The civilizational approach to the typology of the state is probably promising, but at the moment it is in the process of formation and in the educational literature there is no clear division of states into types by this criterion. Only the principles of such an approach are named. Thus, Prof. Vengerov, who has paid much attention to this issue in the educational literature, believes that the main feature of the civilization approach is that "according to the civilization theory, the type of the state, its social nature is determined not so much by objective-material, but by ideal-spiritual and cultural factors". The author singles out three important, in his opinion, principles of correlation between the state and spiritual and cultural life of the society:
- The essence of the state is determined not only by the existing correlation of forces but also by the ideas about the world, values and behavior patterns accumulated in the course of the historical process and transferred within the framework of culture;
- State power as a central phenomenon of the world of politics can be considered at the same time as a part of the world of culture;
- The diversity of cultures - in time and space - makes it possible to understand why some types of states, corresponding to one condition, stopped in their development in other conditions.
Prof. Vengerov proceeds from such types of civilizations as primary and secondary, which are divided by the level of their organization. The author notes that for the states of primary civilizations (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Iranian, Burmese, Siamese, Khmer, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.) are characteristic:
(a) The state's huge role as a unifying and organizing force that is not defined, but determines social and economic structures;
b) the state's connection with religion in the political-religious complex.
In secondary civilizations - Western European, North American, Eastern European, Latin American, Buddhist, etc.:
(a) There was a clear distinction between the state power and the cultural and religious complex: the power was no longer as powerful and pervasive as it was in the primary civilizations;
b) the position of the ruler, who represented the state, was ambiguous: on the one hand, it is worthy of all obedience, and on the other hand - its power must correspond to the sacred principles and laws, and otherwise, it is illegal.
It is possible to notice, including from the resulted example, that at the civilized approach practically it is not carried out (or it is impossible to draw) distinctions between society and the state. For this reason, probably, Prof. Vengerov does not give specific terminological designations to those types of state, which correspond to primary and secondary civilizations.
It is known that around the meaning of the words "culture" and "civilization" there are debates, sometimes acquiring an acute character, and it is rare to confuse these words, when the context is unambiguous, although sometimes it is legitimate to use them as synonyms: they are so closely intertwined. But there are not only similarities between them, but also differences in some aspects, even to the antagonistic opposite. Indeed, it is unlikely that anyone with a subtle linguistic flair, for example, would classify the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky as civilization phenomena, and that atomic bombs and other means of extermination of people are cultural phenomena, although both are the work of the mind and the hands of men.
I. Kant was the first to introduce the difference between culture and civilization, thus significantly clarifying this problem. Earlier, unlike nature, culture was understood as everything created by man. Thus, for example, I.G. Herder posed a question, although it was clear that a man does a lot of things not only badly, but even very badly in his work. Later, views on culture appeared, which resembled its ideally functioning system and professional skills, but do not take into account what professionally, i.e. with great skill, others can kill people, but no one will call this atrocity a phenomenon of culture. It was Kant who solved this question, and it is ingeniously simple. He defined culture as something that serves the welfare of people or is humanistic: there is no true culture outside of humanism and spirituality [Kefeli I.F. Culture and civilization // Socio-political journal, 1995. № 4, с. 122 – 127.].
Proceeding from the understanding of the essence of culture. Kant contrasted the "skill culture" with the "culture of upbringing", and he called the purely external, "technical" type of culture a civilization. The farsighted thinker's genius saw the rapid development of civilization and perceived it with anxiety, speaking about the separation of civilization from culture: culture goes forward much more slowly than civilization.