Abstract

This article examines whether there is any value in thinking in terms of civilizations when we look to craft foreign policy. It returns to a historical precedent—specifically the way that some British statesmen and officials in the 1940s conceived of the term ‘civilization’—and describes how this was one influence among many in the shaping of British postwar policy, including the early origins of NATO. While this case comprises an interesting and undervalued example of civilizational thinking in diplomatic history, the article, in its concluding sections, attempts to go further: to describe how the concept of civilization might provide a useful notion in future foreign policy-making. It argues that while most modern connotations of the word tend to be toxic to western commentators and analysts, there are practical benefits to thinking in these terms, provided we remain selective in how we conceive of it. It might best be thought of not as a value judgement denoting hierarchy, progress or superiority, but rather as a mode of thinking about international affairs and foreign policy that embodies deep historical and philosophical reflection.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
You do not currently have access to this article.