A Defense of Western Civilization: Introduction
Western Civilization, long the dominant culture on Earth, for the first time in a great deal of time is under significant threat, both from internal critics and external enemies. In Europe, the cradles of Western civilization in Greece and Italy are nearing the demographic point of no return. The rest of Europe has suffered a great decline in military power and international prestige, and are suffering from a varieties of civil unrest. Canada suffers from similar ailments, with immigration unable to meet the declining birthrates. The United States, faced with the prospect of the long and difficult tasks of being the world’s only superpower, appears to be balking at the responsibilities.
This essay will introduce my own understanding and classification of Western Civilization, which is admittedly fairly different than the traditional literature; it will also introduce the critics and opponents of Western civilization and why I have chosen them as opposed to others. This will lay the ground work for the more thorough historical explication in the next three weeks and then into the actual defense of what I have defined as Western civilization in the face of her modern opponents. This whole series is to be taken as a work in progress, and I reserve the right to edit them as I see fit. I welcome all constructive criticism, and thoughtful consideration of what I am putting forth in these essays.
I think that while getting many of the details wrong, like most of us, Samuel Huntington struck a much more appropriate historical analytical tool in his work The Clash of Civilizations. As with most groundbreaking work, there were some considerations that should have, but weren’t taken into account; but his analytical tools in my opinion ought to be the foundation for historical and political analysis. Unlike Huntington and most historians, I do not view the unit of civilization to be historically homogenous. For example, while the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages are very much historically continuous, but certainly not the same civilization, politically or culturally. Both are distinctly different then what followed or came before; they are both in my view civilizations.
So then we need some new unit of analysis, what I call streams. Streams are broader than civilizations, but encompass what is traditionally within what we call civilization. So for a western example, The unified Roman civilization and Medieval civilizations are a part of the Western stream, but not the same civilization. For another clarifying example, Imperial China and the PRC are a part of the same Chinese stream, but are NOT the same civilization. Civilizations may cross streams, depending on the closeness of these streams, but generally remain separate. One example of this would be the dominance of communist civilization, a production of the western stream, in Russia, considered to be a part of Orthodox civilization by both Huntington and myself.
Civilizations are the summation of various political, religious, and socio-cultural trends and elements within a given stream that exist for a period of time. Not only can there be multiple civilizations within a stream, there can be multiple civilizations at the same time, and interact with each other based on the differences within the described civilizational traits. Some civilizations maybe different based on politics, while others solely on religion or on various elements of the two. Even within these civilizations there can be various elements, usually political bodies but not restricted solely to them that compete with each other of land, resources, or other perceived differences. The point is that these civilizations are united based upon common philosophical assumptions about politics, religions or cultural elements. Tension between civilizations in my view thus becomes one of the fundamental sources of conflict within nation-states, as their may be several civilizations and their adherents combating each other for control over that nation-state.
So what exactly then is Western civilization, as opposed to the Western stream? It is what I consider the manifestation of all that is unique to the Western stream of humanity in a single civilization, generally co-terminus with what in modern historical textbooks is called the Enlightenment period, and Modernity as a whole. The fundamental political, religious and socio-cultural that make up Western civilization include, but are not limited to republicanism, constitutionalism, free commerce and trade or captialism, limited government, Judeo-Christian religious groups, commitment to exploration (See Frontier Thesis), nationalism, rationalism, classical liberalism, humanism, individualism, and above all, a commitment to liberty and equality.
Within the current period of time, there are several groups that challenge Western civilization for supremacy within the Western stream. These come from both within the Western stream and from without. Within the Western stream, the critics come from two sources, from proto-Western and post-Western thought. Proto-Western critics attack Western republicanism and political thought from a monarchial perspective, viewing Western civilization as insufficiently cohesive and ultimately unstable. In the past, particularly in the early era of Western civilization, this was the dominant stream of criticism. In the current time however, this has become a distinct minority voice, and most proto-Western critics tend to applaud returns to more Western political norms. Nevertheless within academic circles proto-Western critics present some profound arguments against Western civilization. Two prominent public figures who have put forward proto-Western criticisms would be Allan Bloom and Irving Kristol.
While proto-Westerns tend to be much more amenable to Western civilization as a whole, post-Westerns represent the most serious anti-Western thought from within the Western stream. Within post-Western thought, there are two competing civilizations that present a serious threat to the continued dominance of Western civilization. The first is the Marxian civilization, which has been the most prominent threat for the latter half of the 19th century and the 20th century as a whole. Marxian civilization tends to be presented as the opposite of Western civilization, and is largely true. While Marxists are not the only critics, if one were to draw a line with pure Western thought at one end, the other end would be Marxist thought. The second is the charistmatic-Nietzschean civilization, based on the criticisms of Christianity and rationalism of Western civilization. Politically, charismatic-Nietzschean civilizations tend to be led by singularly charismatic (hence the addition) leaders and are authoritarian in nature, highly corporate/group-focused as opposed to individualistic, though generally nationalistic rather than class-based as Marxian societies.
There are other groups of critics within the Western stream, but I do not consider them to have civilization status. The first would be feminism, which in my view lacks a philosophical cohesiveness in order to be considered a civilization. Environmentalism, in my view, is certainly a proto-civilizational movement, with the potential to become a civilization, but at the current point in time lacks political power and a definitive political structure, among other things, to be considered a true civilization. Ultimately those critics from proto- and post-Western civilizations argue against Western civilization from an primarily ideological standpoint, which despite Huntington’s claims are still particularly important in the current political environment thanks to the historical alliances between the nations within the Western stream. However as each civilization develops, more post-Western proto-civilizations emerge and non-Western streams, each civilization views this as the time that they can emerge and take away the dominance of Western civilization for themselves.
Outside of the western stream, things begin to appear more in line with Huntington’s thesis regarding civilizations. While the ideological differences no longer remain, Russia has returned to the world stage as a world player thanks to its discoveries in oil and other resources. Islamic streams continue to oppose the Western streams one and all, based on a multitude of justifications, but primarily religious in nature and Western stream governance in theocratic terms, making them nearly the opposite of the Western stream as a whole. I must point out as I close this introduction that I do not view proponents of these points ‘inferior’ in any way, but rather as opponents worthy of my time to combat their claims about Western civilization.
Leave a Reply