From: jimruttshow8596
Benedict Beckhell, author and philosopher, defines oikophobia as “Western self-contempt” or “fear of one’s own cultural home” [01:34:30]. This term, coined by Sir Roger Scruton about 20-25 years ago, is derived from the Greek oikos (home) and phobia (fear) [01:27:00]. It describes a tendency among Westerners to believe that the West is the worst civilization in the world, responsible for global problems, and that other parts of the world are superior [01:40:00].
An example of oikophobia is the insistence by an academic at a dinner in Rome that “oppression and imperialism were the core contributions of the West to the world” [02:46:00]. This phenomenon is disproportionately found within academia, though its influence can extend beyond, particularly as access to information and egalitarianism increase within society [04:01:00].
The Continuum of Self-Perception: Xenophobia to Oikophobia
Beckhell posits a continuum between xenophobia and oikophobia [07:10:00]. Early, more parochial societies tend to be xenophobic, assuming their own way is best due to limited exposure to other cultures [07:33:00]. As a society becomes successful and intermingles with other civilizations, it moves along this continuum. This exposure can lead to an interest in foreign ways, even among conquerors admiring the culture of the conquered, as seen with Rome and Greece [08:26:00].
This continuum can be compared to Aristotelian virtue and the concept of the “golden mean” [09:35:00]. While oikophobia and xenophobia represent two extremes, a moderate degree of self-critique (what can become oikophobia) and a moderate amount of wholesome self-preservation (what can become xenophobia) are considered good [10:54:00]. However, competitive environments like academia can drive individuals towards “ever more outlandish extremes” in ideas, fostering an “eat that species” dynamic where new theories create niches for their destruction [12:09:00].
Historical Patterns of Self-Criticism and Cultural Decline
Ancient Greece
The Greek experience, particularly in the 5th century BC, exemplifies the shift from xenophobia to oikophobia [19:43:00]. During the Persian Wars, Greeks banded together against an external threat, fostering unity and a belief in their own superiority [20:25:00]. After victory and the establishment of the Athenian empire, a newfound sense of security and leisure allowed intellectuals to analyze and question their own culture [21:48:00].
“If we don’t have a major exterior antagonist, the antagonists become our fellows at home in our own society” [22:55:00].
This period saw figures like Euripides questioning traditional Greek religion and the goodness of the gods [23:37:00]. Diogenes, founder of the Cynic school, also rejected Greek heritage [26:34:00]. Plato even considered Greek culture a “baby culture” compared to ancient Egypt [25:12:00]. Oikophobia in ancient Athens remained largely an elite phenomenon, not as diffused among the common people as in modern times [26:13:00].
The emergence of figures like Alcibiades, characterized by decadence and a lack of principles, correlated with this shift. While not an oikophobe himself, his hedonistic lifestyle, enabled by wealth and power, reduced the “need” for traditional gods or traditions [28:38:00]. Aristotle, though chronologically late in this period, represents a “second phase” where intellectuals could analyze and question their own civilization, acknowledging its flaws while still recognizing its greatness and remaining loyal to it [30:34:00].
Ancient Rome
Rome exhibited the least oikophobia among the civilizations studied. The Romans maintained a strong sense of duty and a patriarchal model, which served as a “bulwark against oikophobia” [32:33:00]. Their genius lay in adopting useful ideas from other civilizations while remaining loyal to their own [33:12:00].
As Rome grew in power, particularly in the late Republic and Empire, a leisure class emerged that could question traditions. The influence of Greek culture, especially philosophy, was crucial [34:11:00]. Young Roman noblemen became fascinated by Greek thought, which encouraged objective and skeptical examination of one’s own tradition [35:02:00]. This led to internal challenges to Roman traditions, including their agrarian-based religion, which no longer fit the luxurious urban lifestyle [36:50:00].
Eastern Religions in Rome
The influx of Eastern religions like the cult of Isis, Judaism, and ultimately Christianity, further challenged Roman identity. While Christianity is not inherently destructive, its “alien” nature and pacifist leanings were not initially suited to managing a vast, militaristic empire [42:23:00]. Later Christian thinkers like Augustine did develop concepts of “just war” to reconcile faith with state needs [42:52:00]. However, Christianity, along with other factors like a vast realm and influx of non-Latin speaking elites, contributed to the fragmentation and eventual collapse of the Roman Empire [43:46:00].
The philosophical choice between Stoicism and Epicureanism among the Roman elite also played a role [38:35:00]. Stoicism, with its emphasis on duty and virtue, was more aligned with the Roman temperament and imperial ambitions. Epicureanism, advocating withdrawal from public life, was less suited to the needs of a great power and thus remained less influential [39:56:00].
The Middle Ages
The Middle Ages represent a period largely devoid of oikophobia [46:04:00]. This was primarily due to economic and social factors:
- Lack of Security and Wealth: Life was less safe and wealthy, meaning less leisure time for self-critique [46:16:00].
- Limited Access to Knowledge: Widespread illiteracy meant that knowledge was primarily confined to monasteries [46:36:00].
- Weak Central Authority: The absence of strong cities and civilizations meant less protection and leisure for citizens [46:44:00].
During this time, Christianity, which was once subversive and pacifist in the Roman Empire, morphed into the traditional and established religion, sometimes even becoming an instrument of violence [47:28:00].
Modern Dynamics: Freedom, Religion, and Progressivism
The Impact of Freedom and Religion on Societal Self-Perception
Increased freedom in a society, while generally appreciated, is a “double-edged sword” regarding oikophobia [50:50:00]. Greater freedom of speech and access to knowledge allow for more self-questioning and intellectual exploration, making it easier for societies to lapse into oikophobia [51:25:00]. Athens, as the first democracy, was also the first place in the West where such free intellectual exchange fostered oikophobia [53:26:00].
The relationship between self and reality and religion is also critical. A nexus of “civilizational weakening, religious weakening, and oikophobic rise” exists because religion and civilization are intertwined [58:28:00]. All civilizations were religious in their founding, and religion often serves to keep societies non-oikophobic and appreciative of their heritage [00:50:48].
While an individual may be an atheist and still maintain loyalty to their civilization, society at large generally needs something “higher” to aspire to [01:00:08]. If traditional religion is rejected, this spiritual need can be filled by other influences, such as Eastern religions like Buddhism, or by subversive activities that provide a sense of meaning and distinction [01:41:00].
Critiques of Postmodernism and Modernity and Progressivism
Two distinct types of oikophobia exist:
- Relativist Oikophobia: This manifests as cultural relativism, asserting that no culture can be deemed superior to another. Its purpose is to degrade one’s own culture relative to others [01:12:20].
- Positivist Oikophobia: This emerged largely from the Enlightenment, driven by the belief that reason and science can lead humanity to eternal moral truths and a “higher state” of progress. This pursuit of universal progress often necessitates erasing a culture’s specialness [01:13:31].
While seemingly opposite, both forms of oikophobia ultimately share the goal of tearing down a civilization’s exceptionalism [01:14:51]. Modern oikophobes often simultaneously hold relativistic views (truth is subjective) and positivistic, utopian ideals (society ought to aspire to one particular social condition), despite the philosophical incompatibility [01:15:02].
Progressivism, especially its utopian branch (which can be traced to Rousseau), is seen as a problematic aspect of the Enlightenment [01:15:41]. While technological and medical progress are positive, increases in philosophical or political freedom are often a “trade-off” [01:17:45]. The belief in a utopian future is problematic, as solving one problem does not automatically lead to a “higher state” but may introduce new challenges, such as decadence [01:18:29].
The Problem of Boredom
The “power of boredom,” or civilizational ennui, is a critical factor [01:29:57]. When a society is too secure, wealthy, and lacks a higher cause (like war or strong religion), younger generations may rebel against the very state that provides this comfort [01:30:38]. This “void of meaning” can lead people to find meaning in destructive communal activities, such as tearing down statues or rioting, which are less desirable than communal activities like repelling an enemy or worshipping together [01:32:40].
The balance between xenophobia and oikophobia is hard to maintain because human societies tend to take concepts to “noxious extremes” [01:23:14]. The liberal order itself may be susceptible to collapse if freedom inevitably leads to oikophobia and a society turns in on itself [01:27:35].