Jump to content

The ascendant (or declining?) current state and future of western culture


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Just now, Castel said:

I don't think you can draw much from gladiators, given the wide period they were used in. 

Or sportsmen for making money tbh.They make money cause they bring money.

There have been sportspeople for all of Western society also - yea, Gladiators were part of Rome as Soccer is part of England, NFL is part of the US and AFL is part of Australia - it's the extreme idolisation and paychecks that shows decadence and decline, not that the sports are part of their given society. The last 300 years of Rome, Gladiators were paid increasingly more as Roman society sought to focus on something that meant something, at their most extreme Gladiators were the richest Romans but this was also near the end of classical Roman culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ummester said:

There have been sportspeople for all of Western society also - yea, Gladiators were part of Rome as Soccer is part of England, NFL is part of the US and AFL is part of Australia - it's the extreme idolisation and paychecks that shows decadence and decline, not that the sports are part of their given society. The last 300 years of Rome, Gladiators were paid increasingly more as Roman society sought to focus on something that meant something, at their most extreme Gladiators were the richest Romans but this was also near the end of classical Roman culture.

 

Hm. Is this a consensus opinion? Cause my recollection is that gladiators were used broadly with high figures going all the way back at least to the near end of the Republic, by the enriched aristocrats.This wasn't new. They just had more money to spend, and the later Christians weren't necessarily fans.

 

Sportspeople today are paid cause they bring in more. The English Premier League has more ways to monetize the same base and gains from people not even in the country, which is why they make inroads to places like Asia and the US,and thus make more than other sports teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I've heard this theory about the Roman empire falling apart because of its decadence, or its decadence being one of the contributors to its decline, but I don't buy it. There were far too many reasons for the empire crumbling and you can't boil it down to one thing. Lack of money, reliance on income through violence,  over extension, huge population changes, wars etc all contributed to it. 

As for decadence in Western society, well its all a point of view isn't it. Whats decadent to one person isn't to another. Whos to say what is decadent.

I also don't believe we are backwards looking as you claim, the internet has made everyone incredibly tech focussed and people are constantly striving to invent and create. We live in an actually incredibly vibrant time, where technology is in fact advancing at an enormous rate, and probably will only get faster. 

There is a problem with western GDP growth, or even world growth, but again I think technology will change that, growth tends to come in cycles and is technology led. It is a bit of a fallacy to claim that we don't 'produce anything'. Just because something isn't made in a factory doesn't mean it isn't a product. Intellection property and services are just as valuable as something that comes off a factory line. We live in the information age now, not the industrial era. I think the way we produce and the way our economies work will change over time, we are just adjusting to it now.

 

I'm not saying decadence causes decline or decline causes decadence - they go hand in hand, I don't know what causes what. It is also what interests me about Trump and the current US election - guy is a classic demagogue and demagogues always come into play as society's begin their final decline. Again, not trying to say what causes what, just saying there is a history of these things occurring together.

Decadence is excessive indulgence, pleasure or luxury - sure, we can argue about what is excessive but the rest of the world doesn't seem to have the obesity epidemic the West does, so I think that is some fairly obvious proof of excessive indulgence. Excessive luxury - let's use something simple, tangible and quantifiable - number of spare rooms in the family home (I haven't seen the studies but I'd put money on any Western culture having a far greater number than other cultures). Pleasure, I agree, is quite objective - it's more the availability of pleasure that has to be gauged.

The only way your forward looking argument can win is if the virtual evolves - we aren't creating much of the tangible, or even the spiritual/ethereal anymore, rather we are solely focused on advancing the virtual. Either the virtual is just a pleasure that will fade when Western society does or (I will give you) it is some kind of path forward. Following this path requires some fundamental changes in humanity, however.

Personally, I don't believe real growth is possible without tangible produce. We are still organic organisms - we do not exist in the mental or virtual space - and are limited by what we are.

I think IP is the biggest crock of shit imaginable and one of the worst things the US has bestowed upon the world - because it's not so much about who comes up with something first, rather it's about who patents it and owns the rights to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots_trademark_dispute I say fuck off to that whole concept - I come from a country where the Ugg boot is owned by the country (probably invented by Kiwis anyway, coz they are the ones who have a thing for sheep :D ).

The sooner the world is rid of the idea of IPs and trademark laws the better. Another case in point (because I looked into this specific one), HG Wells War of the Worlds - in England and Australia it is public domain and anyone can use it for any type of entertainment (commercial or otherwise) they choose. But it's owned by Warner in the US and Warner will not only stop any publication within the US but try and claims proceeds from any publication outside the US. This is exactly why US trade partnerships and the US pushing itself into trade partnerships with other countries is bad - the US wants to infringe it's understanding of IP and copyright on the world - well the world can do better, fuck off with your IP laws back to your own fucking country. Sorry, massive rant but it is something I find deeply rude about modern US society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Castel said:

Sportspeople today are paid cause they bring in more. The English Premier League has more ways to monetize the same base and gains from people not even in the country, which is why they make inroads to places like Asia and the US,and thus make more than other sports teams. 

You're missing the point - they bring in more because society has become more decadent. It spends more on pleasure. Its an aberation from the long term trend and signals decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

You're missing the point - they bring in more because society has become more decadent. It spends more on pleasure. Its an aberation from the long term trend and signals decline.

But why does it spend more on pleasure? Because its basic needs have been met, and it has left over money to spend on it. 

.. I mean you could argue that that excess money is unearned, that many peoples wealth is due to borrowing, inflated property prices, exploitation of foreign labour etc.. but thats another discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But why does it spend more on pleasure? Because its basic needs have been met, and it has left over money to spend on it. 

Which is proof of decadence, both by global and historical comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ummester said:

You're missing the point - they bring in more because society has become more decadent. It spends more on pleasure. Its an aberation from the long term trend and signals decline.

Society being able to spend more on sports entertainment isn't necessarily a sign of decline. Especially if growing economies and populations also want a  share of the product. 

Also: is the gladiator thing a consensus opinion in history? Cause that also has bearing on this idea and I want to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Castel said:

Also: is the gladiator thing a consensus opinion in history? Cause that also has bearing on this idea and I want to deal with it.

Only thing I can find at a quick glance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

Between 108 and 109 AD, Trajan celebrated his Dacian victories using a reported 10,000 gladiators (and 11,000 animals) over 123 days.[44] The cost of gladiators and munera continued to spiral out of control. Legislation of 177 AD by Marcus Aurelius did little to stop it, and was completely ignored by his son, Commodus.[45]

I take it we can agree Rome was in decline between 1AD and 300AD (as a broad range)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Then the argument is that the only way to keep a hardworking non-decadent society is to make sure they are always struggling to meet their basic needs.

Balance is almost impossible for humans to achieve, it's our our natures to constantly upset it. The dream that modern Western Society was being built on (ignoring the NeoCon version) was socialism, not capitalism. The idea of an equitable society that gifted all, including it's poorest and least able, the opportunity for a peaceful and fulfilling existence. We were so damn close to those nasty commies once, it's amazing - the only real difference was how authoritarian the governments were.

I don't know exactly where the line is crossed between comfort and decadence but am sure it has something to do with waste and equity. Our big shops throw food away as some of our poorest line up for 2 day old soup. We have investors sitting on hundreds of empty houses, as the poorest sleep under newspapers. Sure, you can argue it's always been that way and, I'd agree, to a point, it has - but not to the level it is now.

So it's not so much about struggling, although that plays a big part in making a society move forward, rather than stagnate or decline. I believe it's about extent of wastage vs those going without that truly defines decadence. It's when a certain level of imbalance is met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ummester said:

Only thing I can find at a quick glance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

Between 108 and 109 AD, Trajan celebrated his Dacian victories using a reported 10,000 gladiators (and 11,000 animals) over 123 days.[44] The cost of gladiators and munera continued to spiral out of control. Legislation of 177 AD by Marcus Aurelius did little to stop it, and was completely ignored by his son, Commodus.[45]

I take it we can agree Rome was in decline between 1AD and 300AD (as a broad range)?

Trajsn's reign is arguably the Roman peak. Gladiator games actually declined in the late whole or Western Roman Empire, post-Constantine/Niccea. The greatest rise in late Rome was Christianity and the increased dependence on auxiliaries, though some have argued that the essentially static lines imposed by Hadrian were, though the correct military decision, the introduction of an entirely new mindset in Roman strategic thinking, though it took centuries to rot.

There are as many arguments for why Rome declined as their are historians. One point to consider about your decadence thesis, though...the Eastern empire was always described as more decadent than the West, and yet it outlived the Western empire by almost a thousand years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ummester said:

Only thing I can find at a quick glance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator

Between 108 and 109 AD, Trajan celebrated his Dacian victories using a reported 10,000 gladiators (and 11,000 animals) over 123 days.[44] The cost of gladiators and munera continued to spiral out of control. Legislation of 177 AD by Marcus Aurelius did little to stop it, and was completely ignored by his son, Commodus.[45]

I take it we can agree Rome was in decline between 1AD and 300AD (as a broad range)?

Between 1AD and 300AD?  You start off right after Augustus' reign and catch people like Trajan and Hadrian in your broad net and so on, as a result.

 

Using a ton of gladiators in state-sponsored games is not new. Pompey and Caesar's triumphs were also quite lavish (the latter was actually legislated against to provide a ceiling to the competition). But this was possible because of the depth of their successes. To look at it in isolation and not in conjunction with the factors that made it possible seems a bit unwise.Trajan, a conqueror himself, likely benefited from this. 

 

Goods-specialized and otherwise-  got sold around more as Rome got settled and could trade and move broadly. You might ask what the point of Empire is if these things can't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Trajsn's reign is arguably the Roman peak. Gladiator games actually declined in the late Roman Empire, post-Constantine/Niccea. The greatest rise in late Rome was Christianity and the increased dependence on auxiliaries, though some have argued that the essentially static lines imposed by Hadrian were, though the correct military decision, the introduction of an entirely new mindset in Roman strategic thinking, though it took centuries to rot. There are as many arguments for why Rome declined as their are historians. One point to consider about your decadence thesis, though...the Eastern empire was always described as more decadent than the West, and yet it outlived the Western empire by almost a thousand years.

So what do you classify as the period of classical Roman decline James?

I've always taken the simplistic time frame to be between Jesus' crucifixion and the Council of Nicaea. This raises another element of cultural decline (when looking at Rome, in the least and irregardless of how you feel about Christianity) and that is changing spiritual or ethereal beliefs.

This, in turn, makes me think of something Channel4s-JonSnow posted earlier, about the Western trend towards the virtual. Perhaps this coincides with the Roman trend away from Paganism and towards Christianity - which, although it shaped the course of history for millennia to come, was defiantly part of Romes decline.  It's entirely possible the rise of the virtual world and the information age may be the downfall of the Western World but the future of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Castel said:

Between 1AD and 300AD?  You start off right after Augustus' reign and catch people like Trajan and Hadrian in your broad net and so on, as a result.

 

Using a ton of gladiators in state-sponsored games is not new. Pompey and Caesar's triumphs were also quite lavish (the latter was actually legislated against to provide a ceiling to the competition). But this was possible because of the depth of their successes. To look at it in isolation and not in conjunction with the factors that made it possible seems a bit unwise.Trajan, a conqueror himself, likely benefited from this. 

 

Goods-specialized and otherwise-  got sold around more as Rome got settled and could trade and move broadly. You might ask what the point of Empire is if these things can't happen. 

Well it wasn't built, or fell in a day, did it? What time period do you classify as the time of Roman decline?

I'm not trying to look at things in isolation, rather pick broad trends over accepted periods. What can't be denied is that, into Rome's decline, the amount of decadence (monies wasted on the pursuit of pleasures) trended up.

I saw a doco where it spoke about the Gladiator pay, here:

I can't remember exactly where, coz I watched it ages ago - otherwise I'd give you the time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Roman Empire fell not because of decadence, or Christianity, or barbarians (although they all played a role). It was ruined by constant empire-wide civil wars over Imperial succession, which ruined the economy, made every emperor wary of successful generals as potential pretenders to the throne, and caused huge funds to be spent on the army (because any reduction in soldier pay or privileges would lead to their mutiny and placement of one of their generals on the throne).

If you check the list of emperors, you will notice that, between 192 and 284 (from Commodus to Diocletian), there were 30 different emperors. None of remained in place long enough to really get a handle on running the empire, or had any skills for the job other than the overthrowing the previous occupant. As a result, none of them had the necessary education for the job, or time necessary to establish a reliable bureaucratic system capable of running the empire no matter who was on the throne.

Rome also lacked the legalistic/religious traditions (such as Mandate of Heaven or Divine Right of Kings) which would assure orderly succession from one emperor to another and prevent instability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gorn said:

The Roman Empire fell not because of decadence, or Christianity, or barbarians (although they all played a role). It was ruined by constant empire-wide civil wars over Imperial succession, which ruined the economy, made every emperor wary of successful generals as potential pretenders to the throne, and caused huge funds to be spent on the army (because any reduction in soldier pay or privileges would lead to their mutiny and placement of one of their generals on the throne).

I have no doubt that this is correct Gorn - you sound like you know a lot more about it than I do :D

But what led Rome into constant Empire wide civil wars? Surely, if the modern West was now in a state of constant civil war, we would all be admitting it's a culture in decline - but my argument is that, with Rome and now the west, the indicators are there for all to see before the wars start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

The Roman Empire fell not because of decadence, or Christianity, or barbarians (although they all played a role). It was ruined by constant empire-wide civil wars over Imperial succession, which ruined the economy, made every emperor wary of successful generals as potential pretenders to the throne, and caused huge funds to be spent on the army (because any reduction in soldier pay or privileges would lead to their mutiny and placement of one of their generals on the throne).

If you check the list of emperors, you will notice that, between 192 and 284 (from Commodus to Diocletian), there were 30 different emperors. None of remained in place long enough to really get a handle on running the empire, or had any skills for the job other than the overthrowing the previous occupant. As a result, none of them had the necessary education for the job, or time necessary to establish a reliable bureaucratic system capable of running the empire no matter who was on the throne.

Rome also lacked the legalistic/religious traditions (such as Mandate of Heaven or Divine Right of Kings) which would assure orderly succession from one empire to another and prevent instability.

Again we are really only talking about the Western Roman Empire and forgetting the Eastern half which survived for a long time afterwards, and was pointed out above to have quite a lot more decadent and corrupt than even the western half. 

So I don't buy this decadence argument at all, even if I've thought it previously. 

Lets think about why our society is considered decadent and what that actually means, and whether its even true. Much of this is nothing more than a consistent narrative people want to tell themselves because they view history differently. 

We have possibly more free time now, and more options with which to spend it. 80 years ago in the UK your only real options were to go home or go get drunk and have a fight in a pub. Which was the more decadent? Now we can go home, read articles on the internet, endless books, watch videos of places from around the world and learn any subject. 

I think what Ummester is talking about really is Inequality, or a perception of it. But again, the poorest in our society are certainly better off than they were 100 years ago. I think there is a confusion between your problems with Capitalism and what you see as the downfall of society, I can't say I agree with you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think what Ummester is talking about really is Inequality, or a perception of it. But again, the poorest in our society are certainly better off than they were 100 years ago. I think there is a confusion between your problems with Capitalism and what you see as the downfall of society, I can't say I agree with you on that.

It is, in part - but not entirely.

I would say everyone is better off than they were 100 years ago - but the poor are not relatively better off. An ascendant society would diminish the divide over time, rather than increase it - and not out of any sense of morality or equality but because it is more socially stable and therefore more forward thinking. Inequality is directly proportional to instability, regardless of what ism you subscribe to.

No one has commented on our artistic culture becoming mostly repetitious and unimaginative though - which was the first argument I pur forward. In ascendant society imagination is nurtured and praised - doesn't really feel like it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ummester said:

Well it wasn't built, or fell in a day, did it? What time period do you classify as the time of Roman decline?

I'm not trying to look at things in isolation, rather pick broad trends over accepted periods. What can't be denied is that, into Rome's decline, the amount of decadence (monies wasted on the pursuit of pleasures) trended up.

I saw a doco where it spoke about the Gladiator pay, here:

I can't remember exactly where, coz I watched it ages ago - otherwise I'd give you the time.

 

Some would place it at the Crisis of the Third Century. Me? I dunno...I'm skeptical about Christianity or "culture" though.

 

I don't know that "decadence" i.e. wealth spent as a determining factor has been shown tbh.Especially if we talk about what that means. If say...Roman pottery and design take off during the empire and crash during the decline I don't know that we can take it for granted that the former time 

4 minutes ago, ummester said:

I have no doubt that this is correct Gorn - you sound like you know a lot more about it than I do :D

 But what led Rome into constant Empire wide civil wars? Surely, if the modern West was now in a state of constant civil war, we would all be admitting it's a culture in decline - but my argument is that, with Rome and now the west, the indicators are plain for all to see before the wars start.

A broad claim about a culture in decline is not the same as pointing a finger at Christianity and "decadence".

 

There are almost 300 theories for why Rome fell, or why it had multiple spats of civil war. 

Besides, culture is not only nebulous it's one factor. Arguably Roman culture was ill-suited to dealing with the Empire it won after dispensing with the Carthaginians. It was at its most powerful and richest and would be organized by Augustus into a stable solitary superpower, but you could look at the civil wars before that and go "culture in decline". Sure, but Roman power was expanding relative to it and the structures in place weren't necessarily good enough, so it's not to be taken for granted that there was a clearly optimal culture whose decline then caused the problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Castel said:

A broad claim about a culture in decline is not the same as pointing a finger at Christianity and "decadence".

To be fair I did point the finger more directly, like an overindulgence and spending on pleasurable pastimes and not so much Christianity as changes in what the population believed.

7 minutes ago, Castel said:

Besides, culture is not only nebulous it's one factor. Arguably Roman culture was ill-suited to dealing with the Empire it won after dispensing with the Carthaginians. It was at its most powerful and richest and would be organized by Augustus into a stable solitary superpower, but you could look at the civil wars before that and go "culture in decline". Sure, but Roman power was expanding relative to it and the structures in place weren't necessarily good enough, so it's not to be taken for granted that there was a clearly optimal culture whose decline then caused the problems. 

Arguably all culture is ill suited to dealing with Empires.

This does bring me back to another more pointed indicator I mentioned originally - when there is a movement of of the population towards the city/civilisation centres and away from the rural areas.

And, another one that has just come to mind, debasement of the currency, which, as I understand it happened both in Rome and now the modern West.

Of course, when comparing history to the present, things can always be debated because we do not have an exact understanding of history. And of course, what represents debasement, or decadence can also be argued over interpretive differences.

But I don't think the trends can be argued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...