I.

Introductive elements of culture and civilization

1.1. The notions of culture and civilization
Trying to define notions such as culture and civilization is not an easy task. Defining
the culture means defining the human condition in its unity and variety, in its never-ending
efforts to create, to leave inestimable values to posterity, for the culture represents the
specific environment for the human existence.
The culture defines synthetically the human way of existence and it is the symbol of
the creative power of men. It consists in a set of fundamental values, accepted in a human
society.
e can distinguish two main components of the culture! a material component and a
spiritual one.
The material component of the culture, usually referred to as civilization, includes
the means and the values that insure the material reproduction of the social life " in other
words, the processes of the social existence.
The spiritual component of the culture consists of the systems of values in which the
efforts ok knowing and discovering, the attitudes and the reactions of men towards
everything surrounding them are manifested. #sually, these appear in the form of systems
such as the philosophy, the art, the mythology, the religion, the morale.
$tymologically, the term of culture finds its origins in the %atin language, where it
meant two meanings! it meant cultivating the earth, but it also meant cultivating the spirit.
The concept of culture begun to be used more fre&uently during the 'I'-th century, when the
social sciences developed and new social disciplines appeared. It was more and more
associated to the concept of civilization " concept already widely used in the '(III-th century,
designing the progress of a society based on knowledge and rational thinking.
) first definition of culture was given, in the 'I'-th century, by the anthropologist
$dward *. Taylor. It considers the culture as a complex assembly of knowledge, beliefs, art,
morale, law, traditions and any other modalities of expression and results of the creation of a
human society.
During the ''-th century, many definitions were given for the term culture, each one
being influenced by the social discipline that studied the culture and tried to define it. Trying
to synthesize all these definitions, we can define the culture as the assembly of material and
spiritual values of a human society that reached a certain level of development.
The term of civilization was formed from the %atin words civis, civilis, that referred to
the citizen living in a country and disposing of certain &ualities that allowed him to comply
with the rules imposed for social and public relationships. Therefore, civilization means
educating the citizen so that he can have an ade&uate behavior in society +politeness, good
manners, habits,.
-ost of the time, civilizations are understood as great units of the universal history, as
ways of living of some nations and societies united by religion, language, traditions, public
institutions, cultural features, values, ideals, artistic forms, technologies, ways of action.
.ivilizations are therefore long lasting structures of human existence, in their geographical
and historical variety, manifesting themselves trough complex forms of economic,
institutional and political organization of the human society.
There is no clear and unanimously accepted delimitation between the notions of
culture and civilization. /rom one society to another, the two notions can have a broader or a
narrower meaning. In /rance, for example, the term civilization was considered the broader
notion, containing the culture as a component, while in 0ermany the culture was considered
the broader notion, the civilization being seen 1ust as the material, technical and economical
component of the culture. In )nglo-2axon territories, the two notions " culture and civilization
" were used as synonyms.
3et, one idea that is unanimously accepted is the one that the notions of culture and
civilization are closely related. The two components of the history of the human society, the
culture and the civilization, must permanently interact. The civilization needs culture,
especially at individual level. ) truly civilized person is well educated person, having a broad
culture, good self-control and an impeccable behavior.
The ''-th century brought ma1or changes in the field of culture. The technical and
scientific progress reached an unbelievable speed and the explosion of scientific successes
determined an acceleration of cultural changes, but also a crisis of traditional values. In the
same time, the interest for a fast impregnation of cultural values in the system of social
activities grew, with the help of mass-media. This century created a new cultural reality! new
mentalities, new forms of artistic expression, new ways of relating to the external world, a
new self-conscience of the modern human being.
) specific feature of the ''-the century refers to the intensification without precedent
of the cultural values exchange and of the dialogue among cultures. The social
communication of values and the intercultural communication were facilitated by the
expansion of mass-media, which allowed the cultural interferences and the exchange of
values to become dominant realities. -ass-media represents o network that transmits
information in the entire world, and the newest cultural creations can be received in all
societies from all the regions of the planet. )ll these accomplishments cancelled the
distances and connected societies, regions and cultural areas that were isolated from one
another until then +or had very few and random contacts.
) new notion imposed itself " the notion of interculturality, expressing the
interaction or the contact area among two, or more different cultures. )lthough in the
conceptual plan the notion of interculturality is new, being used only in the last decades, the
interculturality, as a phenomenon, is not at all new4 it manifested itself throughout the history
every time when the expansion of an empire brought together different nations, different
mentalities, different cultures.
Inside the boundaries of great historical empires +such as the -acedonian $mpire,
the 5oman $mpire, the *yzantine $mpire, the 6ttoman $mpire, the )ustro-7ungarian
$mpire etc., the capacity of cultural dialogue of the human societies involved has always
been tested. -ost fre&uently, the historical context and the lack of tolerance impeded
positive results to be obtained, and the cultural interaction generated tensions, even wars.
The winning societies imposed their own culture and civilization, destroying or minimizing the
cultures and civilizations of the con&uered nations.
The first model of interculturality is probably the 8orth-)merican model, where
cultures from all over the world are coexisting for more than 9:: years. Initially, there were
bloody conflicts too, caused by cultural differences, conflicts that culminated with the
Independence ar. *ut trough an ade&uate legislation, adapted to this multicultural reality,
the #nited 2tates were successful, at least at a formal level, in imposing a peaceful
coexistence of all these cultures inside its boundaries4 although there were many cultures,
the country was united by geo-political and economical and financial criteria.
6n the same economic and political grounds, $urope is trying to realize such a union.
)lthough the main reason for establishing the $uropean .ommunity was an economic one,
lately became clearer and clearer that it is an absolute necessity to find a common frame in
order to bring all the cultures inside this union together.
The /rench economist ;ean -onet, one of the pioneers of the idea of a united
$urope, proved an amazing intuition, affirming that the process of creating the $uropean
#nion should be started all over again, basing its main principles on culture and starting
everything from culture. The necessity of cultural exchanges in $urope, in the perspective of
realizing a union that include all $uropean states, is the more obvious as, unlike the #nited
2tates, in $urope we found nations with a very long history, with profound and complex
cultures that evolved for thousands of years.
<ractically, in $urope we can witness the contact +the confrontation, of three great
families of nations, each one being the depositary of a specific cultural thesaurus! the )nglo-
2axon, the %atin and the 2lavic. The anti&ue 0reek and 5oman cultures modeled the
$uropean spirit until nowadays, contouring certain universal typologies, certain mentalities
and logic systems that have been perpetuated in time in peoples= subconscience. To all
these we can add the issue of important cultural gaps created by the coexistence and the
confrontation, for many centuries, of many empires +the 5ussian $mpire, the 6ttoman
$mpire, the )ustro-7ungarian $mpire,.
During the last century, $urope was the scene of two orld ars. During its history,
in $urope there were always conflicts among different nations, so nowadays, an $uropean
conglomeration based solely on economic grounds and on a common currency may be
undermined by fears, lack of trust and complexes. 8ot knowing and not understanding the
other cultures may result in fear of unknown, suspicion and eventually lack of respect.
In the #nited 2tates, there is a powerful feeling of belonging to the )merican
citizenship, and the ethnical or cultural issues are fading. In $urope, the cultures, very
different and strongly anchored in their history and their geography, need space to manifest
themselves. It will be long before the $uropeans will feel they belong to $urope and to the
$uropean citizeship more than to their nation, religion or culture. /or $uropeans, the
$uropean citizenship adds to the national citizenship4 it does not replace it.
In the context of the enlargement of the $uropean #nion towards $ast, the united
$urope +estern and $astern $urope, appears to be even more heterogeneous than before,
as for the nations from $astern $urope it may be difficult to fully understand the replacement
of a national state on ethnical principles to a civic state based on a set of individual and
collective rights, on multiculturality and on the respect of diversity.
)s a conclusion to the issues presented above, an intense intercultural and inter-
religious dialogue is essential among $uropean states, in order to reduce the tension among
different ethnic groups, to find some common grounds and some communication channels
accessible to all and, not least, to cultivate mutual trust and understanding. Trust and
tolerance are the keywords for the construction of a united and functional $urope.
1.2. The evolution of European culture and civilization
)lthough the beginnings of the history of the $uropean continent can be found very
far behind in time, we can talk about a $uropean conscience only much latter, after the
decadence of the *yzantine $mpire +>9?@, or from the moment of the great geographical
discoveries.
Indeed, the $uropeans realized they share a common culture, they have a common
history and they belong to a common geographical area only when they were forced to face
the non-$uropean world +the 6ttoman invasion, the discovery of )merica, the trips to India,.
#ntil then, the $uropean spirit was modeled according to the geo-political, economic or
cultural supremacy of one center or another +e.g. )thens, 5ome, .onstantinople,.
In the early anti&uity, the only area significant from the cultural point of view was the
-editerranean region, clearly dominated before the .hristian era by the Greek antique
culture, which had its apogee in the era of the great classics.
)fter the raise and the expansion of the 5oman $mpire, the political and
administrative supremacy switched to 5ome. 7aving the advantage of an excellent military
organization, the 5oman $mpire extended itself among the .entral $urope, the Iberia and
the 8orth of )frica. 2till, from a cultural point of view, the anti&ue 0reece remained the main
reference and after certain symbioses and successive interactions a new culture was built!
the Greco-Roman culture. This was the basis of the entire $uropean culture afterwards. The
<roto-$uropean cultural profile was shaped in a bipolar perspective, as it subdued the
influence of the 0reek philosophy and art as well as of the 5oman civilization and
administration.
During the flourishing of the 5oman $mpire, the general #lpius Traianus +?A->>B
d.7r., con&uered and colonized Dacia, after a suite of wars in the years >:>->:A and >:?-
>:C. This is how the ethno-genesis of the Romanian nation begun and this is the period
when its first cultural manifestations appeared.
The religious dimension was marked by the appearance and the spreading of
.hristianity, which acted as a powerful catalyst for the communication of cultural values
specific to the $uropean nations. The preaching of the )postles and the .hristian missionary
are the first important phenomenon of aculturality from the history. It culminated with the
flourishing period of the *yzantine $mpire. This way, the 0reco-5oman culture was greatly
influenced, at the beginning of this era, by the .hristian religion. )t that moment, the
circulation of religious ideas, of philosophical principles and of works of art that went along
with them +manuscripts, epistles, icons,, determined a certain cultural homogenization in the
-editerranean region.
The period of the beginning of the .hristianity coincided, historically, with the division
of the 5oman $mpire in two +the estern 5oman $mpire and the $astern 5oman $mpire "
better known as the *yzantine $mpire,. Thanks to the leading &ualities of the $mperor
.onstantine the 0reat, but also to the geo-political context, the *yzantine $mpire
experienced a long period of flourishing and expansion.
In the estern part of $urope, the I(-th century saw the invasion of the Barbarians,
which left deep marks on the whole history of estern $urope. eakened by the fights for
the leadership of the $mpire, by its division and by the new capital " .onstantinople " 5ome
saw its decadency and it was finally destroyed by the 0oths. /rom a cultural point of view,
the period that followed was pretty obscure, as the *arbarian tribes came in successive
waves and they forced the estern $uropean nations to direct their efforts more for insuring
their survival than in cultural purposes. This also explains the establishment, latter on, of the
(atican state and the military and strategic organization of the administration of the 5omano-
.atholic .hurch, forced to keep its identity when faced with the 8on-.hristians.
)t the beginning of the -iddle )ge, in $urope were formed two important cultural
areas and two different types of civilizations. The first cultural area was dominated by the
5omano-.atholic .hurch and used, until the appearance of national literatures, the %atin
language " all 8eo-%atin nations, except the 5omanian one, belong to this cultural area4 from
the (-th until the (II-th century, this area expanded, as the 0ermanic and the )nglo-2axon
nations were integrated. The second cultural area and the second civilization type gravitated
around .onstantinople, mixing into an original synthesis the 5oman ideas concerning the
state with the 0reek language, used initially as a culture tool " replaced in the I'-th century
by the old church 2lavic language.

The Romanian nation found itself at the crossroad of these two cultural areas and by
conse&uence, the 5omanian culture " the culture of a %atin nation living in a 2lavic-
*yzantine environment and latter on in an 6ttoman environment " became so complex and
diversified, so receptive to different universal values, but in the same time it was in a
permanent fight for affirmation as an original culture, trying to preserve and impose its own
identity.
The establishment and the expansion of certain empires such as the 6ttoman $mpire
and the 5ussian $mpire represented an important factor helping the spreading of 6ttoman
+-uslim, and 2lavic influences into the $uropean culture, especially in the $astern side of
$urope. 5omania was strongly affected by these influences.
During the last centuries, after the establishment of national states, each $uropean
nation followed its own path, building its own culture and civilization. These $uropean
cultures have some common features, but they also have many specific features,
differencing them and giving to each one of them its own identity and individuality.
The tensioned relations among the $uropean nations culminated with the two orld
ars. Immediately after the 2econd orld ar, the $uropean nations tried to find o solution
that could spare the $uropean continent from such devastating conflicts in the future. This is
how the $uropean integration process started, leading to the establishment of the $uropean
#nion, as we know it today. The $uropean .ommunity evolved from a simple economic and
commercial agreement among six $uropean states to an economic and monetary union that
involves A? states +and it will soon involve even more states,.
ith the intensification of the $uropean integration process, the national cultures of
the $uropean nations met and begun to gradually melt into a model of interculturality based
on the promotion of common values and the respect of diversity and of the specific national
features. 8owadays, the common features are so obvious, that more and more we speak
about a true uro!ean culture.
(alues, symbols, traditions, beliefs, language, literature, performing arts, visual arts,
architecture, the cinema and broadcasting are all part of $urope=s cultural diversity. )lthough
they belong to a specific country or region, they are part of $urope=s common cultural
heritage.
In >DDA, the -aastricht treaty formally recognised, for the first time, the cultural
dimension of $uropean. It mentions a double aim of the $uropean #nion, concerning culture!
to preserve and support the diversity of the $uropean culture and to help make it accessible
to all the people of the world.