TransnationalismConcievably, both diasporas and a migratory (like migratory birds) pattern might be superimposed on the nation-state system.

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Having read the book, and having thus corroborated Tim Walker's mention of three separate Expansions, and three separate Ages of Conflict, I can now postulate a timeline for the West that runs as follows:

1. Mixture: 360 - 570 A.D.

2. Gestation: 570 - 970 A.D.

3. 1st Expansion: 970 - 1270 A.D.

4. 1st Time of Troubles: 1270 - 1440 A.D.

5. 2nd Expansion: 1440 - 1650 A.D.

6. 2nd Time of Troubles: 1650 - 1740 A.D.

7. 3rd Expansion: 1740 - 1890 A.D.

8. 3rd Time of Troubles: 1890 - 1950 A.D.

9. Universal Empire (NATO): 1950 - 1970 A.D. ?

10. Decay: 1970 (or 1950?) - Present

The ambiguity shown above is reflected on page Ninety of 'The Evolution of Civilizations', in which Quigley admitted that a civilization could pass straight from it's 'Time of Troubles' straight into 'Decay' without passing through an intervening 'Universal Empire' Phase. If one does exclude the idea of NATO being the West's nearest approximation to a Universal Empire, then it is very likely that this in fact is the case for the West. Comparing what I see in present-day Western Civilization to the symptoms Quigley lists for the Decay Phase (page Eighty-Eight), the correlation seems to grow with each passing decade, starting with the 60s, with ever-increasing economic upheaval, ever-increasing conflict between various vested interests, ever-declining levels of education, the growing deligitimation of every aspect of the society, the growth of new religious movements, and a growing reluctance to fight for the society or even to support it by paying taxes. Admittedly each of these symptons is progressing at different rates of speed, and at times, one or two symptoms may appear to be slowed, or even reversed, but nonetheless, I believe my analysis to be a valid one.

If this is the case, when might the Invasion Phase be reasonably expected to kick in? All I can say to that is that if it doesn't do so during this (coming) 4T, it will certainly do so during the next (circa 2100), with the 'barbarians' most likely coming from various parts of the 'Third World'. (Latin America for the US and Canada, Middle East for Europe, Indonesia for Australia and New Zealand.). One probable result of this will be a rebirth of monotheistic religion in the areas thus overrun, as each of those areas is currently experiencing a Christian or Islamic revival of major proportions.

BTW, on page Thirty-Seven, Quigley describes the Orthodox Civilization, of which Byzantium was probably the Gestation Phase, as having gone through it's Universal Empire Phase under the aegis of the Soviet Union, from 1920 to 1990, which would unquestionably place that civilization in it's Decay Phase now. Their 'barbarians' will in all probability be of Islamic and Chinese origin, and will in all probability strike during the same time frame - with an even greater probability of success than would be the case vis-a-vis the West.

Good Lord, just 1950 to 1970 period while the other ones where longer? Of course the internet and media might speed things up...but still, just 20 years? I do believe decay is next, but what if this low economy could be used to restructure and created an even bigger "Universal Empire?" This will give this moment more years.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Good Lord, just 1950 to 1970 period while the other ones where longer? Of course the internet and media might speed things up...but still, just 20 years? I do believe decay is next, but what if this low economy could be used to restructure and created an even bigger "Universal Empire?" This will give this moment more years.

Twenty years of the postwar period is an entire cycle of Decay. A strange honor to grant any period not a Crisis Era. What I'm seeing is that 1970 climaxed a movement begun in around 1890 or thereabouts, with World War I as some sort of breaking point (bud becomes flower, flood destroys the levee, HIV becomes AIDS) which, at the end of the period, we're in a different Culture entirely. The old consensus is not only broken, but nobody is left who understands it any more, except as an archaeologist 'understands' the ancient Greeks.

Huntington mentioned (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) that civilizations can and have "reformed and renewed" themselves. Not sure exactly what he meant. Anyway, how would that apply to us?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Huntington mentioned (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) that civilizations can and have "reformed and renewed" themselves. Not sure exactly what he meant. Anyway, how would that apply to us?

Maybe, allowing a system to fall for the sole purpose of renewing it? It's easier then reforming what's already there, maybe?

I have wondered if Huntington was thinking of reconstitution. Another possibility is the revamping of existing systems for a more viable society. An example would be Diocletian's reorganization of the Roman Empire (in which viability meant bare survival).

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Huntington mentioned (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) that civilizations can and have "reformed and renewed" themselves. Not sure exactly what he meant. Anyway, how would that apply to us?

Okay - I do know what he means. Let's say you're a farmer in eastern China centuries ago. The emperor was on his throne, there were no wars, and all was right with the world. Then comes the Period of Contending States and you keep your head down and continue farming.

Then the Period of Contending States finally ends in a new consensus and a new dynasty and possibly new laws, the irrigation canals are open again, there is peace in the land, and all is right with the world again.

And the farmers and their descendants kept on farming and kept on being Chinese and honoring the ancestors and celebrating the holidays and trying to survive throughout. And are still Chinese and doing the same things when it ends.

A very good fictional treatment of such a culture is in Neal Stephenson's "Anathem", where the young hero is suggesting the monastery keep bees because "when conditions outside are apocalyptic, we can eat the honey, and if not, we can sell it outside the Day Gate for money to buy the things we can't make." At another point, when his sister mentions the origin of the salvaged I-beams in her machine shop, he says "That's right, there was a crash of civilization about that time."

But the basics of the culture don't seem to have changed much since the Terrible Events put an end to "the Praxic Age" and replaced it with a cyclically-stable society.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Maybe, allowing a system to fall for the sole purpose of renewing it? It's easier then reforming what's already there, maybe?

Or maybe it's not a matter of 'let', but rather, the fall has to take place in order for anything to change at all.

I mentioned China. Ancient Egypt also went through several such cycles and still remained, at heart, ancient Egypt.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Twenty years of the postwar period is an entire cycle of Decay. A strange honor to grant any period not a Crisis Era. What I'm seeing is that 1970 climaxed a movement begun in around 1890 or thereabouts, with World War I as some sort of breaking point (bud becomes flower, flood destroys the levee, HIV becomes AIDS) which, at the end of the period, we're in a different Culture entirely. The old consensus is not only broken, but nobody is left who understands it any more, except as an archaeologist 'understands' the ancient Greeks.

Perhaps the old Culture - as the Culture of our forebears - as a Classic culture - will be preserved, as the Babylonian scribses preserved the Mesopotamian culture of their forebears.

Which would be layered on top of an older stratum, the precursors such Graeco-Roman culture and the Hebrews' offshoot Christianity.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Twenty years of the postwar period is an entire cycle of Decay. A strange honor to grant any period not a Crisis Era. What I'm seeing is that 1970 climaxed a movement begun in around 1890 or thereabouts, with World War I as some sort of breaking point (bud becomes flower, flood destroys the levee, HIV becomes AIDS) which, at the end of the period, we're in a different Culture entirely. The old consensus is not only broken, but nobody is left who understands it any more, except as an archaeologist 'understands' the ancient Greeks.

I think that started happening earlier with the retreating of the Lost Generation. I read a book on Musical Theatre which analyzed what 1958 meant in Musical Theatre. The Music Man--which won many Tonys--could be seen as an example of "Eisenhower's America" which you speak of as beginning in the 1890s and moving forward, while West Side Story was seen as a pre-cursor to "Kennedy's America" which is what you describe as what we are in now.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Okay - I do know what he means. Let's say you're a farmer in eastern China centuries ago. The emperor was on his throne, there were no wars, and all was right with the world. Then comes the Period of Contending States and you keep your head down and continue farming.

Then the Period of Contending States finally ends in a new consensus and a new dynasty and possibly new laws, the irrigation canals are open again, there is peace in the land, and all is right with the world again.

And the farmers and their descendants kept on farming and kept on being Chinese and honoring the ancestors and celebrating the holidays and trying to survive throughout. And are still Chinese and doing the same things when it ends.

A very good fictional treatment of such a culture is in Neal Stephenson's "Anathem", where the young hero is suggesting the monastery keep bees because "when conditions outside are apocalyptic, we can eat the honey, and if not, we can sell it outside the Day Gate for money to buy the things we can't make." At another point, when his sister mentions the origin of the salvaged I-beams in her machine shop, he says "That's right, there was a crash of civilization about that time."

But the basics of the culture don't seem to have changed much since the Terrible Events put an end to "the Praxic Age" and replaced it with a cyclically-stable society.

Nitpick: before the Era of Contending States China had a "sacral king" of a society that was never really truly politically consolidated, not an emperor. The powerful imperial state we associate with China was a creation of the Age of Contending States, it did not exist before then.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Perhaps the old Culture - as the Culture of our forebears - as a Classic culture - will be preserved, as the Babylonian scribses preserved the Mesopotamian culture of their forebears.

This is what I believe the fate of Western Society is, with English becoming the "Classical" language.

Actually, the West's version of Preclassic, the Middle Ages, is celebrated. I suspected that our early Postclassic will be remembered for pop culture.

Sorokin wrote that a significant change in one sphere of life means another phase of the same era, while changes in several different spheres marks a new era.

The general pattern is that a civilization has a very fertile burst of creativity, and then...stasis? Ossification? Could a future age see at least a moderate degree of creativity? Sorokin noted that a societie may create several great systems (religious, philosophical, political, artistic, economic, etc.), but not necessarily during the same era.

The Millenial Saeculum has been compared to the Hellenistic Age. One aspect of that age was the different (Greek) schools of philosophy. These different schools had one thing in common - they were about the individual. The philosophical emphasis of the Enlightenment, on the other hand, was about the relationship between the individual and society. So...if the next 2T plays out as an intellectual Awakening, could there be a philosophical current similar to the Hellenistic schools?

Guyana may be a model for cultural amalgams in a globalized world.

The Cycle of Civilization

Political forms

Sorokin and revitalization

Adapting the Cladogram to the saeculum. A society may have latent potentials that do not appear until a later phase. An example would be Protestantism, which was a product of the Reformation. Another would the appearance of a Creative Ethos (See the Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida) during the Boom Awakening. Of course, Protestanism is a close cousin of Catholicism, and a Creative ethos is not too dissimilar to society's mechanism bent. Note that Catholicism did not disappear in the countries where Protestantism took root. It is easy to imagine a Creative ethos co-existing with a mechanistic bent. With a latent potential finally finding expression, society now has more options.

In regard to latent cultural possibilities, I would place an Awakening where a fork occurs.

A society may have a religious ethos (India, for example), an aesthetic ethos (ancient Athens), or a warrior ethos (Sparta). It seems to me that a society with a mechanistic bent may have a significant capacity for reinventing itself. A new Creative ethos need not permeate the whole of society, a Creative Minority (Arnold Toynbee) may have a significant impact.

The authors of the Cultural Creatives indicated that the Traditionals and the Cultural Creatives both had roots in Awakenings. So we can borrow the Cladogram again, to show the appearance of counter cultures.