COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%roots[e89,jmc]		The roots of world civilization and culture
C00011 00003	\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ 1989\ by John McCarthy}
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;
%roots[e89,jmc]		The roots of world civilization and culture
\input memo.tex[let,jmc]
\title{Seminar on the Roots of World Civilization and Culture}


	The present institutions of civilization, human rights,
electoral democracy, rule of law, capitalism are rooted in the
work of many people and many countries.  World culture, world
science and world technology have similar roots and have spread
in similar ways.  An appropriate track for the Stanford
required Cultures, Ideas and Values program is to trace how these
institutions developed and how they became world wide.

	We propose a seminar of interested faculty and other
scholars to consider what would be required to develop such
a course.

	The object of the seminar is to develop materials for a
new track of the Stanford Cultures, Ideas and Values program.
The premise of the track is that we now have world wide
institutions of civilization and culture.  For example, the 1989
events in China and the Soviet Union emphasize that freedom of
speech and electoral democracy are not accidental features of the
West but are essential for humanity regardless of a nation's
cultural history.  There is also evidence that economic freedom,
e.g. many of the features of capitalism, are also essential.
Therefore, the history of these institutions, while mostly
Western, is not just of parochial importance.  The non-Western
part of the history is important, but it is also important to
understand how these institutions became worldwide if a parochial
approach is to be avoided.

	We can make an analogy with science and technology.
Science and technology have world-wide roots.  However, between
(say) 1450 and 1950, it would have been entirely reasonable to
speak of Western science and technology, because the major
developments almost all took place in the West, and a study of
their history limited to the West wouldn't lose too much fact,
although it might foster unjustified ideas of intrinsic Western
superiority.  However, the history of science and technology
before and after the 500 year Western dominance would be
seriously distorted if confined to the West.

	The same is true of civilization and culture but to
a somewhat lesser extent.  Confining the study of civilization
and culture to the West, however, has another disadvantage.
Scientific ideas have a history of development that is often
quite independent of country and culture, and it makes some
sense to study their development rather abstractly.  Civilization
and culture, on the other hand, are more intimately connected
with the societies within which they develop.  Therefore, if
we want to study democracy, for example, we cannot confine
ourselves to reading Locke and Jefferson but must include
Gandhi, Sun-Yatsen and the ideologists of the Meiji revolution.

	The proposed new track would cover both the development
of the ideas themselves and their world-wide propagation and
interaction with other social forms.

	Some of the ideas that might be included are
electoral democracy, rule of law, freedom of the individual
to plan his own life, equality in its various forms,
science as a way of learning about the world, romanticism,
capitalism and freedom of economic activity, the
idea of progress.  Doubtless there are more, and time
limitations will require some skimping.

	Besides the usual works relevant to Western
culture and civilization and the additions required
by the Academic Senate resolution, one might include such things
as the following.

1. Diaz del Castillo's The Conquest of New Spain which documents
the fact that Cortez's success was more due to cultural and
organizational superiority than to superior military technology.

2. Something of the ideas of Sequoyah who developed an alphabet
and literacy for the Cherokees in the hopes that this would
enable them to hold their own in the United States.

3. The writings of Russian Westernizers.  Peter the Great.

4. The Young Turks.

5. The Meiji era Japanese and more recent Japanese writings
about democracy.

6. Sun Yatsen and possibly recent criticism of Chinese culture
by Bo Yang.

7. Booker T. Washington maybe.

	The fact that I have omitted discussing the usual writers
in this outline so far is merely laziness.  They would actually
constitute more than half of the course.  Understanding Jefferson,
however, would be increased by reading non-Western appreciations
and adaptations of his ideas.

	The bad ideas of religious fanaticism, Fascism and Marxism
also require some study.

	Unfortunately, there may be nobody presently qualified
to teach this course.  The purpose of the seminar is to explore
the ideas, discuss some of the available writings, revise the
concept if necessary, and see whether there is enough enthusiasm
and competence to give it a try.  Perhaps the amount of work
required will take several years and will require external
support.

	I doubt that this idea will appeal to all who supported
or opposed the change in the Stanford requirement.  While it
meets the goal of not confining attention to Western culture,
it emphasizes the world-wide importance of Western developments.
It certainly won't satisfy people, if there are any, who
regard Western civilization as basically a bad idea.
Well, it will be only one track, and I suppose Stanford is
tolerant enough to allow it.
\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ 1989\ by John McCarthy}
\smallskip\noindent{This draft of ROOTS[E89,JMC]\ TEXed on \jmcdate\ at \theTime}
%File originated on 05-Aug-89
\vfill\eject\end