From: jimruttshow8596
The concept of oikophobia, defined as a “fear of one’s own cultural home” or “Western self-contempt,” is explored through two seemingly opposing, yet ultimately convergent, philosophical tendencies: cultural relativism and positivism [01:11:10].
Oikophobia: Western Self-Contempt
Oikophobia refers to the phenomenon where Westerners believe the West is “the worst civilization in the world” and is “responsible for everything that goes wrong” [01:01:45]. This contempt extends to looking down on traditional values and deeming the rest of the world superior [01:02:00]. This phenomenon recurs throughout history [01:02:09].
Two Faces of Oikophobia
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism, in the context of oikophobia, asserts that one’s own culture cannot be deemed superior to others, and that “other cultures may be just as good” or “just as valuable as ours” [01:12:22]. This perspective aims to degrade one’s own culture relative to others by elevating other cultures [01:12:41].
Historically, this form of oikophobia first appeared in ancient Greece during the late 5th and early 4th centuries BC, as a society gains security and leisure time [01:12:14].
Positivism
Positivism, particularly as it relates to oikophobia, emerges largely from progressivism within the Enlightenment era (around the 18th century in Europe) [01:12:53]. It is characterized by the belief that “reason and science” can lead to eternal moral truths [01:13:31].
This perspective posits that humanity is progressing towards a “higher state” or a specific “superior” social condition, a utopian ideal [01:13:59]. This idea of progress leads to the belief that a culture’s “specialness” or “exceptionalism” must be “erased” to allow all of humanity to advance together [01:14:18]. Unlike relativism, positivism explicitly states there is a “superior” state that all societies should aspire to [01:14:36].
Convergence of Opposites
Despite their philosophical incompatibility—relativism claiming no one culture is superior, while positivism asserts a single superior state—these two strands often unite in contemporary “oikophobes” [01:15:02]. They share the common goal of “tearing down one’s own civilization” [01:12:08]. Individuals may simultaneously hold relativistic views (e.g., “truth is relative”) and positivist convictions about a singular, ideal social condition toward which society should aspire [01:15:17].
Impact of the Enlightenment and Progressivism
The Enlightenment, while contributing positively to science and reason, is seen as a “double-edged sword” [01:05:58]. The problematic side is the “coupling of science and reason” with a progressive political philosophy, which falsely assumes that one inherently reinforces the other [01:06:35]. This leads to the rejection of non-progressive philosophical opponents as “anti-enlightenment” or “irrational” [01:06:50].
While progress in science, technology, and medicine is unequivocally positive, an increase in liberty can be a “double-edged sword” [01:17:10]. Increases in freedom and comfort can lead to decadence [01:17:58]. The core issue with progressivism as an ideology is the belief in a utopia, ignoring the fundamental trade-offs inherent in philosophical and political change [01:18:24].
Progressivism, by constantly striving for a “higher state” beyond solving specific problems, can lead to “absurd and outlandish results” [01:19:01]. An excessive emphasis on progressivism can be detrimental, causing societies to abandon “everything that is good about our history and about our tradition and culture” [01:20:48].
Societal Implications
The growth of freedom and access to knowledge makes a society more susceptible to oikophobia, as it provides “intellectual room” to question traditions and “flirt with other opinions” [00:51:16]. This “subversiveness” is particularly prevalent among academics, journalists, and those with large media platforms, as they have the “greatest freedom to speak” and demonstrate their “specialness by self-questioning” [00:52:41].
The “next generation” may react against the “safety and wealth and security” that lead to boredom, finding meaning in “tearing down the statues of their own founding fathers or on going out and rioting” [01:30:47]. While these are communal activities that fulfill a human need for shared purpose, they are considered destructive compared to repelling an enemy or collective worship [01:32:40]. This “civilizational ennui” or lack of higher cause fosters oikophobia [01:32:05].
The liberal order itself faces a risk of collapse, as increased liberty may lead to greater oikophobia and internal societal turning [01:27:35].