Introduction
The ‘standard of civilisation’ originated from the idea of the civilised versus the uncivilised, which gave European colonial powers means to extend their authority over non-European territories. The justification of overseas empires saw the domination of people they considered so ‘inferior’ that in some cases, they were not considered people at all, that is, terra nullius. The ‘standard of civilisation’ continues to influence world politics today as the commonality of international society enforces the implementation of Western ideologies. Its contemporary significance in the English School of international relations theory is centred around the conditional policies and practises that define the ‘developed world’. The process of development, through modernisation, shows the West’s obligation to assist the ‘developing world’ according to their standards. The conditionalities of foreign aid are clear indicators of Eurocentric values, morals and norms being used to exploit the Global South, and to promote Western principles. Consequently, the ‘standard of civilisation’ is still present in international society in the idea that certain standards of conduct are essential to maintain international order. Hence, a form of neo-colonialism is apparent as the ‘third world’ cripples under the weight of globalisation and the previous colonialist behaviours of the suppressor and the oppressor are assumed. This essay will explore the ‘standard of civilisation’ in the contemporary international society by first looking into the term within the English School. Then, through the conditional development assistance of the Global South, and finally, as a form of neo-colonialism.
The ‘Standard of Civilisation’ as an English School Concept
The English School of international relations theory is centred around three main ideas: international system, international society and world society. Hedley Bull outlined these concepts in his 1977 book ‘The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics’, which is widely considered the central text of the English School. For the purposes of this essay, we will only be looking into the concept of international society which Bull identifies as “a society of states (or international society) [that] exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions” (1977: 10). Considering commonality is what defines international society, it can be assumed that a certain ‘standard of civilisation’ is to exist if common ‘interests’ and ‘values’ are what unites a group of states. This is also evident as Fiddler (2000: 289) writes, “to engage fully in international relations, your behaviour has to conform to expectations, policies, and rules established by prevailing powers”. Hence, one could argue that the way in which international society currently operates, can be attributed to the European power gap that dominated the pre-1945 period and saw the European “economic, colonial and settlement expansion” (Buzan 2014: 578) that continues to significantly influence world affairs today.
As the English School focuses on this society of states, naturally, the ‘standard of civilisation’ is an essential concept to be explored. The term is widely considered to only apply to the pre-WWII period, where imperialism was a prominent practise, and referring to some as civilised, and others as barbaric, was both inoffensive and encouraged. However, in the post-1945 era, the rise of the right to self-determination saw the term essentially deemed redundant in international relations theory, as the world had entered in a new and significantly different political climate. However, as Gong (2002) suggests, ‘the standard of civilisation “is not new, nor will it … ever become old. Some standard of civilisation will remain a feature in any international society’ (Gong in Aalberts 2014: 789). Hence, as the term is centred around the disparity of status, and the supremacy of one party over another, the ‘standard of civilisation’ continues to apply to the current international society that is still characterised by cultural ranking. Conversely, the ‘standard of civilisation’ is what makes the international society we know today; Buzban explains the two ways this expansion occurred in the pre-1945 era, “by the imperial absorption of much of the non-West into European empires, and by the phased admission of a few non-colonised states into international society once they were deemed ‘civilised’” (2014: 579).
Furthermore, considering the lack of clear criteria of the ‘standard of civilisation’, Buzban argues that due to its correlation with the governing practises of the Western powers in an era that was defined by the rapid change of technology and infrastructure, “in effect, the ‘standard of civilisation’ was about modernity” (2014: 580). If modernity is essentially what classifies the ‘standard of civilisation’, then the current fast-growing rate of modernisation is evidence that the ‘standard’ is still prevalent in today’s society. Another key text on this topic is Gong’s 1984 book ‘The standard of “civilisation” in international society’ which poses the question of whether cultural pluralism can exist simultaneously with the universal standards of law and civilisation that some argue continue to mirror Western imperial values. Gong argues that non-Western countries had to reject parts of their culture in order to conform to the Western values and practises that made up the ‘standard of civilisation’ that defined the expanding international society (in Buzban 2014). This occurred specifically in period after WWII where the states that were once ruled by imperial empires, were now part of international society. Consequently, English School literature turned its focus to the issues and consequences of world-wide membership (Buzban 2014). Hence, the question of cultural pluralism arose frequently as it threatened the very core of international society; commonality. Considering this as the primary element of international society, a diverse set of cultures (and within them norms, values and morals) weakens the integration of states (Buzban 2014). Thus, the ‘standard of civilisation’ has shifted from civilised versus uncivilised to the conditionality that exists for the membership of groups and organisation within the international society (Buzban 2014).
It is important to note that while international society now includes all the world’s states, its structure has evolved significantly. Considering the many transnational treaties, pacts and institutions that have arisen since 1945, it is clear that our international society has diversified regionally, and hierarchical differentiations continue to exist. Namely, the European Union, whose membership conditions reflect the historical ‘standard of civilisation’. These conditionalities are used to distinguish who can belong and who cannot; implying its “own identity as ‘ideal’ and … others as imperfect” (Cebeci 2019: 1). Hence, the term operates differently in today’s political climate; instead, the idea of the civilised and the uncivilised lies in the “access to the private goods of international society’s inner circles” (Buzban 2014: 586). To this end, one may argue that – by definition – an elite international society exists within the broader international society, whereby commonalities are refined until a hierarchy is reinstated.
Conditional development assistance for developing countries
The conditionalities of foreign aid to developing countries are centred around standards of good governance, which are an expression of the assumptions used to differentiate the states that embody Western standards and those who do not. The idea of development assistance indicates the practise of the ‘standard of civilisation’, where the West feels obligated to assist the Global South in the process of standardisation. The very terms of the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ imply the existence of a ‘standard of civilisation’, where the ‘developed’ are deemed legitimate and the ‘developing’, subordinate. That is, until they follow the standards of the West, where they can transition their status. Thus, these terms can be viewed as the modern versions of the ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’. While the connotations are different nowadays, as in people are not viewed as barbaric to the extent that they were in colonial times, there is still a notion in the eyes of the West that some states are backward and their standards unsatisfactory. This idea is the fundamental meaning of the ‘standard of civilisation’. Historically, it was used as a means to reform the governing structure of the less ‘advanced’. At present, it is doing just that; but this time, under the guise of ‘aid’. Even if it is deemed a redundant practise, one cannot deny that its legacy and the effects of its imperial history are still reflected in contemporary international society.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of the ‘standard of civilisation’ as a case of modernity can be seen at the core of development. If the Third world is still perceived as ‘backward’ or ‘pre-modern’, then the very idea of development, through foreign aid and its conditionalities, is the clear implementation of this standard. The view of development as a process of modernisation was clarified by the World Bank’s senior vice president and chief economist in 1998, Joseph Stigliz:
“Development represents a transformation of society, a movement from traditional relations, traditional ways of thinking, traditional ways of dealing with health and education, traditional methods of production, to more ‘modern ways’” (1998: n.p.)
Consider the foreign aid conditionalities of good governance, democracy and human rights as a case of modernisation. The notion is that these concepts should be universal, asserts the implementation of the ‘standard of civilisation’ as these conditionalities are an expression of Western values, principles and norms. Thus, in the case of development, they can be used as a weapon of cultural hegemony.
Kingsbury (1998), in fact, believes the “new standard of civilisation” has been designed “to promote the advancement of the backward” (in Fidler 2000: 408), naturally, one can deduce that this advancement comes in the form of the implementation of Western ideology. That is not to say that the citizens of the Global South should not be entitled to human rights or democracy, but the very fact that I believe these Western concepts should extend to the entire global population, is an indication of a contemporary standard of civilisation.
A main focus in this discourse is on the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank implement to provide loans to countries experiencing economic crises; and of course, with conditionality clauses that seek to instil the Western principle of the free-market. SAPs are aimed at instigating increased privatisation and the liberalisation of trade and foreign investment. This strategy seeks “to propel the ‘developing’ countries into the globalisation era” (Fidler 2000: 388), and as a result, has drawn much criticism from those who believe these programs have “torn apart the social fabric of entire societies” (Fidler 200: 388). This reflects the capitulatory system that existed in the colonial era, and which continues to characterise the world order, that is, the “powerful, capital exporting countries imposing policies, rules, and institutions on weaker, non-European regions” (Fidler 2000:388). Hence, the Global South are backed into a corner; expected to adopt Western ideologies so they can continue to engage in international society that would otherwise drown them.
Furthermore, not only do Western countries set conditions for development assistance, but they do so in their own interests. Even if such action is positioned as the redistribution of international wealth, it creates a prominent global power structure that sees the oppression of the Global South. For instance, in 2018, Theresa May confirmed that overseas aid, post-Brexit, would “support [Britain’s] own national interest … and is fully aligned with [Britain’s] wider national security policies” (Sabbagh 2018). In the same speech, May indicated that she sought “security cooperation” in Kenya and Somalia, and warned of “what could happen if economic development in Africa fails to progress … a loss of faith in free markets and democracy as the best way to secure global growth and human rights, to greater conflict and an increased susceptibility to extremism” (Sabbagh 2018). It becomes clear, that a developed, wealthy nation is donating foreign aid to developing countries with a clear clause for following their standards and way of living, in such a way that deems their way, the best way. Moreover, it is widely and positively promoted by the media, that is, the West makes a point of endorsing this behaviour. As is with the SAPs that insist on the cooperation and implementation of Western principles, ‘developed’ countries, and the institutions they have produced, actively practise the ‘standard of civilisation’.
The ‘Standard of Civilisation’ as a form of neo-colonialism
The current era is often described as a period of decolonisation, where former colonial states have exercised their right to self-determination and gained independence. However, the ever-growing phenomenon of globalisation, that profoundly characterises the post-1945 era, suggests a new age of imperialism where the contemporary ‘standard of civilisation’ continues to be enforced on the Global South. Despite the break from direct colonial practises, the essence of this behaviour is evident in the Euro-centric conditionalities and membership that significantly influences the world order.
The definition of neo-colonialism is “the control of less-developed countries by developed countries through indirect means” (Halperin 2016). To implement such control, a standard must be assumed to differentiate the developed from the developing, hence, the existence of the ‘standard of civilisation’ today. The indirect means of the developed countries include the aforementioned conditional foreign aid and SAPs that seek to control the political and economic structures of developing countries. This ‘civilising process’ is an extension of the historic and imperial domination that occurred in the period before 1945. It poses the question of whether decolonisation is actually possible. Considering the biases and assumptions that continue to define the Third World, and the deep scars left by former imperial empires, colonisation can never be reversed, instead, it has entered into the new state of neo-colonialism. This is especially clear through the significant discrimination that occurs in a globalised world that relies so heavily on the integration and relationships of states.
Fidler (2000) sees the ‘standard of globalisation’ as a modern translation of the ‘standard of globalisation’, that is, it follows the principles of human rights, respect for the importance of civil society, democracy, the rule of law, the free market, and scientific and technological advancements. From this, he deduces that the heavy impact of liberalism and capitalism is what characterises the present-day international economic system. Similarly, Buzban believes the current practises of conditionality form the ‘standard of civilisation’ in contemporary society are human rights, democracy, capitalism, environment and development (2014: 586). Both Buzban and Fidler shed light on the “indirect means” used to control the Global South, that are so often disguised as aid. The reinforcement of free-market principles in the Third World results in the domination and exploitation of developing countries. Consequently, the former colonial positions of the oppressors and the oppressed are re-established.
As outlined above, the shift of the ‘standard of civilisation’ from the civilised and the uncivilised, to the conditionality of membership within international society (Buzban 2014) shows the clear distinction between the developed and developing, that is kept alive by the Western values that continue to dictate global power structures. As Aalberts writes, colonialism was an “intricate interplay between inclusion and exclusion as a basis for imaging and ordering global rule” (2014: 789), and this behaviour continues to be acted out on the world stage.
Conclusion
As one of the English School’s focuses is on the international society, which is centred around the shared commonalities that unite a group of states, it is clear that a ‘standard of civilisation’ has to exist. Though the term is associated with the conditionalities and membership of international society, at its core, it is related to modernity. The idea of modernisation as a key element of the ‘standard of civilisation’, implies a shift from the civilised versus the uncivilised to the advanced versus the less advanced, or the developed versus. The developing. Considering the current globalisation phenomena as an extension of the European international society, the implementation of Western free-market principles are an attempt to ‘advance’ the ‘less-advanced’; thus, the ‘standard of civilisation’ is used to control and manipulate the Global South. Likewise, the conditionalities of good governance, democracy and human rights attached to foreign aid represent the bias structure of the international economic system that insists on the conformity of developing nations. Finally, the European ‘civilising process’ that characterised the age of imperialism, continues to occur as we enter a period of neo-colonialism that sees the oppression of developing states by developed states, through the indirect means of conditionality and membership. As Huntington (1998) wrote, “To be civilised is good, and to be uncivilised is bad” (in Bowden 2016); and this disparity remains central to international society. In short, the ‘standard of civilisation’ still exists today.
(2752 words)
Bibliography
Aalberts, T. E. (2014) ‘Rethinking the Principle of (Sovereign) Equality as a Standard of Civilisation’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 42(3), 767–789.
Bowden, B. (2016) ‘Civilization and Its Consequences’ Oxford Handbooks Online, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.30.
Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London: Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (2014) ‘The ‘Standard of Civilisation’ as an English School Concept’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 42(3): 576–594.
Cebeci, M (2019) ‘Deconstructing the EU’s “Standards of Civilisation”: The Case of Turkey’, Uluslararasi İliskiler 16(64): 77–91.
Fidler, P. (2000) ‘A Kinder, Gentler System or Capitulations? International Law, Structural Adjustment Policies, and the Standard of Liberal, Globalized Civilization’, Texas International Law Journal, 35(3): 387–413.
Halperin, S. (2016) Neocolonialism. Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 23 March 2016. Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/neocolonialism [accessed 5 April 2020].
Sabbagh, D. (2018) May begins Africa trip with nod to rightwing Tories on overseas aid, The Guardian. 28 August 2018, available at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/27/may-africa-trip-rightwing-tories-overseas-aid [accessed 2 April 2020]
Stigilitz, J. (1998) Towards a New Paradigm for Development: Strategies, Policies and Processes. Prebisch Lecture. UNCTAD, Geneva. 19 October 1998, available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0b9/3b3aeeb17cfce3c8c4f2bd67beb8562f195a.pdf [accessed 5 April 2020].
Emma Clarice 