by Tom Kando
Abstract: This article does the following: (1) It shows that the continuities between modern-day Europe and America are in many ways similar to those between Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. (2) using an organicist theoretical framework, it traces and compares the births, life spans, transformations, similarities, golden ages, and (possible) declines of America and Ancient Rome. (3) Based on generational theory, it asks whether future American history is likely to repeat Ancient Roman history, including Roman mistakes.
3A. Is America’s Future Likely to Resemble Rome’s Past?
There is no law of history that requires America to replicate Rome’s history. At the same time, we should not be so overconfident as to proclaim the superiority of 21st century society over ancient Rome in its adaptability and its ability to meet challenges.
What if the pace of social change and of human adaptability were more or less constant? In a recent article, Madeleine Kando asked the following question: Do Generations Repeat Themselves? It may be that the pace of social change, and of our ability to learn and to adapt to new conditions, has something to do with the length of a human generation, which covers birth, socialization and maturation.
The length of a human generation is almost a historical CONSTANT, even though it is somewhat longer now than in the past, thanks to modern medicine. Currently, a generation is about twenty five years. Life expectancy in the Western World is now probably double what it was in antiquity. However, the typical Roman woman did not start having babies at 13. Perhaps a Roman generation was somewhat shorter than ours, but not by much.
In recent decades, “futurology” has become faddishly popular. Authors such as Alvin Toffler (Future Shock, 1970; The Third Wave, 1980; Revolutionary Wealth, 2006) and John Naisbitt (Megatrends 1982; Megatrends 2000, 1990; China’s Megatrends, 2010) have told us glibly that the pace of social change is accelerating, primarily as a result of accelerating technological change. Moore’s Law is frequently quoted, to the effect that the capabilities of computers and other digital devices double about every two years. There is a widespread and facile belief that the recent rash of advances in (electronic) technology is ipso facto also resulting in imminent fundamental social change.
For a more sobering outlook, I refer you to the works of two overlooked early sociologists - William Ogburn (Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature, 1922) and Meyer Nimkoff (A Handbook of Sociology 1964) - and these authors’ Cultural Lag Theory: In a nutshell, this theory argues that culture lags behind technological innovation, and requires considerable time to catch up with it. Of all human endeavors, culture is the most resistant to change. Technology may have made impressive advances, but human nature -which regulates our capacities for learning, socialization and adaptation to change - has not budged in several hundred thousand years.
If Cultural Lag Theory is correct (and I believe it is), we can begin to understand why technological innovation has not changed our lives in the marvelous and miraculous ways predicted by naive Star Trek-like Science Fiction some decades ago. According to those fantasies, we should by now be cris-crossing and colonizing space, we should avert droughts by seeding clouds, we should use flying cars, the work week should be no more than twenty-hours long and society should be largely free from crime, violence, racism and prejudice.
If, as I hypothesize, human nature and the fairly constant length of a human generation through the ages are the prime determinants of the pace of social change, then there is no reason to believe that modern society’s cultural values, social relationships and political arrangements will change or progress more rapidly than they did two thousand years ago. In fact, if the length of a generation has doubled since antiquity, this might mean that it takes us even LONGER today to learn and to adapt to new customs and new habits than it did for the Romans. But I won’t press this point.
The gist of this foray into the sociology of social change is this: History may be more cyclical, repetitive and duplicative than we think (among sociologists, the best known cyclical theory sociologist is Pitirim Sorokin, see his Social and Cultural Dynamics). It is therefore possible that the trajectory of American history will continue to resemble Rome’s.
3B. Is America likely to repeat Rome’s mistakes? Thus, while it is not certain that America will repeat Rome’s blunders, it is possible. The most striking and troubling parallel is military over-extension. The danger that America may be committing “imperial overstretch” was the theme of Yale University historian Paul Kennedy’s book The Rise and Fall of Great Powers (1987). Today, Kennedy’s argument seems pre-scient, as it was made before 9/11 and before the ensuing wars and the vast additional military commitments made by the United States.
Currently, America’s military budget is between $600 billion and $700 billion. This is nearly 4% of GDP, and a higher percentage of it than that of all her NATO allies (Countries by Military Expenditure). US Military personnel is approximately 2.5 million, a quarter of a million of them overseas. There are about one thousand US military facilities in the world, a quarter of them spread out in over 100 foreign countries (see List of US Military Bases).
Kennedy’s concern about US military “overstretch” is justified. His forewarning also uses historical analogies, albeit not the same as mine. One of his precedents for what might happen to the United States is Spain: As part of the Habsburg Empire, 16th century Spain was the world’s foremost imperial power. Its golden age reached well into the 17th century. However, the Iberian government made it its responsibility to protect and defend the Western World’s Catholic status quo. To this end, it squandered its resources on interminable wars, it went bankrupt and it lapsed into two centuries of decline to end up one of the poorest and weakest countries of Europe in the 20th century.
As to America’ prospects, as I said, there is no crystal ball. The US is not yet a military plutocracy, as imperial Rome became. However, the growing inequality and the growing influence of the military-industrial complex are worrisome. To the extent that this country finds leadership that is enlightened, progressive, amenable to change, and representative of the people’s welfare, it will thrive. On the other hand, if we permit ourselves to be charmed by demagogues who wish to lead us back to a mythical past and who only represent the elite’s interests, we are likely to repeat the Roman scenario.
The 2016 presidential election offers a foreboding view of the battle lines: The numerous Republican candidates may disagree on many issues, but on one point they are unanimous: national security is every candidate’s paramount focus, far above the economy or anything else. This is a clear indication that America’s conservative party, for one, is happy to keep the country on a war footing indefinitely.© Tom Kando 2015 leave comment here
6 comments:
A radish and a turnip are both vegetables. But those two are more closely analogous than Greece is to Europe as Rome is to America. Europe may well be indolent and not very productive but it was not conquered by America. The fundamental basis of the Roman Empire was empire. The US has never actually sought to create an empire.
I would not use either Toffler or Naisbitt for much of anything but ruthless self-promoters. None of their ideas seem to be relevant to your basic argument - you might as well argue that Kurzweil (Singularity) has something to say here. Social and cultural change are important but many of those changes are superficial not substantive.
There is one parallel - which bears thinking about. Government has natural limits - yet those on the left continue to ignore the inherent limitations of governmental power. The left assumes that naturally if a thing goes into the governmental sector that self interest is some how relegated to a back seat - but as we have seen in this Mercantilist era of Obama - this generation of statists have not yet recognized that there are natural limits to governmental authority. National security is a focus of every (or actually most every) GOP candidate's campaign because the current Administration has bolloxed up so many of our key theaters. There are real threats to America's democratic system including the left in this country which seems to ignore our real friends and assume positive notions to all our enemies. Chamberlain showed what this kind of view of the world produces. Let's hope we are in time to reverse the trends created by the current administration.
Ha! As I anticipated in an earlier comment to the first part of this article, some people feel that the analogy I draw is unjustified, because there are too many differences between the two historical situations which I compare.
Jon notes some of those differences. That’s good. He is always an astute intellectual.
But he does something which I suspect many others would probably be inclined to do: When I compare Greece-Rome and Europe-America, I list both positive and negative things on all sides. So there is a natural inclination for people to cherry pick. European readers will like the nice things I say about Europe and the bad things about America, and vice-versa...
Jon is also somewhat right about people like Toffler and Naisbitt. I call them pop sociologists.
As to runaway government - sure, that’s another problem faced by ancient Rome. In time, America may succumb to the same problem, but for now, our problem is not so much the overall size of the public sector (which is still acceptable), but the allocation of public resources and their provenance.
Tom, I think there is a greater parallel that portends America's future vis-a-vis Rome's than military over-extension. Military over-extension is a consequence of centralization of power and money. The centralization of power and money in the federal government and Wall Street parallels centralization going on in Rome. In Rome the descendants of the middle classes became feudal serfs as land and wealth were consolidated. The backbone of both empires was the middle classes--free to buy, sell, produce, and create wealth. This led to innovation and wider distribution of wealth and power.
In America, the feudal lords are the economic investment groups and tycoons that have swallowed up individual and family businesses and created economic giants that are industrial fiefdoms rather than agricultural ones. A true middle-class person is one who controls his/her own destiny through a farm, business, or trade. When one becomes an employee, directly or indirectly, of either a government or a Wall Street investment group that is the first step towards serfdom. This consolidation will lead decision-makers in both governments and corporations to maximize their department's or corporation's efficiency at the expense of the general population. Government's ration, corporations will lower wages, outsource, and push for fast-track TPP legislation. Thus, I predict a new type of serfdom as we view the vanishing of the middle classes as a result of centralization of both political and economic power. It is ironic the the Republicans want to consolidate Wall Street and the Democrats the Federal government, they are two faces of the coming serfdom in America.
Again, Gordon makes astute observations. I hope that his pessimism is unwarranted, although he may be right
Ah, deep thinking. I love it. I have often mused about the so-called Pax Romana -- compelling societies with lesser technology and organization to march with your army at the point of a sword or a threat to their families. Is that really peace? While the loss of the middle class is a horror to behold and a mounting cancer displacing what Americans have always stood for, I must agree with the thesis that overstretched military more directly killed the Roman Empire and will more quickly deform the U.S. to resemble a fallen Rome. The barbarians posed as Roman soldiers but never forgot their old culture or how Rome insulted it. They were human. P.S. I'm rusty on my knowledge about modern W. Europe -- so these comments relate more to the U.S. But I do believe that the major European nations learned some lessons (1930-1980) that I fear the U.S. has not learned, re: hubris for example.
Thanks, Naida.
I agree with everything you say. As to Europe? Well, some see “Greece” as the beginning of the unraveling over there...I hope not, since I am still so attached to Europe...
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!