History, in its widest form, is the study of the rise and fall of civilizations. A historian will pick a particular civilization and find all the requirements for its rise and destruction within itself. But when you take a cursory look at all civilizations, a simple fact emerges.
The reasons for a particular civilization’s rise and fall become identical to the reasons for all the others. Okay, the actual ‘culture’ of a particular civilization may differ from the others. It may ‘appear’ that the reasons are different. But when you look under the culture, they are not.
A new civilization – or a new way of engaging an existing society in a new idea – usually begins with a form of revolution. It can be a bloody affair, such as violent overthrow, or a more subtle ideal, such as the emerging youth culture from the 1950s onwards. But the simple overriding element of all such revolution is sensationalism.
In effect, for a revolution to succeed it must be extreme. This is how it hits the failing culture in the face and overthrows it. But in the extremeness of the new civilization that arises, we find the seed of its eventual downfall.
In being extreme, it is upheld by a tiny percentage of a population who can identify fully with it. For the rest of the population, its extremeness can only be negativity. And due to this, a frustration builds in the population that eventually forces the old system out and the new revolution in – and a new cycle of extremeness begins.
We can see here a repetitive cycle of extreme ideas leading to extreme societies and a guarantee of continual overthrow and frustration. We could say this is the sad lot of the human race. Yet without those frustrations would human society have evolved in the first place?
Perhaps frustration is the driving force of social evolution.
© Anthony North, Mar 2007
another way
I think you missed a way that a new civilization begins. Conquest and/or migration. This is not unusual, happens all the time. You could say it is an extreme event, and of course it is. But in the case of migration it is often quite slow.
These ways of forming a new society do not usually come from within the society that is conquered, other than that the conquerors were stronger.
There are other cases, when a society changes due to external pressures. A strong society can change its neighbors, without conquest. Changes in climate can and do change societies. In these cases too, the factors producing dramatic change are external to the society being changed.
What you describe certainly happens, but it is not the only thing that happens.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Fair point
Hi Earthling,
That's a fair point, but can we take those examples deeper? Invasion is invariably due to a society at the peak of its fanaticism.
If we take the Roman Empire, as it began to fail, and a new system was needed, it came out of one of the countries it invaded, with Christianity rising from the empire's frustrations and taking over it.
The point I'm making is that 'frustration' is still primary to those processses. Indeed, invasion and migration doesn't always have to change things that much. Just take the constant invasions and migrations in the Fertile Crescent in early history. From Sumerians to Babylonians, the same general form of civilisation continued. It still seemed to satisfy, without too much frustration.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that 'frustration' still rises to decide the nature of 'civilisation', which can, itself, be wider than any one country or people. I'm suggesting it is a fundamental evolutionary factor behind change.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
a factor
I think that developments within a society leads to catastrophic changes sometimes, but catastrophic changes happen for other reasons as well.
Looking at the Roman Empire, it succumbed to multiple invasions a few hundred years after the time you mention. I don't think any of the invaders (Franks, Vandals, Visigoths, Arabs, and much later Turks) suffered from cultural fanaticism. At least nothing approaching a critical peak.
Look at the replacement of the various societies in the Americas. There was nothing much wrong, in the sense of a peak of fanaticism, with either the invaders nor the invadees. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and ENglish just wanted to make some money. Most of the native American societies were pretty stable, they were just not strong enough to resist. The result is a group of new societies. Some due to conquest (Latin America), others due to migration (USA and Canada, Carribean). These new societies are not simply extensions of the invading soceities - Brazil is not Portugal, Mexico or Chile are not Spain. I don't see a frustration factor in these cases, nor much fanaticism.
Similar to that, look at the Russian invasion of Siberia. The original societies were take over mostly by migration.
So when you say "Invasion is invariably due to a society at the peak of its fanaticism", I don't think the "invariably" is accurate. Dramatic changes do happen for reasons external to a society. Not always, these are not exceptional cases.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Interesting comments
Ok, first: Earthling, where have you been hiding man? :-)
Well, I think it's valid that the rise and fall of civilizations are first originated by an outside pressure, be it climatic (the floods accounted on biblical events, the end of glaciation, droughts, etc) or human invaders from foreign lands, looking for new resources.
But after the effect of the ouside force, the stability of an established society is deeply challenged, and people begin to make questions that were silenced before: If our rulers are of divine origin, how come they are unable to bring more rain to save our crops, no matter how may human sacrifices we perform to appease the gods? this is probably what happened with the once strong state-cities of the classical mayan empires. So after people of the lower classes begin to show discontent AND frustration, social instability ensues, spurred most of times by some opportunist that cleverly manages to manipulate the mindless force of the populace to overthrow the old system, and erect a new one, with the rebel leaders at the top of course. The mexican revolution is the perfect example of this, and one thing that they don't teach you in grade school is just who the *#$&! won the Revolution in the end (the answer of course is no one, or rather not one person, but a group that later became the political party that controlled the government for 80 years, far longer than the dictator that sparkled the origin of the fight in the first place!)
This phenomenon is not just typical of the latest centuries, but can be seen throughout history (Cortéz was an opportunist, allying with the natural foes of the aztec empire that was going to fall on its own accord regardless of the arrival of the conquistadores).
So what does that tell us? Is man truly a social being? Or is man forever condemned to become the wolf of man?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Histories- et al
*
I was thinking similar stuff when I happened on Velikovsky
([sic] I probably spelt that a bit badly), but I have only
started on his books- Peoples of The Sea- and the
-Akhenathon- stuff, so cannot claim expertise in any area.
:-(
but there seems to be so many confusing cross-pollinations
and lines between the various accepted myths and histories
and the fragments that eventually get to us seem
edited and cauterised out of their inherence- so that the
remove we read them at renders them almost preserved in aspic!
Someone said that the victors write the histories.
Personally I think many are and were propagandists of the
most hypocritical variety who use 'progress' as a means
of creating racial superiority ... anyway, the price of
our progress seems disastrous in terms of ecology.
Historic Comment One
A good debate guys. Earthling, the Roman Empire was created of fanticism rising from the ashes of Carthage. It spurred it on for so long, then Hadrian cemented the long, lingering suicide of the empire. He did this by surrounding it with a wall, declaring this is as far as we go. I'm surprised it lasted so long, but the Germanic migrations at the end were hardly invasions. They were simply occupying the space of a dead society.
However, the frustrations I was going on about were those of the subjugated monotheists, who, through frustration, continued their faith, leading, by the time of Constantine, to a force that, when accepted, managed to maintain the empire a while longer, laying the seeds for further frustrations as Christians evangelised during the Dark Ages.
As for America, the two primary movements of its inception were these. Traders came in, wanting to make their buck, but we must remember this was the genesis of a new kind of society, and therefore has to be an ideology. We are so used to capitalism today that we forget this - but it IS a fanatical ideology.
The second impulse was - you've guessed it - frustration; the frustration of those fed up of the structure of the Old World and wanting to create another.
You ask an important question, Red. Are we destined to be the wolf? For as long as frustrations build fanatical structures and paradigms, I think so. And in a way, it maybe has to be.
Remember Orsen Welles in The Third Man, speaking of Germany, the warmonger, but also the home of so much art, music and philosophy. Then he compares it to 500 years of Swiss peace, and their contribution - the cuchoo clock.
You're right, C. History as written cannot be trusted. We simply don't know what really happened, or at least, how.
That's why, when theorising on history, I try to strip away the 'cultures' of any one period and search for patterns that seem to fit all of history at all times.
If anyone's interested in my take on history, I'm currently posting a History of Man on Beyond the Blog. You can find a contents page here:
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/histo...
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
Germanic invasions
Sure the Germanic invasions were normal migrations, that had for a time (a few hundred years) been blocked by the strength of the Romans.
At the same time, the Grmanic tribes were not simple barbarians, as they were described by the Romans. For one thing, these "barbarians" had better metal work than the Romans. The reason we don't know much about them is that they did not write much, at least not on durable materials. And they did not construct big buildings.
I am still not sure about your initial point, with the fanaticism and frustration and those things.
Are you talking about the society that is being changed, by internal forces? Or is the extremism necessary from a conquering society?
Your original post seemed to talk about societies that were dominant, and somewhat in isolation, with no external threats. In those cases, you often get a positive feedback situation, which then leads to catastrophic change.
I don't agree that the North American Indian societies lost the fight because the Europeans were frustrated at home. Perhaps the first few traders and immigrants were frustrated, but they could have easily been wiped out by the natives. In fact, many of them were wiped out.
Instead, there was so much opportunity that the natives were just outnumbered. And this took a few centuries.
So I suggest a modified reason: opportunity, instead of frustration.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Historic Comment Two
Hi Earthling,
Yes, my initial post was on basically static societies, keeping it simple, but you touched on the wider issues nicely.
How do I explain it? Frustrations begin in a society, or, as you say, outside events cause change, which still lead to frustrations. These frustrations cause the development of a new fanaticism, which may well go on to conquer, or at least spread its ideology.
After the period of ideological fanaticism wanes, new frustrations begin, which can cause a new phase of civilisation, and thus a new fanaticism, ad infinitum.
As for the Native Americans, yes they were unable to stop the tide of this new fanatical thing called capitalism, but their frustrations can be found in a change in their mysticism. It moved into an apocalyptic phase with rituals such as the Ghost Dance, and beliefs in the Great Spirit coming to their aid to wipe out the White man.
So even in defeat, frustration cause a new thread of society.
I hope I've explained this satisfactorily. But I'm not saying I'm right - simply that it is a pattern I seem to have identified. The idea that frustration is evolutionary in human society.
As for opportunity, it only comes if we look for it. I'd say that is an effect, not a cause. Below the opportunity is the mentality of those searching for it. And I think they're usually frustrated. Why else would they be searching?
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
yep
The idea that frustration is evolutionary in human society.
The very act of LIVING is a infinite cause of frustration: why I am here? why was I born fat? Is there a God? Why doesn't she love me? Why did my Xbox break up? And so on and so forth.
So we are always trying to cope with our frustration. Some people do it constructively, and some in a destructive fashion. Artists are nothing more than sublimated neurotics.
I remember a comment of a british scientist (and incidentally, a member of nobility!), baroness Susan Greenfield, when she stated that "happy people are not ambitious, they don't build civilizations".
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/sep/fea...
I completely agree :-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Historic Comment Three
Good morning Red,
You said:
'Artists are nothing more than sublimated neurotics.'
Love it :-)
I haven't come across the Greenfield quote before, but there's a lot of sense in it. We like to think of ourselves as rational beings, which in most cases we are. But I'm convinced that, below our rationality, we are a cauldron of emotion, and it is always emotion - which so easily builds frustrations - that can be identified at the base of our impulses, including our history.
...
I'm certain of only one thing. Nothing is certain
Anthony North
be happy
I still say that many big changes in societies are due to something other than frustration.
Some of the drastic changes are due to irrational exuberance. Undue optimism. Mostly on the part of the conquerors, of course.
Sure the conquered developed frustration, pessimism and a feeling of hopelessness. But that was not the reason why they lost, they got depressed because they knew they were losing.
To branch off a little - is there a balance between the optimism of the conquerors, and the pessimism of the conquered?
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Historic Comment Five
Hi Earthling,
You could well be right, but I still reckon that, to change something, or react to a change, has got to involve frustration, or why bother? If you didn't get frustrated you'd be happy to stay as you are, or automatically accept the change placed on you.
Same with the exuberance you speak of. What makes you want to be irrationally exuberant if not being unhappy with your lot?
Not sure what you're getting at with the last sentence. I think I need further info on this.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
Historic Comment Four
Thought I'd put this in just to prove I can count really:-)
...
The balanced adult retains an inner child
Anthony North
three kinds
In a recent poll, 123% of the population says that there are three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who cannot. I side with the minority on this issue.
But really, I don't believe that every development come out of negative emotions, or out of need for better conditions. Most of the time, people suffer in silence. And most of the time when positive things happen, it is because of optimism.
Now, one man's optimism can be another woman's frustration. Look at the Mongols - they got these new thingies, "stirrups" to ride their horses better. And they found these
other thingies, "cities", where stupid people had accumulated nice things for the Mongols to steal. Great stuff, no? No frustration there.
Perhaps it was balanced by the frustration of the people in the cities being robbed, killed, raped and so on. That can make for a bad day on the part of the conquered.
As an aside, perhaps you need some sun. It makes people more optimistic. I don't mean to be patronizing, it's just that I have lived in dark damp places, and also lived in sunny warm places. if you don't want to leave the UK, I suggest Gibraltar :)
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
Balance in frustration
Of course, you can't be too carried away with frustration, there has to be a hint of optimism that what you are embarking on CAN make a difference (maybe almost insignificant, but at least something), or else what bother to get up every morning from your bed?
But I do believe change an evolution (cultural I mean) comes from dissatisfaction, if we want to use another term rather than frustration.
Mabe some artists don't go about their business thinking opnly "I do art because I want to increase the beauty of the world", but in every human activity therein lies a certain level of compulsion, a drive that is formed from an emotional and very basic origin that is then expressed in works of art, scientific development, and yes even war. And that emotion comes (I think) from the fact that these people do not feel too comfortable with the way the world runs.
But too much frsutration would turn you into a cinic nihilist, and that is a certain recipe for cultural stagnation (not to mention suicide!)
It is interesting to note all the great artists and men who suffered from acute levels of depression though. Maybe if some events in their life would have been different, they would have had happier lives, but the drive to push themselves to create would have disappeared; they would have been anonymous and thus unimportant in the historical scheme of things.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
right
Sure there is the idea that things are not perfect, so let us go an try to fix some of what is wrong.
To say it overly dramatic - an artist complains about what is wrong, and an engineer attempts to fix it. Overly dramatic, and too crass yes. But it does have some truth to it.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
who's in charge
an artist complains about what is wrong, and an engineer attempts to fix it.
Yeah, but the engineer receives the instructions from A DESIGNER.
Never forget that! (LOL)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Historic Comment Six?
Yes, Red, of course a degree of optimism comes once a person follows a path to change, but to go down that path ...
And yes, so many great artists are depressives. A balance must come between the two for the project to go on.
Ah, Earthling, the British climate. Maybe it is part of the cauldron that produced the most retensive and frustrated society on Earth - you know, the society that produced many of the world's greatest scientists and writers, that worked out modern democracy and capitalism, that spearheaded the Industrial Revolution, that has gone to war with more countries than any other on Earth, that produced the largest Empire ...
Get the drift?
As for the Mongols, the societies they came from were undergoing extreme tribal warfare. Temujin's family were ousted as tribal leaders, destined to a life of poverty. At one point he was even enslaved. Eventually, his frustrations led him to build a private army, indoctrinating a form of brotherhood ideology in his generals, which went on to fuel the future invasions.
Of course, the stirrup had something to do with it, once the impulse had arisen. You know, the stirrup of the sort first depicted in China about 300AD. Maybe THEY were not frustrated enough.
And let's come to today, and our previous thoughts on space exploration, and why it isn't happening yet. Maybe it's because we have this false belief in our trivial but affluent, comfortable western society. No frustration = no impulse to change.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
narrow
yes the major achievement of the British elite was to get the hell out of Great Britain :)
America, Australia, India, most of Africa. Anywhere but Great Britain.
No ?
Sorry man, that was just too inviting.
----
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
(Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)
me thinks
that economics may fit in here somewhere.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Historic Comment One Hundred and Seven
Earthling, touche.
Oh, Floppy, did you have to bring economics into it? That's so frustrating :-)
Almost as frustrating as poor people wanting to be rich.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
simple comment two
maybe frustrating to you, but to others its a life and to some a game.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Historic Comment Eight
Hi Floppy,
Re-reading my comment, I maybe put it wrong. What I meant is that economics is a system to bring wealth, in whatever form the existing ideology desires. I'd argue that at the base of its fulfillment is the urge of poor people to be rich.
In other words, it feeds on the frustration of being poor.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
simple comment three
to put it moderatly, your argument is un-losable. So if "frustration" is a form of advancement, then why would "frustration" cause many to give up, such as I am doing with this thread ;-{P
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
Historic Comment Nine
Hi Floppy,
I think the point I'm making is that frustration is at the 'base' of change. From that point optimism, ideology, and yes, even invention, can continue the process. The simple comment I'm making is this: if we're not frustrated, we'd have no impulse to change.
...
Nite, nite
Anthony North
you know what's frustrating??
these shortening columns!!!!!
In biology there is a term which describes the automatic pursue of an organism to an ideal state of equilibrium; it is called homeostasis.
As the same time, there is transistasis, the need of organisms to change according to the transformation of their circumstances.
So in any living being there is this constant struggle between homeostasis and transistasis, between stability and change.
I think those tendencies apply to cultures and civilizations aswell.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Very True
Very true, Red.
Okay, I'm trying something now. I'm pushing at the sides of this column. Okay ...
... aargh!
... aaarGH!!!
It's Damned Frustrating
:-)