Belloc

Whew now I'm finally able to make some comments.

Indeed - I don't wish to validate Toynbee's whole system, I'm just simply stressing that his framework works somewhat better since he leaves history much more open-ended than Spengler. Speaking generally at least(and I will admit my understanding of Toynbee on a detailed level is sketchy for the time being), Toynbee seems right that civilizations often need to respond and meet certain challenges in order to survive much less thrive. And if they lack that will to meet challenges, they will at the very least suffer significant decline. As he said, civilizations often die from suicide rather than exteneral conquest per se. This seems far closer to the mark than Spengler's pre-determined course of life-span. Now of course that doesn't mean Spengler is useless, far from it, he still stumbles onto some great insights. Toynbee's system isn't entirely valid too either, but I think he's closer to the mark than Spengler concerning the grand vision.

Just some general thoughts on my part on the issue. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Forgive my late response.

Tuthmosis III

And it's the "grand vision" that matters after all. Both of these writers are still household names, something that cannot be said for their many detractors, however on the mark their criticisms are!

To talk legacy for a moment:
Toynbee (and I think beetle may have said something similar to this) laid the groundwork for world history. Spengler wanted to, but Toynbee was the first to systematically canvas the political and religious literature/thought (such as was available at the time) of India, Islam, China, etc., and add it to his knowledge of the Classical Mediterranean and Europe to try to glimpse essential unity in the human experience. The comparative approach to the metahistorical narrative, taken up so effectively later by William H McNeill and others, might not exist but for Toynbee.

Nothing to forgive. You know that. Got to be able to come up for air when you need to. Again, I just hope all is well on your end.
Egads! Dynamics... is a tome! But no matter; it looks fascinating. I see an endorsement from John Lukacs on the back. He is another writer I admire greatly.

Belloc

Non doubt I agree. And there's already scholarly discussion I've seen concerning the revival of Universal or world history as a field. So now the challenge is to move into the future building on the strengths of men like Toynbee and Spengler whilst also critically examining the deep flaws of their systems. Namely of course acknowledging that history is open-ended and human communities and events are too fluid by nature to escape exact categorization. Given the grand scale involved here, that's largely inevitable. You can note certain patterns and themes, but no predetermined course for civilization.

Tuthmosis III

Part of the reason I agree there is "no predetermined course for civilization" is because I think of civilization primarily as cultural legacy. A culture is too amorphous a thing to pinpoint its exact origin. As it develops, especially in the early stages, too many factors act upon it for us to be certain of what shape it will take or how long it will last. We are only able to recognize, over time, certain emerging continuities in belief or expression and we sense (rather than "know") we are dealing with a distinctive group "style". Because of this, I think the "rise-and-fall" concept is not really applicable to civilization. Empires and other political entities rise and fall. Civilizations, as legacies, accumulate and change.

Belloc

That's a good point, since we often think of the fall of the Roman Empire for the end of classical antiquity, yet much of what we considered the early Medieval period or "Dark Ages" is nowadays referred to as Late Antiquity(with or without the Pierrene Thesis). Spengler I know made a clear distinction between Classical Greco-Roman civilization and "Faustian" Western civilization; wheras we usually see Western civilization as a continuation of sorts of the legacy left to us by Greece and Rome.

We already discussed how civilizations emerged from long-term processes and I would agree that one cannot precisely determine when a "civilization" emerges per se. A quote from Dawson concerning the rise of Western culture seems to fit what you're talking about rather well:
The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity pp. 15-16

So the early stages of a culture/civilization is possibly when the more intangible aspects are given birth, which give rise to the basic mentalities that will characterize it for much of its history and reacher fuller maturity and blossoming. I mean could one speak of the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt without the foundations laid for it during the pre-Dynastic period? I doubt it.

Tuthmosis III

Agreed. "Civilizationists" are notoriously inconsistent in their accounts of cultural continuities.

But, given that, how adequate then is Toynbee's "challenge and response" as a root explanation for the course of history?
I think the idea is good as far as it goes: by rejecting racial and geographical determinism alike, he avoids the false dichotomy of nature/nurture and allows for a realistically open-ended 'timetable' of historical events. But the phrase also implies that hitting upon a survival strategy as a group over time is primarily a coherent process guided by moments of human 'creativity' rather than a necessity-driven process of trial-and-error. It is a given that human creativity is a factor, but it is also a given that ultimately the law of diminishing returns catches up. (The "creative minority" does not become the "dominant minority" because it runs out of ideas as Toynbee suggests but rather because it runs out of possibilities in a finite world.)

Or, again it may in fact be political and social institutions that face "challenges" or crises - while the underlying cultural legacy continues to "accumulate and change".

Belloc

Wonderful thoughts always Tuthmosis III.

As far as being the underlying explanation for the course of history? No. History and its course is built on multiple explanations and casualities, so one has to take these numerous factors into proper account. How a civilization responds to challenges is a very key factor in its history and long-term survival no doubt.


These are all interesting thoughts, and certainly throws light on the limitations of Toynbee's explanation here it seems. Which gets back to a major point here, that if metahistory has any real future, it has to be built upon a certain humility on the part of scholars. So as a total explanation for history's course, Toynbee's fails certainly, but nevertheless we can still draw important lessons in regards to understanding the course of history and civilization(s).

That's an interesting thought, since it usually is institutions that must face down such challenges - at least in the concrete sense. Intellectual crisises can still breed too, which deals more with culture and "mentalities". And this crisis in mentalities can precipitate institutional crisies. A few examples: Late-Medieval theological disputes giving rise to the Reformation and Wars of Religion; the Enlightenment giving rise to the French Revolution, and so on. Of course one cannot say one leads directly to the other, for such intellectual concepts must take hold at receptive times and conditions for them to have a larger impact. So a question emerges of how intangible and tangible elements of history interact and impact one another.

Tuthmosis III

There are times when ideas are more "tangible" than bricks! But I know what you mean. Although how "intangible and tangible elements of history interact" would be pretty hard to fit into a general theory, the fact that they do is beyond question: "...many of our interactions with the environment start in our minds. Like the geometry of civilizations, they are imagined or excogitated before they happen outwardly. All the traditional ingredients in the checklist of civilization are underlaid by ideas: cities by ideals of order,... agriculture by visions of abundance, laws by hopes of utopia, writing by a symbolic imagination."
Civilizations Felipe Fernandez-Armesto (2001), p. 16


I would go so far as to say that an event is not a crisis until intellectual 'ferment' meets institutional dysfunction, if that makes sense.

Belloc

Very much indeed, a good point. I must confess ignorance of Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's work, but I'll put it on my reading list.

That's a good point. I'll have to return to this at a later time. It's getting late here.

Perhaps we need to expand this discussion, or is that unwise?

Tuthmosis III

Well, until such time as we attract attention (for better or worse ), the Philosopher and the Pharaoh may discuss whatever they dang well please.

I'm going to sign off myself in a bit. Have a good one!