Carroll Quigley - The Evolution of Civilizations

In the specific case we have just mentioned (the cultural lag of the political level), we are also dealing with a widely recognized fact. Our political organization, based as it is on an eighteenth-century separation of powers and on a nineteenth-century nationalist state, is generally recognized to be semi obsolete. We hear demands for a "European federation" or for a "twentieth-century Congress." The breakdown of the separation of powers is evident in the rapid growth of administrative regulation (which disregards such separation). The need to adapt the United States Constitution to the speed of communication of the twentieth century is evident in the Twentieth Amendment, which moved the inauguration date up from March 4 to January 20. The need for further adaptation is clear from the fact that the American Congress still spends hours of its inadequate time on verbal roll-call votes when it could make a permanent record vote by electricity in a few seconds. The power of vested institutionalism is evident in congressional resistance to a reform that would force congressmen to make a public record of their positions on each bill.

One last example of morphological interrelationships, and that the most extreme, could be found in the relationship of the atomic bomb to Western civilization. This bomb was a product of our advanced development on the intellectual, economic, and military levels. The fact that this great discovery of atomic fission was used for a purely destructive purpose is due to the backwardness of our religious, social, and political levels. But the advanced condition of certain levels, as signified by the bomb, has undoubtedly had profound influences on the three more backward levels and will force them to advance more rapidly. There can be little doubt that the advent of atomic warfare on the military level has had profound effects and will have even more profound effects on the three backward levels. People are, in consequence of its use, turning again to the problem of religion or the inadequacy of our political development. The decentralization of our cities is a process already clearly evident from such forces as improved communications (telephone) and transportation (automobiles), and is reflected in the growth of suburbs and the decrease in metropolitan growth; if the atom bomb speeds up this process, it will probably lead to a considerable advance on the social level. As people disperse from the great beehives of modern cities to the more intimate living of the suburbs and countryside, there will undoubtedly be a considerable improvement in the satisfaction of men's needs for companionship on this social level.

Even in our oversimplified diagram of six levels, it is clear that the process of morphology is a complex one. There are thirty-six interrelationships between the six levels we have, and, since each relationship works both ways, there are seventy-two factors at work. But when we remember that the divisions between these levels are arbitrary and imaginary and that really there are an infinite number of levels, each acting upon all the others, pulling these others forward or backward and being pulled backward or forward in turn, it is clear that the reality of cultural morphology is unbelievably complex. The number of factors at work with an infinite number of levels is infinity raised to the infinite power and multiplied by two. This is a number large enough for anyone.

What happens in a society as a whole, what we called "historical evolution," is a resultant of historical development and morphology acting both independently and upon each other. If a level of development is going through the process of development that we have described—the process of institutionalization of instruments with growing tension —the outcome of such tension, as between reform, circumvention, and reaction, may well be determined by morphological factors. A level, regarded as if it were alone, may have all the factors necessary to produce reform. But the influence of morphology may produce reaction. Something like this occurred in Spain in the period 1930-40. There, all the factors on the political level seemed to be leading toward reform, but the backwardness of the five other levels and the great power of the institutionalized vested interests on those five other levels turned political reform into political reaction.

We have said that the evolution of a society is a resultant of the two kinds of change that we call development and morphology. Let us now turn our attention to this larger issue, the historical evolution of a society, restricting our attention to the kind of society with which we are chiefly concerned, namely, a civilization.

5. Historical Change in Civilizations

Tt is clear that every civilization undergoes a process of -^historical change. We can see that a civilization comes into existence, passes through a long experience, and eventually goes out of existence. We know, for example, that Mesopotamian civilization did not exist about 10,000 B.C.; it did exist about 3000 B.C.; it had ceased to exist by A.D. 1000. Similarly, it is clear that Classical civilization did not exist about 1500 B.C.; it clearly did exist about 500 B.C.; and it had obviously passed out of existence by A.D. 1000. And, finally, it is clear that Western civilization did not exist about A.D. 500; it did exist in full flower about A.D. 1500; and it will surely pass out of existence at some time in the future, perhaps before A.D. 2500. Now, while everyone will probably agree with all this, it would be difficult to obtain agreement on any specific dates on which these events occurred. This difficulty arises from the fact that civilizations come into existence, rise and flourish, and go out of existence by a slow process which covers decades or even centuries, and historians are unable to agree on any precise dates for these events. This is perfectly proper: if Classical civilization came into existence by a slow process and went out of existence by a slow process, it would give a false appearance of rigidity to fix its dates, say at 1184 B.C. – A.D. 476, as has sometimes been done. In the following discussion it should be remembered that the dates given for historical periods are only approximate.

Beyond recognizing that civilizations begin and end, historians are fairly well agreed that, after they begin, they flourish and grow for a while, that eventually they reach a peak of power and prosperity, and that they weaken and decay before their final end.

This process of evolution of civilizations can only be studied in an effective fashion if we divide it into a number of consecutive periods. We might divide it into two periods, such as "rise" and "decline"; we might divide it into three periods, such as "youth," "maturity," and "old age"; or we might divide it into five or fifty periods. The process of change in the history of any civilization is a continuum and, accordingly, the periods into which we may divide it are arbitrary and imaginary. Thus, it might be argued that one system of periodization is as good as another and, accordingly, we are free to divide it in any way that seems to fit our purpose at the moment. To some extent this is true, as long as we are aware that our periods are subjective, but necessary, divisions.

However, it is not completely true that one periodization is as good as another, although any system of periodization may well be useful for some specific purpose. Obviously, periodization must depend on changes in the society's culture. And, equally obviously, changes in a culture must depend on the causes of these changes. Accordingly, the periodization should, ideally, depend on the causes of the culture changes. This rule has been consistently neglected in all discussion of this subject. Writers tell us that a civilization rises and falls; they divide this process into periods, and they sometimes try to explain why it rises and falls; but they rarely relate their periods of the process of change to their explanation of the causes of the change.