What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolution of Civilizations
Carroll Quigley was a legendary teacher at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service. His course on the history of civilization was extraordinary in its scope and in its impact on students.Like the course,
The Evolution of Civilizations
is a comprehensive and perceptive look at the factors behind the rise and fall of civilizations. Quigley examines the application of scientific method to the social sciences, then establishes his historical hypotheses. He poses a division of culture into six levels from the abstract to the more concrete. He then tests those hypotheses by a detailed analysis of five major civilizations: the Mesopotamian, the Canaanite, the Minoan, the classical, and the Western.
Quigley defines a civilization as “a producing society with an instrument of expansion.” A civilization’s decline is not inevitable but occurs when its instrument of expansion is transformed into an institution—that is, when social arrangements that meet real social needs are transformed into social institutions serving their own purposes regardless of real social needs.
Quigley defines a civilization as “a producing society with an instrument of expansion.” A civilization’s decline is not inevitable but occurs when its instrument of expansion is transformed into an institution—that is, when social arrangements that meet real social needs are transformed into social institutions serving their own purposes regardless of real social needs.
442 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1961
48 people are currently reading
2300 people want to read
About the author
Carroll Quigley
19 books193 followersAmerican historian and theorist of the evolution of civilizations.
Noted for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown University, for his academic publications, and for his research on secret societies.
He was an instructor at Princeton and Harvard; a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration; and the U.S. Navy.
Noted for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown University, for his academic publications, and for his research on secret societies.
He was an instructor at Princeton and Harvard; a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration; and the U.S. Navy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
May 29, 2008
so good, it sort of mesmerised me. so incisive and brilliant, it makes me want to puke, when i think of the putrid pukefaces who run the world, rather than people like carroll quigley (r.i.p.).
the first 100 pages is a fascinating discussion of why almost all historians and social scientists are pretty much worthless. they neither understand nor apply the scientific method correctly. they do not know the difference between fact and law. they invent ridiculous incomprehensible social groups or time periods and study the crap out of them but it means nothing because the group or period they study is not a cohesive whole, and thus cannot possibly be understood in isolation (e.g. "labor unions" or "canada" or "the middle ages"). they confuse knowledge with understanding, and blunder around describing WHAT happened, failing to see the profoundly greater value of discovering WHY it happened. quigley was a biochemistry major who excelled in physics and calculus before he switched his major to history.
the second 100 pages lays out his theoretical framework in general terms, with great examples from all over the place. the essential insight into the workings of the world is that every expanding society is powered by an INSTRUMENT whose function is to (1) provide an incentive for inventing new ways of doing things and (2) accumulate the surplus of the society in the hands of a relatively small group, who then (3) use this accumulated surplus to implement the best new ideas from (1). the society will rise as long as the instrument operates, but at some point every INSTRUMENT becomes an INSTITUTION. this generally occurs when those who control the instrument decide that any further innovation will threaten their position, at which point they actively discourage innovation and simply try to keep the good times rolling by means of imperialist wars, civil wars, and general rampant badass authoritarian repression and exploitation and expropriation, both at home and abroad. this leads to stagnation of technology and decay of military capability, until eventually the civilization is invaded by outsiders and completely destroyed.
in the final 200 pages, he goes carefully through the entire rise and fall of five major civilisations: Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Minoan, Classical, and Western (which is still in progress, currently (1961) in an Age of Crisis). even if you don't like his theories, the book is worth reading simply for this wonderful history lesson.
basically, this is quigley's bare-bones 400-page theoretical work, as compared to the mammoth 1300-page Tragedy & Hope, a history of the world from 1870-1965 which followed 5 years after this book. both are works of genius.
there is but one blemish: on page 124, he makes a baffling arithmetical blunder, saying there are 72 interrelationships among 6 levels of a culture, when quite obviously there are only 30 (the handshake problem). i was stupefied that someone with a solid command of mathematics could pull such a boner.
the first 100 pages is a fascinating discussion of why almost all historians and social scientists are pretty much worthless. they neither understand nor apply the scientific method correctly. they do not know the difference between fact and law. they invent ridiculous incomprehensible social groups or time periods and study the crap out of them but it means nothing because the group or period they study is not a cohesive whole, and thus cannot possibly be understood in isolation (e.g. "labor unions" or "canada" or "the middle ages"). they confuse knowledge with understanding, and blunder around describing WHAT happened, failing to see the profoundly greater value of discovering WHY it happened. quigley was a biochemistry major who excelled in physics and calculus before he switched his major to history.
the second 100 pages lays out his theoretical framework in general terms, with great examples from all over the place. the essential insight into the workings of the world is that every expanding society is powered by an INSTRUMENT whose function is to (1) provide an incentive for inventing new ways of doing things and (2) accumulate the surplus of the society in the hands of a relatively small group, who then (3) use this accumulated surplus to implement the best new ideas from (1). the society will rise as long as the instrument operates, but at some point every INSTRUMENT becomes an INSTITUTION. this generally occurs when those who control the instrument decide that any further innovation will threaten their position, at which point they actively discourage innovation and simply try to keep the good times rolling by means of imperialist wars, civil wars, and general rampant badass authoritarian repression and exploitation and expropriation, both at home and abroad. this leads to stagnation of technology and decay of military capability, until eventually the civilization is invaded by outsiders and completely destroyed.
in the final 200 pages, he goes carefully through the entire rise and fall of five major civilisations: Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Minoan, Classical, and Western (which is still in progress, currently (1961) in an Age of Crisis). even if you don't like his theories, the book is worth reading simply for this wonderful history lesson.
basically, this is quigley's bare-bones 400-page theoretical work, as compared to the mammoth 1300-page Tragedy & Hope, a history of the world from 1870-1965 which followed 5 years after this book. both are works of genius.
there is but one blemish: on page 124, he makes a baffling arithmetical blunder, saying there are 72 interrelationships among 6 levels of a culture, when quite obviously there are only 30 (the handshake problem). i was stupefied that someone with a solid command of mathematics could pull such a boner.
May 5, 2020
I'm a sucker for anyone who stresses that all the divisions and categories we define are imaginary and arbitrary, and otherwise explicitly delimits the extent of what they are claiming. It makes it so much more believable, as well as impressive when those imaginary and arbitrary categories are so sensible and informative - such deep scholarship here, it almost made the madness of human history make sense! And it was an added bonus to read it during the covid-19 pandemic, trying to identify what stage western civilization is in now, some 30-40 years after the book was written - my guess is Decay.
November 6, 2021
The copy I own of this is a 1979 reprint, but I read most of the materials from earlier editions while I was taking a class with Quigley in 1974 - not his legendary course on the ”Evolution of Civilizations” but a related course on "Science, Christianity, and the Western Intellectual Tradition". This book, along with Quigley's other work on the 20th century, was my first exposure to someone presenting a broad macroscopic and interpretive view of history. In this book, the focal point is civilizations - about a broad a unit as you can get. What is most memorable to me was the introduction of a framework for analyzing history. Quigley's focuses on six (sometimes seven) categories into which most of the dynamics of history can be fit and analyzed -- military, political, economic, social, religious, and intellectual. (Psychological was also included in some versions.) Showing the value of frameworks for structuring one's thinking was a very powerful gift to give to young inquisitive undergraduates. Quigley sometimes foster believers or adherents - not what he would have wanted. I never felt that way. Some of his generalizations are questionable to me and I have spent a good part of my subsequent education figuring out what was reasonable and what was unreaasonable in what he taught us. That is not a bad legacy to leave to students.
Quigley should have received a broader audience -- and he did in part once one of his former students, Bill Clinton, became POTUS. However, Quigley also got picked up by some conservative advocacy groups, which I think hurt his reputation among mainstream historians.
Quigley should have received a broader audience -- and he did in part once one of his former students, Bill Clinton, became POTUS. However, Quigley also got picked up by some conservative advocacy groups, which I think hurt his reputation among mainstream historians.
May 29, 2019
Érdekes, hogy egy tudományos jellegű könyvnél mennyit számít 60 év. 1960-ban ez a könyv, és a történelemre alkalmazott tudományos analízis lehet, hogy korszakalkotóan formabontónak tűnt, de mai szemmel inkább már csak röhejes az a rengeteg kinyilatkoztatás, tényszerűség, túlformalizálás, amit a könyv tartalmazta. A világ és a történelemtudomány meghaladta a szigorú felsorolásokat és a biztos igazságokat, így ez a könyv értelmezhetetlenné vált.
June 14, 2023
The Evolution of Civilizations, authored by Carroll Quigley and first published in 1961, stands as a seminal work in the field of historical analysis and social theory. This academic book review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of The Evolution of Civilizations, exploring its main themes, arguments, and contributions to our understanding of societal development, cultural dynamics, and historical patterns. Quigley's in-depth examination of civilizations across time and space offers profound insights into the processes that shape human societies.
The Evolution of Civilizations explores the factors and patterns that govern the rise, decline, and transformation of civilizations throughout history. Quigley analyzes the development of civilizations, identifying seven stages: mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. The book examines the role of culture, technology, geography, and societal interactions in shaping the trajectory of civilizations across time.
Quigley's The Evolution of Civilizations offers a comprehensive analysis of societal development, drawing from a wide range of historical examples. He employs a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical, cultural, economic, and geographical factors to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex processes underlying the evolution of civilizations.
One of the key contributions of the book lies in Quigley's identification and analysis of the seven stages of civilization. He argues that civilizations progress through a series of stages, each marked by distinct characteristics and challenges. Quigley's framework provides a valuable tool for understanding the dynamics of societal development and the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of civilizations.
Moreover, The Evolution of Civilizations emphasizes the interplay between cultural factors and material conditions in shaping the trajectory of societies. Quigley highlights the crucial role of culture, including values, beliefs, and social institutions, in influencing the course of civilizations. He argues that technological advancements, economic systems, and political structures do not exist in isolation but are deeply intertwined with cultural frameworks.
The Evolution of Civilizations has made significant contributions to the fields of history, social theory, and cultural studies. Quigley's framework for analyzing the stages of civilization provides a valuable lens through which scholars can assess and compare diverse societies. His emphasis on the interplay between culture and material conditions challenges deterministic explanations of societal development, promoting a more holistic understanding of historical processes.
Furthermore, The Evolution of Civilizations remains relevant in contemporary discussions on the rise and fall of societies, cultural dynamics, and the lessons we can draw from historical patterns. Quigley's work prompts critical reflection on the factors that contribute to societal stability, resilience, and decline, shedding light on the complexities of human development and the challenges societies face in navigating change.
The Evolution of Civilizations, authored by Carroll Quigley, offers a profound analysis of societal development, historical patterns, and cultural dynamics. Quigley's framework for understanding the stages of civilization provides a valuable tool for scholars seeking to assess and compare diverse societies across time and space. The book's exploration of the interplay between culture and material conditions offers a nuanced understanding of the complex factors that shape the evolution of civilizations. The Evolution of Civilizations remains a significant contribution to the fields of history, social theory, and cultural studies, prompting critical examination of the processes that underlie human societal development.
GPT
The Evolution of Civilizations explores the factors and patterns that govern the rise, decline, and transformation of civilizations throughout history. Quigley analyzes the development of civilizations, identifying seven stages: mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. The book examines the role of culture, technology, geography, and societal interactions in shaping the trajectory of civilizations across time.
Quigley's The Evolution of Civilizations offers a comprehensive analysis of societal development, drawing from a wide range of historical examples. He employs a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical, cultural, economic, and geographical factors to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex processes underlying the evolution of civilizations.
One of the key contributions of the book lies in Quigley's identification and analysis of the seven stages of civilization. He argues that civilizations progress through a series of stages, each marked by distinct characteristics and challenges. Quigley's framework provides a valuable tool for understanding the dynamics of societal development and the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of civilizations.
Moreover, The Evolution of Civilizations emphasizes the interplay between cultural factors and material conditions in shaping the trajectory of societies. Quigley highlights the crucial role of culture, including values, beliefs, and social institutions, in influencing the course of civilizations. He argues that technological advancements, economic systems, and political structures do not exist in isolation but are deeply intertwined with cultural frameworks.
The Evolution of Civilizations has made significant contributions to the fields of history, social theory, and cultural studies. Quigley's framework for analyzing the stages of civilization provides a valuable lens through which scholars can assess and compare diverse societies. His emphasis on the interplay between culture and material conditions challenges deterministic explanations of societal development, promoting a more holistic understanding of historical processes.
Furthermore, The Evolution of Civilizations remains relevant in contemporary discussions on the rise and fall of societies, cultural dynamics, and the lessons we can draw from historical patterns. Quigley's work prompts critical reflection on the factors that contribute to societal stability, resilience, and decline, shedding light on the complexities of human development and the challenges societies face in navigating change.
The Evolution of Civilizations, authored by Carroll Quigley, offers a profound analysis of societal development, historical patterns, and cultural dynamics. Quigley's framework for understanding the stages of civilization provides a valuable tool for scholars seeking to assess and compare diverse societies across time and space. The book's exploration of the interplay between culture and material conditions offers a nuanced understanding of the complex factors that shape the evolution of civilizations. The Evolution of Civilizations remains a significant contribution to the fields of history, social theory, and cultural studies, prompting critical examination of the processes that underlie human societal development.
GPT
April 15, 2020
This book was brilliant in many different ways. Its notions of why societies succeed and fail rings very true. As does its criticisms of the current analysis of the study of history. The brilliance of this book is self evident and I highly recommend you read it, however, there are several issues with the author's analysis. His analysis of Classical Civilization is especially perceptive.
1)He views all civilizational development as self contained as opposed to viewing it as based upon military and political events. He views the Carthaginian, Aztec and Inca civilizations as destroyed by their own decadence rather than foreigners with much better militaries seizing power, killing their ruling classes and settling large numbers of foreigners in, which will kill even a healthy civilization.
2)He ignores political effects inside the civilizations. He views the West's success as dependent upon Christianity and its philosophic ideals rather than the permanent state of military competition between the European states and between European classes, which seems to be the far more likely alternative. He tries far too hard to fit Europe into his theory, creating artificial boundaries between eras of growth and decay. I understand viewing the 14th century as a period of decay, but the 18th! The 18th century was an era of enormous technological, intellectual and social progress. Also, the 20th century was equally an era of immense progress in many fields rather than an era of decay in anything except religion, art and philosophy.
3)His primary examples are from ancient history, in which our records are so poor that people can express whatever sentiment they want onto them. When Enlightenment philosophers wanted to say government was bad, they made obscure tribal peoples without government into saints, while ignoring they all actually had the vices of civilization like slavery, sexism, war and genocide. Similar processes took place when the post-WW2 archaeologists tried to claim the Mayans or Sumerians were peaceful intellectual societies, what they wanted, only to discover literal genocide lists and rooms filled with corpses. Quiggley uses predominantly obscure civilizations like the Canaanites, Minoans and Sumerians, of which we know practically nothing so he can gerrymander the evidence into fitting his theory. I see no evidence of social decline in the either Canaanite or Minoan society before they were conquered by alien societies.
4)Worst of all, this theory in no way accounts for Asian civilizations like China and India that have survived stably and with relatively few changes for 3,500 years. These have seen nothing like the cycles Quiggley describes and he gives this no explanation.
I think Quiggley's theory has application in theory but he overemphasizes its actual descriptive ability. I think it is overly multi-stepped, rather than like a choose your own adventure, with multiple choices that allow different results. If Roman Civilization had been able to reform in Caesar's time, which seems plausible, it would break Quiggley's model.
1)He views all civilizational development as self contained as opposed to viewing it as based upon military and political events. He views the Carthaginian, Aztec and Inca civilizations as destroyed by their own decadence rather than foreigners with much better militaries seizing power, killing their ruling classes and settling large numbers of foreigners in, which will kill even a healthy civilization.
2)He ignores political effects inside the civilizations. He views the West's success as dependent upon Christianity and its philosophic ideals rather than the permanent state of military competition between the European states and between European classes, which seems to be the far more likely alternative. He tries far too hard to fit Europe into his theory, creating artificial boundaries between eras of growth and decay. I understand viewing the 14th century as a period of decay, but the 18th! The 18th century was an era of enormous technological, intellectual and social progress. Also, the 20th century was equally an era of immense progress in many fields rather than an era of decay in anything except religion, art and philosophy.
3)His primary examples are from ancient history, in which our records are so poor that people can express whatever sentiment they want onto them. When Enlightenment philosophers wanted to say government was bad, they made obscure tribal peoples without government into saints, while ignoring they all actually had the vices of civilization like slavery, sexism, war and genocide. Similar processes took place when the post-WW2 archaeologists tried to claim the Mayans or Sumerians were peaceful intellectual societies, what they wanted, only to discover literal genocide lists and rooms filled with corpses. Quiggley uses predominantly obscure civilizations like the Canaanites, Minoans and Sumerians, of which we know practically nothing so he can gerrymander the evidence into fitting his theory. I see no evidence of social decline in the either Canaanite or Minoan society before they were conquered by alien societies.
4)Worst of all, this theory in no way accounts for Asian civilizations like China and India that have survived stably and with relatively few changes for 3,500 years. These have seen nothing like the cycles Quiggley describes and he gives this no explanation.
I think Quiggley's theory has application in theory but he overemphasizes its actual descriptive ability. I think it is overly multi-stepped, rather than like a choose your own adventure, with multiple choices that allow different results. If Roman Civilization had been able to reform in Caesar's time, which seems plausible, it would break Quiggley's model.
May 14, 2018
SUMMARY: The rise and fall of civilizations usually occurs in seven stages:
Mixture
Gestation
Expansion
Age of conflict
Universal Empire
Decay
Invasion
A requirement for expansion is the accumulation of capital by a group or organization that can invest in expansion, a feature which strictly egalitarian societies lack. "This surplus-creating instrument does not have to be an economic organization. In fact, it can be any kind of organization, military, political, social, religious, and so forth."
Eventually, the instrument of expansion becomes institutionalized and increasingly serves its own ends instead of serving society as a whole. This leads to stagnation (as also described by Mancur Olson) and an increased potential for internal conflict between groups fighting for a larger share of a stagnant or decreasing pool of resources. Thus the start of the Age of conflict.
A Universal Empire often emerges from these conflicts, but without a new instrument of expansion the institutionalization keeps increasing leading to decay and eventual invasion by more dynamic and, often, younger neighboring civilizations.
The book applies these stages to analyze Mesopotamian, Caananite, Classical, and Western Civilization. For Western Civilization, three stages of expansion are identified:
1. 970-1270 with the feudal system as its instrument of expansion with the three innovations of commerce, the middle classes, and town life.
2. 1440-1690 with commercial capitalism and the renaissance and it's accompanying growth of knowledge, scientific achievement and colonization.
3. 1730-1929 with the agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, financial capitalism and monopoly capitalism. This period also introduced new weapons that could be obtained by the majority of society, which meant that dynastic states enforcing allegiance by might had to be replaced by nation states wielding allegiance by nationalistic feelings. "As soon as a majority could obtain the best available weapon and use it with little training, it became impossible for any minority to enforce obedience on a majority and, accordingly, the authoritarian structure of political life began to crumble."
Mixture
Gestation
Expansion
Age of conflict
Universal Empire
Decay
Invasion
A requirement for expansion is the accumulation of capital by a group or organization that can invest in expansion, a feature which strictly egalitarian societies lack. "This surplus-creating instrument does not have to be an economic organization. In fact, it can be any kind of organization, military, political, social, religious, and so forth."
Eventually, the instrument of expansion becomes institutionalized and increasingly serves its own ends instead of serving society as a whole. This leads to stagnation (as also described by Mancur Olson) and an increased potential for internal conflict between groups fighting for a larger share of a stagnant or decreasing pool of resources. Thus the start of the Age of conflict.
A Universal Empire often emerges from these conflicts, but without a new instrument of expansion the institutionalization keeps increasing leading to decay and eventual invasion by more dynamic and, often, younger neighboring civilizations.
The book applies these stages to analyze Mesopotamian, Caananite, Classical, and Western Civilization. For Western Civilization, three stages of expansion are identified:
1. 970-1270 with the feudal system as its instrument of expansion with the three innovations of commerce, the middle classes, and town life.
2. 1440-1690 with commercial capitalism and the renaissance and it's accompanying growth of knowledge, scientific achievement and colonization.
3. 1730-1929 with the agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, financial capitalism and monopoly capitalism. This period also introduced new weapons that could be obtained by the majority of society, which meant that dynastic states enforcing allegiance by might had to be replaced by nation states wielding allegiance by nationalistic feelings. "As soon as a majority could obtain the best available weapon and use it with little training, it became impossible for any minority to enforce obedience on a majority and, accordingly, the authoritarian structure of political life began to crumble."
February 7, 2016
This is what I wrote to my former history professor:
"I just finished the book, Dr. Saucier. You know how if you drink too much coffee, and you read about world affairs, the tendency is to become overwhelmingly horrified at the complexity and indications of what you're reading? In the same vein, I wonder how Quigley didn't suffer a stroke or a psychotic break.
I'm more familiar with philosophy of history texts than actual works of history, but in my own untrained opinion, this work was incredibly useful for me for three reasons:
1) it provided me with useful conceptual tools for understanding historical change (especially his incredibly insightful distinction between social instruments and social institutions).
2) it gave useful instruction for approaching an analysis of societies within the context of civilizations.
3) this is the most important for me personally: it gave a hyper-dense cliff's notes version of American Society's agricultural, industrial, military, and financial systems and how these work within larger historical contexts.
Quigley is Nietzsche's überscholar: he had a strong stomach for uncomfortable truths."
"I just finished the book, Dr. Saucier. You know how if you drink too much coffee, and you read about world affairs, the tendency is to become overwhelmingly horrified at the complexity and indications of what you're reading? In the same vein, I wonder how Quigley didn't suffer a stroke or a psychotic break.
I'm more familiar with philosophy of history texts than actual works of history, but in my own untrained opinion, this work was incredibly useful for me for three reasons:
1) it provided me with useful conceptual tools for understanding historical change (especially his incredibly insightful distinction between social instruments and social institutions).
2) it gave useful instruction for approaching an analysis of societies within the context of civilizations.
3) this is the most important for me personally: it gave a hyper-dense cliff's notes version of American Society's agricultural, industrial, military, and financial systems and how these work within larger historical contexts.
Quigley is Nietzsche's überscholar: he had a strong stomach for uncomfortable truths."
July 6, 2015
Having read, "Tragedy and Hope," by the same author I had high expectations and indeed they were met. Anyone with a passing interest in wanting a new perspective regarding the world in which we live and our history needs to give this author a chance. Not an easy read in that he makes you stop and think, so you will be a better informed person as a result. His audience was high functioning so the author challenges the reader with ideas and insights in commensurate fashion. Quigley is the favorite author of numerous past US Presidents for good reason. His revelations and way of analyzing our world lends itself to those wanting a deeper insight into how things work in the context of nations and history.
January 8, 2025
Just don't ever read his stuff on prehistory.
June 19, 2019
History is background in this book. History provides examples as proof to the social science theories. Quigley helps to understand history, not just have knowledge of history. The focus of the book is the epistemology of science as applied to history. Civilizations are the data which seem to create a pattern. Knowing how the pattern applies to each civilization creates an understanding which can be applied to contemporary civilizations.
There are myriad historical events and each event has a myriad of parts and interactions. Knowledge of history and the writings about history will only be an infinitesimal fraction of all history. Historians will form patterns from selected facts which makes some events more significant while neglecting others. Many explanations of patterns are idealized and oversimplification much like in science. Under observations, scientific laws are approximation to what may be true. Quigley described laws of historic change which also appear close approximations.
No knowledge is complete as new information can contradict priorly established knowledge. Even if a new hypothesis becomes the new established knowledge, it will always remain as a tentative hypothesis even after the most rigorous tests. Each new hypothesis needs to reconcile the new observations with the old with the understanding that each observation cannot be taken in isolation, that the observations influence each other. Knowledge is increased by a series of successive approximations to the truth, but there is no finality in any answer. Science is a method, for as the subjects under observations are constantly changing, the method remains the same. Contrarians to science can be found in Greek philosophers. As Quigley references, the rationalist led to the death of science by vilifying observations, testing hypotheses, and experimentation. Reason and logic were enough for the rationalists as they thought senses serve to confuse.
Historical analysis needs to take account of historical development, historical morphology, and historical evolution. Historical development are the changes in a cultural level. Historical morphology is how one level of culture influences the other levels. Historical evolution looks how historical development and historical morphology react simultaneously to each other.
The best start to understand civilization is what makes up a civilization, the people. Individuals make a collection. Collections make a group. Groups make a society. Society can become a civilization. Groups may not be predictable but they are less liable to change than varied individual behavior. An individual’s personality is largely determined by cultural environment, which is influenced by the individual. Culture needs to be adaptive and persistent in order to survive. Culture has many parts which adapt to each other. When organizations become institutionalized, they lose their ability to adept. Their main concern tailors to survival of vested-interested rather than to achieve social expectations. The struggle between the vested-interested group and the reformers is called the tension of development.
Civilization seem to have a life cycle which are represented by mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. Civilizations appear when cultures mix, usually at the peripheries of societies. This mixture produces cultural exchange bringing new ideas and techniques which leads to an expansion in political and economic life. Expansion brings concentration of wealth leading to internal conflicts of social inequality and external conflicts with different nations. A universal empire is created at the end of the period of conflict. Universal empires have many institutionalized organizations causing them be less effective. Less effective organizations such as the army starts to lose to many non-institutionalized invaders.
There were only 24 civilization in ten thousand years. The civilizations under observation are Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Minoan, Classical, and Western. A generalization that can be made about the rise of civilization by the following the steps in order: law and order, commercial increase, cities grow and appear, a middle class appears, and literacy increases. The death of civilization appears in the same steps but in reverse.
The book is well written but it seems that certain passages are out of place. Generalizations about civilizations can be can be found within specific civilization description. As the book is meant to cover civilizations, there is a lack of detail on any particular nation or empire. Transitioning between the variety of aspects in any civilization made it difficult to understand the civilization. The part Quigley makes more significant are the changes that occurred or situations which prevented change.
There are myriad historical events and each event has a myriad of parts and interactions. Knowledge of history and the writings about history will only be an infinitesimal fraction of all history. Historians will form patterns from selected facts which makes some events more significant while neglecting others. Many explanations of patterns are idealized and oversimplification much like in science. Under observations, scientific laws are approximation to what may be true. Quigley described laws of historic change which also appear close approximations.
No knowledge is complete as new information can contradict priorly established knowledge. Even if a new hypothesis becomes the new established knowledge, it will always remain as a tentative hypothesis even after the most rigorous tests. Each new hypothesis needs to reconcile the new observations with the old with the understanding that each observation cannot be taken in isolation, that the observations influence each other. Knowledge is increased by a series of successive approximations to the truth, but there is no finality in any answer. Science is a method, for as the subjects under observations are constantly changing, the method remains the same. Contrarians to science can be found in Greek philosophers. As Quigley references, the rationalist led to the death of science by vilifying observations, testing hypotheses, and experimentation. Reason and logic were enough for the rationalists as they thought senses serve to confuse.
Historical analysis needs to take account of historical development, historical morphology, and historical evolution. Historical development are the changes in a cultural level. Historical morphology is how one level of culture influences the other levels. Historical evolution looks how historical development and historical morphology react simultaneously to each other.
The best start to understand civilization is what makes up a civilization, the people. Individuals make a collection. Collections make a group. Groups make a society. Society can become a civilization. Groups may not be predictable but they are less liable to change than varied individual behavior. An individual’s personality is largely determined by cultural environment, which is influenced by the individual. Culture needs to be adaptive and persistent in order to survive. Culture has many parts which adapt to each other. When organizations become institutionalized, they lose their ability to adept. Their main concern tailors to survival of vested-interested rather than to achieve social expectations. The struggle between the vested-interested group and the reformers is called the tension of development.
Civilization seem to have a life cycle which are represented by mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. Civilizations appear when cultures mix, usually at the peripheries of societies. This mixture produces cultural exchange bringing new ideas and techniques which leads to an expansion in political and economic life. Expansion brings concentration of wealth leading to internal conflicts of social inequality and external conflicts with different nations. A universal empire is created at the end of the period of conflict. Universal empires have many institutionalized organizations causing them be less effective. Less effective organizations such as the army starts to lose to many non-institutionalized invaders.
There were only 24 civilization in ten thousand years. The civilizations under observation are Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Minoan, Classical, and Western. A generalization that can be made about the rise of civilization by the following the steps in order: law and order, commercial increase, cities grow and appear, a middle class appears, and literacy increases. The death of civilization appears in the same steps but in reverse.
The book is well written but it seems that certain passages are out of place. Generalizations about civilizations can be can be found within specific civilization description. As the book is meant to cover civilizations, there is a lack of detail on any particular nation or empire. Transitioning between the variety of aspects in any civilization made it difficult to understand the civilization. The part Quigley makes more significant are the changes that occurred or situations which prevented change.
May 18, 2017
Het boek bestaat grofweg uit twee delen: (1) een theorie over de ontwikkeling van de geschiedenis en (2) een beschouwing van de geschiedenis aan de hand waarvan de theorie wordt getoetst.
De theorie wordt op een briljante manier opgezet. Quigley heeft een achtergrond in de 'exacte wetenschappen' (biochemie) en legt in het begin van het boek uit waarom hij meent dat sociale wetenschappen net zo behandeld kunnen worden als exacte wetenschappen: ook de exacte wetenschappen zijn in de praktijk nooit exact. (Ik moest bij zijn uitleg denken aan dat bekende grapje van 'bolvormige kippen/koeien in een vacuüm'.) Quigley begint vervolgens bij de basis, namelijk met het uitleggen van de wetenschappelijke methode, en bouwt vanaf deze grond een theorie op over de ontwikkeling van de geschiedenis die op het eerste gezicht best overtuigend lijkt. Hij stelt het niet voor alsof deze ontwikkeling eenvoudige is - integendeel: hij wijst op een oneindige hoeveelheid factoren die allemaal een wederzijdse invloed op elkaar hebben, de complexiteit valt uiteindelijk dus uit te drukken als 'oneindig^oneindig × 2' - maar hij slaagt er wel in om het overzichtelijk te maken. Dit doet hij zo briljant dat eigenlijk vóór de toetsing ervan overtuigd bent van de juistheid van de theorie.
Toch gaat het daar uiteindelijk mis. In de opzet al, natuurlijk. Je kunt je eigen theorie over de ontwikkeling van de geschiedenis immers niet toetsen aan de hand van je eigen versie van de geschiedenis. Iedere vertelling van de geschiedenis is noodzakelijk selectief, en dus subjectief, en waarom zou je het dan op zo'n manier vertellen dat het je eigen theorie onderuithaalt? Het gaat feitelijk verder dan de slager die zijn eigen vlees keurt.
En hoewel Quigley dus eigenlijk niet kan zakken voor deze zelftest, valt toch nog op hoe vaak hij eigenlijk aan het uitleggen is waarom de geschiedenis - zoals geïnterpreteerd en weergegeven door Carroll Quigley - niet helemaal past in de theorie ervan. Dit wijkt af van de theorie vanwege dat, dat vanwege zus, zus vanwege zo, etc. Zelfs als je de problematische opzet kunt negeren, dan nog zou je moeten concluderen dat de theorie de feiten onvoldoende verklaart - en dus gewoon niet klopt.
En toch is het theoretische deel het beste van het boek. (En ik geloof uiteindelijk ook best bruikbaar voor historische analyse, mits je het niet als volkomen beschouwt.)Want het beschouwende deel is op sommige punten weliswaar erg interessant - en Quigley heeft een goed oog bepaalde zaken, ideologie bijvoorbeeld - maar uiteindelijk toch te gekleurd. Het is niet alleen aangepast is aan de praktische voorkeuren van Quigley (de vertelling moet in de theorie passen en contingente gebeurtenissen als een pestepidemie mogen geen rol spelen*) maar ook aan zijn persoonlijke voorkeuren. Quigley voert het katholieke geloof bijvoorbeeld op de perfecte synthese van het wereldse en het spirituele, van lichaam en geest, empirisme en rationalisme, individu en samenleving, en meer dualiteiten. Dit is zo belangrijk voor de westerse grondhouding dat het katholieke geloof eigenlijk de vaandeldrager en hoeder van de Westerse Cultuur is. Dat Quigley zelf van huis uit katholiek is, zegt hij er niet bij.
Er is, met andere woorden, erg veel aan te merken op het boek - en dus niet alleen kleinigheden. En tóch moet ik het vier sterren geven. Zo briljant is het op de punten waar het briljant is. Zo verhelderend waar het verheldert.
- - - - - - - -
* Quigley weet bijvoorbeeld te vertellen dat de bevolking van Europa in een bepaalde periode aanzienlijk afnam en geeft enkele illustratieve cijfers: de bevolking van Marseille nam met 75% af in de periode van 1263 tot 1423, en tussen 1348 en het begin van de 15de eeuw nam de Britse bevolking af an 3,7 miljoen tot 2,1 miljoen mensen. Dit wijt hij niet aan de pest (volgens schattingen 75-200 miljoen doden) maar aan sociale en economische moeilijkheden die verklaard worden in zijn theorie.
De theorie wordt op een briljante manier opgezet. Quigley heeft een achtergrond in de 'exacte wetenschappen' (biochemie) en legt in het begin van het boek uit waarom hij meent dat sociale wetenschappen net zo behandeld kunnen worden als exacte wetenschappen: ook de exacte wetenschappen zijn in de praktijk nooit exact. (Ik moest bij zijn uitleg denken aan dat bekende grapje van 'bolvormige kippen/koeien in een vacuüm'.) Quigley begint vervolgens bij de basis, namelijk met het uitleggen van de wetenschappelijke methode, en bouwt vanaf deze grond een theorie op over de ontwikkeling van de geschiedenis die op het eerste gezicht best overtuigend lijkt. Hij stelt het niet voor alsof deze ontwikkeling eenvoudige is - integendeel: hij wijst op een oneindige hoeveelheid factoren die allemaal een wederzijdse invloed op elkaar hebben, de complexiteit valt uiteindelijk dus uit te drukken als 'oneindig^oneindig × 2' - maar hij slaagt er wel in om het overzichtelijk te maken. Dit doet hij zo briljant dat eigenlijk vóór de toetsing ervan overtuigd bent van de juistheid van de theorie.
Toch gaat het daar uiteindelijk mis. In de opzet al, natuurlijk. Je kunt je eigen theorie over de ontwikkeling van de geschiedenis immers niet toetsen aan de hand van je eigen versie van de geschiedenis. Iedere vertelling van de geschiedenis is noodzakelijk selectief, en dus subjectief, en waarom zou je het dan op zo'n manier vertellen dat het je eigen theorie onderuithaalt? Het gaat feitelijk verder dan de slager die zijn eigen vlees keurt.
En hoewel Quigley dus eigenlijk niet kan zakken voor deze zelftest, valt toch nog op hoe vaak hij eigenlijk aan het uitleggen is waarom de geschiedenis - zoals geïnterpreteerd en weergegeven door Carroll Quigley - niet helemaal past in de theorie ervan. Dit wijkt af van de theorie vanwege dat, dat vanwege zus, zus vanwege zo, etc. Zelfs als je de problematische opzet kunt negeren, dan nog zou je moeten concluderen dat de theorie de feiten onvoldoende verklaart - en dus gewoon niet klopt.
En toch is het theoretische deel het beste van het boek. (En ik geloof uiteindelijk ook best bruikbaar voor historische analyse, mits je het niet als volkomen beschouwt.)Want het beschouwende deel is op sommige punten weliswaar erg interessant - en Quigley heeft een goed oog bepaalde zaken, ideologie bijvoorbeeld - maar uiteindelijk toch te gekleurd. Het is niet alleen aangepast is aan de praktische voorkeuren van Quigley (de vertelling moet in de theorie passen en contingente gebeurtenissen als een pestepidemie mogen geen rol spelen*) maar ook aan zijn persoonlijke voorkeuren. Quigley voert het katholieke geloof bijvoorbeeld op de perfecte synthese van het wereldse en het spirituele, van lichaam en geest, empirisme en rationalisme, individu en samenleving, en meer dualiteiten. Dit is zo belangrijk voor de westerse grondhouding dat het katholieke geloof eigenlijk de vaandeldrager en hoeder van de Westerse Cultuur is. Dat Quigley zelf van huis uit katholiek is, zegt hij er niet bij.
Er is, met andere woorden, erg veel aan te merken op het boek - en dus niet alleen kleinigheden. En tóch moet ik het vier sterren geven. Zo briljant is het op de punten waar het briljant is. Zo verhelderend waar het verheldert.
- - - - - - - -
* Quigley weet bijvoorbeeld te vertellen dat de bevolking van Europa in een bepaalde periode aanzienlijk afnam en geeft enkele illustratieve cijfers: de bevolking van Marseille nam met 75% af in de periode van 1263 tot 1423, en tussen 1348 en het begin van de 15de eeuw nam de Britse bevolking af an 3,7 miljoen tot 2,1 miljoen mensen. Dit wijt hij niet aan de pest (volgens schattingen 75-200 miljoen doden) maar aan sociale en economische moeilijkheden die verklaard worden in zijn theorie.
April 3, 2023
The thesis of this book is that civilizations go through 6 stages: Mixture, Gestation, Expansion, Conflict, Decay, and foreign invasion. The era of expansion happens when some "instrument of expansion" unique to the civilization incentives capital accumulation and re-investment in the society. The era of expansion the society undergoes improvement in religion, philosophy, economics, geographic area and population. According to the book, this was slavery in classical civilization and mercantilism then capitalism in the west. The era of conflict arrives when the original instrument of expansion becomes institutionalized and a tool of the already politically connected to increase their prestige and wealth by plundering the society instead of expanding the pie. This leads to the era of decay, decreasing rationality, more class conflicts, useless external wars and stagnating expansion and standard of living. Societies at this point are at a crossroads, if they reform and gain a new instrument of expansion and go back to stage 3. According to the author, this happened in the west twice. If it doesn't reform, the civilization continues to stagnate until it gets invaded by another, younger civilization. Weather or not a society reforms is determined by the how strong the grip of the vested interests are.
This is no fault of the book, but it expects you already to have in-depth knowledge of the civilizations described to really understand it, which is background knowledge I have not attainted yet. As such, my personal experience with this book was rather mixed. I was given this book as a gift by my parents who wanted to encourage my interest in reading, so I read it before understanding in depth the civilizations here, thus some of my thoughts on the quality of the ideas presented are likely underdeveloped. I'll certainly revisit this book a few years down the line when I’m ready for it.
Despite my lacking knowledge in some areas, I believe I can raise a few issues and provide a few areas of compliment. First and most obviously, this book only discusses civilizations which have existed in the Mediterranean Basin or Europe. Nothing on India, China, Mesoamerica, Islam, Orthodox, or Sub-Saharan Africa, and from my knowledge of those civilizations, their patterns of history are much different and warrant their own explanations. The author also appears to be forced to make the weird argument that the 1700s was a century of conflict and decay in the west in between two eras of expansion. This doesn't make sense. The 1700s saw the enlightenment, rise of early liberalism, population growth, scientific expansion and first great awakening in the British Settler Colonies- likely as a result of the conflicts happening at the time. It's not conflict or expansion, it's expansion through conflict.
This book gets a good amount right too. First- it's absolutely correct that civilizations need a specific incentive structure that encourages its citizens to reinvest in it. Civilizational success is not random- nor is it the result of simple, deterministic explanations such as geography or natural resources that have become popular ways of explaining rich societies today. (Though geography does play a role and resources can help. Or hurt if it results in an economic resource trap.) This book is right that we need to judge civilizations more by weather cultures encourage expansion and reinvestment or plundering and exploitation by the upper classes. Second- The book is largely right on the money when it comes to how civilizations decay and die. Civilizational decay and conflict often does have its roots in a flailing elite more interested in plundering the society rather than expanding the pie, and this can bring down the civilization by making class likes starker, worsening inequality and ensuing conflict.
It's kind of scary looking at the modern west through the lens of this book, because we'd definitely be in an era of decay (massive class conflicts, useless wars, decreasing rationality, sky high inequality, crumbling social structure, vested interests plundering society) and it makes the need for reform across our entire society more clear and necessary.
This is no fault of the book, but it expects you already to have in-depth knowledge of the civilizations described to really understand it, which is background knowledge I have not attainted yet. As such, my personal experience with this book was rather mixed. I was given this book as a gift by my parents who wanted to encourage my interest in reading, so I read it before understanding in depth the civilizations here, thus some of my thoughts on the quality of the ideas presented are likely underdeveloped. I'll certainly revisit this book a few years down the line when I’m ready for it.
Despite my lacking knowledge in some areas, I believe I can raise a few issues and provide a few areas of compliment. First and most obviously, this book only discusses civilizations which have existed in the Mediterranean Basin or Europe. Nothing on India, China, Mesoamerica, Islam, Orthodox, or Sub-Saharan Africa, and from my knowledge of those civilizations, their patterns of history are much different and warrant their own explanations. The author also appears to be forced to make the weird argument that the 1700s was a century of conflict and decay in the west in between two eras of expansion. This doesn't make sense. The 1700s saw the enlightenment, rise of early liberalism, population growth, scientific expansion and first great awakening in the British Settler Colonies- likely as a result of the conflicts happening at the time. It's not conflict or expansion, it's expansion through conflict.
This book gets a good amount right too. First- it's absolutely correct that civilizations need a specific incentive structure that encourages its citizens to reinvest in it. Civilizational success is not random- nor is it the result of simple, deterministic explanations such as geography or natural resources that have become popular ways of explaining rich societies today. (Though geography does play a role and resources can help. Or hurt if it results in an economic resource trap.) This book is right that we need to judge civilizations more by weather cultures encourage expansion and reinvestment or plundering and exploitation by the upper classes. Second- The book is largely right on the money when it comes to how civilizations decay and die. Civilizational decay and conflict often does have its roots in a flailing elite more interested in plundering the society rather than expanding the pie, and this can bring down the civilization by making class likes starker, worsening inequality and ensuing conflict.
It's kind of scary looking at the modern west through the lens of this book, because we'd definitely be in an era of decay (massive class conflicts, useless wars, decreasing rationality, sky high inequality, crumbling social structure, vested interests plundering society) and it makes the need for reform across our entire society more clear and necessary.
March 25, 2024
It's not hard to see why so many readers of this book have fallen for it. Quigley writes fluently. He encompasses a vast range of human history and provides for it a comprehensible but not simplistic framework with which to understand it.
Like Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies, Quigley starts by rejecting what Tainter would pithily call "mystical" theories of civilisational rise and fall, such as those of Arnold Toynbee and Oswald Spengler, especially those where there is an appeal to a biological analogy. And, like Tainter, he chooses a fundamentally economic explanation for the decay and failure of civilizations. The two are quite close, but distinct. Tainter sees a diminishing return on investment whilst Quigley thinks the issue is the failure of the means of growth (what he calls an instrument of expansion) through its being captured by an elite who fail to invest (which he describes as the instrument becoming an institution). From this, he outlines seven stages of civilisation and proceeds to apply this to a number of historical civilisations.
Quigley would like to think that his approach is scientific but it is a total failure in this respect. The framework he defines is vague and poorly defined, with no clear tests. Even though the civilisations he chooses are cherry-picked to conform, and he cherry-picks evidence within them, he often needs to fudge or explain away inconvenient facts. At other times, the facts just clearly don't fit. (How does the early 17th century, which includes the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War not fall into an "Age of Conflict" or, even more incredibly, how does the First World War not?) The theory isn't really testable and, to the extent that it is, it fails those tests. All it has is the trappings of science, which is what we call pseudo-science.
Around this, there is some compelling writing and Quigley is capable of genuine insight, especially when he discusses Classical civilisaation. Unfortunately, he is equally likely to dive off down some rabbit hole of eccentricity. Large sections of the book, and one whole chapter, are very dubious indeed. It's hard to know how much of this is just reliance on very outdated scholarship (he is writing some time around 1960) and how much he has just made up, due to the complete lack of referencing, but I am pretty sure that there is a good helping of the latter. It's worth noting in this respect that he was a conspiracy theorist. (I wasn't aware of this when I bought the book.)
In Quigley's favour, he isn't racist (certainly by the standards of his time) and he has the humility to accept that, really, it's all rather complicated. But these don't really count as significant achievements. Ultimately, this book is one to consign to the dustbin of history.
Like Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies, Quigley starts by rejecting what Tainter would pithily call "mystical" theories of civilisational rise and fall, such as those of Arnold Toynbee and Oswald Spengler, especially those where there is an appeal to a biological analogy. And, like Tainter, he chooses a fundamentally economic explanation for the decay and failure of civilizations. The two are quite close, but distinct. Tainter sees a diminishing return on investment whilst Quigley thinks the issue is the failure of the means of growth (what he calls an instrument of expansion) through its being captured by an elite who fail to invest (which he describes as the instrument becoming an institution). From this, he outlines seven stages of civilisation and proceeds to apply this to a number of historical civilisations.
Quigley would like to think that his approach is scientific but it is a total failure in this respect. The framework he defines is vague and poorly defined, with no clear tests. Even though the civilisations he chooses are cherry-picked to conform, and he cherry-picks evidence within them, he often needs to fudge or explain away inconvenient facts. At other times, the facts just clearly don't fit. (How does the early 17th century, which includes the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War not fall into an "Age of Conflict" or, even more incredibly, how does the First World War not?) The theory isn't really testable and, to the extent that it is, it fails those tests. All it has is the trappings of science, which is what we call pseudo-science.
Around this, there is some compelling writing and Quigley is capable of genuine insight, especially when he discusses Classical civilisaation. Unfortunately, he is equally likely to dive off down some rabbit hole of eccentricity. Large sections of the book, and one whole chapter, are very dubious indeed. It's hard to know how much of this is just reliance on very outdated scholarship (he is writing some time around 1960) and how much he has just made up, due to the complete lack of referencing, but I am pretty sure that there is a good helping of the latter. It's worth noting in this respect that he was a conspiracy theorist. (I wasn't aware of this when I bought the book.)
In Quigley's favour, he isn't racist (certainly by the standards of his time) and he has the humility to accept that, really, it's all rather complicated. But these don't really count as significant achievements. Ultimately, this book is one to consign to the dustbin of history.
July 20, 2019
This work intends to be the creation of a theoretical framework for the understanding of the machinations of what is to Quigley, the main unit of study in the study of man, the civilization, from a scientific approach.
The methodology set up in Chapter 1, ‘Scientific Method and the Social Sciences’, is as close to a scientific methodology as can be, and it is very precise to the object of its application, making much needed preliminary qualifications.
Chapter 2, ‘Man and Culture’, is an exposition of General preliminary presuppositions to the analysis of civilizations, concerning itself basely with the relationship between the one and the many, and the influence of culture in the development and then the identity of man, the potentialities and the actualities. Culture is hedged by the parametrization of the natural environment. It covers many areas, many general facts about the Theory and Praxis of man.
Chapter 3, concerns itself primarily with theoreticals on the influence of the Praxis of groups on individuals which it produces, and it does using history of the various civilizations, (Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Aztec, Tokugawa etc.)
Chapter 4, attempts to establish philosophical foundations, addressing very specific concerns over the application of the methodology to the system that is civilization, that is to say that a certain deconstruction is necessary, so how do we make those abstractions. It is both an inquiry and a criticism is status quo abstractions.
Chapter 5 is primarily concerned with the issue of periodization and the operation of ‘historical change’. He addresses the Darwinian model of history, the Spenglerian model (based on Goethe’s metaphysical morphology of plants), Toynbee’s somewhat Darwinian formulation, and various other historical models. He goes on to construct his developmental theory in view of history and the aforementioned.
Chapter 6: “The Matrix of Early Civilizations”
This chapter, the Matrix of civilizations to civilizations, is equivalent , to what was to Kant, the necessary ideality of space and time for thought, in other words, that which is transcendental for the existence of the early civilizations. Different elements including language, climate, geographies as they are significant to food sourcing for groups, biological microevolutionary features etc., are considered.
Chapter 7 (Mesopotamian Civilization), Chapter 8 (Canaanite and Minoan Civilization), Chapter 9 (Classical Civilization), Chapter 10 (Western Civilization) are the main flesh of the text, analyzing civilizations within the parameters established in the earlier chapters.
A reading of the conclusion before reading the book may help in getting a sense of the book as one is reading it through the first few chapters, (as well as going through its table of contents), as it coheres the conclusions of the historical analysis and the preliminary methodological considerations.
The methodology set up in Chapter 1, ‘Scientific Method and the Social Sciences’, is as close to a scientific methodology as can be, and it is very precise to the object of its application, making much needed preliminary qualifications.
Chapter 2, ‘Man and Culture’, is an exposition of General preliminary presuppositions to the analysis of civilizations, concerning itself basely with the relationship between the one and the many, and the influence of culture in the development and then the identity of man, the potentialities and the actualities. Culture is hedged by the parametrization of the natural environment. It covers many areas, many general facts about the Theory and Praxis of man.
Chapter 3, concerns itself primarily with theoreticals on the influence of the Praxis of groups on individuals which it produces, and it does using history of the various civilizations, (Persian, Egyptian, Roman, Aztec, Tokugawa etc.)
Chapter 4, attempts to establish philosophical foundations, addressing very specific concerns over the application of the methodology to the system that is civilization, that is to say that a certain deconstruction is necessary, so how do we make those abstractions. It is both an inquiry and a criticism is status quo abstractions.
Chapter 5 is primarily concerned with the issue of periodization and the operation of ‘historical change’. He addresses the Darwinian model of history, the Spenglerian model (based on Goethe’s metaphysical morphology of plants), Toynbee’s somewhat Darwinian formulation, and various other historical models. He goes on to construct his developmental theory in view of history and the aforementioned.
Chapter 6: “The Matrix of Early Civilizations”
This chapter, the Matrix of civilizations to civilizations, is equivalent , to what was to Kant, the necessary ideality of space and time for thought, in other words, that which is transcendental for the existence of the early civilizations. Different elements including language, climate, geographies as they are significant to food sourcing for groups, biological microevolutionary features etc., are considered.
Chapter 7 (Mesopotamian Civilization), Chapter 8 (Canaanite and Minoan Civilization), Chapter 9 (Classical Civilization), Chapter 10 (Western Civilization) are the main flesh of the text, analyzing civilizations within the parameters established in the earlier chapters.
A reading of the conclusion before reading the book may help in getting a sense of the book as one is reading it through the first few chapters, (as well as going through its table of contents), as it coheres the conclusions of the historical analysis and the preliminary methodological considerations.
Read
September 25, 2022The books I consulted told me that a quartz crystal should be a hexagonal prism with a regular hexagonal pyramid at the end.
But to find these, I had examined and discarded hundreds of distorted crystals. By what right, I asked, did the books say that quartz crystals occurred in regular pyra-midal hexagonal prisms when only a small percentage of those found had such a shape?
Later, when I studied science in school and college, I found that most scientific "laws" were of this idealized character.
I found that the most highly praised "scientific laws" attributed to great men like Galileo or Newton were of this character. It was a blow to discover that Newton's laws of planetary motion did not, in fact, describe the movements of the sun's satellites as we observe them, except in a very approximate way. In some cases, notably that of the planet Mercury, the approximation was by no means close.
science advances by a series of successive (and, he hopes, closer) approximations to the truth; and, since the truth is never finally reached, the work of scientists must indefinitely continue. Science, as one writer put it, is like a single light in darkness; as it grows brighter its shows more clearly the area of illumination and, simultaneously, length- ens the circle of surrounding darkness.
two rules must be followed: (a) the hypothesis must explain all the observations and (b) the hypothesis must be the simplest one that will explain them.
The belief that the world is a flat surface did not prevent men from moving about on its surface successfully.
on Monday I drink whiskey and water and get drunk; on Tuesday I drink gin and water and get drunk; on Wednesday I drink vodka and water and get drunk; on Thursday I think about this and decide that water makes me drunk, since this is the only common action I did every day. This perversion of scientific method is the exact opposite of a scientific experiment. In scientific method we establish all conditions the same except one, and attribute causation to the one factor that is different.
a rock, dropped from a high window, will fall even if everyone in the world expected it to rise or wanted it to rise.
(a) material needs, such as food, clothing, shelter;
(b) sex;
(c) gregarious needs, such as companionship; and
(d) psychic needs, such as a world outlook, psychological security, or the desire to know the "meaning" of things.
But to find these, I had examined and discarded hundreds of distorted crystals. By what right, I asked, did the books say that quartz crystals occurred in regular pyra-midal hexagonal prisms when only a small percentage of those found had such a shape?
Later, when I studied science in school and college, I found that most scientific "laws" were of this idealized character.
I found that the most highly praised "scientific laws" attributed to great men like Galileo or Newton were of this character. It was a blow to discover that Newton's laws of planetary motion did not, in fact, describe the movements of the sun's satellites as we observe them, except in a very approximate way. In some cases, notably that of the planet Mercury, the approximation was by no means close.
science advances by a series of successive (and, he hopes, closer) approximations to the truth; and, since the truth is never finally reached, the work of scientists must indefinitely continue. Science, as one writer put it, is like a single light in darkness; as it grows brighter its shows more clearly the area of illumination and, simultaneously, length- ens the circle of surrounding darkness.
two rules must be followed: (a) the hypothesis must explain all the observations and (b) the hypothesis must be the simplest one that will explain them.
The belief that the world is a flat surface did not prevent men from moving about on its surface successfully.
on Monday I drink whiskey and water and get drunk; on Tuesday I drink gin and water and get drunk; on Wednesday I drink vodka and water and get drunk; on Thursday I think about this and decide that water makes me drunk, since this is the only common action I did every day. This perversion of scientific method is the exact opposite of a scientific experiment. In scientific method we establish all conditions the same except one, and attribute causation to the one factor that is different.
a rock, dropped from a high window, will fall even if everyone in the world expected it to rise or wanted it to rise.
(a) material needs, such as food, clothing, shelter;
(b) sex;
(c) gregarious needs, such as companionship; and
(d) psychic needs, such as a world outlook, psychological security, or the desire to know the "meaning" of things.
September 15, 2017
Upon researching the Cold War I came across a recommendation to study Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope" as a means for understanding the mechanism that drove the Cold War. As I was researching that book before starting, it seemed that this book would make for a good introduction to Quigley's method of historical analysis.
Having just finished "The Evolution of Civilizations" it does feel like this to be the case. He uses the core concept of how societies are formed on the wave of an "instrument of expansion". From there, that instrument will create growth until it slows and eventually morphs into an instution. At that point the civilization begins to decay before it eventually falls to invasion. He describes this life cycle of a civilization, through seven stages, in depth and I think it is a useful model for examining ones over the course of history. It's all expansion and contraction, mannnn.
At times I was loving his process, especially with specific example subjects like the sport of football and the military structure of a calvary. He cites these in the early chapters and I was hoping for similar imagery throughout. Unfortunately I found much of it to be broad-brushed encapsulations of epochs, fitting ancient civilizations to his model, and attaching them to relatively mundane inventions in this technological age as the plow and Jethro Tull's (the agriculturalist) method of crop rotation. While certainly vital concepts to understand human history, I prefer Jacob Bronowski's imaginative and evocative depiction of innovation in the series "The Ascent of Man."
All that being said, I did enjoy the book a good deal. I'm buying what he's selling in terms of his method of historical analysis and am intrigued enough to want to go on to "Tragedy and Hope" - looking for more specific examples to better understand the 20th century.
Having just finished "The Evolution of Civilizations" it does feel like this to be the case. He uses the core concept of how societies are formed on the wave of an "instrument of expansion". From there, that instrument will create growth until it slows and eventually morphs into an instution. At that point the civilization begins to decay before it eventually falls to invasion. He describes this life cycle of a civilization, through seven stages, in depth and I think it is a useful model for examining ones over the course of history. It's all expansion and contraction, mannnn.
At times I was loving his process, especially with specific example subjects like the sport of football and the military structure of a calvary. He cites these in the early chapters and I was hoping for similar imagery throughout. Unfortunately I found much of it to be broad-brushed encapsulations of epochs, fitting ancient civilizations to his model, and attaching them to relatively mundane inventions in this technological age as the plow and Jethro Tull's (the agriculturalist) method of crop rotation. While certainly vital concepts to understand human history, I prefer Jacob Bronowski's imaginative and evocative depiction of innovation in the series "The Ascent of Man."
All that being said, I did enjoy the book a good deal. I'm buying what he's selling in terms of his method of historical analysis and am intrigued enough to want to go on to "Tragedy and Hope" - looking for more specific examples to better understand the 20th century.
December 14, 2021
The broad overviews of different “civilizations” towards the end contain a lot of interesting ideas (although many of them completely unprovable or naive), but the general theory/method proposed in the beginning is just childish and riddled with internal contradictions. The socialistic state is the “instrument of expansion” in several examples, but at the same time equal distribution of resources makes expansion impossible? The Biblical exodus is just presented as fact? The Minoans were feminist pacifists? Our civilization lost spirituality and that’s why it’ll come to an end? The Roman Empire was simply brought down by an invasion? Ok Quigley. I’m not even mentioning all the cringy or racist tropes that give away (even more) the fact that this book was written in 1961.
Would’ve given it one star but the last two chapters genuinely do contain pretty interesting, if still questionable, ideas about the general course of western philosophy .
Would’ve given it one star but the last two chapters genuinely do contain pretty interesting, if still questionable, ideas about the general course of western philosophy .
August 16, 2020
William Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was professor of history at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, where he taught an influential course, "The Development of Civilization" (summarized in his book The Evolution of Civilizations).
Quigley proposed an original and well-defined model of civilizations and the distinct stages through which they evolve.
In this model, a civilization is "a producing society that has writing, city life, and an economic instrument of expansion".
It evolves through seven stages, called 1) mixture; 2) gestation; 3) expansion; 4) age of conflict; 5) universal empire; 6) decay, and 7) destruction (usually by outside invaders).
Quigley enumerates and names sixteen civilizations in history that fit this model, more or less. Samuel P. Huntington drew upon Quigley's concepts in his book The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order.
Quigley proposed an original and well-defined model of civilizations and the distinct stages through which they evolve.
In this model, a civilization is "a producing society that has writing, city life, and an economic instrument of expansion".
It evolves through seven stages, called 1) mixture; 2) gestation; 3) expansion; 4) age of conflict; 5) universal empire; 6) decay, and 7) destruction (usually by outside invaders).
Quigley enumerates and names sixteen civilizations in history that fit this model, more or less. Samuel P. Huntington drew upon Quigley's concepts in his book The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order.
October 12, 2021
Interesting approach to understanding history. The inrto was a great reminder of what history is - a collection of facts editorialized by the person presenting them. There are just too many things/facts that occur in any given year to be "objective" about "reporting" historical happenings. Why include some facts, but not others? Everything is presented through a world-view. The trite saying "History is written by the victors" is indeed something to ponder. I find the authors approach useful, which became evident to me when discussing the Classical Civilization. The discussion on the instrument of expansion that was slavery, was eye opening.
October 12, 2018
This was an incredible book. I can't wait to read Quigley's other books. I would advise anyone to read any of his books. Quigley gives great information on how Civilizations form and how they fall. He goes into how institutions are formed and why they cease to serve their original purpose. He explains historical analysis. It isn't just knowledge, but understanding what it means. Although, I would urge that if you are not good at analysis, you might want to get some extra understand about Quigley and his perspective.
September 3, 2019
Among the top 10 books I’ve read. Quigley ranks with the best in terms of his ability to synthesize events into coherent messages that make you go “aha!” He reminds me of Adam Smith. Specifically, in this book he asserts that civilizations have a predictable life cycle, which can be analyzed in terms of 1) institutionalization and 2) interplay between different “levels” (military, political, etc.). As a bonus, in providing examples to back up the above, he provides you with a neat history of human civilization that you will not find matched in so few pages.
February 21, 2024
Interesting book by an Interesting man.
I think you can probably skip this book in favor of a more parseable summary, also some of the details are dragged down by some of Quigley's outlandish perspectives (for example on global finance). The scientific perspective he offers is decent and the history he writes is relatively thought provoking.
The last couple chapters of Tragedy and Hope are a much better read in my opinion.
I think you can probably skip this book in favor of a more parseable summary, also some of the details are dragged down by some of Quigley's outlandish perspectives (for example on global finance). The scientific perspective he offers is decent and the history he writes is relatively thought provoking.
The last couple chapters of Tragedy and Hope are a much better read in my opinion.
October 1, 2022
Most amount of books I read in a month. This one was good. A bit wordy and probably better for its time, but its still really enjoyable. Some parts feel irrelevant to a non-historian but mostly a book that covered recurring patterns with civilisations and has some cool details to learn about the world as well, some stuff about winds I didn't really get tho.
June 30, 2025
Awesome framework for the evolution of civilizations. Summarizes the history of all the past civilizations on Earth, and goes deeper into several of them, including Mesopotamian, Minoan, Classical and Western. How and when will our civilization end?
October 11, 2017
Instruments of expansion --time--> self-serving institution
March 23, 2020
This might be the book of the year.
Want to read
April 22, 2020recommended: [Unpacking the Meta-Crisis, Q&A with Jordan Hall - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmQ-T...)
January 2, 2024
3.9/5
June 17, 2024
4.5 *
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews