Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Western Civ Strong Or Fragile?
There is an odd inconsistency between how virtuous we see our culture and how fragile many believe it to be. How can Western Civilization be the historic apex of human existence and finds itself under a dozen Swords of Damocles – from threats inside and out? I believe the reasoning behind this view is that, in a vacuum, human nature appears to be pretty awful. But when reminiscing on a debate with Stephen Balch from Texas Tech’s Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, Bryan Caplan points out the popular notion of dire circumstances conflicts with the evidence.
First, from the Institute’s website:
Western civilization has remade the world. Most of the West’s inhabitants live lives of which their ancestors could only dream: doubly long, rich in diet, teeming with comforts and diversions, and, most of all, endowed with the gift of liberty–not just for a privileged few, but for the many.
But Caplan recounts a different feel to Balch’s overall evaluation of Western Civ:
During our exchange, however, Balch rarely discussed the wonders of Western civilization. Instead, he emphasized its fragility. Every twenty years we breed a new generation of barbarians called children. To preserve our society, we have to teach each wave of juvenile barbarians to appreciate the Western civilization that makes everything possible.
Fortunately, the fragility thesis is flat wrong. There is absolutely no reason to think that Western civilization is more fragile than Asian civilization, Islamic civilization, or any other prominent rivals. At minimum, Western civilization can and does perpetuate itself the standard way: sheer conformity and status quo bias.
But saying that Western civilization is no more fragile than other cultures is a gross understatement. The truth is that Western civilization is taking over the globe. In virtually any fair fight, it steadily triumphs. Why? Because, as fans of Western civ ought to know, Western civ is better. Given a choice, young people choose Western consumerism, gender norms, and entertainment. Anti-Western governments from Beijing to Tehran know this this to be true: Without draconian censorship and social regulation, “Westoxification” will win.
A big part of the West’s strength, I hasten to add, is its openness to awesomeness. When it encounters competing cultures, it gleefully identifies competitors’ best traits – then adopts them as its own. By the time Western culture commands the globe, it will have appropriated the best features of Asian and Islamic culture.
My guess is that human nature is not so simple. It is as varied and complicated as all aspects of the individual. Just as it only takes occasional geniuses to greatly further human knowledge, it only takes the occasional soul, blessed with innate moral virtue, to greatly further morality, from Aristotle to Adam Smith and beyond.
But as we know, it doesn’t necessarily require geniuses to make progress. While there are enough naturally bad people to ruin things in some circumstances — especially when they gain influence — this does not mean someone of average innate morality cannot contribute to the greater whole or choose better morality when it is presented to him. It takes someone of incredibly low mental intelligence and/or willpower to be a net drain on society. I get the sense that “moral intelligence” works in much the same way. That is, on net, there is an upward pressure on collective morality, just as there is upward pressure on human technological advancement, even though the vast majority is not exceptional.
This means existential crisis is not necessarily the proper response to highly visible setbacks. As Caplan says, Western Civilization is a hearty weed, and we own it to ourselves to embrace our awesomeness!
Published in Culture
Sure. How else would you describe 17th-18th Century Whigs?
Also, Victorians.
Unfortunately, the revolutionary tyrants of the 20th century also believed in progress.
So the more political freedom, the more (capital C) Civilisation? Sounds good to me.
It’s not a smooth trajectory, but there’s vastly more political freedom in the world today than there was fifty years ago, with the potential for even more in the next fifty years. This should, eventually, result in more Civilisation.
(How do we define political freedom? I would suggest a level of individual freedom as well as direct influence over governance.)
So far as I have learned, civilization is a combination of political freedom & science. Science does not preclude slavery, nor does freedom require science. Putting them together, therefore, is never going to be easy. I’m not sure it ever lasts that long… I think this is a basic insight; if you look around at people, it becomes pretty obvious. You need to learn a lot of political philosophy to figure out what this means so far as our history is concerned, because modern politics is full of philosophers & scientists… Nobody cares what Spartan kings or Roman dictators might have said; but you had better know your Hamilton & Madison…
I am not sure we really are freer than our grandparents before the terrible wars of the last century. Our private lives are far more under our control, we have far more leisure, pleasure, & relief from pain, we live longer so long as we do the sorts of things that lead to longer lives. So it’s mostly a private life advance, to speak in liberal terms: Public life has degenerated.
A political class that hardly seems to know the people seems to rule without much understanding of politics. Wherever you have coalition gov’t’s in this world, the tendency is to have apolitical lives where people, even if they are angry at their rulers, see no way nor no reason to replace them. Wherever you have two parties fighting, it is not clear whether the fight is serious, theoretically or practically.
Somehow, political freedom is tied up with the origins of civilization–it’s as if, if we cannot destroy the civil peace, we cannot have the civil peace, but only a private, apolitical life.
Look, I’ll settle this. Western civilization a) exists, and b) is strong. However, until recently, that was true of my mother, too. So I suggest it is unwise to ignore the obvious: even civilizations can die. The assumption that ours is immortal may be a mistake. Others have made it–quite fatally.
On the other hand, we have excellent genetics, civilizationally speaking, and might be around for quite a long time. It would be irresponsible to assume, “Oh, what’s the use, we’ll just be dead,” given that we’ll probably have a normal civilizational life span, and would hardly wish to become a burden to some other civilization in our senescence. Besides, it’s an obvious moral obligation: If we’re still healthy enough to offer something useful to the world, we must. We can’t just sit around waiting to die while we’re still perfectly healthy and could be doing useful work.
Some things are out of our control, but of course we want to put the odds in our favor. I would strongly suggest our civilization take sensible precautions with its health. Don’t ruin your life with worry, but don’t be dumb. Wear a seat belt, always. Don’t smoke. Don’t take idiot risks with nuclear proliferation. Take a close look at other civilizations, too–you never know. If there’s any chance they might be able to vanquish ours, I want to learn everything about them and see them for myself. Don’t you?
Ms. Berlinski, it is unfortunately not possible to defeat one’s enemies without coming to resemble them.
Private freedoms are important – because otherwise, what is the point?
And your statement is debatably true for parts of the West (though not even for all groups of people in the West), but life on the rest of the globe has improved tremendously wrt political freedom and agency. Most places were colonies, not free countries. Yes – many of them slipped from one tyranny into another homegrown one, but many of them didn’t – and many of those that did are finding that tyranny is not feasible in the long run. Not least because illustrations of freedom on their television screens share their living rooms with them every evening.
But that’s true for them too. Transformation through conflict is a two way street.
Private freedom is not enough. If you’re Chinese, you have indeed a better situation than previously. If you live in a civilized country, your daily life is mostly private, & less & less are people really able to associate for political purposes or to understand politics.
Freedom is not the needful thing in all situations. I am not sure it was in the colonies. I am sure it was not worth the slaughters, so at least in those cases, I’m against private freedom–public order is the nobler achievement. Learning that tyranny might immiserate you & yours, as well as humiliate any dignity left to colonial people, is not worth learning.
I do not believe that is true. You talk as if we did not know whether barbarism or civilization wins in the end-
I think civilisation does, because it is so very attractive to people under barbarism. It may take some time, but I think that is the trend.
That shows you have goodness in your heart, methinks. It is obvious that barbarians are attracted to what they see in civilization. Do you know the phrase, all roads lead to Rome? Well, that’s how the barbarians got to Rome.
Barbarians also lose to civilization, too, often quite bloodily.
Reiterating Claire’s earlier point, there’s no easy for us to get lazy and let our guard down against those who wish us harm, or simply wish our treasures. There’s also little reason for perpetual chicken-littling.
Sure, there’d be no civilization otherwise; or if barbarians never civilized.
What’s your best guess, which way do American incline, toward too great a fear or suspicion of danger, & the harshness or ruthlessness it engenders, or a false comfort?My sense is–well, Ambrose Bierce says somewhere that war loves to steal like a thief in the night & talk of peace provides the night.
Americans in general, on this topic? False comfort, more often than not.
My fellow conservatives, on this topic? Over-suspicion, more often than not.
I agree, to an extent. But I have my reservations. I would not call conservatives eager to go to war. I would not say they call for pre-emptive wars, especially. I would not say conservatives are really more interested than liberals in seeing the great enterprises of foreign policy through–like SDI. I’d say conservatives really only have one thing to recommend them without question: Anti-communism. Unsurprisingly, that is also the most terrible weakness, to say nothing else, of liberals.
Maybe you disagree on any of these matters. Maybe you find America was prepared for her last several wars, or that at least conservatives did what they could do, urged on the country what should be done.
Thank you Titus, you too.
And unless I’m completely wrong, I believe that the descendants of most of the barbarians who sacked Rome all have washing machines, flush toilets, freedom of expression, secure food supplies and good dental care today – and live in free societies. (I’m thinking Germany.) Iow: Civilisation triumphed – though it took its time, and had some notable diversions.
With human societies and histories there is no final victory – everything is always “up for discussion” because of demographic or economic changes. (Howzat for dialectical?) But people are attracted to the fruits of Civilisation, and that itself is a civilising factor. What’s important (for everyone) to keep in mind is that Civilisation may sometimes speak another language (and have different religious beliefs) – we don’t always get to drive the car : – )
False comfort leads to one kind of catastrophe, over-suspicion to intellectual paralysis and another kind.
You need each other for balance.
Indeed, it sometimes happens that the victors in war end up losing to the beliefs of those they defeat.
But it was essentially luck that the destruction of Rome was eventually followed in the same place by a rebirth of civilization. It was not luck that destroyed Rome, however.
What you say seems to me to be the opinion of all decent men. Yet, we work our way up to decency from a strong love of our own. I am not sure we have that anymore. I am not sure that can be replaced by those who, full of good intentions & high ambitions, would replace it. So far as I see, the popular opinion has changed tremendously–the popular opinion today seems to me to be this, that civilization is not in need of defense, or that the defense is not difficult & urgent. So far as I understand what politicians are saying, on all sides, they mean that in the future this will be even more obviously the case–the more civilization endures, or advances, the less it is in need of defense. That, I believe, assumes that perpetual peace is on the horizon, or near.
It’s a conundrum (?) – Civilisation is only born of peace and is diminished by war, but the fruits of Civilisation must be defended by war.
Oh, I don’t know. Lot of the world looks pretty Westernized to me. One way to “defeat your enemies” is to do things of value. Every time I see a country that has conquered one of the epidemic diseases we have, I think, “Westernized.” When I see modern sanitation, I think “Westernized.” When I see liberal democracy, I think “Westernized.” When I hear people talking about human rights, I think “Westernized.” When I hear people talking about human rights but not acting like they believe in them, I think, “Another few hundred years of practice, and maybe you’ll get it and be Westernized: At least the seed of that idea has been planted.” I’m so Westernized that I even think other civilizations might have good things to offer, and if so, I’d like to freely trade with them.
When I look at China, I see an enemy. All its Westernized powers cannot change that. So also with Russia. Not my enemy particularly, nor yours, though of course, I would feel obliged to give you warning, were that the case. I mean, an enemy to civilization. I cannot believe that China’s rulers will civilize on account of those Westernization facts you mentioned, or any others.
I grant, they’re all facts, what you mention. But so is tyranny & it is a more serious fact. There’s lots of Western technology in the hands of the Norks. I have not yet seen you pat everyone on the back, Iran is getting this new, rare Western technology, nuclear arms, to go with all their other Western technologies in military or terrorist uses.
The Western powers were all the Western even as they slaughtered each other in a way never before seen in history. & again. Globalization then was about what it is now, although maybe in the last generation it has been surpassed. Trade between nations was greater, as percentage of what there was to trade, in 1914 than the two generations afterward. It made no difference, unless you mean commerce contributes to the power of war like a slave to his master’s work.
Americans do not seem to understand this. I suppose that’s natural, Americans tend to think they are the origin of civilization. I suppose that’s true, but it helps to know a bit more about war.
Had the Soviets had tougher leaders, you would have had far more reason to fear. Americans knew some things about fear at various points in the Cold War. So, too, after 9/11. Had any of the terrorist attacks foiled by chance, as opposed to American science or virtue, succeeded, we would not be having this conversation, I think. O think all decent men are happy–& not just them–that America has seen so little terrorism since 9/11, but the truth is, that’s also why your people take it less seriously… Americans are happy-go-lucky & do not understand the old world’s deep-bone conservatism. Americans have an almost Greek childishness. These are strengths in many ways, except in seeing the end of things.
Will Western science prevail, will technology give people perpetual peace? You seem to believe that–you do not seem to wonder what must be done to keep technology from giving tyrants new powers & underestimate how quickly fear in a democracy can replace this fine confidence you display so charmingly. I mean, in your broad outlook. You seem far less trusting or liberal when it comes to weaponry, especially nuclear arms. You draw the line with science there. I shall attempt to persuade you that one must stop well before one reaches nuclear arms, because I cannot believe in perpetual peace. I think it would be preferable to the alternatives the 20th century displayed, but I know that wishes are memories.