Arnold Toynbee’s a “Study of History” is a work of epic proportions. It is truly a huge amount of work. For someone to analyze the birth, progress and decline of every civilization known to man is really impressive. It focused on questions of how civilizations were created and why some flourished while others failed. His work focused more on the rise and fall of civilizations rather than its people, race or ethnic groups.
I would like to focus on some of the ideas he presented including the challenge and response theory, the all too broad discussion on how a civilization rise, fall and petrify, and the so-called universal state, universal empire and universal church.
In his book a “Study of History” Toynbee identified civilizations according to its cultural criteria rather then to its national criteria. And I quote Toynbee: “Societies of this species are commonly called civilizations.” I agree with the idea of treating nations and societies as a part of the same civilization rather than a just a nation or a society. A civilization then encompasses a group of nations having the same culture, language and probably existed in the same manner. There is a fundamental unity of its mores, institutions and probably of mentality. I would say that the proper study of history involves studying civilizations rather than nations or cultural periods.
The main thrust of his work is the theory of challenge and response. In my opinion, it is quite hard to ignore the fact that civilizations of the past arose and progressed in response to some set of difficulties or challenges. In his Study of History Toynbee describes the rise and decline of 23 civilizations. It is his over-arching analysis that made me realizes that civilizations of the past progressed or can decline as a response to a challenge posed by time. Toynbee identifies five challenges that aid the process: a hard environment; a new environment; one or more ‘‘blows,’’ such as a military defeat; pressures, such as a frontier society subjected to frequent attack; and penalizations, such as slavery or other measures in which one class or race is oppressed by another. Some challenges, however, prove to be too severe and do not result in a civilization’s growth. These can be the challenge of the environment like flooding that has been given prominence in the Indus or the annual flooding of the Nile river and the Yellow River, or it can be the attack and invasion from outside like the Roman Empire that is open to the attacks of the barbarian invaders or it could be an internal revolution. I would agree because a civilization did not spring up easily in every corner of the globe. Something must have happened. An event must have occurred before a civilization can be born.
When a civilization responds to a challenge, it will grow but when it fails to respond to it, the civilization will undergo a period of decline or may even fall. He is correct though and I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that and I quote: “None the less, it can be proved that challenges can be too severe: i.e. the maximum challenge will not always produce the optimum response.” He even mentioned something as the golden mean – a challenge that is not too much or to easy. The saying that to much of something is bad enough comes to my mind. Progress in civilization consists in meeting difficulties by responding in creative ways.
The breakdown of society occurs when creative individuals fail to lead through the exercise of creative power, resulting in withdrawal of the faith of the majority and a subsequent loss of social unity. It is the time when there is social unrest and when the creative man became a part of a society that thinks of particularity or of differences. An example was given by an American Professor and I quote: “… in which the Roman plebian no longer feels himself a Roman but simply a plebian.” And to continue “A feudist state who may share interest with the large scale owners of other civilizations of perhaps a Persian civilization.” Following the decline comes the process of disintegration where according to Toynbee can be divided into three. These explanations are really impressive. It tells us of three units – the dominant minority that can create another empire, the internal proletariat that will produce universal churches and the external proletariat that will make up the barbarians because they don’t want to be a part of any of the organizations once more.
The universal state on the other hand appears as part of the ‘‘rally’’ stage in the decline of civilization; it follows a ‘‘Time of Troubles’’ and brings political unity. History clearly shows us examples that when a civilization got in to the so called times of trouble, it will undergo a state of peace or a time when a society moves towards progress. This will lead into a creation of probably a much larger empire to cover the existing empires which are experiencing internal fissures. But according to an American Professor it could also lead to the fall of the civilization. The breakdown of civilization can also be predictable for it occurs when the civilization cannot face the challenge anymore. History tells us of course that most of these civilizations had fallen.
The universal churches on the other hand are something that I would like to make an argument. The emergence of the higher religions seems to me to mark so important a new departure in human history that these cannot be dealt with adequately in terms of the civilizations whose declines and falls give rise to them. It is on the one hand, an event by itself and can be dealt with separately from the study of the civilizations. Religion is themselves societies. Religions have obviously played an important role in history.
Toynbee also mentioned the so-called heroic age. I personally see this as a great part of his work. It is the time when the barbarians take over beyond d the frontiers. I believe that it is quite an easy theory. It’s as easy as explaining that the barbarians were cut off from the civilization. Until came a time when they will do their destructive descent. The barbarians are the reason that can sweep an entire civilization.
Although the author’s work is really huge in terms of volume, I believe that we can sum it up by saying that there is a pattern of laws that is happening through every civilization. It is like saying that a primitive society will evolve into a civilization. The pattern of challenge recurs or happens over time and each successfully met challenges will generate another challenge and of course, will demand another response from that particular civilization.
Our study of history is all about how and why things happen. I do not think that history, in the objective sense of the word, is a succession of facts, nor history-writing the narration of these facts. It is always have to be really comprehensible. Toynbee’s work jumps from one civilization to another but it is still significant. His work is comparative and the succession of facts flows in a number of ways. If I may consider myself a historian, I would say that Arnold Toynbee’s work is a curiosity to explain and understand the world. It shows an excited man studying the past. And I guess his excitement has taken itself a notch higher creating a wonderful work.
I would say that Arnold Toynbee was able to present us an amazing work. It is a vision of how civilizations started, where it has been, and where it may be headed. I believe that civilizations flourished because of the factors that challenged its growth. Our historical experience is not yet over because we are constantly being bombarded by struggles and we just have to wait until our society can no l longer face the challenge and went to trouble times until another great man came into picture and create a new order of things and our civilization will grow once more as Toynbee have predicted it.
I would like to focus on some of the ideas he presented including the challenge and response theory, the all too broad discussion on how a civilization rise, fall and petrify, and the so-called universal state, universal empire and universal church.
In his book a “Study of History” Toynbee identified civilizations according to its cultural criteria rather then to its national criteria. And I quote Toynbee: “Societies of this species are commonly called civilizations.” I agree with the idea of treating nations and societies as a part of the same civilization rather than a just a nation or a society. A civilization then encompasses a group of nations having the same culture, language and probably existed in the same manner. There is a fundamental unity of its mores, institutions and probably of mentality. I would say that the proper study of history involves studying civilizations rather than nations or cultural periods.
The main thrust of his work is the theory of challenge and response. In my opinion, it is quite hard to ignore the fact that civilizations of the past arose and progressed in response to some set of difficulties or challenges. In his Study of History Toynbee describes the rise and decline of 23 civilizations. It is his over-arching analysis that made me realizes that civilizations of the past progressed or can decline as a response to a challenge posed by time. Toynbee identifies five challenges that aid the process: a hard environment; a new environment; one or more ‘‘blows,’’ such as a military defeat; pressures, such as a frontier society subjected to frequent attack; and penalizations, such as slavery or other measures in which one class or race is oppressed by another. Some challenges, however, prove to be too severe and do not result in a civilization’s growth. These can be the challenge of the environment like flooding that has been given prominence in the Indus or the annual flooding of the Nile river and the Yellow River, or it can be the attack and invasion from outside like the Roman Empire that is open to the attacks of the barbarian invaders or it could be an internal revolution. I would agree because a civilization did not spring up easily in every corner of the globe. Something must have happened. An event must have occurred before a civilization can be born.
When a civilization responds to a challenge, it will grow but when it fails to respond to it, the civilization will undergo a period of decline or may even fall. He is correct though and I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that and I quote: “None the less, it can be proved that challenges can be too severe: i.e. the maximum challenge will not always produce the optimum response.” He even mentioned something as the golden mean – a challenge that is not too much or to easy. The saying that to much of something is bad enough comes to my mind. Progress in civilization consists in meeting difficulties by responding in creative ways.
The breakdown of society occurs when creative individuals fail to lead through the exercise of creative power, resulting in withdrawal of the faith of the majority and a subsequent loss of social unity. It is the time when there is social unrest and when the creative man became a part of a society that thinks of particularity or of differences. An example was given by an American Professor and I quote: “… in which the Roman plebian no longer feels himself a Roman but simply a plebian.” And to continue “A feudist state who may share interest with the large scale owners of other civilizations of perhaps a Persian civilization.” Following the decline comes the process of disintegration where according to Toynbee can be divided into three. These explanations are really impressive. It tells us of three units – the dominant minority that can create another empire, the internal proletariat that will produce universal churches and the external proletariat that will make up the barbarians because they don’t want to be a part of any of the organizations once more.
The universal state on the other hand appears as part of the ‘‘rally’’ stage in the decline of civilization; it follows a ‘‘Time of Troubles’’ and brings political unity. History clearly shows us examples that when a civilization got in to the so called times of trouble, it will undergo a state of peace or a time when a society moves towards progress. This will lead into a creation of probably a much larger empire to cover the existing empires which are experiencing internal fissures. But according to an American Professor it could also lead to the fall of the civilization. The breakdown of civilization can also be predictable for it occurs when the civilization cannot face the challenge anymore. History tells us of course that most of these civilizations had fallen.
The universal churches on the other hand are something that I would like to make an argument. The emergence of the higher religions seems to me to mark so important a new departure in human history that these cannot be dealt with adequately in terms of the civilizations whose declines and falls give rise to them. It is on the one hand, an event by itself and can be dealt with separately from the study of the civilizations. Religion is themselves societies. Religions have obviously played an important role in history.
Toynbee also mentioned the so-called heroic age. I personally see this as a great part of his work. It is the time when the barbarians take over beyond d the frontiers. I believe that it is quite an easy theory. It’s as easy as explaining that the barbarians were cut off from the civilization. Until came a time when they will do their destructive descent. The barbarians are the reason that can sweep an entire civilization.
Although the author’s work is really huge in terms of volume, I believe that we can sum it up by saying that there is a pattern of laws that is happening through every civilization. It is like saying that a primitive society will evolve into a civilization. The pattern of challenge recurs or happens over time and each successfully met challenges will generate another challenge and of course, will demand another response from that particular civilization.
Our study of history is all about how and why things happen. I do not think that history, in the objective sense of the word, is a succession of facts, nor history-writing the narration of these facts. It is always have to be really comprehensible. Toynbee’s work jumps from one civilization to another but it is still significant. His work is comparative and the succession of facts flows in a number of ways. If I may consider myself a historian, I would say that Arnold Toynbee’s work is a curiosity to explain and understand the world. It shows an excited man studying the past. And I guess his excitement has taken itself a notch higher creating a wonderful work.
I would say that Arnold Toynbee was able to present us an amazing work. It is a vision of how civilizations started, where it has been, and where it may be headed. I believe that civilizations flourished because of the factors that challenged its growth. Our historical experience is not yet over because we are constantly being bombarded by struggles and we just have to wait until our society can no l longer face the challenge and went to trouble times until another great man came into picture and create a new order of things and our civilization will grow once more as Toynbee have predicted it.
___________________________________________________________________
Sources:
”Arnold Toynbee” Retrieved September 12, 2008 from . http://www.historyguide.org/ancient
“Arnold Toynbee”. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/arnold-toynbee.
Galens, David (2002)Non-fiction classics for students. USA: Thomson Learning
Staloff, Darren (2000) “The search for a meaningful past,philosophies,theories, and
interpretation of human history”. New York: The Teaching Company.
interpretation of human history”. New York: The Teaching Company.
Toynbee, A. J. (1935-1948). A study of history (Vol. 1). London: Oxford University.
No comments:
Post a Comment