First, let's define the term “civilization” itself. Philosophers and historians put in this word a slightly different semantic content. Consider the types of civilizations called "localized in time and space societies." Different historians distinguish a different number of local civilizations. The Englishman Arnold Toynbee believed that over the past millennium five civilizations have appeared (and now live): Western, Orthodox (to which belongs
Russia), Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern (China, Japan, Korea,
Southeast Asia). In total, in the historical era, he counted thirty-seven civilizations.
Types of civilizations, according to Toynbee, are divided into chains of three elements. All existing civilizations are the third, last links. For example, our civilization is the last in the chain: Minoan civilization - Hellenic - Orthodox. That is, in his opinion, we live in an era on the eve of a sharp change in the global historical trend. True, it is not known when and in what form it will happen.
In the generally accepted popular culturology, a simplified idea of the existence of a Western cultural tradition is adopted, which contrasts the eastern type of civilization, which differs in a number of fundamental features. They are, first of all, different attitudes towards individuals in society and attitudes toward property.
Such a contrast is, of course, vulgar. The main types of civilizations are not limited to the division into West and East. Yes, the very definition of eastern civilization needs to be clarified. From the point of view of the European citizen, the civilization of Iran, Kazakhstan and China - this is something about the same, differing only in insignificant details and relating to the eastern type of civilization. Meanwhile, it is clear to any competent person (not to mention the inhabitants of these states) that in the first case we have a classical Muslim Shiite state, in the second - the culture of nomads of the Great Steppe subjected to Muslim influence (the term Lev Gumilyov), and in the third - a complex conglomerate, including Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian components, abundantly seasoned with communist ideology.
And modern Europe regarding the idea of "what is good and what is bad" is very different from medieval Europe. The views of Savonarola, Torquemada and the Duke of Richelieu, who became the de facto ruler of France, have nothing to do with the current priorities of the domestic policy of most European states.
Everything that, according to the European layman, is now inherent in eastern civilizations - collectivism, the low status of the individual in society - was in old Europe. And the point is not that Europe has "grown." The degree of passionarity just fell. The old world has become fat, lazy to some extent. Therefore, aliens from the south and east, carriers of a different cultural tradition, feel so at ease in Europe. Something similar could happen in the classic eastern country - Japan, the constitution of which was written by the lawyers of the American occupation forces in the hope of instilling a Western system of values. But the Japanese still have too much power of tradition. This is an energetic society that can protect itself from outside influence. So the different “types of civilizations" have nothing to do with it.