From: jimruttshow8596
The role of intellectual elites in cultural critique is a recurring theme when examining the rise and fall of civilizations. Often, a society’s success and security can lead to an environment where its intellectual class begins to question traditional norms and values, a phenomenon termed “oikophobia” – the fear or contempt of one’s own cultural home [01:12:12].
Oikophobia as an Academic Phenomenon
Academic institutions often become a disproportionate breeding ground for “oikophobic” thoughts [00:03:16]. Academics are at the forefront of new and revolutionary ideas in their fields, which can lead them to look down on more traditional ways and values [00:04:24]. The intellectual elite may develop a sense of self-righteousness, viewing themselves as superior to their compatriots [00:22:12].
In a competitive academic environment, there is a constant need to stand out, which can lead to “ever more outlandish extremes” [00:12:10]. As Thomas Hobbes noted, an increased level of knowledge and competition among peers can tempt individuals to come up with new ideas, potentially leading to oikophobia and other extremes [00:12:46]. Once a theory is established, a “niche” opens up for an academic to challenge or “destroy that theory” [00:13:56]. This drive for novelty can result in an “extremism in the sense that everyone is doing research on this because it’s the hot topic” [00:14:20], as seen with the recent focus on gender studies [00:14:11].
While initially an elite phenomenon, oikophobia can spread beyond academia. Increased egalitarianism and democratization, coupled with broader access to information, make it “easier for the rest of society not just the academic elite to become orthophobic” [00:06:03].
Historical Patterns
Historically, periods of great security and power often coincide with increased self-critique from intellectuals.
Ancient Greece
In ancient Athens, after the victory in the Persian Wars, a “sense of security” and “magnificent fleet” created more leisure time, allowing intellectuals to analyze their own culture [00:21:29]. This led to philosophers and dramatists like Euripides questioning traditional Greek religion and values [00:23:22]. This questioning, while not inherently negative, marked a shift towards scrutinizing one’s own traditions [00:24:08]. Intellectuals began to reject their own religion, any claims of specialness for Greek culture, or its superiority to other civilizations [00:25:32]. However, due to less egalitarian societal structures, oikophobia in ancient Greece remained primarily an elite phenomenon [00:26:11].
Roman Empire
While Rome had less overt oikophobia, a similar pattern emerged in the late Republic and Empire [00:32:24]. The vast power of the Roman Empire allowed for a leisure class that could question traditions, often seduced by Greek ideas and philosophy [00:34:07]. This openness to external influence, while initially a strength, eventually led to the questioning of traditional Roman religion and norms [00:36:16].
The Middle Ages
The Middle Ages, by contrast, saw very little oikophobia due to different societal conditions [00:46:04]. Lack of widespread literacy, limited access to knowledge, and the absence of strong central authorities meant less leisure and opportunity for self-critique among the general populace [00:46:34].
Freedom, Religion, and the Enlightenment
The expansion of freedom, particularly freedom of speech and access to knowledge, can accelerate the development of oikophobia [00:51:14]. Societies with greater freedom tend to “lapse into orthophobia” because there is more intellectual space to explore and flirt with subversive opinions [00:52:22]. This is why ancient Athens, as the first democracy, was also the first Western civilization to show significant signs of oikophobia [00:53:24].
Religion, conversely, is described as a “boon for our society” because it helps to maintain an appreciation for one’s heritage and prevents oikophobia [01:00:26]. Every civilization, without exception, has been religious in its founding [01:00:50]. When religion is rejected, there is a “nexus of religious weakening and civilizational weakening and orthophobic rise” [01:00:35].
The Enlightenment, while bringing positive advancements like science and reason, is seen as a “double-edged sword” [01:05:50]. Its coupling of science and reason with a progressive philosophy, claiming that the one reinforces the other, is seen as problematic. This can lead to the “ridicule and look down on philosophical opponents as some are being anti-scientific or or irrational” [01:06:11].
Two Types of Oikophobia
Oikophobia manifests in two main forms:
- Relativist Oikophobia: This emerged historically and asserts that no culture can be deemed superior to another; all cultures are equally valuable [01:12:20]. This perspective degrades one’s own culture by elevating all others [01:12:41].
- Positivist Oikophobia: Arising later, particularly from the Enlightenment, this form is tied to the concept of progressivism [01:12:59]. It posits that humanity is universally moving towards a higher, superior state, and therefore, any notion of one’s own culture’s specialness or exceptionalism must be erased to facilitate this collective progress [01:14:13].
While logically opposite, these two forms of oikophobia often unite in contemporary thought, sharing 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 (e.g., “there is this one particular social condition toward which our society and all of humanity ought to aspire”) [01:15:23].
Challenges to Moderation
Despite the idea of an Aristotelian “golden mean” – a balance between xenophobia and oikophobia that allows for wholesome self-preservation and constructive self-critique [00:50:54] – societies rarely achieve it. Human nature tends to push towards extremes [00:50:58].
Excessive “boredom” or a “void of meaning” in a secure and wealthy society can lead younger generations to rebel against the very conditions that created their comfort [01:32:32]. In such a void, people find meaning in destructive acts like “tearing down the statues of their own founding fathers or on going out and rioting” [01:32:40]. This need for a “higher cause” can drive individuals towards tearing down their own civilization when traditional sources of meaning (like religion or external enemies) decline [01:33:00].
Even positive advancements, such as increased personal liberty or women’s liberation, can be taken to “noxious extremes” in a societal context [01:23:52]. This highlights the inherent trade-offs in societal progress [01:18:13]. The constant push for “progressing to a higher state” without acknowledging trade-offs can lead to “absurd and outlandish results” [01:19:12].
While institutions and individuals strive for positive change, the inherent human tendency to push beyond moderation makes maintaining a balanced, self-critical, yet self-appreciating culture a continuous challenge [01:28:00].