“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder,” according to 20th-century historian Arnold Toynbee.
He claimed every great culture collapses internally due to a divergence in values between the ruling class and the common people…🧵
Toynbee was an English historian and expert on international affairs who published the 12 volume work “A Study of History,” which traced the life cycle of about two dozen world civilizations.
Through his work he developed a model of how cultures develop and finally die…
Toynbee argued that civilizations are born primitive societies as a response to unique challenges—pressures from other cultures, difficult terrain or “hard country,” or warfare.
Toynbee writes:
“Civilizations, I believe, come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges.”
But each challenge must be a “golden mean” between excessive difficulty, which will crush a culture, and ease, which will allow it to stagnate.
He believed civilizations continued to grow so long as they meet and solve new challenges, one after the other, in a cycle he calls “Challenge and Response.”
Thus, each civilization develops differently because each confronts and overcomes different challenges.
But societies do not respond to challenges as a whole; rather, it's a unique class of elites within a society that are the problem solvers.
He calls them the "creative minorities" who find solutions to challenges, and inspire—rather than force—others to follow their lead.
The masses follow the solutions of the creative minorities by 'mimesis' or imitation, solutions they would have otherwise been incapable of discovering on their own.
This synchronicity between the creative minorities and the masses brings civilization to its height.
Toynbee did not attribute the breakdown of civilizations to environmental forces or external attacks by other civilizations. Rather, it is the decline of the creative minority that leads to a culture’s downfall.
Through moral decay or material prosperity, the creative minority degenerates. They are no longer the great men who solve society’s problems but are simply a ruling class intent on preserving their power.
They become what Toynbee calls the “dominant minority.”
Toynbee points to a kind of self worship that takes hold of the dominant minority.
They become prideful about their positions of authority yet are wholly inadequate to deal with the culture’s new challenges.
Ultimately the dominant minority, incapable of solving their culture’s actual problems, form a “universal state” in a gambit to shore up their power, but it stifles creativity and subjugates the proletariat (common people). Toynbee used the Roman Empire as a classic example.
Toynbee writes:
"First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force—against all right and reason—a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence.”
As society deteriorates, four sentiments exist within the proletariat:
Archaism - idealization of the past
Futurism - idealization of the future
Detachment - removal of oneself from a decaying world
Transcendence - confronting the decaying world with a new worldview
From the disunity between the dominant minority and the proletariat, and between the different proletariat dispositions, a unified culture is impossible, and the civilization eventually ends.
Toynbee sums up the three aspects of failing cultures:
“...a failure of creative power in the minority, an answering withdrawal of mimesis (imitation) on the part of the majority, and a consequent loss of social unity in the society as a whole.”
It’s interesting to observe Toynbee’s formulation in light of the West’s current struggles.
What do you think—was Toynbee observing universal patterns of civilizational development that might shed light on our culture today?
If you enjoyed this thread and would like to join the mission of promoting western tradition, kindly repost the first post (linked below) and consider following: @thinkingwest
Rooted in American exceptionalism, this idea was known as "Manifest Destiny".
It inspired a people to conquer a continent — and push the boundaries of what was previously thought possible🧵 (thread)
The term “manifest destiny” first appeared in an article by newspaper editor John O'Sullivan in 1845.
O'Sullivan, described as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes," used the phrase in the midst of the ongoing Oregon boundary dispute with Britain.
He wrote it was America’s destiny to control North America:
“And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty…”
Art Deco needs to be the architectural style for America's upcoming golden age.
Here's why🧵
Kenneth Clarke said:
“Vigour, energy, vitality: all the civilizations—or civilizing epochs—have had a weight of energy behind them.”
Art Deco embodies this vitality.
He claimed civilization had 3 enemies:
"First of all fear — fear of war, fear of invasion, fear of plague and famine, that make it simply not worthwhile constructing things, or planting trees or even planning next year’s crops."
Why do civilizations arise in some places and not others?
Historian Arnold Toynbee claimed the usual answers—race, environment, resources—were too narrow.
Rather, something called “challenge and response” was the answer.
To build a civilization, you must make it STRUGGLE…🧵
Toynbee was an English historian who published the 12-volume masterwork “A Study of History,” which traced the life cycle of about two dozen civilizations.
Rather than simply naming events and dates, though, Toynbee built a framework for world history…
Popular in the 1940’s and 50’s, his work has largely fallen out of academic favor, but it remains a significant contribution to the philosophy of history.
Most notably, his theory of “challenge and response” provides a model for the rise of civilizations.
The ancient Greeks observed that governments often devolve into distorted versions of themselves.
The problem is the ruling party's tendency to abuse power...🧵(thread)
Precluding the explicit idea of social cycles is the concept of “dark ages” — dominated by poor leadership, war, famine, and tech/artistic stagnation — and “golden ages” — periods of peace, plenty, and social progress — across social scales, from city-states to civilizations.
The express idea of social cycles — that civilizations, governments, and movements progress in stages that often repeat — goes back to antiquity to as early as Plato.
Much of Medieval and Renaissance architecture was inspired by one man.
Artists like Michelangelo, Brunelleschi, and da Vinci learned a lot of what they knew from an obscure Roman engineer who lived more than 1000 years prior…🧵(thread)
The 16th-century architect Palladio called Roman architect Vitruvius his “master and guide,” but little is known of the figure.
We do know he was a military engineer who served under Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC, specializing in the construction of ballista siege engines
He likely campaigned in North Africa, Gaul, Hispania, and Pontus near the Black Sea.
But his dynamic military career would be overshadowed by his more creative accomplishments, namely his writings on architecture.