A significant portion of my work consists of critiquing arguments, decisions, and statements made by other people. But sometimes, the lens of examination is best turned inward to correct one’s own missteps. Such is the case for an article I wrote last year about the nature of degenerate behavior. In that article, I started with the dictionary definition of degeneracy as “sexual perversion” and degenerate as “having declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state”, “having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state”, “one degraded from the normal moral standard”, and “having low moral standards; not honest, proper, or good”. From this, I concluded that degeneracy is “that which is not conducive to civilization.” In retrospect, I failed to account for the possibility that a civilization itself could be degenerate. Let us explore this possibility now.

Defining Terms

Though dictionaries are rarely capable of providing the full understanding of a word, they are an excellent place to start. Merriam-Webster defines civilization as “a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained”, “the culture characteristic of a particular time or place”, “the process of becoming civilized”, “refinement of thought, manners, or taste”, and “a situation of urban comfort”. ‘Civilized‘ is taken to mean “characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint”. Our task, then, is to contemplate how a civilization may be built upon a degenerate foundation.

The Principle of Loss

In a recent article published at Social Matter, Jérôme Bernard Grenouille contemplates the ideas of the left-wing French intellectual Georges Bataille (1897–1962), particularly his notions of expenditure, loss, and sacrifice. Bataille considers how ruling classes in pre-modern times spent fortunes on “the production of sacred things” that would serve as a rallying point for a culture through the creation and reinforcement of non-economic, immaterial, spiritual values. He criticizes modern ruling classes for engaging in what would now be called political autism; earlier, Edmund Burke denounced the same as “sophisters, economists, and calculators.” This is a valid concern; as Grenouille writes,

“Human existence cannot be merely explained by production and conservation. There are far more elusive pursuits and practices in place in all human societies. These practices may be elevated, or truly crass and depraved but they nevertheless diverge from the naive principles of utility.”

This principle of loss says that the extent of the loss positively correlates with the amount of meaning that the loss has. Grenouille goes on to explain this principle through the example of the Roman ludi (games and religious festivals). One may also think of the building of ancient wonders of the world or medieval cathedrals. In any case, these serve as a foundation upon which a civilization is built and maintained.

Degenerate Losses

The principle of loss is an important tool for reactionaries, libertarians, and anyone else who seeks to establish and maintain a strong social order. It also explains both sacrifice and civilization in a way that liberalism, with its focus on production, conservation, and utility simply cannot. But there are three means by which the practice of this principle may go astray, and thus the civilization itself may become degenerate. First, there is mindless destructionism. While intentional losses may elevate the immaterial above the material and produce sacred things, it does not follow that this must necessarily happen. Sacrifices offered to demons do not lead to penitence, and simple waste is folly. Furthermore, the loss of sacred things as the principle of loss is turned upon itself is a clear indication of degenerate civilization. Examples of this are found in every period of decline throughout history.

Second, there can be too much of a good thing. While the reactionary correctly critiques the liberal for being obsessed with economic efficiency über alles, a traditional society can go too far in the other direction. For instance, the Roman ludi came to occupy as many as 135 days per year, during which trade and work were disallowed.[1] Having that many days off can disrupt the economy such that unsustainable losses are incurred. Statesmen must remember that societies are composed of people, and people are fundamentally material creatures, dependent upon economic forces for their physical survival. Man shall not live by bread alone, but he does not live without it, and someone must do all of the work involved in creating and distributing it.

Finally, the ruling classes may seek immaterial gain without experiencing the accompanying material loss themselves, and they typically have the power to socialize these losses onto others. In other words, they come to sacrifice the wealth, the liberties, and even the lives of others which are not rightfully theirs to destroy. This takes various forms: aggressive foreign wars of conquest and plunder, massive monuments and public works built with slave labor, and large-scale human sacrifice as a religious practice. That these acts of state violently victimize the innocent is bad enough, but they also corrupt the ruling classes. Through such deeds, rulers become detached from their proper function in society, falling into narcissism, vanity, and hubris. These traits then spread from the top down, leading to societal decline.

Degenerate Civilization

We return now to the question of what constitutes a degenerate civilization. The simplest answer is that the above definitions of civilization conflict with each other in such a condition. Namely, there is “a relatively high level of cultural and technological development” and “a situation of urban comfort”, at least for those at the top. But a degenerate civilization is not “characterized by…restraint”; it either lacks “refinement of thought, manners, or taste” or perverts such refinement into something sadistic and grotesque. This is an unstable status which will end with either a restoration of restraint and proper refinement or a loss of culture, development, and urban comfort.

Moreover, social institutions are created by people for the purpose of serving the people who create them. This is done in order to perform important collective functions that must not go unperformed and that people know not how to perform otherwise. However, such institutions can stop serving their creators and instead compel people to serve them for little value in return. This is the mark of a degenerate institution that should either be altered or abolished in order to prevent a civilizational collapse.

Conclusion

In closing, let us consider the role of the state. Those who engage in the type of degenerate losses described above are almost unanimously heads of state and other high-ranking government officials. This is because they exercise a monopoly on initiatory force which shields them from the consequences of victimizing the innocent and making economically inefficient choices, at least until their society deteriorates into chaos. The societies they rule feature “a relatively high level of cultural and technological development” and “a situation of urban comfort.” But there is something even worse than a lack of restraint; there are fake restraints, commonly called “checks and balances” or “separation of powers”. These fool people into believing that different parts of a state apparatus will rein in the others, when the truth is that this makes no more sense than believing that a tiger’s heart will work against his legs as he chases prey. What refinement exists is of the worst kinds; institutionalized mass murder honed into an art form, elite fashion that mocks the very people upon whom they depend, and so on. Thus, the state is the most degenerate possible foundation for a civilization. The only alteration that would solve the problem would be an effective abolition, as a state that stops initiating the use of force and compelling people to serve it is by definition no longer a state. Making this change as soon as possible is the best method for preventing the next great collapse of civilization.

References:

Bunson, Matthew (1995). A Dictionary of the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. p. 246.

Support The Zeroth Position on Patreon!

Like this: Like Loading...