Page 35 - Annales EH 1998-2018

In an effort to dramatize his neo-Polanyian critique of neo-liberal global capitalism, Stephen Gill ques-
tions the tenability of his own term market civilization, proposing it as oxymoronic in that a market
civilization qua the neo-liberal order contradicts Gill's view of civilization qua democratic eco-
humanism (i.e. representation, civility, social well-being and inclusion). In this formation, Gill's argu-
ment is essentially circular in its reliance on his own subjective standard of civilization, (democratic
eco-humanism), to prove the uncivilized nature of the neo-liberal order. By adopting a more objective,
(and necessarily more general), definition of civilization, we can disband with Gill's tautology, allow-
ing us to embrace the term market civilization as a precise definition of neo-liberal global capitalism.
In doing so, however, we merely adjust Gill's propensity for grandiose formulations; what remains is
his well-reasoned explication of the inherent contradictions of neo-liberalism, an explication that un-
derscores the ways in which Anglo-American neo-liberalism departs from a certain aesthetic of civili-
zation as democratic eco-humanism. Though he fails to prove the system uncivilized in the broad
sense, Gill's arguments make a strong case for the rise of a Polanyian double movement that would
address the critical excesses of the neo-liberal order. To understand Gill's claim about the oxymoronic
nature of market civilization, one must understand the differences between the two relevant definitions
of civilization. In Gill's words: civilization implies not only a pattern of society (def. 1) but also an
active historical process that fosters a more humanized, literate and civil way of life, involving social
well-being on a broad and inclusive basis (def. 2). (Gill, 422) Gill's claim regards only the second def-
inition, a version of which the American Heritage Dictionary pictures as: An advanced state of intel-
lectual, cultural, and material development, progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of writ-
ing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.(American Heritage) Though Gill's
version of civilization mirrors closely the story told by the dictionary, both claims about the parame-
ters of civilization are so problematically subjective as to add little or nothing to Gill's analysis of neo-
liberalism. The fallacy of both definitions of civilization is rooted in a subjective set of truth claims
masked in an ethos of democratic eco-humanism that is as guilty of attempting to proclaim the end of
history as neo-liberalism itself. The embedded nature of these claims makes them initially hard to pen-
etrate; broader political participation, literacy, civility and wealth distribution all function in a sort of
Hegelian determinism where humanity appears to be progressing towards ever-deeper understanding
of civilization qua democratic eco-humanism. And yet this very determinism, though perhaps satisfy-
ing in that it situates Gill's rejection of neo-liberalism within a certain sociopolitical philosophical
system, dissolves when outside Gill's limited context. In other words, what does Gill's definition allow
us to make of past civilizations like the Romans, where a slave class existed, the Hebrews, where reli-
gious tolerance was subsumed under a telos of religiopolitical election, or the Mayans, where the state
sanctioned human sacrifice? To claim that these civilizations were mere stepping-stones to our more
enlightened version of civilization is to refuse to treat their participants as self-conscious agents and to
lapse into cultural chauvinism. Gill's subjective aesthetic of civilization is equally problematic if we
turn our eyes in the other direction. What effect will artificial intelligence and the creation of cyborgs
have on Gill's definition of democratic eco-humanism? Will these new beings be included in the fran-
chise? Will the depletion of natural resources create a future civilization where it is more humane to
denude the earth in order to save humans? Even with the neo-liberal straw man as a foil, Gill's idea of
civilization rings hollow; after all, while one ideological pole would have us include plants as neo-
sentient beings deserving representation in society, another would proclaim human dominion of the
earth (a la Genesis 2) as the paradigm for rational human interaction with the planet. Where Thoreau
might call a cabin in the wood civilized, Donald Trump sees a new apartment building. Though we
can prefer one model to the other on a subjectively aesthetic basis, it seems artificial and indeed im-
possible to create a salient line of progress that could possibly reconcile drastically different
worldviews and material realities. To replace Gill's self-congratulatory historical determinism, we
must be far more careful about our definition of a civilization. At the risk of being overly vague, I
would posit the following: Civilization is characterized by the self-conscious actualization of a sys-
tematic ethos defining the relation between self and community. In other words, all that is truly re-
quired of civilization is a certain self-consciousness, (as a civilization), and a certain level of complex-
ity characterized by the desire for progress towards a goal or set of goals other than survival.