On The Disintegration of Civilizations

Dr Arnold Toynbee's take on civilization collapse

Dr Arnold Toynbee, the great 20^th Century historian, observed that the breakdown and eventual disintegration of civilizations, for the most part, follow a common pattern. The ruling class, who once were able to creatively respond to challenges on behalf of the masses, lose their ability to inspire and lead. The masses become estranged from these leaders, the leaders, in turn, turn to rigidity, coercion and force to retain power. The loss of social cohesion, moral unity, and the capacity for self-determination brings a civilization to collapse.  Toynbee characterizes such a fragmented and disintegrating civilization in terms of an internal and external proletariat and corresponding psychological schisms in the souls of those living through such times. It is these characteristics we will explore in this video, in the hope of drawing some parallels with today’s socio-political situation in the West.

__________________________

 While it might seem intuitive to assume that a collapsing civilization leads to inevitable dissolution, this is not always the case. Some civilizations defy the disintegration process, and in doing so, they become "arrested" before their inevitable end. For example, despite breaking down toward the end of the third millennium BC, Egyptiac civilization refused to disappear and managed to persist for an astonishing 2,500 additional years. However, this prolonged existence came at a steep price, as the society survived in a state of petrification, a life-in-death existence, where vitality had been drained, and progress halted.

The core of disintegration lies in a loss of harmony, both within society and between society and its external challenges. This loss of harmony manifests itself in social schisms, which splinter a once-coherent society into warring factions. These schisms occur vertically, between geographically separated communities, and horizontally, between socially segregated classes. Vertical schisms—inter-state warfare—are a more universal feature of all human societies, including pre-civilizational tribes. While destructive, these vertical schisms are not unique to civilizations.

Horizontal schisms, however, are distinct to civilizations and emerge during periods of breakdown and disintegration. These class-based divides fracture societies along lines of privilege, status, and authority. In times of growth, societies often maintain a degree of social cohesion, with different ranks accepting their roles as part of a broader, unified social structure. But as civilizations break down, the moral and social consensus collapses, leading to a breakdown in these once-stable relationships.

There are often three main classes that emerge during disintegration: the dominant minority, the internal proletariat, and the external proletariat. Toynbee, in his analysis of disintegrating civilizations uses the term "proletariat" that extends beyond the Marxian association with the working class or the economically disadvantaged. Rather he refers more broadly to those who are spiritually, culturally, or materially disenfranchised by a civilization in decline.

 The dominant minority consists of the remnants of the creative elites who once led the civilization, but who now, having lost their moral and intellectual authority, resort to force and repression to maintain their power. This group seeks to impose order through the construction of a universal state, attempting to centralize power and control even as the society fragments.

Meanwhile, the internal proletariat¹, which comprises the masses within the society, become alienated from the leadership. Once loyal to the creative elites, these people now find themselves under the thumb of coercive, despotic rulers. As a response to this alienation, the internal proletariat develop a spiritual ethos separate from the decaying institutions of the state. In time, this spiritual schism results in the formation of a “universal church” that challenge the authority of the “universal state” and provides spiritual answers and a sense of belonging that the disintegrating political and social structures can no longer offer.

Outside the civilization’s borders, the external proletariat²—those living outside the geographical and cultural boundaries of a declining civilization, which Toynbee calls “barbarian groups”—become increasingly important in the civilization's eventual disintegration. Originally drawn into the civilization’s orbit, they now reject the dominant culture and assert their own identity through military means. For example, the Germanic tribes, Huns, and Goths, were external proletariats of the Roman Empire and ultimately played a major role in its collapse. Similarly, in other civilizations, such as the Han Chinese Empire or the Sassanid Persian Empire, external groups like the Xiongnu or the Arab tribesmen acted as external proletariat.

These three groups—dominant minority, internal proletariat, and external proletariat—each represent different reactions to the disintegration process. Each, in their own way, express dissatisfaction with the status quo, and each develop their own institutions to cope with or resist the ongoing collapse.

The dominant minority, however, remains trapped in its defensive posture. Having lost its creative abilities, it clings to power through force, refusing to relinquish its role as the society's leader. This rigid refusal to adapt or innovate ensures that the dominant minority will continue to face the same challenges, each time meeting them with the same ineffective responses. The dominant minority’s inability to respond creatively to challenges leads to eventual downfall.