@Setanta,
Since you cannot prove me wrong, let me try to prove myself right.. Toyenbee in my condensed version, says the difference between primitive society and civilized society is found in Mimesis, or imitation... In primitive society it is the past that is imitated, and society tends to be stagnant, though I would say: Stabile...
His words are: "In primitive societies, as we know them, mimesis is directed toward the older generation, and toward dead ancestors who stand, unseen but not unfelt, at the back of living elders, reinforcing their prestige." And: "On the other hand, in societies in the process of civilization, mimesis is directed toward creative personalities who command a following because they are pioneers."
Looking at the Quotation of Hesiod, one can easily see that the hold of respect for the old, and of respect for custom has dropped away from the people... These people, the Greeks had by then ceased to be so many scattered tribes, and had become self conscious of its nationalism among other already existing nations... Without agreeing with Toyenbee exactly, because his conclusion that society is static in a primitive form does not account for the advance of technology that make civilized society possible, still his conclusion in regard to mimesis, and to the high regard of the young for the old is true... In fact, it is a high regard of a people for itself, for their community, and for its honor that is lost with civilization... The Spartans, for example, could not evolve because they could not get over themselves, over their pride, -because being sworn to their constitution they could not break their bond with the past without proving themselves dishonorable...Were they free, they might have combined with Helots to build a distinct and conquering civilization, since all civilization are amalgram of communities, with one victor and one victim, minimum, making of the two or many a hybred society that succeeds by innovation, and fail because they become mired in the past, and cannot escape their forms...
Honor is a wonderful thing and even the worst of societies have some sense of honor down to the last relationship... What we see of all civilizations, which are money societies that grow out of the quest for wealth; is that honor, which is an absolute for primitives becomes to the civilized a relative value... There is a maxim that when one says it is not about the money, but the principal of the thing, it is about the money... Principals have to do with honor, and money makes honor relative...One finds that out of prudence, one must take a calculating mind into even the most intimate of relationship where honor should demand fidelity...Honor ceases to be taught on the mother's lap and with every relationship and becomes in Ethics a separate study for philosophers...
