Nation and Civilization: The Classical Distinctions

Abstract

The theory of nation and the theory of civilization attract considerable attention in the field of political and social sciences as well as in philosophy. However, the categories of nation and civilization are usually regarded separately, due to the fact that these two approaches have developed independently. Key thinkers of the theory of nation, as a rule, either ignore the category of civilization or give it only formal attention. The leading figures of the theory of civilization, on the contrary, could not but consider the distinction between nation and civilization. It should be noted that the concept of civilization could only be constructed proceeding from the category of nation, which had acquired a normative status in the social disciplines as early as in the 19th century. This article dwells on the distinction between nation and civilization in the works of the classical theorists of civilization, namely, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and S. Huntington. In spite of the fact that all of the above authors make this differentiation, it is only in the works of Toynbee and Huntington that nation and civilization are presented as commensurable. Toynbee distinguishes nation and civilization as a part and as a whole, recognizing the subjectivity of civilization. Huntington proposes a hybrid differentiation that both preserves the qualities of the classical theory of civilization and includes elements of constructivism. The latter forms the basis for non-classical theories of civilization, such as G. Therborn’s concept. The non-classical approach allows us to draw not only a quantitative, but also a qualitative distinction between nations and civilizations: while nation-states arise as a result of a break with the past and develop within the framework of modernity, civilizations continue
and restore the tradition.