Propositions

1 Personal civilisation and circle civilisation

1.1 Personal civilisation

1. Every individual possesses a unique personal civilisation.

Explanation. Unique means that no two individuals have completely identi­cal personal civilisations. Individuals may share large numbers of civilisa­tion elements, but differ in their particular configuration. These differences may concern the content of civilisation elements, their interrelationships, and the extent to which they direct thinking, judge­ment, volition and con­duct in different situations.

2. Personal civilisation is learned.

Explanation. A personal civilisation is not a configuration that is formed once and sub­sequently remains fixed. Throughout life it is formed and changed by, among other things, upbringing, education, relationships, expe­riences, media, institutions and partici­pation in different social circles. Civili­sation elements may be adopted, internalised, in­terpreted, strength­ened, weakened, modified or rejected. The process through which this oc­curs is called civilising in this theory.

3. Personal civilisation is formed and changed throughout life.

Explanation. A personal civilisation is not a configuration that is formed once and sub­sequently remains fixed. Throughout life, civilisation elements may arise, be adopted, in­ternalised, interpreted, strengthened, weakened, modified or rejected. The nature and extent of such changes may differ between periods and individuals. The process through which this formation and change take place is called civilising in this theory.

4. In interaction with personality characteristics and the concrete situa­tion, personal civilisation determines the individual’s thinking, judge­ment, volition and conduct.

Explanation. Personal civilisation is distinguished here from personality characteristics and from the concrete situation. Personal civilisation is learned; personality characteris­tics are regarded here as individual characteristics that do not belong to personal civili­sation and may have an innate basis. The concrete situation is the context present at the relevant moment in which the individual thinks, judges, wills and acts. The actual out­come is determined by the interaction among these three factors.

1.2 Circle civilisation

5. An individual simultaneously belongs to a variety of social circles.

Explanation. An individual may simultaneously belong to a variety of social circles, such as a family, association, enterprise, interest group and state. The concept of social circle is therefore not confined to political or territorial associations.

6. Which civilisation elements of a personal civilisation are operative differs according to the social circle to which an individual belongs.

Explanation. Operative means that a selection of the civilisation elements from a per­son’s personal civilisation directs thinking, judgement, volition and conduct in a concrete situation. Which elements come to the fore differs according to the social circle within which the individual operates. The same civilisation elements may be operative in sev­eral circles; the differences concern the composition and relative significance of the op­erative elements.

7. Every social circle has a circle civilisation.

Explanation. A social circle does not presuppose complete agreement among the per­sonal civilisations of its members. It does require sufficient civilisation elements relevant to that circle to be shared, so that common expectations, judgement, cooperation and co­hesion are possible. In everyday functioning, members may recognise and follow that cir­cle civilisation as self-evident without being able to formulate it consciously, completely or in detail. Which and how many civilisation elements are sufficient differs between so­cial circles.

8. A group without a circle civilisation is not a social circle.

Explanation. A group is a collection of individuals designated collectively for a particu­lar description, such as pupils, pensioners, recipients of a state pension, people waiting at a barrier, or the audience at a performance. Such a group does not automatically con­stitute a social circle. A social circle exists only when sufficient shared civilisation ele­ments are operative among the individuals concerned to constitute a circle civilisation.

1.3 Coherence among civilisation elements

9. A social circle displays coherence among its operative civilisation ele­ments.

Explanation. Operative means that, in the relevant context, a civilisation element actu­ally directs thinking, judgement, volition or conduct. A circle civilisation does not consist of an accidental collection of shared civilisation elements. The operative elements are sufficiently coherent to make the functioning of the circle possible. This coherence need not be completely logically consistent, consciously chosen or explicitly formulated. Civili­sation elements that scarcely or not at all fit the existing coherence may nevertheless be­come operative within a circle. Such elements may function temporarily alongside the existing circle civilisation, cause tensions or give rise to its change.

10. The choice of goals is related to the operative norms and values.

Explanation. Goals and norms and values are analytically distinct civilisation elements. The choice among possible goals, however, is not made independently of the norms and values by which possible conditions and outcomes are evaluated. Which norms and val­ues are operative may differ between individuals, social circles and concrete situations.

2 Civilising formation transmission and internalisation

2.1 Sources of civilising

11. Immediately after birth, an individual is civilised by the persons on whom that individual is directly dependent and through what is per­ceived from them by the senses.

Explanation. Immediately after birth, these persons are primarily parents or caregivers. The individual perceives their voices, touch, facial expressions, responses, courses of ac­tion and other conduct. The first civilisation elements are formed through this continu­ous interaction. At this stage, these primarily concern elementary standards of conduct, forms of interaction and expectations concerning what is appropriate or inappropriate. Increasing numbers of other persons and sources are added later.

12. As an individual grows older, both the number of sources of civilis­ing and the variety of civilisation elements transmitted increase.

Explanation. In addition to parents or caregivers, teachers, friends, peers, lecturers, colleagues, public figures, media and institutions, among others, become sources of civil­ising. Increasingly numerous and diverse civilisation elements are transmitted through these sources, including conceptions of reality, norms and values, behavioural reper­toires, goals and ideals.

13. As an individual becomes more independent, that individual can increasingly determine which sources of civilising to encounter.

Explanation. As the individual grows older, that individual can also increasingly choose which persons, social circles and sources of information to seek out or avoid.

14. New sources and civilisation elements are interpreted through the personal civilisation already formed.

Explanation. As a personal civilisation is formed, new sources and civilisation elements are not processed independently of it. New sources are assessed against already formed conceptions of reliability, expertise and authority. New civilisation elements acquire meaning in relation to elements already present and may confirm, modify, weaken or re­arrange them. Thinking, judgement, volition and conduct may consequently also change.

2.2 Trust and selection of sources

15. An individual is continually presented with more civilisation ele­ments from sources than are selected for that individual’s personal civili­sation.

Explanation. Persons, social circles, media, institutions and other sources continually present an individual with civilisation elements. Only some of them become part of the personal civilisation. Other elements are not noticed, not understood, forgotten, rejected or otherwise not selected. The selection process may be conscious or uncon­scious.

16. Civilisation elements are more likely to be adopted from sources re­garded as reliable, expert or worthy of emulation.

Explanation. Sources do not carry equal weight in civilising. The extent to which a source is re­garded as reli­able, expert or worthy of emulation affects the likelihood that the civilisation ele­ments it presents will be adopted. Civilisation elements from distrusted sources are more likely to be rejected.

17. Which sources are regarded as reliable, expert or worthy of emula­tion is partly determined by the personal civilisation already formed.

Explanation. A source is not assessed independently of the existing personal civilisation. Already formed con­ceptions, norms and values, behavioural repertoires, goals and ideals contribute to the assessment of a source’s re­liability, expertise and exemplary character.

18. The more closely the civilisation elements associated with a source correspond to a personal civilisation, the more trust in that source in­creases.

Explanation. Correspondence between the personal civilisation and the civilisation elements as­sociated with a source increases the likelihood that the source will be trusted. Greater trust in the source subsequently increases the likelihood that new and corresponding civilisation elements will be adopted. It follows from the definition of circle civilisation and the propositions concerning the evaluation and selection of sources that circle civilisation also has a self-reinforcing character.

19. Civilisation elements presented by several sources regarded as in­dependent of one another are more likely to be considered credible.

Explanation. This effect may also occur when these sources in fact rely wholly or partly on the same original source. The perceived independence of sources may therefore differ from their ac­tual independence.

20. Civilisation elements may be transmitted through recorded expres­sions without the original creator being involved in the transmission.

Explanation. Recorded expressions may include texts, images, films, sound recordings and digi­tal media. They may transmit civilisation elements in places and at times other than those in which they were produced.

21. Technical and constructed information systems may themselves function as original sources of civilisation elements by selecting, order­ing, combining, modifying or generating the expressions presented.

Explanation. Technical information systems may select, order, combine and modify existing ex­pressions, but may also generate new expressions. They may therefore function not only as con­duits but also as original sources of civilisation elements presented to individuals. Generative AI is an example: it can produce new texts, images and other expressions in which civilisation ele­ments are presented, without the expression as such coming di­rectly from a single human cre­ator.

2.3 Selection and dissemination of civilisation elements

22. The likelihood that a new civilisation element will be incorporated into a personal civilisation is partly determined by its simplicity and comprehensibility, its perceived usefulness, the frequency with which it is presented, and the social consequences of acceptance or rejec­tion.

Explanation. In addition to the previously described correspondence with the personal civilisa­tion and the evalua­tion of the source, civilisation elements differ in properties and circumstances that facilitate or impede their adoption and dissemination. Simplicity and comprehensibility, per­ceived usefulness, repeated exposure, reach, and the social consequences of acceptance or rejec­tion are factors that can be investigated empirically and sepa­rately.

23. The more members of a social circle a civilisation element reaches, the more likely it is to spread further within that circle.

Explanation. Reach means the number or proportion of members of a social circle who en­counter a civilisation element. As a civilisation element reaches a larger part of the circle, it be­comes more likely to spread further within that circle into the personal civilisations of its mem­bers. There is therefore a critical value for the further dissemination of civilisation elements.

24. The degree to which a civilisation element is accepted and dis­seminated within a social circle does not establish that it is true, normat­ively right or desirable.

Explanation. The degree of acceptance and dissemination of a civilisation element says nothing in itself about the truth of the conceptions it contains or the normative rightness or desirability of the norms, values, goals and ideals it contains. Dissemination is partly influenced by the circum­stances in which civilisation elements are pre­sented and transmitted.

3 Institutionalisation and social power

3.1 Institutionalisation systems of ideas and narrative

25. Through institutionalisation, civilisation elements may be objectified and come to function as social givens.

Explanation. Through institutionalisation, civilisation elements are embedded in roles, rules, norms, expecta­tions and other socially enduring forms. They may consequently be placed beyond everyday individual delibera­tion and discussion and come to be regarded as normal, self-evident or given. They also become less dependent on their original bearers.

26. A system of ideas creates coherence among several civilisation ele­ments and thereby influences their formation, interpretation, mutual consistency, transmission and further dissemination.

Explanation. By connecting civilisation elements, a system of ideas gives them meaning partly through their place within the whole. A system of ideas may thereby cause existing elements to be interpreted differently, gen­erate new elements, and reinforce, reduce or reveal contradictions among elements. This coherence also makes it possible to transmit several civilisation elements as a single whole.

27. A narrative makes a system of ideas transmissible and capable of legitimation and makes its support base recognisable.

Explanation. A narrative expresses a system of ideas in a coherent form that can be transmitted. It also provides a justification of the conceptions, norms and values, goals, ideals and institutions contained within it. By endors­ing, using or repeating the narrative, an individual or social circle may also become recognisable as belonging to the support base of the relevant system of ideas.

28. A narrative provides standards by which judgements, goals and courses of action for new situations can be derived from general civili­sation elements.

Explanation. A narrative connects general conceptions, norms, values, goals and ideals in a recognisable frame­work. New situations and events can therefore be interpreted and evaluated, and appropriate goals and courses of action derived from them, without requiring a completely new deliberation each time.

3.2 Civilisation and social power

29. Institutionalised civilisation elements strengthen the power bases of actors.

Explanation. When civilisation elements are embedded in positions, powers, rules, expectations or other institu­tionalised relations, they may function as resources for purposive action. This strengthens actors’ capacity to in­fluence, constrain or direct the thinking, judgement, volition and conduct of others. Shared civilisation elements can thus acquire social power through institution­alisation.

30. Power arising from institutionalised civilisation elements is exercised not by those institutions but by actors who act within or in accordance with the institution.

Explanation. Institutions are not independently acting actors. The positions, powers, rules and expectations em­bedded in them may, however, constitute a power base. Power is exercised only when actors acting within, on be­half of or in accordance with the institution employ them in their purposive action.

31. Conduct in accordance with an institution rests on internalised civili­sation elements, but also on habit, dependency, social pressure or coercion.

Explanation. Institutional conduct need not arise exclusively from conviction or internalisation. Individuals may also act in accordance with an institution because they are accustomed to doing so, depend on others or on institu­tional provisions, experience social pressure, or face coercion. Several mechanisms may operate simultane­ously.

32. The more strongly the civilisation elements associated with an insti­tution have been incorporated into personal and circle civilisations, the more likely people are to act in accordance with that institution.

Explanation. When norms, expectations and conceptions concerning an institution’s legitimacy have become part of personal and circle civilisations, individuals’ thinking, judgement, volition and conduct correspond more closely to that institution. They are consequently more likely to act in accordance with it even without continuous external pressure.

33. When insufficient numbers of individuals perform the conduct nec­essary for an institution to function, its social operation diminishes and the power resting on it disappears.

Explanation. When norms, expectations and conceptions concerning an institution’s legitimacy have become part of personal and circle civilisations, individuals’ thinking, judgement, volition and conduct correspond more closely to that institution. They are consequently more likely to act in accordance with it without external pres­sure. Internalised civilisation elements thus help repro­duce the institution in the conduct of individuals.

34. When individuals or social circles support an actor’s purposive con­duct, that support base constitutes a power base for the actor.

Explanation. A support base may expand an actor’s possibilities for action when individuals or social circles sup­port the actor’s goals, provide resources, legitimate conduct, disseminate mes­sages, or themselves act in accor­dance with those goals. The actor may thereby acquire greater capacity to influence others or outcomes.

35. The better the justification of an actor’s purposive conduct corre­sponds to the personal civilisations of others, the more likely they are to support that conduct and belong or be added to the actor’s support base.

Explanation. An actor may explain and justify assessments, goals and courses of action through a system of ideas and narrative. When others experience that justification, from their personal civilisation, as recognisable, appropriate or justified, they are more likely to support the actor.

3.3 Elites

36. Every social circle has an elite.

Explanation. Within every social circle, one or more individuals direct the goals, organisation, norms and con­duct of the circle to a particular degree.

37. An elite’s position may rest on formal position, authority, expertise, resources, status or informal leadership.

Explanation. An elite’s directive position need not coincide with a formal function or power. It may also arise from authority, expertise, access to resources, status or informal leadership, sepa­rately or in combination.

38. The composition of an elite may change according to subject, cir­cumstances and time.

Explanation. Those who direct a social circle to a particular degree need not always be the same person or group. Depending on the subject, the situation and changes within the circle, other in­dividuals may form part of the elite.

39. The more strongly an elite’s position and status are recognised within a social circle, the more its civilisation elements become direc­tive for the circle civilisation.

Explanation. When an elite’s position and status are recognised within the circle, the elite largely determines the circle civilisation. This constitutes its directive significance for the circle.

40. An elite’s scope for action is partly formed and limited by the con­duct and responses of other members of the social circle.

Explanation. An elite’s power is not unlimited. Even when its position and status are widely recognised, its ac­tual scope for action is partly formed by the ways in which other members of the circle act and respond. Their co­operation may expand that scope; resistance, withdrawal of support or other counter-responses may limit it and lead to adjustments in goals or courses of ac­tion.

3.4 Purposive institutionalisation and politics

41. Institutionalisation may arise without planning or be pursued purpo­sively.

Explanation. Institutionalisation may result from a process without any actor having designed or pursued the eventual result. It may also be pursued purposively by actors seeking to embed civili­sation elements socially and thereby influence the social order.

42. Political struggle may seek to change, maintain or end circle civili­sations and institutions.

Explanation. Political struggle may concern the content of a circle civilisation, such as concep­tions, norms and values, behavioural repertoires, goals and ideals. It may also concern the insti­tutions in which civilisation ele­ments are socially embedded. Changes in circle civilisation and changes in institutions may coincide, but do not necessarily do so.

43. Political struggle may seek to change a circle civilisation without pursuing institutionalisation or collectively binding decisions.

Explanation. Change in circle civilisation may be pursued through struggles over particular ideas, systems of ideas, narratives, norms, values, behavioural repertoires, goals and ideals. Such politi­cal struggle may take place without formal institutionalisation or collectively binding deci­sion-making being its direct goal.

4 Maintenance of circle civilisations

4.1 Social sanctioning and pathologisation

44. Social sanctioning contributes to maintaining particular civilisation elements of a circle civilisation.

Explanation. Within a social circle, social sanctioning may promote compliance with and the per­sistence of spe­cific norms, expectations of conduct and other civilisation elements. Deviation from such elements may lead to informal or formal responses, such as disapproval, loss of status, exclusion or other social consequences. This in­creases the likelihood that members will behave in accordance with these civilisation elements.

45. Social sanctioning may produce conduct in accordance with a cir­cle civilisation without the relevant civilisation elements also being in­ternalised.

Explanation. An individual may behave in accordance with norms and expectations prevailing within a circle be­cause of the social consequences of deviation, without having accepted those norms or expectations as right or appropriate. Outward conformity and internalisation must therefore be analytically distinguished.

46. The influence of social sanctioning on an individual’s conduct is partly determined by that individual’s personality characteristics and by the strength of conflicting civilisation elements in the personal civili­sation.

Explanation. The same social sanction need not have the same effect on every individual. Person­ality character­istics may affect sensitivity to group pressure, authority or rejection. A sanction may also conflict with strongly internalised civilisation elements of the individual. The stronger such conflicting elements are, the weaker the sanction’s influence on conduct may be.

47. Pathologisation may legitimate the social sanctioning and exclu­sion of deviant conceptions or conduct.

Explanation. In pathologisation, deviation is not assessed primarily on its content but associated with a pre­sumed cognitive, moral, psychological or social deficiency in the person who deviates. Sanctioning or excluding that person may consequently be regarded as justified within the circle.

48. Pathologisation legitimates social sanctioning to the extent that the pathologising judgement corresponds to the circle civilisation and is accepted as credible and justified.

Explanation. A pathologising classification has a legitimating effect only when it is regarded within the circle as plausible and normatively appropriate. The existing circle civilisation and trust in the source of the classification are among the relevant factors. When this correspondence is absent, the same classification may instead be rejected and have no legitimating effect.

4.2 Conviction and individual conduct

49. A circle civilisation does not directly determine an individual’s con­duct; its influence operates through that individual’s personal civilisa­tion, personality characteristics and concrete situation.

Explanation. An individual’s actual thinking, judgement, volition and conduct arise from the in­teraction among the personal civilisation, personality characteristics and concrete situation. A cir­cle civilisation affects them only insofar as its elements have been internalised in the personal civilisation or form part of the concrete situation within that circle through expectations, social pressure, sanctioning or coercion.

50. When required conduct conflicts with strongly operative elements of the personal civilisation, pressure arises to reduce the tension by adapting the personal civilisation or reducing the effect of conflicting circle civilisations on the individual.

Explanation. The first route involves change within the personal civilisation, for exam­ple through reinterpretation, rationalisation, weakening or replacement of civilisation ele­ments. The second involves reducing the circle’s influence, for example through avoid­ance, non-conformity, protest, resistance or exit. Which response occurs is partly deter­mined by personality characteristics and the concrete situation.

5 Stability and social change

5.1 Changeability pressure for change and tension

51. Changes in personal civilisation resulting from individual life circum­stances may cause tension with circle civilisations to which the individ­ual belongs.

Explanation. Changes in, for example, intimate relationships, life stage, living environ­ment, health or work may change the personal civilisation without corresponding changes in circle civili­sations. Personal and circle-related civilisation elements that were previously compatible may consequently come into tension. The mechanism described in the previous chapter applies to how the individual attempts to reduce that tension.

52. Changes in personal civilisation caused by individual circumstances generally do not affect circle civilisations.

Explanation. Changes in personal civilisation arising from individual life circumstances generally remain confined to the individual. They may cause tension with circle civilisa­tions to which the in­dividual belongs. Only when such changes also occur in others or spread socially can they con­tribute to changes in a circle civilisation.

53. Socially shared changes in circumstances may cause similarly di­rected changes in personal civilisations that affect circle civilisations af­ter a delay.

Explanation. Technological, economic, demographic, political or other social changes may con­front many individuals with comparable new circumstances during the same pe­riod. Correspond­ing changes in personal civilisations may consequently arise. A circle civilisation changes only when such changes become sufficiently widespread and socially operative within the circle. A de­lay therefore generally occurs between changes in per­sonal civilisations and changes in circle civilisations, and this may cause tensions.

54. Tensions between changed personal civilisations and a lagging cir­cle civilisation diminish through change in the circle civilisation or through a decline in the operation of the divergent personal civilisa­tions.

Explanation. Tension may diminish when changed civilisation elements are adopted by sufficient numbers of members and become part of the circle civilisation. Alternatively, divergence may lose its social operation, for example because individuals conform again, no longer express their divergent elements, leave the circle or are excluded. As long as neither process occurs suffi­ciently, the tension may persist.

55. An elite may purposively pursue change in a circle civilisation by making other civilisation elements directive, thereby creating tension with members’ personal civilisations.

Explanation. An elite may alter existing ideas, norms, goals or narratives and seek to make other civilisation elements directive within the circle. Tension may arise when this change conflicts with strongly operative elements in members’ personal civilisations. How members respond is partly determined by their personal civilisation, personality characteristics and concrete situation.

56. Tensions between a changed circle civilisation and lagging per­sonal civilisations diminish through changes in the personal civilisations or through a decline in the operation of those personal civilisations within the circle.

Explanation. Tension may diminish when members internalise the changed civilisation elements and their personal civilisation changes accordingly. It may also diminish when divergent personal civilisations become less operative within the circle, for example through outward conformity, withdrawal, exit or exclusion.

57. Institutions may lag behind changes in personal and circle civilisa­tions and thereby cause tensions and pressure for change.

Explanation. Institutionalised civilisation elements do not necessarily change at the same time as the personal and circle civilisations in which they arose. Formal rules, roles, powers and other in­stitutionalised relations may therefore persist while the civili­sation elements on which they rest are less widely shared or interpreted differently. The resulting tension may exert pressure for in­stitutional change.

5.2 Interaction and recursiveness of social change

58. Personal civilisations, circle civilisations, social relations and institu­tions influence one another reciprocally.

Explanation. Changes in one of these elements may alter the conditions under which the others operate. Changes in personal civilisations may affect circle civilisations; changes in circle civilisa­tions may influence social relations and institutions; and changes in social relations or institutions may in turn change personal and circle civilisa­tions. The relationships are therefore reciprocal rather than one-directional.

59. Changes within one social circle may affect other social circles and institutions through members and their social relations.

Explanation. Individuals belong to several social circles and are connected with other individuals and circles through social relations. Changes arising within one circle may consequently become known, adopted or socially operative outside that circle and thereby contribute to changes in other circles and institutions.

60. Social changes are recursive: their consequences may themselves become causes of further social change.

Explanation. Social changes may create new circumstances, tensions and responses that subse­quently bring about further changes in personal civilisations, circle civilisa­tions, social relations or institutions. Successive changes may therefore reinforce, weaken or redirect one another.

61. Social stability exists for as long as any contradictions among per­sonal civilisations, circle civilisations, social relations and institutions do not disrupt their social operation.

Explanation. Social stability requires neither complete agreement nor immutability. Differences and tensions may exist as long as they do not disrupt the operation of social circles, social rela­tions and institutions to such a degree that existing patterns of think­ing, judgement, volition and conduct are no longer reproduced. Once that operation is disrupted, pressure for change arises.

6 Purposive social change

6.1 Purposive action

62. An actor’s pursuit of a goal presupposes that the actor values the intended condition above alternative conditions.

Explanation. A goal is a condition pursued by an actor. Purposive action exists here only when the actor prefers that condition to other possible conditions and directs action towards it.

63. Purposive action does not require the pursued goal to be formu­lated in operational or measurable terms.

Explanation. An actor may act purposively from a goal formulated in broad, qualitative or norma­tive terms. It is sufficient for purposive action that the actor values an intended condition above alternatives and directs action towards it. The degree to which the goal is formulated opera­tionally or measurably does, however, determine how unambiguously it can later be established whether the goal has been achieved.

6.2 Initial situation and conditions for purposive change

64. Purposive change in an existing circle civilisation takes place within a circle civilisation that is already operative.

Explanation. The actor does not begin in a neutral environment. Existing civilisation ele­ments have already been internalised, reproduced, legitimated, institutionalised and supported by social sanctioning to varying degrees.

65. An actor may legitimate goals through civilisation elements shared with the actor’s support base.

Explanation. When an actor justifies goals by means of civilisation elements shared by the sup­port base, those goals may become recognisable, appropriate or justified to that support base. Shared civilisation elements may thereby contribute to support for the ac­tor’s purposive conduct.

66. Change in a circle civilisation presupposes that the pursued civilisa­tion elements are internalised by sufficient numbers of individuals and become socially operative within the circle.

Explanation. Persuading individual persons does not in itself change a circle civilisa­tion. The rele­vant civilisation elements must be internalised and shared by sufficient numbers of members and become operative in their thinking, judgement, volition and conduct. Insofar as the pursued change requires it, they may subsequently also be insti­tutionalised.

67. A purposive change in a circle civilisation has succeeded when the pursued civilisation elements have been sufficiently internalised and become sufficiently socially operative to realise and maintain the in­tended condition.

Explanation. A temporary change in conduct, a decision or widespread awareness of new civilisa­tion elements is insufficient in itself. Change has succeeded only when the pursued elements have become part of personal and circle civilisations to such a degree that the intended social condition can function and persist as a result.

68. In purposive change of a circle civilisation, the pursued civilisation elements must be internalised by sufficient numbers of individuals and become socially operative within the relevant social circles.

Explanation. Persuading individual persons is insufficient to change a circle civilisation. New civili­sation elements must spread, be internalised by sufficient numbers of individu­als, and be shared sufficiently within the circles concerned to become socially operative. Insofar as the pur­sued change also requires institutional change, the relevant elements must also be institution­alised.

69. The likelihood that civilisation elements pursued by an actor through purposive action will be internalised increases as they become more comprehensible, plausible and desirable to individuals.

Explanation. Individuals assess new civilisation elements from their existing personal civilisation. The more comprehensible they are and the better they correspond to what individuals consider plausible and desirable, the more likely they are to be internalised. When this occurs among suffi­cient numbers of individuals, the pursued civilisation ele­ments may contribute to changes in a cir­cle civilisation.

6.3 Operation of purposive action

70. In purposive change of a circle civilisation, newly presented civilisa­tion elements compete with civilisation elements that are already op­erative.

Explanation. An actor does not introduce new civilisation elements into a neutral envi­ronment. Members assess them from their existing personal civilisation and within a cir­cle civilisation that is already operative. New elements may consequently be accepted, modified, combined with ex­isting elements or rejected.

71. Purposive action may cause social change when the actor influ­ences the conditions under which civilisation elements are presented to individuals and subsequently disseminated, internalised and institu­tionalised within social circles.

Explanation. An actor does not influence a circle civilisation directly. Purposive action operates through individuals: by influencing the conditions under which civilisation ele­ments are pre­sented to them, the actor increases or decreases the likelihood that these elements will be se­lected, internalised and become operative in their personal civilisa­tions. When this occurs among sufficient numbers of individuals and the relevant ele­ments are shared and become socially opera­tive within a circle, the circle civilisation may change. Insofar as these elements are subse­quently embedded in institutions, they may also be institutionalised.

6.4 Consequences of purposive action

72. The purposive action of actors may cause social changes that none of them intended or foresaw.

Explanation. Actors may each act from their own goals, separately, jointly or in mutual depen­dency. The interaction among their actions may produce outcomes that none of the actors con­cerned intended or designed. When such outcomes affect personal civilisa­tions, circle civilisa­tions, social relations or institutions, they may cause unintended so­cial changes.

73. The better an outcome corresponds to the civilisation elements of the person evaluating it, the more likely that outcome is to be ac­cepted as achievement of the goal.

Explanation. Different evaluators may assess the same factual outcome differently. When the outcome corresponds to their norms, values, expectations or other operative civilisation ele­ments, they are more likely to regard it as successful or as realisation of the goal. When civilisa­tion elements conflict with it, the same outcome may instead be judged insufficient or unsuccess­ful.

74. Acceptance by a support base of the explanation through which an actor legitimates an outcome as achievement of the goal contrib­utes to the further civilising of that support base.

Explanation. When the support base accepts the actor’s interpretation of an outcome, the civili­sation elements used to substantiate that interpretation are confirmed and strengthened. As a result, not only may the outcome be assessed as successful, but the personal civilisations of the support base may also be formed further in the direction of those elements.

75. When competing actors interpret an outcome of purposive action differently, the likelihood that an actor’s explanation will be accepted by that actor’s support base increases with the explanation’s corre­spondence to its civilisation and its trust in the actor.

Explanation. When interpretations compete, acceptance of an explanation is not deter­mined solely by the factual outcome. The correspondence of that explanation to the civili­sation elements of the support base and its trust in the actor also play a part. Different support bases may conse­quently assess the same outcome differently.

7 Political change

76. The degree to which political change affects a circle civilisation and its institutions forms a continuum.

Explanation. Political changes differ in the degree to which they affect or replace exist­ing stan­dards, civilisation elements and institutions. Some changes remain within a largely accepted circle civilisation, others modify particular civilisation elements, and still others intervene revolutionarily in a coherent set of elements and the institutions in which they are embedded. These differences in scope are analytical distinctions; con­crete processes of change may combine characteristics of several forms and change character during the process.

77. Political changes differ in the degree to which they modify existing standards, civilisation elements and institutions; this theory analytically distinguishes three classes.

Explanation. The three classes order different degrees within the continuum of political change. They distinguish changes within existing standards, changes in particular civili­sation elements, and changes in coherent civilisation elements and the institutions in which they are embedded. Concrete processes of change may display characteristics of more than one class.

78. Political change may take place within an existing circle civilisation and institutional order without changing relevant elements of either of them class 1.

Explanation. In this class of political change, competing actors struggle over alternative deci­sions already regarded as possible and legitimate within the existing conceptions, norms, goals and institutional order. The outcome may lead to different decisions, rules or actual conduct with­out requiring changes to relevant elements of the dominant circle civilisation. This is the kind of political struggle that occurs, for example, in parliaments, general meetings and consultations. A discussion concerning, for example, the rate of value added tax may lead to a different decision without requiring changes to relevant civilisation elements or institutions.

79. Political change may modify one or more civilisation elements of a circle civilisation without changing the circle civilisation as a whole pro­foundly class 2.

Explanation. In this class, political struggle concerns not only a decision within existing stan­dards but the modification of one or more of those standards themselves. Concep­tions of what is true, right, normal or desirable may change in a particular field, while other central elements of the circle civilisation and the legitimacy of its principal institu­tions remain largely intact. Examples include debates about procedures, representation, admission criteria, powers or conditions that determine what counts as legitimate or ap­propriate within the circle.

80. Political change may profoundly modify a coherent set of civilisa­tion elements and the institutions connected with them class 3.

Explanation. In this class, political struggle concerns several interrelated civilisation ele­ments im­portant to the circle. The dominant circle civilisation, existing ideas of legiti­macy, social relations, and the arrangement or operation of major institutions may conse­quently also change pro­foundly. The pursuit of change then concerns not merely particu­lar conceptions or norms, but a coherent alternative system of ideas and narrative. Ex­amples include debates about fundamental changes in goals, rights, guarantees, repre­sentation, organisation and decision-making.

81. A process of political change may move from one class to another during its course.

Explanation. A political struggle that begins with a decision within existing standards may ex­pand into a struggle over particular civilisation elements or over a coherent set of such elements. Conversely, an extensive pursuit of change may be limited, divided or ab­sorbed within existing standards and institutions as a result of resistance, limited power bases, loss of a support base or other circumstances. The class occupied by a process of political change is therefore not a fixed property of that process.

8 Movements

8.1 Origin and organisation of movements

82. A movement cannot arise without a shared or developing system of ideas.

Explanation. A movement presupposes more than isolated agreement about particular concep­tions or interests. Sufficient coherence must arise among shared civilisation ele­ments to connect individuals and social circles durably and direct interpretation, goals and conduct. The system of ideas need not be fully developed or formally recorded when the movement arises, but it must be sufficiently available and recognisable socially to be shared and developed further.

83. A movement may arise and develop organically without having been designed by a single actor, or it may be formed and organised purposively.

Explanation. A movement may arise gradually from connections among individuals and social circles organised around sufficiently shared civilisation elements. Its emergence does not require a single actor to have designed, founded or organised the movement as a whole in advance.

84. When an organically arisen movement pursues political goals, has developed sufficient social cohesion, and its elite is recognised within the movement as directive, purposive political action becomes neces­sary to achieve those goals.

Explanation. During an initial phase, a movement may primarily consist of developing, sharing and disseminating civilisation elements. As sufficient social cohesion arises and an elite is recog­nised within the movement as directive, the capacity to formulate com­mon political goals, coordi­nate resources and act purposively against competing actors increases. When such political goals are actually pursued, purposive political action is necessary to realise them.

85. A movement does not require central organisation or central lead­ership, but may be organised in that way.

Explanation. A movement may consist of individuals and several interconnected social circles, or­ganisations, media and institutions. Coordination and leadership functions may be centralised or dispersed, distributed among different individuals and circles, and change over time. A centrally organised movement therefore remains a movement, but central organisation and leadership are not necessary characteristics of it.

86. Different tendencies may arise within a movement because partici­pants and social circles do not fully share the same civilisations and in­terpret and develop the system of ideas and narrative differently.

Explanation. Differences in personal and circle civilisations may lead to divergent views concern­ing content, priorities, goals and courses of action. When such differences be­come sufficiently great, tendencies may arise within the movement that compete with one another in particular re­spects. This may lead to internal factional conflict, organisa­tional separation or the emergence of new movements.

8.2 Civilising and institutionalisation

87. The means and practices of a movement perform civilising and binding functions by transmitting its system of ideas, strengthening shared civilisation elements among the individuals involved, and pro­moting the formation of social circles around those elements.

Explanation. The means and practices of a movement may repeatedly expose individu­als to the system of ideas and thereby contribute to the internalisation and strengthening of civilisation ele­ments. At the same time, they may promote mutual recognition and con­nectedness and contrib­ute to the emergence and persistence of social circles in which these elements become socially operative. Not every individual civilised by a movement need become a member of an organisa­tion or social circle belonging to that movement.

88. An organisation within a movement may perform a specific func­tion without the movement being reduced to that organisation.

Explanation. A movement may encompass different organisations, social circles and in­stitutions, each performing its own function. A political party may, for example, organise political represen­tation and decision-making, while other organisations focus on educa­tion, media, research, reli­gion, representation of interests or social interaction. The movement remains the wider associa­tion within which these functions are connected at the level of principles through sufficiently shared civilisation elements and a system of ideas.

89. As an elite within a movement becomes recognised as directive, its activities and civilisation elements are more likely to be institutionalised purposively and thereby made more enduring.

Explanation. An organically arisen movement may long consist of loose connections, shared ideas and temporary activities. When an elite is recognised within the movement as directive, the capacity to establish roles, procedures, organisations and other endur­ing forms purposively in­creases. Activities and civilisation elements may thereby become less dependent on temporary contacts and accidental forms of cooperation and be repro­duced more durably within the move­ment.

8.3 Internal persistence and external dissemination

90. Civilisation elements may be institutionalised within a movement before they have gained broad social acceptance beyond it.

Explanation. Within its own social circles and organisations, a movement may develop roles, rules, procedures and other institutional forms in which its civilisation elements are embedded. Those elements may thereby already be made enduring and reproduced within the movement before they are widely shared beyond it. This internal institutionali­sation may also contribute to civilising new participants and to the further development of the movement’s system of ideas and narrative.

91. A movement may accelerate the dissemination and social opera­tion of its civilisation elements when its system of ideas also initiates a broader process of civilising outside its own associations.

Explanation. A movement’s system of ideas may be adopted by individuals and social circles out­side the movement without their belonging to its organisations or own circles. When these civili­sation elements are internalised, shared, disseminated further and be­come socially operative there, a broader process of civilising arises that is no longer borne exclusively by the original movement. The social dissemination of its ideas may consequently accelerate and extend across several social circles and institutions.

9 The state as a particular territorial social circle

92. The state is a social circle to which the general theory of social cir­cles applies.

Explanation. In this theory, the state is not placed outside the general conceptual framework as a separate social phenomenon. The state, too, consists of individuals con­nected through suffi­ciently shared and socially operative civilisation elements, has a cir­cle civilisation, elites, institu­tions, power relations, social sanctioning, and processes of civilising, reproduction and change. The propositions concerning social circles formu­lated in earlier chapters therefore also apply to the state. Its particular position rests not on different social mechanisms but on specific charac­teristics of this territorial social cir­cle.

93. The state differs from most other social circles because individuals cannot escape its territorially binding rules and institutions simply by leaving the circle.

Explanation. Other social circles may also require participation or severely restrict exit. In the case of the state, however, the restriction is organised territorially: persons within the territory re­main in principle subject to the collectively binding rules and institutions of that state. Escape therefore generally requires more than ending membership of or participation in a particular so­cial circle.

94. The state claims the exclusive right within its territory to employ co­ercion and violence as legitimate means and legitimates that claim through its circle civilisation.

Explanation. The state’s particular position does not, however, rest solely on its actual capacity to employ coercion. Through civilising and the legitimising civilisation loop, the legitimacy of the state, its institutions and its claim to collectively binding decision-mak­ing may become part of personal and circle civilisations. Insofar as individuals recognise this legitimacy and act in accor­dance with the associated roles, rules and expectations, they themselves contribute to the social operation and reproduction of the state order.

95. The state differs from other social circles because its sanctions can ultimately be enforced through coercion regarded as legitimate and cannot be avoided simply by leaving the circle.

Explanation. Other social circles may also apply social or formal sanctions, but the state pos­sesses institutions that can ultimately enforce compliance through coercion. An indi­vidual cannot simply escape such sanctions by ending membership of the circle. The combination of territorial attachment, collectively binding rules and the monopoly of vio­lence gives state sanctioning its particular social operation.

96. The state may compel individuals and social circles to surrender re­sources for collective goals determined by the state.

Explanation. This possibility follows from the state’s authority to establish collectively binding rules within its territory and, where necessary, enforce compliance with them. Taxation is the most general form. Unlike contributions to most other social circles, this surrender of resources does not necessarily rest on voluntary participation or individual agreement with the particular goal for which the resources are used.

97. The governing elite may legitimate collectively binding decisions and claims to power by presenting them as serving the general inter­est, without that legitimation being shared or internalised by all citizens.

Explanation. What is designated as the general interest is partly determined by the civilisation ele­ments operative within the governing elite and the state’s dominant circle civilisation. Legiti­mation may be expressed in different, competing or changing narratives. Complete agreement or internalisation by all citizens is not necessary for social operation; sufficient recognition within rele­vant personal and circle civilisations will suffice.

10 Social Change

98. Whether a social change is designated as a revolution, reform or limited adjustment depends partly on the change itself and on the civilisation of the person evaluating it.

Explanation. The same social change may be classified differently by different individu­als and so­cial circles. The scale and nature of the change, the circle in which it occurs and the evaluator’s standards are among the relevant factors. This terminological classi­fication is not decisive for the operation of the theory.

99. The same fundamental civilising mechanisms underlie both limited and far-reaching purposive social changes.

Explanation. The extent of a social change does not alter the fundamental mechanisms of civilis­ing, internalisation, formation of social circles, power, institutionalisation, legiti­mation and social change. Their scale, complexity, duration and required resources may, however, differ greatly.

100. The Art of Revolution means the theory of the purposive change of civilisations and of the social orders resting upon them.

Explanation. This proposition refers back to the theoretical structure developed in the preceding propositions. The Art of Revolution is therefore not a separate component alongside the theory, but the name of the theory insofar as it concerns purposive change in civilisations and the social orders resting upon them.