Civilisation Begins Where Self-Interest Ends

Inspired by:
Tiken Jah Fakoly - Plus rien ne m'étonne

 

Civilisation, in its historical and anthropological dimension, is far more than a cumulative mechanism for serving interests. Although the notion of individual or collective interest has often played a role in the development of societies, the foundation of civilisation—as the defining mark that sets human beings apart from mere organic existence—relates precisely to the transcendence of that logic and the cultivation of principles that suspend or reshape self-interest within ethical, aesthetic, and intellectual frameworks.

From an anthropological perspective, civilisation is defined not merely by the use of tools, the transmission of knowledge, or language, but primarily by the development of abstract values such as justice, solidarity, self-restraint, and aesthetic expression. These are not generated by interest by default. On the contrary, they often obstruct it. Marcel Mauss, in his classic study The Gift, shows that fundamental systems of exchange in traditional societies are based on the obligation to give without immediate return—a practice that defies the logic of maximising benefit and instead affirms inclusion in a community.

The modern concept of self-interest, as shaped by economic theory, is associated with the rational calculation of cost and benefit. While this model is indispensable for understanding certain behaviours and structures, it cannot encompass the totality of human experience, nor can it serve as a foundation for civilisation. As Amartya Sen points out, human action is governed by bundles of motives that often go beyond personal gain—such as sacrifice, environmental care, or cultural preservation. These actions do not offer immediate profit, yet are seen as culturally superior precisely because they are grounded in principle.

Biological evolution also reveals that civilisation is not synonymous with competition or domination. Studies in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology show that human survival depended largely on the capacity to cooperate, to trust, and to make sacrifices for the common good. The suppression of the instinct for individual survival was essential to the formation of stable communities. Franz de Waal, a leading primatologist, has demonstrated that even animals show signs of empathy and reciprocity, undermining the idea that humans are simply rational calculators of gain.

The history of civilisation is full of examples where commitment to interest led to barbarism, while its transcendence produced cultural breakthroughs. Ancient Athens did not establish the foundations of democracy and philosophy through wealth, but through its citizens’ ability to act for the common good, even when it came at a personal cost. In contrast, societies built solely around interest—such as the colonial West of the 19th century or the totalitarian regimes of the 20th—are not remembered as culturally elevated. Quite the opposite.

Philosophical traditions that define civilisation as the cultivation of an inner ethical sense are in direct tension with individual utility. For Kant, civilisation is not technological or economic progress, but the development of the moral personality, which recognises the other not as a means, but as an end. If civilisation is, as he wrote, the capacity to act according to universal maxims that we would wish to apply to all people, then interest, which by definition divides and separates, cannot be its measure.

Beyond institutional and scientific dimensions, civilisation is, at its core, a way of standing in the world. It is the spiritual and ethical posture by which a person chooses not to be a predator, even when they have the power to be one. The greatness of a civilisation is revealed not in how it rewards the strong, but in how it cares for the weak.

Contemporary moral psychology, through the work of Joshua Greene and Jonathan Haidt, confirms that human moral judgments are not based solely on interest-driven reasoning. They are shaped by empathy, social norms, and shared care. The brain is wired not only to respond to what benefits the self, but also to what harms the other.

Technology may advance, and institutions may evolve, but if the goal remains the empowerment of the few at the expense of the many, then what we face is not civilisation, but refined domination. A truly civilised society reveals itself in the way it treats the dispensable, the marginalised, the defeated. Where self-interest says “not worth it,” civilisation responds, “they are sacred, simply because they are human.”

And that is why, ultimately, it is not interest that makes us civilised,
but the decision to love beyond it.

Selected References:

1. Mauss, M. (1925). The Gift.
2. Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
3. De Waal, F. (2009). The Age of Empathy. Harmony Books.
4. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
5. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics.
6. Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. Penguin Press.
7. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage.