Is the decline of the West inevitable?

[Ragamuffin_artist]

As one who just finished reading Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," I'd like to know what other members of the "West" think. Or the "East," for that matter. On the one hand, I can see how one could come to the conclusion that the West is in a state of decline. On the other, I'm not sure how one could equivocally say that the civilization that brought about the Hubble Telescope, the HLC, Richard Dawkins, Microsoft Windows (even if you hate it, you know you depend on it), and Cable TV could be the products of a civilization in decline. Any thoughts?

[Freaker]

Islam has bloody borders.

Interesting theory, very wrong, some may say quite offensive.

[fluffy]

I wrote my dissertation on this. You should read: Toynbee "A Study of History", Kagan "The Return of History and the End of Dreams" and Koch and Smith "The Death of the West"
Every civilisation falls into decline at some point. The death of the West is, effectively, inevitable - even with the theories of western globalisation rendering our civilisation a universal one, it will fall into decline, if it hasn't already. This doesn't necessarily mean it will be replaced by Islam. Effectively, the civilisations that make the most noise are the ones which are not such a great threat - we should be more worried by China or Iran.
The West is the only civilisation without a coherent religion (even though we are *pretty much* christian, there are so many different identities within the West that it is impossible for us to adhere to one true identity ((try Amartya Sen "Identity and Illusion")) and this is another problem with the success of the West as a civilisation - without a true identity, we will pretty much fall to pieces.
We've also reached what could be considered an economic peak - there is nowhere left for us to go but down, and history suggests that this is what's going to happen (Spengler) though of course, there are exceptions.
Plus, civilisations are no longer determined by geographic boundaries - there can be members of different civilisations (depending on your definition of it) within the same geographic location.
The fact that we have produced so many different forms of technology is no indicator of success - perhaps we have just reached our peak, and despite our technological ability (which the Aztecs were also pretty adept at) other factors which are more indicative of decline, such as religion, economics and identity are still slowing down. Fukuyama's end of history is also no longer possible, because of the change in world order since the end of the cold war and the growth of power of China, Iran, Pakistan and other Eastern states. Therefore the spread of liberal democracy and western values no longer being possible, our chance of becoming a global civilisation has decreased dramatically.

The West is in no way unique. Globalisation has happened before (Rome) and Rome still fell. There are still many alternatives to the West as a hegemonic civilisation, and I believe wholeheartedly that we will fall. Eventually. Not necessarily any time soon.

The clash of civilisations is a nice book. But it's very simplified and you shouldn't read it as a be all and end all. It's great to get excited about it, but please read around - don't take Huntington as the word on this topic. This is just a brief summary too, there's so much to argue about with the topic of the death of civilisations.

You should also maybe take a look at the concept of the death of civilisation in the singular (a much more armageddon concept) whereby we would once more be at the mercy of survival of the fittest, and there would once more be evolution of humanity.

[munchingfoo]

The west, if there is indeed such a beast, is the first of a kind. Nothing in history, as far as I am aware, is even remotely similar to it. To decide its fate using historical references is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

[fluffy]

actually no, the west is not the first of a kind. the first globalised civilisation to our knowledge was that of rome. and of course you can't use history for everything, but it helps establish trends - there has not been a civilisation in history which has not declined. and the decline of the west's economic progress, the role of religion and identity tallies with what has gone with history before it.
the proliferation of values (like with the west) not only happened with rome, it also happened during the renaissance and in the 11th century. again, not making the west the first of a kind.
in our belief that the west is a unique civilisation and that nothing before has happened like it, we are also not alone - the romans believed this of their own civilisation.
in our distinct lack of religion and identity, however, we may be the first - this is something i'm not too sure about.

[jollytiddlywink]

As one who just finished reading Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," I'd like to know what other members of the "West" think. Or the "East," for that matter. On the one hand, I can see how one could come to the conclusion that the West is in a state of decline. On the other, I'm not sure how one could equivocally say that the civilization that brought about the Hubble Telescope, the HLC, Richard Dawkins, Microsoft Windows (even if you hate it, you know you depend on it), and Cable TV could be the products of a civilization in decline. Any thoughts?

I don't think the West is currently in decline. Although I haven't gone to the extent of writing an entire dissertation on 'the West' I have spent some time studying it, and as long as the modern idea of 'the West' has been around (since about 1900), commentators have been simultaneously bemoaning its fall and crowing about its ultimate triumph. An entire century of triumph/decline seems a bit much, so I am sceptical of any modern claims either way.

If we define 'the West' as including (but not limited to) the EU, the US and Canada, Australia and Japan, I don't think the West is under that great a threat from China, and certainly not from Iran. Iran, for all its oil and efforts to get nukes, can be safely ignored in the bigger picture. China, for all its size, population and rocketing economic growth, still has only a few more people than the West, and is certainly far behind economically, technologically and militarily. This doesn't mean they won't catch up, but I'd say there's probably a fifty-year buffer between now and then, by which point anything could happen and all bets are off. And China isn't the only local rising star. India is also a major power, a nuclear power, and has a similarly large population. They're also a democracy and a traditional counter-weight to China.

I think that the West has a wide appeal--not universal, but still wide. For all the awful mess that Bush made of America's standing and reputation, people the world over still aspire to move to the US. People still like the idea of America, and very often still like individual Americans, as distinct from US policy or politicians. Much the same could be said, in a lesser way, of immigration or asylum seekers or refugees coming to Europe to find a better life. The West is still a place that people outside the West often want to live. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone (bin Laden's 'death to America' being but one case in point), but the West has overcome such Occidental challenges before: the Japanese in 1941 hated America, as did the Nazis, and look where Germany and Japan are today. Rid of those regimes, they are both now firmly part of the West.

It is certainly too early to write off 'Western civilisation,' especially since I think that there is more than one Western civilisation: Japanese culture looks very different from US culture, which is very different from Scandinavian culture. They all fall into 'the West' but there's enough heterogeneity going on to keep things vibrant and resilient.

[Humphrey]

I think saying that the West is in terminal decline is merely a good way of selling your articles to publications. Certain people like Spengler and Mark Steyn make a living out of it. I think what is really happening is that the east is rising relative to the west through utilising western models. Since this is where the overwhelming mass of humanity is located (India and China) you might see this as something of a correction. The big challenges are how to cope with the rise of China, a resurgent Russia, an unstable Pakistan and the depletion of resources. I don't think we are in danger of going the way of Rome which only really collapsed in the western half of the Empire through a combination of economic weakness, internal division and military threats both domestic and foreign.

[jollytiddlywink]

I think saying that the West is in terminal decline is merely a good way of selling your articles to publications. Certain people like Spengler and Mark Steyn make a living out of it. I think what is really happening is that the east is rising relative to the west through utilising western models. Since this is where the overwhelming mass of humanity is located (India and China) you might see this as something of a correction. The big challenges are how to cope with the rise of China, a resurgent Russia, an unstable Pakistan and the depletion of resources. I don't think we are in danger of going the way of Rome which only really collapsed in the western half of the Empire through a combination of economic weakness, internal division and military threats both domestic and foreign.

We can have a tricky debate about whether India counts as the 'west' or not, but it certainly does act as a counter-weight to China, as does Russia. The odds of any combination of the three of them teaming up to beat the West seems highly unlikely. Most probably outcome by my guess would be a multi-polar world.

So I think the rise of China and a resurgent Russia will in some ways cancel out, because while they will be increasing in power compared to the West, they'll also be making each other worried: they do share a large border, after all, which both sides have some reason to be anxious about. An unstable Pakistan is surely more of a worry for India than anyone else, if only because they're next door. Of course any unstable nuclear state is a worry, but I think the mere fact that it does have nukes means that the world won't allow it to become a failed state like Somalia. The pirates might be annoying, but aren't a big enough political headache to make anyone spend the political capital, taxpayer money and troops' lives necessary to sort the place out. Anarchy with nukes is a headache on an entirely different scale, and the international community will go to very considerable lengths to avoid this, I think.

Depletion of resources will be a big worry, or so the consensus seems to be. But if it comes to a fight, the US and Europe will win that one. All the evidence available has pointed to, and continues to point to, the conclusion that the US military (serious problems with asymmetric warfare aside) will obliterate an opposing conventional force in short order. Various other NATO forces, while not nearly so big or so expensive, are similarly able to hit well above their weight in combat, and will make mincemeat of all but the most advanced enemy in short order. For the realpolitik crowd out there, this is something which still bears serious consideration.

[elyettoner]

On the other, I'm not sure how one could equivocally say that the civilization that brought about the Hubble Telescope, the HLC, Richard Dawkins, Microsoft Windows (even if you hate it, you know you depend on it), and Cable TV

Why stop there? How about the holocaust, nuclear weapons, the Daily Mail, Big Brother...

[munchingfoo]

actually no, the west is not the first of a kind. the first globalised civilisation to our knowledge was that of rome.

"the west" is nothing like Rome.

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it? You wrote a dissertation on this? Seriously?

[fluffy]

actually, the patterns of the west as a civilisation are very similar to that of rome. may i ask on what you are basing your *one-line* arguments - do you have any academic back-up?
you don't need a civilisation to be conquered to fall into decline, however, if you need to think like that, let's put things into perspective. it's been claimed by a number of academics that western hegemony is falling into decline because of rising powers like India and China, I'm sure you've heard something like that said before. Now, as a liberal democratic civilisation, the West tends to prefer economic engagement to war, and therefore we have no need for conquering anyone else in a military sense. Or to be conquered by them. also, bodies like the UN, NATO etc do their very best to make sure nothing like this will happen either. However, there is still the opportunity for us to be overtaken *and therefore, conquered, as you wish* in an economic sense, or even our destruction because of some kind of natural disaster, for an example, let's take avian flu (i know you're gonna throw a load of medical stuff at me, it's just an example - i'm not saying bird flu is going to destroy the west)
rome is just one example of many though. you said as far as you were aware there was nothing similar in history - i was merely informing you that, actually, there were several examples.
i wrote my dissertation on the concept of civilisation and the potential decline of the west - there's no need to get offensive.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Foo,

You're a smart guy, but you don't know what you're talking about here. Rome is the West. Many of Western civilisations' most enduring institutions can be traced back to Rome. Law, the dates of many of our important holidays, the Church, the width of our railroads (long story there), a vast amount of our languages, the way we use that language in argument, the idea of the individual as distinct from society, even constitutional government and diplomacy... all Roman in origin. And where, exactly, do you think Rome is if not in the West?

Western civilisation went into decline with the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, but it was back to Roman thought and Roman governance that the Renaissance thinkers looked when they and the Enlightenment philosophes rebuilt governments based on law and justifications of consent. It was to the writings of Cicero, as much as Locke and Hobbes (who themselves were well familiar with Roman ideas), that James Madison and the other American Founding Fathers looked when formulating the beginnings of modern liberal democracy.

Would Rome fit well into the West of today? No. But it is our direct antecedent civilisation and Europe only really emerged from the idea of Rome's shadow at the Congress of Vienna when the decision not to re-constitute the Holy Roman Empire was made.

[the Empress]

I don't buy into explanations re: fluffy ''other factors which are more indicative of decline, such as religion, economics and identity are still slowing down. " If anything, the removal of religous restrictions has historically sped up development. 'Identity' is too ambigous an argument. But then I favour historians such as Jarred Diamond 'Collapse' and Barbara Tuchman 'The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam' (NB: interestingly, while both are well respected in the field neither were formally trained historians). Diamond talks from an environmental persective, demonstrating the interrelation of environmental problems and the collapse of complex civilisations. Often cultures recognize the environmental danger but fail to take action. Tuchman has a non-environmental approach, but similarly, the problem is recognised but the response is illogical.

Economics often feed into decline, but a civilization probably doesn't collapse because of economics alone. I would never approach history from a purely economic stance, as economics in theory and economics in practice don't always mesh - then too, monetary systems vary between cultures and over time, so it would have to be a very robust study to convince me. Also, you have to define the term 'decline' carefully in order to measure it.

That said, the environmental problems today are recognised in the west, and there has been a slow move towards action and preparation. If anything, a multiple-identity, multiple-religous (including non-religous) community is probably more robust than a culturally homogenous community, because you're more likely to get varying responses to problems and be more free-thinking. When cultures become moribund, they are less likely to be responsive or at least flexible - if they can't adapt, how can they succeed in the long-term?

[jollytiddlywink]

actually no, the west is not the first of a kind. the first globalised civilisation to our knowledge was that of rome.

"the west" is nothing like Rome.

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it? You wrote a dissertation on this? Seriously?

I have to agree with Lonely Pilgrim: there are quite a few problems with this assertion and the following question. To suggest that Rome was a 'nation' is both to stretch a modern term so far back in time as to make it useless, and to completely ignore the historical realities of Roman power. Roman citizenship had nothing whatsoever to do with anything resembling a modern idea of 'nationality' (or tribe, or region...). And you seem to suggest that a state and a civilisation are, and indeed must be, entirely congruent. Roman culture could exist outside Roman borders, or could fail to exist within Roman borders, in much the same way as elements of, say, French culture can be found outwith the jurisdiction of the government in Paris.
Please note that Fluffy said "globalised civilisation," not anything about a single state or system of government, or area of military conquest.

That said, I do think we need to be aware that while the idea of 'the West' can (very tenuously) be traced back to the division of the Roman Empire into East and West, the term was still rare into the 17th century, and it was only c 1900 that it took on (most) of the modern definition (and even that is contested). Here I disagree sharply with Lonely. Rome is emphatically not 'the West'--certainly not by the currently accepted definition, which is (briefly): capitalism, liberal democracy, secularism (debatable), individual freedoms, 'modernity', Europe and/or the United States, science, technology, and rationalism. Rome fails to meet most of these, and I have to protest at the anachronism of trying to impose an essentially 20th century term onto a state and a civilisation that was mostly gone by the 5th century.
That said, Rome is a precursor to the west in several ways, but matters of political structure, our calendar and language have little bearing on the issue of 'the West.' Geography has no bearing whatsoever on 'the West,' so the fact that Rome was centred in modern Italy (which is part of 'the West') is irrelevant. The fact that Russia is not part of the west, but Japan is, is the clearest indication that geographical constraints are irrelevant.

[munchingfoo]

actually, the patterns of the west as a civilisation are very similar to that of Rome. may i ask on what you are basing your *one-line* arguments - do you have any academic back-up?

Simple reading, observation and reasoning.

you don't need a civilisation to be conquered to fall into decline, however, if you need to think like that, let's put things into perspective. it's been claimed by a number of academics that western hegemony is falling into decline because of rising powers like India and China, I'm sure you've heard something like that said before. Now, as a liberal democratic civilisation, the West tends to prefer economic engagement to war, and therefore we have no need for conquering anyone else in a military sense. Or to be conquered by them. also, bodies like the UN, NATO etc do their very best to make sure nothing like this will happen either. However, there is still the opportunity for us to be overtaken *and therefore, conquered, as you wish* in an economic sense, or even our destruction because of some kind of natural disaster, for an example, let's take avian flu (i know you're gonna throw a load of medical stuff at me, it's just an example - i'm not saying bird flu is going to destroy the west)
Rome is just one example of many though. you said as far as you were aware there was nothing similar in history - i was merely informing you that, actually, there were several examples.
i wrote my dissertation on the concept of civilisation and the potential decline of the west - there's no need to get offensive.

So, I'll reiterate my question more simply, and step by step, since you have both misunderstood it and failed to answer it.

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it?


Rome was an empire. It conquered its lands either by battle or by threat. The entire empire was largely controlled by a body of representatives in Rome. The empire receded from the fringes, much as one would expect, over a period of time.

"The West", is a concept. It has no governing body. It did not conquer its lands by war (individual members may have conquered lands, but never for the gain of "the West"). There is very little cohesion between every member of "the West". "The West" has no fringes at which to become frayed. "The West" isn't even solely in the west. Any country in the world can leave or join "the West" simply by positioning its internal and foreign policies differently. Although it is unlikely, there is fundamentally no reason why the rising power of China could not reposition itself in the future to become part of "the West".

"The West" is intrinsically different to Rome. The British Empire resembles Rome. France, resembles Rome. Italy, unsurprisingly, resembles Rome. (LP - this is for you ) However, together these nations make up a new beast. "The West". A concept. An intangible entity. A leaderless mass of countries each striving for their own success in harmony with some other nations, but as a consequence becoming greater than the some of their parts. It is a fluid being that restructures itself as the environment around it changes. It can do this because it doesn't really exist. No one agrees to join "the West". No one decides to leave it.

Diamond is made up of carbon, but you would say that diamond resembles carbon? Water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen, but you can't put a match to water and make it explode! Certainly, many of the countries who currently make up the West have their roots in Rome, but to then draw the conclusion that the West is the same as Rome was is, to reuse the word, ludicrous.

[fluffy]

Foo, sweetheart, did you just disregard the whole of the last couple of posts? Nobody has said anything about a nation conquering the west. A nation is a completely different thing from a civilisation. For instance, the German nation and the British nation may be said to make up part of Western civilisation. And there is a difference between the concept of the West, as you define it, and the concept of Western civilisation. ie. Japan is not considered part of Western civilisation, but is part of the West per se.
For a civilisation to fall into decline, it is not necessary for there to be a ruling body over it either - it just loses the power and hegemony it once enjoyed, which is taken over by another *civilisation* and not a nation. Rome itself was an empire, but there was still a roman civilisation.
And I didn't say the west was the same as Rome, I said there were blatant similarities.
I think you are arguing about something, as LP says, that you don't fully know what you're arguing about.
No nation has conquered the west - that is a ridiculous concept. the idea of a single nation conquering an entire civilisation? rome may have been an empire, but it also had its entire civilisation at the same time. a civilisation is made up, according to braudel, of cultures, values, religions and so on. a number of nations can be part of the same civilisation, without sharing exactly the same language or religion, however.
i have tried to answer your arguments as much as I can see them, but your arguments are flawed,and your confusion of civilisation with nations and empires has thrown me a little.

[the Empress]

It's quite rare to draw direct comparisons between civilisations apart in time and space. Usually direct comparisons are drawn between fairly contemporary events, such as Italian unification and German unification (~1848-1871 period) -> derive two distinct unification processes, then compare processes to other unifications across space and time and (validate your theory). So, you can use Rome to derive or provide evidence for a theory of decline . . . but you can't compare Rome and the west (however defined) directly. Even if they were very similiar in structure, there wouldn't be enough evidence. Is there a particular theory behind the comparison (I'm genuinely interested)?

However, decline as '[loss of] power and hegemony it once enjoyed, which is taken over by another' is too weak a definition, as it's only referring to political decline. The civilisation may still be productive and healthy.

[fluffy]

The only reason Rome came up was because it was one of very few civilisations, of which the west is one, that globalised. Foo said there was no point using history to explain the decline of civilisations because the west is a unique case. i pointed out that it wasn't the only one that globalised (hence, Rome).

[Gubbins]

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it?

Brussels seems to be doing quite a good job of making a new (expanding) European Empire. :/

[Haunted]

Oh look there is some similar ideas that the Romans had that we have. Is it worth pointing that the many of these things (rule of law, citizenship, etc) have their roots further back in time, nearer the dawn of civilisation, with the Babylonians?
All that's being drawn here is simple analogies and parallels, but this seems to be enough to conclude that The West and Rome are "basically the same".