A circle civilisation does not directly determine an individual’s conduct. It operates through the individual’s personal civilisation and through the expectations, social pressure, sanctioning or coercion forming part of the concrete situation. Personality characteristics also influence how the individual responds. When elements of a circle civilisation have been internalised, the associated conceptions, norms, courses of action, goals and ideals may be experienced as right, appropriate, justified or worth pursuing.
This is important for understanding political action. An actor pursuing political measures generally does not experience that actor’s own conduct as an arbitrary exercise of power. The actor assesses reality from a personal civilisation in which particular problems are regarded as real, certain causes appear plausible, particular norms are justified and certain objectives are considered worth pursuing. From within that framework, the actor’s own conduct may appear reasonable and morally justified.
To other individuals with a different personal or circle civilisation, the same conduct may instead appear unreasonable, immoral or dangerous. Their judgement proceeds from different conceptions of reality, legitimacy, values and desired social outcomes.
This makes it analytically necessary to distinguish between conduct justified within a circle civilisation and conduct arising primarily from individual personality characteristics. People may act cruelly, violently, fraudulently or otherwise harmfully even when such conduct is expressly rejected within their social circle.
Not every harmful action by an individual may therefore simply be attributed to the civilisation of the circle to which that individual belongs. Conversely, conduct prescribed or justified by the circle should not be explained solely as a personal peculiarity of the person carrying it out.
This distinction prevents a theory of civilisation from becoming a total explanation of human conduct. Personality characteristics, circumstances and individual choices remain relevant. Civilisation structures conduct and makes particular courses of action more probable, more self-evident or more readily legitimated, but it does not determine every individual action.
Contradictions within a personal civilisation need not always be experienced as enduring contradictions. An individual may experience tension between different civilisation elements, or between a civilisation element and that individual’s own conduct.
One possible response is rationalisation. In rationalisation, the meaning, scope or application of one or more civilisation elements is explained or reinterpreted in such a way that the experienced contradiction is reduced or removed. Conceptions or conduct that appear contradictory to an outsider may thereby nevertheless be experienced by the individual as compatible with that individual’s personal civilisation. Rationalisation here means neither deliberate deception nor rational reasoning, but making an experienced tension compatible for oneself.
When required conduct conflicts with strongly operative elements of personal civilisation, pressure arises to reduce that tension. This may occur through adaptation or rationalisation of the personal civilisation, but also because the operation of the conflicting circle civilisation on the individual diminishes, for example through avoidance, non-conformity, protest, resistance or exit.