Difference between revisions of "Barbarian" - New World Encyclopedia
m |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| − | The term ''Barbarian'' comes from a Greek language, used to connote any foreigner not sharing a recognized culture or language with the speaker or writer employing the term. The word was probably formed by imitation of the incomprehensive sounds of foreign language (“bar-bar”), and as such was used in a mocking manner. From the Greek perspective it meant anything that was not Greek, including language, people or customs. Later, as the Greek language and culture spread, the term became generally used for everything that was non-Greek. A "barbarism" in language, especially Greek or Latin, is a misformed word, such as a solecism or a malapropism. Related terms are '''barbaric''' and ''barbarous''. Often today, ''barbarian'' is used to mean someone violent, primitive, uncouth or uncivilized in general. See also ''Philistinism | + | The term ''Barbarian'' comes from a [[Greek]] language, used to connote any foreigner not sharing a recognized culture or language with the speaker or writer employing the term. The word was probably formed by imitation of the incomprehensive sounds of foreign language (“bar-bar”), and as such was used in a mocking manner. From the Greek perspective it meant anything that was not Greek, including language, people or customs. Later, as the Greek language and culture spread, the term became generally used for everything that was non-Greek. A "barbarism" in language, especially Greek or Latin, is a misformed word, such as a solecism or a [[malapropism]]. Related terms are '''barbaric''' and '''barbarous'''. Often today, ''barbarian'' is used to mean someone violent, primitive, uncouth or uncivilized in general. See also ''[[Philistinism]]'' or ''[[Philistine]]''. |
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| − | In the New Testament the term ''Barbarian'' is used in its Hellenic sense - to describe non-Greeks or those who merely speak a different language. Such, in Acts 28:2 and Acts 28:4 the author, probably from the Greek-Roman standpoint, refers to the inhabitants of Malta (formerly a Carthaginian colony) as “barbarians”. Similar, in Col 3:11 the word is used for those nations of the Roman Empire that did not speak Greek. The writer of Romans 1:14 suggest that Greeks together with non-Greeks (i.e. “barbarians”) compose the whole human race. The term here thus indicates merely a separation of Greek-speaking cultures from the non-Greek-speaking ones, the term itself not bearing any deprecatory value. However, elsewhere in the Bible it is not so. In 1 Corinthians 14:11 Paul uses the term in its derogatory sense - to describe someone who speaks an unintelligible language. "If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that spoke a barbarian, and he that spoke will be a barbarian unto me." Paul here denounces the speaking in tongues, comparing it with the barbarian (i.e. foreign) language, which is useless if it cannot be understood, therefore not being able to convey the message from God. Philo and Josephus, together other Roman writers, used this term to separate Greco-Roman culture from other cultures, implying the supremacy of the former. | + | In the [[New Testament]] the term ''Barbarian'' is used in its Hellenic sense - to describe non-Greeks or those who merely speak a different language. Such, in Acts 28:2 and Acts 28:4 the author, probably from the Greek-Roman standpoint, refers to the inhabitants of Malta (formerly a Carthaginian colony) as “barbarians”. Similar, in Col 3:11 the word is used for those nations of the [[Roman Empire]] that did not speak Greek. The writer of Romans 1:14 suggest that Greeks together with non-Greeks (i.e. “barbarians”) compose the whole human race. The term here thus indicates merely a separation of Greek-speaking cultures from the non-Greek-speaking ones, the term itself not bearing any deprecatory value. However, elsewhere in the Bible it is not so. In 1 Corinthians 14:11 [[Paul]] uses the term in its derogatory sense - to describe someone who speaks an unintelligible language. "If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that spoke a barbarian, and he that spoke will be a barbarian unto me." Paul here denounces the speaking in tongues, comparing it with the barbarian (i.e. foreign) language, which is useless if it cannot be understood, therefore not being able to convey the message from God. [[Philo]] and [[Josephus]], together other Roman writers, used this term to separate Greco-Roman culture from other cultures, implying the supremacy of the former. |
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
From the cross-cultural perspective, term “barbarian” is used in connotation of the encounter of two different cultures. Many peoples have regarded alien or rival cultures as "barbarian", because they were unrecognizably strange. Thus from this perspective term has rather pejorative meaning. | From the cross-cultural perspective, term “barbarian” is used in connotation of the encounter of two different cultures. Many peoples have regarded alien or rival cultures as "barbarian", because they were unrecognizably strange. Thus from this perspective term has rather pejorative meaning. | ||
| − | For example, the Greeks admired Scythian and Eastern Gauls as heroic individuals, but considered their culture to be barbaric. Similarly, Romans saw various Germanic, Gaul, and Hun tribes as essentially barbaric. | + | For example, the Greeks admired [[Scythian]] and [[Eastern Gauls]] as heroic individuals, but considered their culture to be barbaric. Similarly, Romans saw various [[Germanic]], [[Gaul]], and [[Hun]] tribes as essentially barbaric. |
| − | The Chinese (Han Chinese) regarded the Xiongnu, Tatars, Turkic people (Turks), Mongols, Jurchen, Manchu, and even Europeans as barbaric. The Chinese used different terms for barbarians from different directions of the compass. Those in the east were called Dongyi (东夷), those in the west were called Xirong (西戎), those in the south were called Nanman (南蛮), and those in the north were called Beidi (北狄). | + | The Chinese ([[Han Chinese]]) regarded the [[Xiongnu]], [[Tatars]], Turkic people ([[Turks]]), [[Mongols]], [[Jurchen]], [[Manchu]], and even [[Europeans]] as barbaric. The Chinese used different terms for barbarians from different directions of the compass. Those in the east were called Dongyi (东夷), those in the west were called Xirong (西戎), those in the south were called Nanman (南蛮), and those in the north were called Beidi (北狄). |
| − | The Japanese adopted the Chinese usage of the term. When Europeans came to Japan, they were called | + | The Japanese adopted the Chinese usage of the term. When Europeans came to Japan, they were called “[[nanban]]” (南蛮), literally ''Barbarians from the South'', because the Portuguese ships appeared to sail from the South. |
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| − | From the sociological viewpoint, the concept of “barbarian” is connected and depends upon a carefully defined use of the term "civilization". “Civilization” denotes a settled (city/urban) way of life that is organized on principles broader than the extended family or tribe, in which surpluses of necessities can be stored and redistributed and division of labor produces some luxury goods (even if only for the elite, priesthood, or kings). The barbarian is one who is not an integrated part of the civilization, one that is technically a social parasite on civilization, who depends on settlements as a source of slaves, surpluses and portable luxuries: booty, loot and plunder. | + | From the sociological viewpoint, the concept of “barbarian” is connected and depends upon a carefully defined use of the term "[[civilization]]". “Civilization” denotes a settled (city/urban) way of life that is organized on principles broader than the extended family or tribe, in which surpluses of necessities can be stored and redistributed and division of labor produces some luxury goods (even if only for the elite, priesthood, or kings). The barbarian is one who is not an integrated part of the civilization, one that is technically a social parasite on civilization, who depends on settlements as a source of [[slaves]], surpluses and portable luxuries: booty, loot and plunder. |
| − | The distinction, however, needs to be made between the concepts of | + | The distinction, however, needs to be made between the concepts of “[[culture]]” and “[[civilization]]”, where there is no equation mark between them. Rich, deep authentic human culture exists even without civilization, as the German writers of the early Romantic generation first defined the opposing terms, though they used them as polarities in a way that a modern writer might not. "Culture" should not simply connote "civilization". In this sense, barbarians are those of a different culture, who depend on the civilization dominant in the geographical area where they live. |
| − | In addition, the culture of the nomad is not to be confused with the culture of the barbarian, either. The nomad subsists on the products of his flocks, and follows their needs. The nomad may barter for necessities, like metalwork, but does not depend on civilization for plunder, as the barbarian does. | + | In addition, the culture of the [[nomad]] is not to be confused with the culture of the barbarian, either. The nomad subsists on the products of his flocks, and follows their needs. The nomad may barter for necessities, like metalwork, but does not depend on civilization for plunder, as the barbarian does. |
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| − | From the psychological perspective, term “barbarian” can be associates with a stereotypical image of someone who is not a member of the same group as the person using the term. As Bouris, Turner, and Gagnon (1997) put it, “Stereotypes function to represent inter-group realities … creating images of the out-group (and the in-group) that explain, rationalize and justify the inter-group relationship and one's past, present and future behavior within it” (p. 273). According to this perspective, group-thinking creates specific context of inter- and intra-group relationships, which use stereotypes as means of group interaction. According to image theory (see R. Cottam, 1986 and Herrmann, 1985), inter-group relationships (cooperation-competition, in-group status) are closely associated with intra-group relationships. Sentiments and behaviors of the in-group membership are created in opposition to the members of other groups, usually being seen in a positive and morally correct light. Positive and moral self-image is attributed to all the members of the in-group, while on the other side out-group membership is regarded as less valued. Stereotypes and negative images of the out-group are constructed thus to serve the function of degrading the out-group and keeping the balance between in- and out-group membership. | + | From the psychological perspective, term “barbarian” can be associates with a stereotypical image of someone who is not a member of the same group as the person using the term. As Bouris, Turner, and Gagnon (1997) put it, “Stereotypes function to represent inter-group realities … creating images of the out-group (and the in-group) that explain, rationalize and justify the inter-group relationship and one's past, present and future behavior within it” (p. 273). According to this perspective, [[group-thinking]] creates specific context of inter- and intra-group relationships, which use [[stereotypes]] as means of group interaction. According to image theory (see R. Cottam, 1986 and Herrmann, 1985), inter-group relationships (cooperation-competition, in-group status) are closely associated with intra-group relationships. Sentiments and behaviors of the in-group membership are created in opposition to the members of other groups, usually being seen in a positive and morally correct light. Positive and moral self-image is attributed to all the members of the in-group, while on the other side out-group membership is regarded as less valued. Stereotypes and negative images of the out-group are constructed thus to serve the function of degrading the out-group and keeping the balance between in- and out-group membership. |
The barbarian image serves function to degrade the members of the opposite group, creating a morally justified situation to separate and restrain from that group. Barbarian image usually involves depicting out-group members as extremely strong but irrational, evil without moral judgment, destructive and violent with emotional leadership not much relying on intelligence, etc. Such image is contrasted with in-group members, who are gentle, moral, and of superior intelligence. Thus, in- and out-groups cannot/should not be mixed together. On that way intra-group balance is established. | The barbarian image serves function to degrade the members of the opposite group, creating a morally justified situation to separate and restrain from that group. Barbarian image usually involves depicting out-group members as extremely strong but irrational, evil without moral judgment, destructive and violent with emotional leadership not much relying on intelligence, etc. Such image is contrasted with in-group members, who are gentle, moral, and of superior intelligence. Thus, in- and out-groups cannot/should not be mixed together. On that way intra-group balance is established. | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| − | In fantasy novels and role-playing games, barbarians (or | + | In [[fantasy]] novels and [[role-playing games]], barbarians (or berserkers) are depicted as brave uncivilized warriors, often able to attack with a crazed fury. [[Conan the Barbarian]] is best known among these. The modern sympathetic admiration for such fantasy barbarians is a direct descendant of the Age of [[Enlightenment]] idealization of the "[[Noble Savage]]". |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 19:11, 30 September 2005
Origin of the term
The term Barbarian comes from a Greek language, used to connote any foreigner not sharing a recognized culture or language with the speaker or writer employing the term. The word was probably formed by imitation of the incomprehensive sounds of foreign language (“bar-bar”), and as such was used in a mocking manner. From the Greek perspective it meant anything that was not Greek, including language, people or customs. Later, as the Greek language and culture spread, the term became generally used for everything that was non-Greek. A "barbarism" in language, especially Greek or Latin, is a misformed word, such as a solecism or a malapropism. Related terms are barbaric and barbarous. Often today, barbarian is used to mean someone violent, primitive, uncouth or uncivilized in general. See also Philistinism or Philistine.
Use of term in the Bible
In the New Testament the term Barbarian is used in its Hellenic sense - to describe non-Greeks or those who merely speak a different language. Such, in Acts 28:2 and Acts 28:4 the author, probably from the Greek-Roman standpoint, refers to the inhabitants of Malta (formerly a Carthaginian colony) as “barbarians”. Similar, in Col 3:11 the word is used for those nations of the Roman Empire that did not speak Greek. The writer of Romans 1:14 suggest that Greeks together with non-Greeks (i.e. “barbarians”) compose the whole human race. The term here thus indicates merely a separation of Greek-speaking cultures from the non-Greek-speaking ones, the term itself not bearing any deprecatory value. However, elsewhere in the Bible it is not so. In 1 Corinthians 14:11 Paul uses the term in its derogatory sense - to describe someone who speaks an unintelligible language. "If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that spoke a barbarian, and he that spoke will be a barbarian unto me." Paul here denounces the speaking in tongues, comparing it with the barbarian (i.e. foreign) language, which is useless if it cannot be understood, therefore not being able to convey the message from God. Philo and Josephus, together other Roman writers, used this term to separate Greco-Roman culture from other cultures, implying the supremacy of the former.
Cross-cultural perspective
From the cross-cultural perspective, term “barbarian” is used in connotation of the encounter of two different cultures. Many peoples have regarded alien or rival cultures as "barbarian", because they were unrecognizably strange. Thus from this perspective term has rather pejorative meaning. For example, the Greeks admired Scythian and Eastern Gauls as heroic individuals, but considered their culture to be barbaric. Similarly, Romans saw various Germanic, Gaul, and Hun tribes as essentially barbaric. The Chinese (Han Chinese) regarded the Xiongnu, Tatars, Turkic people (Turks), Mongols, Jurchen, Manchu, and even Europeans as barbaric. The Chinese used different terms for barbarians from different directions of the compass. Those in the east were called Dongyi (东夷), those in the west were called Xirong (西戎), those in the south were called Nanman (南蛮), and those in the north were called Beidi (北狄).
The Japanese adopted the Chinese usage of the term. When Europeans came to Japan, they were called “nanban” (南蛮), literally Barbarians from the South, because the Portuguese ships appeared to sail from the South.
Sociological perspective
From the sociological viewpoint, the concept of “barbarian” is connected and depends upon a carefully defined use of the term "civilization". “Civilization” denotes a settled (city/urban) way of life that is organized on principles broader than the extended family or tribe, in which surpluses of necessities can be stored and redistributed and division of labor produces some luxury goods (even if only for the elite, priesthood, or kings). The barbarian is one who is not an integrated part of the civilization, one that is technically a social parasite on civilization, who depends on settlements as a source of slaves, surpluses and portable luxuries: booty, loot and plunder.
The distinction, however, needs to be made between the concepts of “culture” and “civilization”, where there is no equation mark between them. Rich, deep authentic human culture exists even without civilization, as the German writers of the early Romantic generation first defined the opposing terms, though they used them as polarities in a way that a modern writer might not. "Culture" should not simply connote "civilization". In this sense, barbarians are those of a different culture, who depend on the civilization dominant in the geographical area where they live.
In addition, the culture of the nomad is not to be confused with the culture of the barbarian, either. The nomad subsists on the products of his flocks, and follows their needs. The nomad may barter for necessities, like metalwork, but does not depend on civilization for plunder, as the barbarian does.
Psychological perspective
From the psychological perspective, term “barbarian” can be associates with a stereotypical image of someone who is not a member of the same group as the person using the term. As Bouris, Turner, and Gagnon (1997) put it, “Stereotypes function to represent inter-group realities … creating images of the out-group (and the in-group) that explain, rationalize and justify the inter-group relationship and one's past, present and future behavior within it” (p. 273). According to this perspective, group-thinking creates specific context of inter- and intra-group relationships, which use stereotypes as means of group interaction. According to image theory (see R. Cottam, 1986 and Herrmann, 1985), inter-group relationships (cooperation-competition, in-group status) are closely associated with intra-group relationships. Sentiments and behaviors of the in-group membership are created in opposition to the members of other groups, usually being seen in a positive and morally correct light. Positive and moral self-image is attributed to all the members of the in-group, while on the other side out-group membership is regarded as less valued. Stereotypes and negative images of the out-group are constructed thus to serve the function of degrading the out-group and keeping the balance between in- and out-group membership.
The barbarian image serves function to degrade the members of the opposite group, creating a morally justified situation to separate and restrain from that group. Barbarian image usually involves depicting out-group members as extremely strong but irrational, evil without moral judgment, destructive and violent with emotional leadership not much relying on intelligence, etc. Such image is contrasted with in-group members, who are gentle, moral, and of superior intelligence. Thus, in- and out-groups cannot/should not be mixed together. On that way intra-group balance is established.
Modern use of the term
In fantasy novels and role-playing games, barbarians (or berserkers) are depicted as brave uncivilized warriors, often able to attack with a crazed fury. Conan the Barbarian is best known among these. The modern sympathetic admiration for such fantasy barbarians is a direct descendant of the Age of Enlightenment idealization of the "Noble Savage".
See also
- List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"
- Barbarian kings of Italy: in fact merely a list of the highly civilized Ostrogothic rulers, who avoided the term "king".
- Michael Wall's 1989 play Amongst Barbarians
- Conan the Barbarian
Compare
- Oriental, another word for an alien outsider, now also with pejorative connotations.
Further reading
- Hall, E. (1989). Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford/New york
- Cottam, M. (1986). Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Influence of Cognition. Boulder : Westview Press
- Herrmann, R. K. (1985). Perceptions and behavior in Soviet foreign policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Boulding, K. (1959). National images and international systems. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 120-131.
- Bouris, R. Y., Turner, J. C. & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social identity, and discrimination. In R. Spears, P. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 273–295). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
Comments
This is an unfinished work in progress.—Jennifer Tanabe 18:37, 23 Sep 2005 (CDT)
