From: Arcadia (arcadia@lynchburg.net)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 08:03:05 MDT
> "There is a sociological theory about the rise and fall of different
> cultures. It says basically that when a society is on the rise, the
> lower classes imitate the upper classes. When a society is declining,
> the upper imitate the lower."
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19474%40exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
>
Hmm.
This has been up almost a whole day... SO I guess I'll take a stab at it.
I've never heard this 'theory' before, and I was a sociology major, finished
in 94. It's not really a theory, anyway, since it doesn't explain anything.
It's more of an observation. It's the sort of thing one hears just before a
tirade about rap music, protest art, and 'foreign' influences.
A whole treatise showing historical facts that could lead to this
observation would be boring to me and probably to you as well.
As cultures mature, people tend to become more aware. So in an immature
culture people might treat their slaves cruelly and think nothing of it.
Their minds are still stuck in whatever desperate war they fought to capture
the slaves in the first place. But as servants raise the children, stories
are told, and knowledge of the vanquished culture starts to seep into the
victor culture. Of course, the children know that when they grow up, they
will have to live in the 'real world' and put aside the things of childhood.
(Consider Ancient Rome, or the Ante Bellum Southern USA.) This knowledge
and continue in a dormant form and not enter the debate about the 'real
world,' until there's a moment of indecision and weakness. Consider the
protest movement of the 1960s in the USA: the points of view of Native
Americans, African Americans, women, and other 'out' groups suddenly
assaulted the status quo in a moment of weakness.
So the question is, was all this a sign that US culture was in 'decline?'
That's what the above 'theory' would have us conclude. What would we do
about it? Discourage the young and rich from learning anything outside
their box? I'd suggest that this head-in-the-sand attitude toward other
cultures is the true sign of a culture that's too weak to take part in the
'game' and is just waiting to be swept up by a more vibrant, 'going
somewhere' kind of culture.
If you read 'How the Irish Saved Civilization,' you get an interesting
picture of the very late Roman Empire, a real empire in real decline. What
characterized it was not great interest in lower-class culture or the
culture of conquered peoples (xtianity had been the state religion for over
300 years and was by no means some subversive idea anymore.) Instead, the
late Romans were obsessed with early Romans. Their poets faithfully
imitated the style of Vergil, eschewing innovation. Their architecture was
mainly about fixing the old buildings of the empire, and not building
anything new, and if they did build anything new, it was made to look old.
Their science was about holding on to the wisdom of Aristotle, and not about
learning anything new. Stagnation was the rule, before the invasions began
which plunged Europe into the dark ages.
Matt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT