This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The family was never the bedrock of Western Civilization. The Iliad and the Odyssey are for the most part concerned with Brotherhood; the Gospel is wholly concerned with Brotherhood; Roman society revolved around fraternal organizations; medieval society revolved around male guilds or monasteries; American culture revolved around fraternal civic organizations (see detoqueville); and freemasonry (highly influential precursor to modernity) was a brotherhood that emphasized equality between members. It is more correct to say that the bedrock of western civilization is the männerbund and not the family. It is true that men cared much for their family name, but they cared so much because it enabled rewards and status among male peers. All striving was done by men, with men, and for men, negotiated among men outside the family fold. I’m not really sure where this idea originates that the “family” is the bedrock of the West.
Even just at a basic level: Rome was established by two brothers raised outside any family. After one slays the other, he invites other men into the city, exiles and criminals. They proceed to steal women in order to have progeny for their city. Obviously this didn’t happen, but it is a symbolic account of how the Romans saw the foundation of their culture: men negotiating and fighting with other men is the essential thing, women and the family an annoying requirement to keep things moving. And if it is disagreeable that the Roman myth could inform us today, then read the gospel again. Almost immediately, Jesus departs from his parents (curtly rebuking his mom) to find other men with which to found His Kingdom. Some of the Apostles had wives, and they aren’t even mentioned in the writings, so we don’t even know their names. The crucial bit is how men interacted with other men, in the ecclesia or assemblies of men, which prefigured our modern brotherless church, where only men were allowed to speak, where women were taught to “learn quietly with all submissiveness […] not permitted to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather is to remain quiet”.
Chesterton is funny. He would have done great on Reddit. I wish he were alive today so I could inform him that the Christians used the swastika symbol before they ever represented the cross. Not because I particularly care, but just to dunk on him.
When you are a medic on triage, your task already determined, what use is it to cry over destiny? Does civilization begin with weeping? Stephen Miller understands civilization and what it has consisted of since the dawn of time. I’m sure he is familiar with Agincourt and Toledo.
And Chesterton’s beloved civilization was at its best when it bathed in a totalizing and simple narrative. Chesterton forgets this. The narrative was “God and King”, and both were simple. There is nothing simpler and more totalizing than the original gospel message, either of Jesus or Paul.
As others said, this is absolute ignorance of historical realities. Power structure of ancient Rome was more akin to power struggle between huge mafia clans Godfather style. Roman social life revolved around atrium which contained literal altars to ancestors, with portraits and masks of the most important family members who attained some high position or success. Your relation to your clan (gens) was paramount to your identity even as a client of such a powerful clan. Again, if you want some parallel it would be that of huge Scottish clans.
They were not just random men. They were true patriarchs - father figures to extended clans and their clients and vassals, with membership in thousands or even tens of thousands. The most powerful clans such as gens Cornelia which produced numerous consuls and dictators including Sulla were so powerful, that they even had powerful offshoot clans such as Cornelii Scipiones. You have it exactly the other way around. The relationship between strangers mimicked that of the family, with all the subtle status games and structure given. You literally talk about brotherhood and fraternity - which is family related concept. Brotherhoods have older brothers and fathers. If you were accepted into such a fraternity, you had to accept family obligations including being a bitch to your more senior brothers.
This is an interesting analogy. The Scottish clan was a weird kind of mannerbund-family hybrid. There was a lot of fictive kinship involved - the clan included all male-line descendants of the founding chief plus their wives and daughters, but it also included a bunch of people living under the chief's protection who accepted him as a symbolic father-figure. But, significantly, the fictive fatherhood of the chief was primary, not the fictive brotherhood of the warband. Some "septs" (originally recognised families within a clan with their own chieftains in fealty to the clan chief, now just surnames that are entitled to wear the clan tartan) are cadet branches of the chiefly family, others are just semi-prominent families living on the clan lands who swore fealty to the chief. There are even families from contested territory which are recognised as septs of two different clans. But the functioning military clan that made the chief powerful was a mannerbund focussed on livestock rustling and defending against livestock rustling. I think this type of society is normal in mountainous pastoral societies.
Unlike Appalachia, the Scottish Highlands don't feel like they are full of mountain men any more. I think we must have bred the mountain-man tendencies out by sending every violent Highlander out to colonialise some dangerous part of the world - the ones who didn't get killed mostly didn't come back either because living in the Highlands ceased to be fun once cattle rustling was illegal.
Snark: If classical civilisation was based on mannerbunds and not families, we would use a Latin word to refer to the mannerbund. We use a German word because we modern Romans see the mannerbund as barbaric and so use the language of the barbarians to describe it. You can imagine a man called Hermann leading his bros into battle in a manly way, but it is much harder with a man called Arminius.
Not snark: While the Highland clans were a functional social system, there was no doubt that they were barbarians. The romanticisation of Highland tradition by lowland Scots and Scottish-Americans happens 100 years after the real culture had been suppressed by the British authorities. When Ambrose Bierce wrote the Devil's Dictionary in 1906, he correctly described the kilt as "worn by Scots in America and Americans in Scotland"
It is similar with Roman system. Unsurprisingly it really was something like Italian mafia family. The core of the clan was based on blood relation, with some space made for adoption - but even adoption was mostly family related e.g. when Augustus was Caesar's great-nephew (grandson of Caesars sister Julia). Augustus did not even carry the Julia family name, as his father was just plebeian.
Nevertheless Roman society was based on complicated structure of patronage and master/client relationship of various plebeians and freemen around the clan with family at its core. Many of these positions were hereditary, these clients were part of the clan structure for generations and their service was rewarded. They were something like extended family and in many cases they actually were, given the power of exponential growth just in a few generations. I believe that Scottish clans had similar structure and they provided patronage when it came to valuable people with necessary human capital such as blacksmiths, or people who distinguished themselves in some other way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but who was their granddaddy? Aeneas, son of Venus, who carried his elderly father and the family gods out of burning Troy to find a new home for his people (no, not just for his bros).
More options
Context Copy link
The only thing more amusing than your ahistorical just-so stories is your confidence that you'd totally p0wn GK Chesterton.
What a truly miserable attitude.
However, as I have pointed out many times, while Rome and Greece and other ancient societies were certainly patriarchal, there is ample evidence (in poems, other writings, and contemporary histories) that feelings of love and affection for wives and children (including daughters!) were not some alien innovation introduced by modernity.
You cite the Iliad and the Odyssey as being all about the bros, nothing but bros, ignoring that the entire reason for the war was the abduction of Helen. You will probably say that was just men fighting over a bauble and the dishonor of having a bauble stolen from them, but Homer, and later poets such as Euripedes and Herodotos, speak of much more complex motivations. Menalaus loved his wife, and whether she betrayed him with Paris or was forcibly abducted depends somewhat on the narrative, but her own thoughts on the matter are expressed as well.
And in the Odyssey, Odysseus's primary motivation is trying to get home to his wife and son! And Penelope is a figure of nobility and faithfulness who is worthy of his devotion.
Try reading what you cite.
As I wrote,
Maybe 5-10% of the lines are about family life. The majority of the content is about brothers-in-arms doing things. The foundational works of Greek culture are simply not about family. If they treasured family life over “brotherhood” (using the term very broadly) then it would have comprised a majority of their bedrock literature. Most of the time they are very far from their families. This is on purpose, it tells you their values. I’m sure you’ve read the works, of course, so you know this.
It's an epic about a war. War and brotherhood was a central feature in that story. It does not support your argument that the ancients did not place a high importance on family.
It's not just the battles and the gods and the monsters that are important. It's *why" they did all those things. The climax of a story may be the only place a hero's motivation is mentioned. That doesn't mean it's not important.
Your reasoning and your theories are very shallow.
The content of the works are what the culture considers important. What the poet spends time describing. What comprises the actual listening experience among the poet’s audience. You have to think more deeply here. You admit the works are about war and brotherhood. Well, why did the Greeks make their two foundational works about war and brotherhood? If you wrote them, perhaps you would make half the text about domestic issues or marital strife or longing for one’s partner. Why did they have a different idea than you? Why is 90% of if not about family life? Saying “it’s a war story” begs the question, because the culture selected a war story as its bedrock text for a reason.
No, I would expect my readers (listeners actually) to understand complex themes, and not read one level deep , counting sentences to determine what is most important to me.
The Iliad and the Odyssey are not about "domestic issues" or family life. But they also are not saying those things were not important.
The Greeks didn't "make" them their "foundational works." Those stories were mostly oral histories of which Homer's written version is what survived. We made them the foundational works of Greek literature. There's considerable survivorship bias in saying "The two most famous poems we know of tell us what was most important to the people listening to them "
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Under what rubric are you claiming that the Odyssey is “bedrock literature” but Antigone — which is not only centrally about family obligations, but also primarily about a woman — isn’t? If anything, shouldn’t Antigone be a more example of what constitutes “Greek civilization”, as it was written when Greece was at a considerably higher level of technological and artistic development than it had been when the Odyssey was composed?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Homer-Greek-poet
Antigone was important as a tragedy but it wasn’t, for instance, the bedrock of Greek education
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m currently reading Fustel De Coulanges’ The Ancient City, which goes into extreme, meticulously-researched detail about just how profoundly family-centric were all of the ancient legal and religious institutions of Rome, Greece, India, and all of the other major Aryan-derived civilizations. It is simply not remotely tenable to claim otherwise, given a cursory survey of the available information. The extended family — the gens in ancient Rome — exercised totalizing control over the lives, property, inheritance, and legal standing of individuals. Said individuals’ level of kinship was meticulously catalogued and determined their legal standing toward each other, their religious obligations, etc.
You can claim that those civilizations only began to count as “Western Civilization™️” once they began to introduce reforms to mitigate/complicate this paradigm; my observation is that boosters of the “Western Civilization” framing are fairly shameless in the way they selectively pick the parts of ancient history that they want current society to recapitulate now, and fully ignore/misrepresent every counter-example or inconvenient element which would cast their narrative into doubt.
But it was the male heads of the gentes who determined the allocation of privileges and roles per gens, and who put together the rituals, customs, and rules which grew Rome from a collection of backwater kin networks into a civilization. They made their determinations not within the family or family network but between the male heads, in the Senate or through another male-determined process. It was males with families deciding things with other males that have families. The gens existed as a consequence of male political life, as a way to neatly ascribe responsibilities and privileges and promote order.
And? They also thought staring at goat entrails would reveal mystical truths about the universe or earn favor from their gods. Old-timey people did all sorts of dumb shit. Patriarchy was just another log on the dumbass fire.
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly the thing I predicted you would do, though! You acknowledge, apparently, that during the period in which the various Aryan peoples speciated into their various proto-nations (a period which lasted at least a thousand years) they were highly clannish, with each family having pervasive control over the legal and religious life of its members; you just don’t think they counted as “a civilization” (let alone as “Western civilization”) until they began moving away from that paradigm by introducing a political superstructure on top of it. This means that even though the Hellenic peoples spent a much larger period of time without such a superstructure than they did with it, all the before stuff doesn’t factor into your analysis.
You get to pick and choose the precise moment when you think a multi-thousand-year-old societal evolution began to count as a civilization, which means you conveniently discard the preconditions that led to it as long as they don’t satisfy the parameters you want a civilization to look like. In my opinion this reveals the fundamentally constructed and aspirational nature of “Western Civilization” discourse. Do you acknowledge it as such?
If there are human societies which emphasize the family unit, but which have no civilization, then something else is required to cultivate civilization. The Ju/'hoansi have marriage ceremonies and families, but would never develop civilization. The barbarian German tribes practiced more faithfulness in their marriages than the Greeks or Romans, but they didn’t really have civilization. I am using the 19th century of civilization that is appropriate to remarking on Chesterton. A modern anthropologist would probably say all of these are equal civilizations.
Well yeah, this makes sense, because we want to look at where their civilization began. If they had 50,000 years of families and extended families, which is possible, then that stuff doesn’t really matter as a bedrock for civilization. If some men get together and steal women as property and then start forming a city that will one day make art and enjoy philosophy, which is Rome, then that’s civilization. If Cistercian monasteries pop up in the middle of nowhere, all unmarried men, and after years a micro-civilization begins to spring up nearby as an outgrowth of their industry, then that’s civilization founded on the opposite of the family. Or if some of Alexander’s troops get bored and settle down with some women they took, then that’s civilization with a very ad hoc family. I can imagine Spanish troops taking indigenous wives in Mexico and forming a little city with art and music — in what sense can we plausibly say that the foundation of this is the family?
I suppose we first have to determine what we mean by civilization; I’m pretty sure Chesterton has a certain thing in mind.
Western tradition is to only call certain things “civilized”. I guess we can disagree with this, but is that a fruitful inquiry? This may be a matter of taste, but I highly doubt Chesterton would believe that the pygmies of Africa have civilization because they are mostly monogamous.
But your original claim was that “family was never the bedrock of Western Civilization.”. You then brought up Greece and Rome as central examples of “Western civilization.” But both Greece and Rome did have family as the bedrock of their civilization for a very very long time! It still occupied a massively important part of their society long after the point when they had collectively achieved elements of social and technological development that you identify in this post as preconditions for civilization: art, philosophy, and industry.
Were they “civilized” but not “Western civilization” at that point? When, chronologically or otherwise, did they officially become Western?™️ (Surely “Western” in this peculiar usage must not have any consistent relationship with geography, as you believe that the Greeks (and somehow the Hebrews, presumably) are more “Western” than the Celtic and Germanic tribes who were physically situated farther to the geographic west.
I’m open to conceding that there is some combination of societal and technological development at which a polity can be said to be (lowercase c) “civilized”: some identifiable factors might be the ability to coordinate large-scale public works, pooling of resources, economies of scale, the ability of the centralized power structure to reliably feed its constituents, the facilitation of leisure activities, etc.
However, under that understanding, the Third Reich was extremely “civilized”. It was wealthy, highly politically centralized, had a thriving artistic and philosophical life, and was in every way a peer competitor to the other rich European powers. Whatever Chesterton seems to mean by “civilized”, it has only a tenuous connection to those elements.
The tribes of pre-civilized Greece and Rome may very well have practiced family-oriented extended kin networks for hundreds of thousands of years before they ever developed into a civilization. Lots of primitive tribes did that. The road from the dark ages to the archaic period to the classical civilization of Greece is marked by a different activity: male political formation involving the polis. The men leaving the family to go join (or obey) other men in political matters. Is my understanding correct that you want me to call the Greek dark ages “civilization”?
No doubt, but that doesn’t make it the bedrock of the civilization — the necessary precondition, the cornerstone, the thing which once achieved places them on the road to civilization.
But I am disagreeing with Chesterton, though retaining the appropriate turn-of-the-20th century understanding of “civilization”. Here, as an example, is the definition of civilization in Webster’s 1913 dictionary:
This is what I mean by civilization. I don’t see much of a reason to determine the exact moment something constitutes civilization. To paraphrase the highest court in our civilization: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["civilization"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [hodgepodge kin networks] involved in this case is not that.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was a history major in college, and one of the biggest problems I have with non-professional pop historians (Howard Zinn, Jared Diamond, etc.) as opposed to academic historians who actually have formal training is that the former tend to invent just-so stories and compile evidence to support them, as though the truth of a thesis is determined by the number of footnotes. Meanwhile, there is so much counter-evidence available to anyone who does even a cursory investigation that the entire thesis can be dismissed entirely. One of the problems I always had with history writing is that every time I thought I had to develop a thesis I'd inevitably have to retool it after finding something that didn't fit, which happened about sixteen times per project. Hell, to give you a sneak preview to the next Pittsburgh series installment, I was researching the City Beautiful movement from the late-19th and early 20th centuries. The classic story is that the movement was inspired by the White City at the 1983 World's Fair in Chicago, but supposedly those in the know know that the real inspiration for the movement was the 1901 McMillan Plan to redesign Washington, D.C. Except a good number of buildings supposedly built as part of the movement predate the plan, and eliminating them seems wrong. Then again, there were antecedents and it only makes sense that they would get merged with the new movement, and now I've spent two hours researching a point from an introductory section that will nonetheless inform how I treat the rest of the piece. This is especially difficult because my normal instinct would be to "teach the controversy", which means writing six paragraphs to go in-depth on the history of a city planning movement because I want to use the movement's precepts as a framing device to describe a neighborhood. It's frustrating as hell, and it happens all the time. It would be a lot easier if I just put blinders on, limited myself to one sentence "The City Beautiful movement started with the White City at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago" and forgot about it. But then I might just be repeating a myth, and that's the last thing I want to do, put myself in the same league as Jared Diamond even though the stakes are a lot lower.
That seems like a general problem though that applies to plenty of academics as well, especially once politics gets involved. For an example, I've read more than enough articles by such claiming that hunter-gatherers were often gender egalitarian, citing tribe after tribe where, say, women are involved in hunting, or men are involved in cooking, or men are involved in child-rearing, drowning you in citations that superficially seem like their case is ironclad.
Then you read the opposite position - sometimes another academic historian, sometimes not - and they point out how even in the cited tribes, women actually only "hunt" in the sense of laying traps for small game, men still do just the most physically demanding parts of preparing food and leave the majority to the women, and the men also only teach older children useful skills, while again leaving the younger children to the women. And more importantly, they actually go quantitative and show how cherry-picked these few tribes even are, and that the great majority of those we know is even less gender-egalitarian.
More options
Context Copy link
Following up Guns, Germs, and Steel with a just-so story of the precipitous decline of Easter Island in Collapse which conveniently ignored, y'know, the obvious and terribly destructive germs part, was peak Jared Diamond.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link