Jump to content

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


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Arguably culture is more than movies/songs. Although it is true that if we look at the entertainment industry, and in other areas such as food, America might be dominant in virtue of having its products doing very well in foreign markets, this doesn't necessarily mean the culture of the US is in a good way.

Culture is ultimately about the symbols, practices and beliefs that create a community/city or nation, and impart to it a sense, both of purpose and of its place in the world. Traditionally religion always served as the golden thread binding all aspects of culture together. Currently Christianity in the west is in decline and western culture along with it. Thinking about my own country, the UK, there is a very notable fracturing of society since at least the 1980s, if not before. Working class culture, in particular, has been stripped of its more positive attributes. The middle classes are now largely irreligious, and art/architecture is not really serving as any kind of replacement for Christianity (one only has to look at the state of modern art to see why). The connection with their own past forged through appreciation of classical and biblical literature and poetry is also disappearing within the middle classes.  

The western world is also experiencing a clash of cultures within its own civilization. Large portions of the western elite (except the Japanese and some East Europeans) do not believe their countries ought to have any distinctive culture, favouring instead the doctrine of multiculturalism, which suggests common cultural ties, which have usually underpinned nations and civilizations, can be replaced with the more loose and vague 'universal values.' It is of course possible that this will work in societies with large culturally progressive and university educated populations ...

Moreover, particularly in the US, we see a strong clash of cultures between those elements which still cling to some vestige of the old Christian civilization and those who embrace a globalist liberalism. In the UK the Brexit vote illustrated similar divisions. Those who voted Remain tended to feel positively about feminism, multiculturalism and immigration while those who voted Leave largely did not. So there are now huge divisions within western culture.

The main sign that out societies are unhealthy though is the collapsing birth rate. Commentators like Rousseau and Burke had no problem with identifying the ability of the population to replace itself as the chief indicator of the civilization's success. Now for a combination of reasons, mainly the collapse of religion and lifestyle changes, almost all western countries are on totally unsustainable demographic trajectories. This puts the west's immigration policies in perspective. It is true that mass immigration might be one short term way to counter this challenge (although this is not, largely, why the policy is actually pursued) other periods of mass immigration took place when the native (or 'original settler' in the case of the US) population was also increasing, so new immigrants only supplemented the population. In Europe a policy of mass immigration from Africa and the near/middle east will actually lead to the replacement of the declining population by members of a different culture and thus the collapse of western culture in areas of the host nations. This assumes, of course, that immigrant population do maintain their cultural distinctiveness, but given their numbers and the weakness of western culture this seems likely in the main. I do not know whether Hispanic immigration to the US poses the same problems.

I do not think the Roman example is helpful here at all. It was always going to be very difficult to maintain control of the empire established by Caesar and Augustus. Only the collapse of the west in the fifth century is very remarkable and many provinces had been lost to rebels and barbarians before. Rome's foes became stronger as the empire went on. The political system did change, and became increasingly unstable, but Augustus is considered talented to have brought stability from 30 BC onwards so the challenge was hardly new. The potential for a disaster stemming from civil war was always there. The collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire in the 7th century (and its transmogrification into middle age Byzantium) is even more understandable: it was the result of an epic 1/4 century war with Persia (an empire only slightly weaker than ER). 

I agree with Ummester, very interesting post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Castel said:

It's not faith in a system, it's skepticism. I haven't made many strong positive claims about the "system' have I? 

And given the claim that these trends hold throughout history, not just America's future (at least, that's the thesis of the linked documentary), it should be well proven already. Yet I don't see historians bragging about discovering psychohistory. 

Not that the future is the only thing that can test a theory. 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, Spengler coined the idea 100 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West. I've never read this guy but accept that he must be the forerunner for many of the contemporary docos and articles on the subject.

Nothing wrong with scepticism but how else do you propose to test the theory? If I say Western Culture, led primarily by the US Empire, is past it's peak - it's no longer ascending and is on it's way down - how can we possibly plot the trajectory as a whole without hindsight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Given luck, or better leaders, the Western Empire could very well have survived the crisis of the Fifth Century (as it did the crisis of the Third).  All the weaknesses that were present in the Fifth Century were present at any point over the previous 500 years.  I don't think one can point to the Western Empire's timescale of being one of relentless decline - but rather of ups and downs, until the final swift collapse.  The Eastern Empire also had plenty of ups and downs.  It faced a perfect storm in the 7th century, but weathered that storm, and flourished again from about 850 to 1050.  The Empire recovered from the crisis of 1071-1100 in the Twelth century, although the Fourth Crusade delivered the death blow.

If Western societies collapse, then future historians will point to all kinds of weaknesses (low birthrates, decline of Christianity, growing inequality, multiculturalism, overtaxation) that apparently made that collapse inevitable, but none of these are necessarily terminal.

Yes, indeed, kind of what I'm getting at just above - history is a retrospective field (obviously has to be, it's history, dah :D) History is totally about hindsight and trying to apply hindsight to the future, or even the present, is predictive at best.

And yet humans seem to learn, evolve and act very much on predictive principles. Baby touches hot fireplace, burns hand and reconciles that any future touching of the fireplace should be painful. Chances are it will but there is always the off chance it wont so most babies don't touch it a second time.

I see looking at broad patterns in the rise and fall of civilisations and Empires as similar to touching the fireplace, it is more logical to assume we are going to get burned again, just like we always have before, than otherwise. Yet most in the midst of a given Empire or society are somehow deluded into thinking that they won't get burned this time - that it will be different this time. Just like their financial bubble (whether tulips or houses) is different this time :D More often it's been the same than different this time and yet, when looking from the inside out, people never seem to be able to see it.

I guess the baby is fine until it ages it starts to think it can control the fireplace. Then it finds the notion of getting burnt ridiculous - which is exactly when it's woollen jumper will catch and it's whole body go up in flames :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Um, not really.

Trajan is widely considered one of the peaks of the Roman Empire, to the extent you can define peaks and troughs.

Well I did rescind that point and change it to charioteers after I re-watched that bit of the doco I originally got it from. And you seem to agree on charioteers, as:

6 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

First, I don't see why people always bring up gladiators when they talk about Rome. Gladiators were long gone by the time the Western Roman Empire disappeared, mostly because Christians didn't like them.

The real analogy would be to chariot racers. Chariots racing was almost always bigger than gladiator combat.

But regardless, this entire discussion is really, really stupid.

It's true, in a lot of ancient empires, you see a cycle of strength from adversity and austerity, growth, decadence, decline, and replacement by another group of people who had strength from adversity and austerity. Or maybe not, and we actually only see that cycle because ancient historians loved to moralize.

Either way, that cycles broken now. It doesn't matter how much tougher the average goatherder in Afghnistan is than the average American suburbanite. The wealth and luxury that makes us 'weak' also let's us build drones that fly tens of thousands of feet in the air, and drop 500 hundred pound bombs accurate enough to hit a soda can.

But I think saying the cycle is broken now is totally dismissive - it's like trying to see a bubble from inside a bubble as I mentioned above. Most people (for whatever reason) just can't see it.

Re the drones - Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

One thing this article makes me realise is that politics and how we now define it is totally broken.

Left and right are economic - Neocon capitalism is extreme right, Marxism is extreme left. Although entwined with other political scales, they can be defined distinctly from governments and social values.

Authoritarian vs Liberal are about government control and intervention. Neither are about the size of government and the imposition of governments on the economy. It was, until recently, a general given that governments regulate banks (coz bank runs are bad, you know). An authoritarian government just had more direct control over the behaviour of the populace than a liberal one.

Progressive vs Conservative are about the social values. And, you don't have to be progressive to be left, or liberal. You can be a conservative, liberal Marxist - but good luck finding that represented in Western democracy now as it doesn't coincide with what the plutocracy is selling.

Now we have authoritarian progressive capitalists that call themselves left, it's ridiculous and a total mockery of the concept of even having political definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The Ottoman Empire is worthy of consideration in any argument suggesting empires fall through growing decadence/debauchery.

Yes, I agree - but I don't know enough about the specifics of the declines of ancient Empires to assume which are closer to the current situation in the West. My suggestion is only that broad patterns exist and these patterns can be applied predicatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Depends on the level of equality. Inequality itself isn't a problem, its natural, not everyone should earn the same or have the same amounts. The rich shouldn't only be there to help the poor. Whats important is a meritocratic society and equal opportunity. The real problem now I think isn't inequality its unequal opportunity. You need to know that you can work hard and get the same level of wealth as anyone else and there is nothing stopping you. Arguably that has gotten worse in the last couple of decades. 

Arguably it's gotten worse? I think obviously. I'm a white collar Xer, so am lucky enough to be established in the workplace already - but younger generations and blue collar workers are pushing shit up hill now. I can sympathise entirely with how undervalued they must feel.

No, the rich shouldn't only be there to help the poor but everyone who is a member of a given society owes society, first and foremost, before they owe themselves. Otherwise, they should leave the society, or society should expel them. A meritocratic society is not the answer - ability and talent are not tangible in the long term, they change as cultural needs change. One year we may think rock music is great and promote rock musicians, the next we may be into financial management. People and society are fickle - meritocracy cannot keep up with that fickleness. Society needs a solid base, some kind of established law and tradition, to function in the long term. The established base needs to exist outside of humanity, to be infallible - that is why religion has worked in the West for so long.

15 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't know how true this is. Even if it was true, how would you say that western culture was unimaginative. If you were looking at mainstream 'for the masses' culture then yes you could have an argument, but then for the masses entertainment has always been lacking in artistic merit, from the beginning of time. Go back to the 50s and listen to pop music or watch their movies. AWFUL. 
That doesn't mean that there isn't a HUGE amount of interesting artistic amount of material out there, I'd argue we have more of it now than ever in the history of man, people are being more creative, more interesting and individual than ever before. Technology has enabled that in some ways. I just urge you to go out and find it.

Sure, imagination is still active at the fringes - always has been and always will be, it's where change occurs.

I think 50s movies and music are far less repetitive than what we have now - taste in art is subjective, so I deliberately avoided trying to classify the quality of it but I do think that mainstream art has never been as stale as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FalagarV2 said:

As to the rest of the debate, a better definition of what is meant by 'Western culture' would probably make it run more smoothly. Are you talking about the economical/military shape of western nation states, global consumption of cultural products from these states, or the dissemination of institutional practices and/or secular progressive values? In the latter case, I'd say they're likely more widespread now than at any point in the 20th century - which is also why they now find more organized opposition. The 'loss of meaning'-critique of modern secularism has followed it since the early years.

I guess I'm talking in general/broad terms because I think it's failing/declining in general/broad terms.

But if anyone wants to define exactly what the west and specifically it's culture are - sure, put it out there. The first google result I get accepts that it is broad:

Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western lifestyle or European civilization, is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe.

More specifically, I think the US is currently an Empire in decline, with an overstretched, privatised and somewhat immoral military but I don't think anything exists in a bubble and that all of the other components are entwined.

I would define the US as being the last push of Western Culture - the US of the last 200 years is the winter as  Spengler defines it and we are entering the final 50, according to that definition. This is I guess where the Roman parallels come from in my mind - the dream of the West will die with the US Empire, somewhere in the next 50 years (probably sooner rather than later), just as the dream of Greco Roman civilisation died with Rome - but of course things that culture introduced will continue to exist afterwards. I mean we still have roads, right :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ummester said:

Arguably it's gotten worse? I think obviously. I'm a white collar Xer, so am lucky enough to be established in the workplace already - but younger generations and blue collar workers are pushing shit up hill now. I can sympathise entirely with how undervalued they must feel.

 

Is it obvious? I do think think its gotten worse but is it as bad as you are claiming? In some ways the possibility of education and freedom of employment is now better than ever. Anyone can get on the internet and educate themselves, buy a book and learn. Does it take a bit more work and self motivation to get there? Yes, and its harder for any number of reasons. In the UK I fear for young people trying to get into jobs because the cost of living is so high and the requirements for starting jobs mean experience, which usually means unpaid internships. It makes things much harder for those starting out I can see that. But I'm no doomsayer, I still think opportunity is there, and there is a lot of motivation from young people to do their own thing. Are we moving away from a time where people have lifelong jobs at the same place, obviously. We are also moving away from 9-5 jobs and being employees in the traditional sense, selling our time. 

I think we are simply at a point of transition from industrial era to information / post information age ways of living.
 

7 hours ago, ummester said:

Society needs a solid base, some kind of established law and tradition, to function in the long term. The established base needs to exist outside of humanity, to be infallible - that is why religion has worked in the West for so long.

 

I think we have that however. We have a reasonably strong government that keeps law and order and provides services. Globalisation has also meant that the majority of the world has shared cultural values now. We are all becoming more western. Thats why I think the initial assertion is incorrect, Western Culture IS world culture at the moment, there are only minor differences between countries IMO, even China has people reading the internet (their own version, but still similar) buying products, watching tv, going to work, playing sports etc. 
 

7 hours ago, ummester said:

I think 50s movies and music are far less repetitive than what we have now - taste in art is subjective, so I deliberately avoided trying to classify the quality of it but I do think that mainstream art has never been as stale as it is now.

I think its just if you go looking for it. I could say yeah Movies are rubbish right now.. but TV is better and more original than it ever has been. Mainstream music might be ripping off old songs, it always has. But services like Spotify mean I have access to huge swathes of original music. The internet itself has created a space for everyone to be at the most creative, for ideas to intersect and to grow. Like I said, we are probably at the most creative period of mankind. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.

 

7 hours ago, ummester said:

 

More specifically, I think the US is currently an Empire in decline, with an overstretched, privatised and somewhat immoral military but I don't think anything exists in a bubble and that all of the other components are entwined.

I would define the US as being the last push of Western Culture - the US of the last 200 years is the winter as  Spengler defines it and we are entering the final 50, according to that definition. This is I guess where the Roman parallels come from in my mind - the dream of the West will die with the US Empire, somewhere in the next 50 years (probably sooner rather than later), just as the dream of Greco Roman civilisation died with Rome - but of course things that culture introduced will continue to exist afterwards. I mean we still have roads, right :)

I think its easy to see the US as in decline because for the last 20ish years the US has had no rival at all, its been a huge giant stomping over the world, in some ways it was asked to do that. But I don't see any evidence by which American Power would disappear. Its still an enormous country with huge resources, the biggest economy in the world. Nothing else is competing there. China is the only main rival but I believe the more middle class their population becomes the more unhappy they will be with such an authoritarian government, things will kick off at some point I'm certain. 

And remember the claim of decadence has been labelled at almost every society seen the dawn of time, there are always traditionalists and progressives. 

IMO society is changing because technology is changing, we will have to adjust over the next 100 years to possibly a very different way of life. Automation will make most low level jobs irrelevant (china should be worried), genetic medicine could cure most diseases and we could end up living a lot longer. Reproduction could mean that the price of everything is very small and our needs are even more easily met. I don;t see parallels with Rome because the world is a million times different to their empire, with different challenges. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think we have that however. We have a reasonably strong government that keeps law and order and provides services. Globalisation has also meant that the majority of the world has shared cultural values now.

If I debate most of what you've written we'll just end up going round in circles, which is kind of pointless - I sense neither will really change the other's thinking that much,

I have to say, however, that most Western countries (unless it's Iceland, which managed to escape/detach) don't have a strong government anymore - they have 2 party kleptocracies, controlled by their plutocracy. I don't know which country you come from but am fairly sure, if it's Western, it will be in exactly the same situation as most.

Oh, and how will the US fall apart? Isn't it obvious? Exactly the same as any Empire has ever done - from the inside. Eventually massive civil strife and chaos - but until that time ever increasing discontent.

And China doesn't have to fight the US, all it has to do is finish selling/dumping all the US bonds it's holding. Sure, the Chinese free market may be up the shit but don't underestimate how strong (and clean of 'instruments' created by Wall St) those communist government banks and companies are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ummester said:

If I debate most of what you've written we'll just end up going round in circles, which is kind of pointless - I sense neither will really change the other's thinking that much,

I have to say, however, that most Western countries (unless it's Iceland, which managed to escape/detach) don't have a strong government anymore - they have 2 party kleptocracies, controlled by their plutocracy. I don't know which country you come from but am fairly sure, if it's Western, it will be in exactly the same situation as most.

Oh, and how will the US fall apart? Isn't it obvious? Exactly the same as any Empire has ever done - from the inside. Eventually massive civil strife and chaos - but until that time ever increasing discontent.

And China doesn't have to fight the US, all it has to do is sell/dump all the US bonds it's holding. Sure, the Chinese free market may be up the shit but don't underestimate how strong (and clean of 'instruments' created by Wall St) those communist government banks and companies are.

Potentially yes. But how likely is it really? Personally I think its very unlikely. Yes there are left and right wing opinions in the country and the government will swing from one side to another. Anyone claiming there will be an actual civil war is out of their minds. All we're really seeing is a reaction to Globalisation and a middle class that dismisses the working class' opinions. Things will swing back and forth for a while but I don't see wholesale change.

Look, China relies on the US and the rest of the world, we are its customers. The world has created a symbiotic relationship of producers and customers. China is attempting to push it economy in a new direction and is struggling. It still has MASSIVE amounts of people who live in genuine poverty, and I mean genuine, not (only having 1 tv) type of poverty. If any country is going to be hit by civil war and strife its going to be China. 

Again I really think this is all just standard doom predictions that the internet tends to breed if you look at it for too long. There are simply far too many reasons why Western Culture will be the predominant culture for the next 100 years and I see little to really change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The Ottoman Empire is worthy of consideration in any argument suggesting empires fall through growing decadence/debauchery.

Not really - yes, there were a number of poor Ottoman rulers who contributed to periods of decline, including a couple who were rather unconcerned about events beyond the seraglio, but the forces that actually drove the Empire's decline and fall were the external pressures exerted by the military might of a rising Russia in the north and a resurgent Austria in the west, and the economic and cultural (and military) power of industrialising western European nations such as France and Britain, combined with the internal pressures of growing ethno-religious nationalism tied to the rising of westernised intellectuals in Ottoman society. Without these external pressures and related internal pressures, it is doubtful that the decadence of individual Ottoman rulers alone could have brought down the empire (moreover, decadence should not be confused with the weakness of a ruling figurehead).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Look, China relies on the US and the rest of the world, we are its customers. The world has created a symbiotic relationship of producers and customers. China is attempting to push it economy in a new direction and is struggling. It still has MASSIVE amounts of people who live in genuine poverty, and I mean genuine, not (only having 1 tv) type of poverty. If any country is going to be hit by civil war and strife its going to be China. 

Ah well, we'll see.

US is due due for another crash this year, they seem to come around every 8, at election time, as soon as the FED raises IRs. Derivatives, perhaps? On top of this, you've got Trump, you've got the racial unrest and you've got guns everywhere. The US could be Greece by Xmas 2016 and a cash strapped African country by 2017.

Or, yea, I could just be doom and gloom. Everything could all be fine and we'll all be singing kum by yah under an American flag in 2017 and working out how to get off world in 2018. Or it could all be a total fizzer and there is nothing really to talk about until the next season of GOTs :D Who knows?

Either way what will be will be, won't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I hinted at: One can state decadence and crumbling without a full "doom & gloom" scenario and especially without another culture (or empire, these are also very different things!) rising. I don't think we are going to speak Chinese in 100 years. But the West was writing Latin for >1000 years after the Fall of the Western Empire! And large parts of the mediterrean spoke Greek and used Greek style columns in architecture for hundreds of years after Alexander's short-lived Empire crumbled and other Greek colonies had been incorporated into the Roman Empire. So sure, we will be speaking English as international language predominantly. And we will also use many other "Western" things, theories etc.

I think one problem is that high tech and wealth are masking the lack of "deeper coherence". What happens if a worse crisis than 2008 strikes? (Many banks are still as dangerously structured as then) Look how angry ordinary people already do become with (comparably) minor issues like the refugees in Europe or illegal immigrants in the US. What if they are told that their retirement money was squandered by banksters and their children and grandchildren will also have a considerably less comfortable lifestyle? How far will a few more electronic gadgets (as I said, most of our "creativity" and inventiveness by now seems to boil down to those) cover up such deep frustrations? I mean, the very fact that right wing parties could rise in most of Europe (not yet to power, but damn close in a country like Austria!) and that a buffoon like Trump has a decent shot at becoming the most powerful politician in the world should show that things are not well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ummester said:

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.

Well, I think Rome experienced a series of declines and ascents, but towards the end they were coming too quickly on top of each other to allow for sufficient reassertion. The question of culture is interesting in this respect because, at least in the ways we're identifying American culture (largely art/entertainment) most Roman culture wasn't. It was mostly Greek, some Etruscan, some Samnite, etc. which was fed through the Roman hype-conductor and thus became somewhat universal.  

In this respect future historians may view the American cultural impact as piggybacking on the British, but that's another discussion. For me, the Roman culture which most defined it's rise and decline was more closely aligned with a kind of cultural mindset or ethos. Since at least the Samnite Wars, Rome was politically, culturally and militarily built around conquest/acquisition. A smallish city conquered Latium, then absorbed much of Campagna and Etruria, then took on the Samnites, etc. It was one constant and almost uninterrupted series of 'takes'...and it's machine, however disfunction so in retrospect, worked so long as there were still takers. People will point to internal conflicts as bringing them down, but internal conflict was also part of the way Rome worked...Romulus killed his brother, the rise against the Kings, the Gracchi, Marius vs. Sulla, the Triumverates, etc. Any or all of these could be pointed to as fatal had they come just before the final fall, but in fact they all happened during the rise. 

But that's because the rise fed on itself. Conquest brought in wealth in several forms, added land to occupy and protect, served as political currency for leaders and justified brutal oligarchic or despotic treatment to the people. Internal conflicts, once resolved, almost invariably were followed by the victor adding to the collective (and personal) of Rome, thereby in Roman minds confirming his status as rightful victor, and adding to his personal prestige and eventually god-ness.

But once a few smart emperors began to understand the realities of overextension, once Roman borders had either exhausted the olive belt and/or bumped up against lands whose conquest would add relatively little in the way of material gain but cost much to acquire/hold, then they dramatically changed the way Rome operated. They became defenders, and it was the right call from a pragmatic sense. But the problem was that now the engine built to run on acquisition had none. So now the only victories won were against other Romans or to maintain the status quo, often against essentially landless amorphous folk just looking for a place to live...both always important but neither actual lasting additions. 

So instead of feeding on it's own conquests, the Roman system increasingly fed on Rome itself. The omnipresent internal conflicts were now not followed by acquisition, but instead just more internal conflict. Leaders were not defined from other ambitious contenders by lands taken and peoples subjected, but by keeping their heads above water in the constant pursuit of power. And those survivors were not legitimized/deified by success/fortune/conquest, so were much more vulnerable to being taken on/down by others like themselves.

And so the culture of acquisitiveness that defined Rome...and was reflected in their arts (take a look at what Roman art celebrates) their games (gladiators are personifications of the ideal of might makes right/fortune favours the right) and their religion (gods, too, were acquired and absorbed into the mosaic) was fairly quickly abandoned and in it's place a less defined and defining state of limbo. This was practically successful for a time because the well oiled machine still dominated it's neighbour's, but increasingly it canabilized and/or became static, and the cultural symptoms either dried up or shifted to pure orthodoxy or celebration of unproven/unprovable superiority. Christianity, a religion of the unempowered and subjected, replaced the volatile but grandizing polytheistic norms...and then homogeny too became important for it's own sake.

Rome had always been conservative in some respects...though it was always an agonistic dynamic...but now it became much more concerned with orthodoxy by rightness rather than inclusion/laissez-faire so long it didn't interrupt the machine. Now instead of building temples in Rome to the gods of people they'd conquered, Rome became intent on denying all other gods, and therefore all other cultures. And, again, without the trophies to lay upon the altars excepting the heads of other Roman rivals. So you again have a dis functional engine running on without it's natural fuel, and again the culture is vaguely understood except in contrast with unorthodoxy...feeding on itself.

Eh, I do go on. And this is IMO just one snippet of one (albeit significant) aspect of Rome's 'decline', with all the consequentialism of an autopsy thrown in. Rome managed just slightly differently at any of several key moments probably goes on much longer...and, so too can we say that Rome might easily have fallen many times earlier had X or Y been Z. I'm a romantic historian by nature, so I believe in the moments and individuals that define, so the other paths are IMO legion. But I started all this off to talk about how culture for Romans wasn't as divorced from the political/military spheres as we think (!) ours is, but was in fact another reflection of the devotion to/dependence on acquisition. Whether America is as different in this respect as it thinks is yet another interesting OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems a fairly meaningless question to me.

 

The undefined nature of western culture, the sense that it is somehow monolithic, indeed that it may exist separate from human activity gives it a near supernatural aspect.

 

Then it is also unclear what is meant by "ascendant ". Do you believe there exist an objective, perhaps moral, ranking of cultures? Or should it perhaps be understod as 'influential'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

What happens if a worse crisis than 2008 strikes?

This is an interesting question the answer to which will probably determine whether our society is on its way up or down. Certainly, from today's perspective, things look bad. The demographic problem is obvious as is the issue with increasing inequality. Organized religion is fading and its replacements are not of the same order. Our various bureaucracies mainly serve to increase their own influence rather than perform the tasks they were originally intended for.

And yet... my favorite image of the US is not anything in the big cities, but the endless fields of grain one sees during a drive through the American Midwest. The agricultural, industrial and informational bases of the West are immense (despite the fact that the former two have been gutted to some extent). So long as those remain, it's not clear whether the societies built on them will rise or fall -- most or perhaps even all of the problems above can be solved if the next crises gives rise to a visionary rather than the corporate pawns we saw last time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gasp of Many Reeds said:

Not really - yes, there were a number of poor Ottoman rulers who contributed to periods of decline, including a couple who were rather unconcerned about events beyond the seraglio, but the forces that actually drove the Empire's decline and fall were the external pressures exerted by the military might of a rising Russia in the north and a resurgent Austria in the west, and the economic and cultural (and military) power of industrialising western European nations such as France and Britain, combined with the internal pressures of growing ethno-religious nationalism tied to the rising of westernised intellectuals in Ottoman society. Without these external pressures and related internal pressures, it is doubtful that the decadence of individual Ottoman rulers alone could have brought down the empire (moreover, decadence should not be confused with the weakness of a ruling figurehead).

Fair enough - I only said the Ottoman Empire was the natural place to go if you were interested in the decadence argument: I didn't say I agreed with that argument. I think you've given a good summary of the reasons for the Empire's eventual destruction.

Although there remains the question of why the Ottomans fell so far behind Britain and Russia ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...