includes objectifying a deity within this conceptualization of hierarchy.It is a process of what we might term personification.As the deitys power increases，people come to see the materiality of the statue itself as efficacious-rituals of feeding （ incense，food， etc.） incorporate the deity into peoples everyday lives.In other words， the god-with its statue-now begins to take on social agency and becomes a “social other”.

Summary

My African and China examples-as a brief comparison-show them to be very different ways of dealing with what I term“cosmocracy”.But to understand the contrast it is necessary to come back to the initial Maussian discussion of civilisation.Civilisation extends inquiry outside of order -outside of the realms of cult and associations or god statues and temples. But the latter are the worlds of the visible， the haptic and sensory-which are designed to capture it and materialize it as power for shaping wellbeing， i.e. the healing and the promotion of cosmological order， and they are our only access to the invisible worlds of civilisations.

Key Words： civilisations;cosmocracies; comparative perspective

References：

Fredrik Barth.Cosmologies in the Making： A Generative Approach to Cultural Variation in Inner New Guinea. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1990

Johnann Arnason.Civilizational Analysis， Social Theory and Comparative History， in G. Delanty ed.， Handbook of Contemporary European Social Theory， London： Routledge， 2006： 230-241.

Marcel Mauss. The Nation， in N. Schlangered， Marcel Mauss： Techniques， Technologies and Civilisation， Oxford： Berghahn Books， 2006（1920）.

Marcel Mauss.Civilisations，Their Elements and Forms， in N. Schlanger ed， Marcel Mauss： Techniques， Technologies and Civilisation， Oxford： Berghahn Books， 2006（1929/30）.

Stanley Tambiah，Buddhism And The Spirit Cults In North-East Thailand， Cambridge：Cambridge University Press， 1975.