Where do we draw the line?

ALL concepts, by definition, are abstract in their nature. But not all concepts or ideas are ``so abstract'' as some people may be led to believe. Though abstract, the notion of culture and civilisation is, as one may be tempted to contend, almost as tangible and visible, as it were, as concrete matter itself. For instance, gourging the eyes, cutting the genitals - dis-membering and mutilating - of some of our captured armymen by the soldiers of an inimical neigbouring country during its recent Kargil misadventure. Would any man, whether in an advanced or even in a most backward society, call this ``culture'' or civilised conduct? Certainly not. Why? Because the concept of culture or the striving after perfection in whatever area - be it the art of cooking, handicraft, social behaviour or whatever - is instinct with the human beings. So, to start with, the opposite of ``culture'' is what they call ``barbarism'' or beastliness in terms of social behaviour or decency.

Yet, come to think of it, in many great ancient civilisations human beings were sacrificed as offering at the altar of the gods! Even so, however strange and obscurantist such a practice was, no maiming of human beings offered was done. So the difficulty in defining ``culture'' is not so much for its being ``abstract'' as for its being complex and complicated and yet so simple, as the above example evidences.

Hence being so-called ``cultured'' or ``civilised'' is not always a sure or absolute guarantee against behaving like the beast. Here we have touched with the finger, so to speak, the mot-cle (keyword) for understanding the term ``culture''. And that term is: beastliness or simply beast. Beast as opposed to the finer qualities, nobler sentiments and passions and emotions, the higher faculties and powers of man. In other words, any brutal human behaviour that resembles the conduct of animals is contrary to the concept of culture or civilisation. Why is this so? - particularly when, seen from a certain angle, some animals have as someone said, all the good qualities of man without his vices - perversions or aberrations. We shall come to that shortly.

Now the next question is: Have animals no culture at all? Some people may hold that this question is quite debatable. This for the simple reason that they believe that beasts do have some culture, however limited, rudimentary that may seem to us - humans. For example, whenever a dog is attacked by another or several other dogs, if the one attacked lies down on its back with all its four legs upward (a mark of total surrender), then, it seems, the attackers do not harm or assault the attacked any longer. If this be true, it is a non-writ, non-articulated code of conduct (fairplay) among the dogs.

As for elephants and some other animals too, if one among them, particularly a youngling, misbehaves, it is punished - quarantined. Think of the wolves, the minks, the bees or the ants, all of whose societies have hierarchical ranks or gradations, each of the ranks in the hierarchy having a specific function. Among tigers, lions, elephants as also among some other animals, if the mother of the little one dies immediately or some time after giving birth to it, then another adult female animal of the herd may very possibly take charge.

So the question that now arises is: If some animals have all the good qualities of a man minus his vices and if some beasts have some sense of culture, why do men the world over associate non- culture or non-civilisation with the beast, beastliness or bestiality? This question is similar to the one we have raised earlier and to which, I said, we would return shortly.

Now to deal with both questions: Man associates or equates non- culture or non-civilisation with animals because of his superior mind or intelligence - his greater, higher mental faculties and resources, his highly organisational power to plan. Not that some animals have no organisational capacity or faculty. But they are, as we have already pointed out, quite limited, not to say rudimentary.

Besides, they are more instinctive - not to say mechanical - in them than meticulously thought out as they are in human beings. This drawback in animals incapacitates or hampers them from transcending their limited condition. Whereas man thinks that his superior intellect can transcend his limitations and imperfections. In short, he can transcend himself. This largely is why non-culture or non-civilisation is equated with the beast, beastliness or bestiality.

On the other hand, because of his very superior mental faculty and prowess, man today runs the risk of the mind-boggling danger of annihilating - destroying - himself (his whole race). And, alas, he has even the potential to destroy all life upon this fair face of the earth! This is precisely why the Bible says that man was given the freedom to choose either the good or the bad. If he chooses to be good, he has the potentiality to be infinitely good; and if he chooses to be bad or cruel, his cruelty, extreme brutality or unrestrained perversity has the potential to be infinitely destructive, too.

So the moral is: Because by dint of his superior intellect man can transcend his many limitations and imperfections as also by virtue of it he can destroy not only himself (the entire race of humanity) but also all life on earth, it is obviously imperative that he has to rise above the beast in him and urgently endeavour to promote the angel or the godhead - divine nature - in him.

Now a couple of points more to be clarified. One, we have often spoken of culture and civilisation. What exactly is the difference between the two? Civilisation, broadly speaking, is a much wider term and vaster in scope and extent. For instance, though we talk of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Semetic, Mayan or Inca culture, we would rather use the word ``civilisation'' than ``culture'' in this respect. Despite culture being a more general, commoner word but narrower in scope and sweep, it is also more specific and restricted in its use. For example, we say ``agriculture'', horticulture'', ``prawn- culture'', ``oyster-culture'' and now even ``bomb-culture! In such a context the use of the word ``civilisation'' is inappropriate. Etimologically, culture is defined as ``tillage'' (noun of the verb ``to till''), rearing, production, improvement (by mental or physical) training or intellectual development, and, we may add, spiritual perfection through yoga or yogic practice - asana, sadhana.

Two, we have also stated that culture is not so much an ``abstract'' notion as a complex and complicated one and yet a very simple idea or concept. All people, knowingly or unknowingly, have an idea of culture, however limited, rudimentary and abstract that may be. But certainly a sense of culture quite superior to that of the animals.

Even so, to put it crudely, the problem is: What is one man's meat may be poison to another man, as the saying goes. That is to say, preference for taste or colour lends to no discussion. Or, by extension, what may be considered the criteria of beauty, decency, decorum, social behaviour, etc., in one society or race, may not be the same in another.

So where do we draw the line? Exactly where we began. That is, to put it in the simplest way and for a very practical purpose, culture (in so far as social behaviour is concerned) is that social conduct or activity which will be disapproved of or condemned by all men the world over, irrespective of their mental development or education.

To sum up: We can now say that culture is refining, purging, purifying, chastening, ennobling, heightening, elevating, enlightening, illuminating, sublimating or transforming the lower, nether, darker, grosser, unregenerate or unenlightened elements of life in humans.

That is, transforming the crude, uncouth or beastly passions, impulses, tendencies, powers and forces in man into his diviner qualities or godly nature. In short, culture is the search and aspiration for, or the striving after, perfection in all fields and branches of human activity whether science, art, literature or even tea or coffee making - and what not? And though culture and civilisation have more or less the same connotation, one of the two terms cannot always be used for the other in all and every context for reasons given above.

BIBHAS JYOTI MUTSUDDI

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Computer technology in a nutshell
Next     : A new dimension of creative teaching