thirty years, argued that civilized peoples had a duty to help others on their own journey
down the same path (page 4). This ideology was captured by Rudyard Kipling in his poem
“The White Man's Burden” (1899), in which he sought to convince the American president
to colonize the Philippines in order to “civilize” it. Modern forms of this conceptualization
of a linear evolution can be found in liberal economics and politics theories such as the
“modernization theory” developed by Walt Whitman Rostow in his book The Stages of
Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1991).
The second phase, which Quinn refers to as plural, appeared in the nineteenth century
under the influence of the French historian and politician François Guizot. According to
him, civilization not only referred to a stage of social evolution, but also to a specific
human group from a specific location, with its own particular history and attributes, within
which development was an endogenous process. In the light of this definition, there was
not only “civilization,” but “civilizations,” that is, Indian, Greek, Roman, among many
others. According to Guizot, these groups could be defined as civilizations because they
had particular and essential attributes that distinguished them from one another. Thus,
the academic's mission was to identify these attributes, which could imply studying the
origin of civilizations, their ancestral roots. Quinn considers that the idea of “Western
civilization” was constructed on this basis, and was particularly dear to English
philosophers of the Victorian period. They claimed that Western civilization had its roots
in Ancient Greece and Rome, namely in attributes such as: the rule of law, democracy,
the appeal of science and art. These attributes were disregarded in the Middle Ages and
then recuperated, first, during the Renaissance and, second, by the Enlightenment, and
then formed the basis of the political and cultural system of the nineteenth-century
British Empire. Quinn argues that this conception of “civilization” also made it possible to
create hierarchies between civilizations whereby some are viewed as being more apt for
development than others, and “Westerners” are presented as superior. Thus, European
technological advances of the nineteenth century were retroactively explained in
civilizational terms, that is, Europe led because it had endogenous attributes originating
in Ancient Greece and Rome that favoured this development. For example, in 1896,
Arthur Evans, head of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, who oversaw the archaeological
excavations of “Minoan” ruins, extolled Crete, calling it “the champion of the European
spirit against the yoke of Asia” (page 27).
This view of humanity divided into perfectly demarcated civilizations was recently revived
by Samuel Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations (1999). In this, Huntington
argues that, in the post-Cold War period, the wars of the future will not occur between
states but between monolithic and homogeneous “civilizations,” such as the “Western,”
the “Islamic,” the “African” or the “Sinic” (Chinese).
According to Quinn, any of these conceptions of civilization are incorrect because they
are not supported by historical facts. She develops her argument by analysing the case
of the West. First, the author argues that there are no “civilizations.” The idea that
humans organize themselves into broad clusters with specific characteristics that
consolidate over time is not a viable one. Nothing occurs spontaneously nor exclusively
endogenously. Everything arises as a result of interactions and influences. This means
that creating distinctions and specificities is useless. Secondly, and following on from the
previous point, the author argues that what might be considered Western in the case of