Toynbee vs Spengler

In my last essay, I had discussed the ideas of the german historian, now seeing a resurgence in some circles, Oswald Spengler. I had discussed his ideas, his reception in academia and amongst the social elite of his time, and his critics. In this essay I would be writing about and describing the ideas of another philosopher of history - Arnold J. Toynbee, greatly admired by academics for his multi-volume work on civilizations. Just the grandness of his project demands attention from the best.

Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee stand as two of the most influential philosophers of history in the 20th century. Their seminal works, Spengler's "The Decline of the West" and Toynbee's "A Study of History," profoundly shaped how we understand the rise and fall of civilizations. While both thinkers approached history through a cyclical lens, their methodologies, conclusions, and overall worldviews differed significantly. This essay will compare and contrast Spengler and Toynbee's theories, examining their core concepts, methodologies, views on historical determinism, perspectives on Western civilization, and lasting impact on historiography and social thought.

## Core Concepts and Methodologies

### Spengler's Organismic View of Cultures

Oswald Spengler's approach to history was fundamentally rooted in an organismic view of cultures. He saw civilizations as living entities with predictable life cycles, analogous to biological organisms[1]. In Spengler's framework, each culture passes through distinct stages:

1. Pre-culture: A period of primitive social organization

2. Early culture: The emergence of a unique cultural "soul"

3. Late culture: The peak of creative and spiritual achievement

4. Civilization: A period of material comfort, reflection, and eventual decline

Spengler identified nine major cultures in world history, including the Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Greco-Roman ("Apollonian"), Arabic ("Magian"), Mexican, Western ("Faustian"), and Russian[1]. He argued that each culture had its own unique "soul" that shaped its destiny and worldview.

Spengler's methodology was heavily influenced by his background in mathematics and philosophy. He sought to identify underlying patterns and rhythms in history, often using intuition and philosophical reasoning rather than empirical data[7]. This approach led him to develop concepts like "cultural morphology," which attempted to discern the essential forms and structures underlying historical development.

### Toynbee's Comparative Civilizations Approach

In contrast to Spengler's more intuitive method, Arnold J. Toynbee adopted a rigorously comparative approach to studying civilizations. Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations throughout human history, seeking to identify common patterns and principles[13]. His methodology was far more empirical than Spengler's, relying on extensive historical research and cross-cultural comparisons.

Toynbee's core concept was the "challenge and response" theory of civilizational development. He argued that civilizations arise and thrive by successfully responding to challenges, both physical and social[22]. These challenges could be environmental (like the Sumerian response to the harsh conditions of southern Iraq) or cultural (like the Catholic Church's unification of post-Roman Europe).

Toynbee identified several key stages in the life cycle of civilizations:

1. Genesis: The initial response to a challenge

2. Growth: Continued successful responses to new challenges

3. Time of Troubles: A period of social upheaval and conflict

4. Universal State: The emergence of a unified political order

5. Disintegration: The breakdown of social cohesion and eventual collapse

Unlike Spengler, Toynbee did not see these stages as inevitable or deterministic. He believed that civilizations could potentially avoid decline through creative adaptation and spiritual renewal.

## Historical Determinism vs. Human Agency

One of the most significant differences between Spengler and Toynbee lies in their views on historical determinism and the role of human agency in shaping civilizational outcomes.

### Spengler's Deterministic View

Spengler's theory of history was fundamentally deterministic. He believed that each culture had a predetermined lifespan of about 1,000 years, following a trajectory that was as inexorable as the aging process in living organisms[1]. In Spengler's view, once a culture entered its "civilization" phase, decline was inevitable and irreversible.

This determinism extended to Spengler's understanding of cultural achievements. He argued that each culture had its own unique "soul" that predetermined the forms of its art, science, politics, and religion. For example, he saw Western ("Faustian") culture as characterized by a restless striving for the infinite, manifested in Gothic architecture, perspective painting, and calculus[7].

Spengler's determinism left little room for human agency in altering the course of history. He saw individuals and societies as largely powerless to change their cultural destiny, bound by the inherent logic of their civilization's life cycle.

### Toynbee's Emphasis on Creative Responses

In stark contrast to Spengler, Toynbee placed great emphasis on human agency and the power of creative responses to historical challenges. While he recognized patterns in the rise and fall of civilizations, Toynbee did not see these patterns as inevitable or predetermined[22].

Toynbee argued that civilizations rise through the actions of "creative minorities" who devise innovative solutions to the challenges facing their societies. These creative responses could take many forms, from technological innovations to new social institutions or religious movements.

Crucially, Toynbee believed that civilizations decline not because of some inexorable law of history, but because their leaders cease to respond creatively to challenges. He wrote that "civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," emphasizing the role of human choice in determining historical outcomes[22].

This emphasis on human agency gave Toynbee's theory a more optimistic outlook than Spengler's. While Toynbee recognized the possibility of civilizational decline, he also saw opportunities for renewal and regeneration through spiritual and cultural creativity.

## Perspectives on Western Civilization

Both Spengler and Toynbee wrote extensively about Western civilization, but their assessments of its condition and prospects differed significantly.

### Spengler's Prophecy of Western Decline

Spengler's view of Western civilization was decidedly pessimistic. Writing in the aftermath of World War I, he saw the West as entering its final "civilizational" phase, characterized by materialism, spiritual exhaustion, and cultural stagnation[1].

Spengler argued that Western or "Faustian" culture had already passed its creative peak, which he located in the High Middle Ages and Renaissance. He saw modern developments like democracy, socialism, and industrial capitalism not as signs of progress, but as symptoms of cultural decline[7].

In Spengler's framework, the 20th century marked the beginning of the West's "winter" phase. He predicted a period of increasing conflict, the rise of "Caesarism" (authoritarian rule), and eventually, the emergence of a new culture to replace the dying West[19].

Spengler's critique of Western civilization was comprehensive, encompassing politics, art, science, and religion. He saw modern Western science, for instance, as having exhausted its creative potential, reduced to mere "technical thinking" divorced from deeper cultural and spiritual roots.

### Toynbee's More Nuanced Assessment

Toynbee's view of Western civilization was more complex and ultimately more hopeful than Spengler's. While he recognized signs of crisis and decline in the modern West, Toynbee did not see this decline as inevitable or irreversible[13].

In Toynbee's analysis, Western civilization had successfully responded to numerous challenges throughout its history, from the fall of Rome to the religious wars of the Reformation. He saw the 20th century as presenting new challenges, particularly the need to create a peaceful world order in the face of unprecedented destructive technologies.

Unlike Spengler, Toynbee believed that Western civilization still had the potential for creative responses to these challenges. He was particularly interested in the possibility of spiritual renewal, seeing religion as a potential source of revitalization for Western culture[22].

Toynbee's later work increasingly focused on the interaction between Western and non-Western civilizations. He recognized the global impact of Western technology and institutions but also emphasized the importance of cultural exchange and mutual understanding between civilizations[23].

## Methodological Differences

The contrasting approaches of Spengler and Toynbee to studying civilizations reflect fundamental differences in their methodological assumptions and goals.

### Spengler's Philosophical-Intuitive Approach

Spengler's method was primarily philosophical and intuitive. He sought to grasp the essential "soul" of each culture through a kind of historical empathy, relying heavily on cultural artifacts like art and literature to discern underlying patterns[7].

This approach led Spenger to make bold, sweeping generalizations about the nature of different cultures. For example, he characterized Western culture as fundamentally "Faustian," driven by a restless striving for the infinite, while he saw Classical (Greco-Roman) culture as "Apollonian," focused on the present and the tangible[1].

Spengler's methodology was heavily influenced by German Romantic and idealist philosophy. He was less concerned with empirical historical details than with uncovering what he saw as the deeper spiritual and metaphysical realities underlying historical change.

This philosophical approach allowed Spengler to create a grand, unified theory of cultural development. However, it also left him open to criticism for oversimplification and lack of empirical rigor.

### Toynbee's Empirical-Comparative Method

In contrast to Spengler, Toynbee adopted a more empirical and comparative approach to studying civilizations. His "A Study of History" was based on extensive historical research, examining a wide range of societies across time and space[13].

Toynbee's method involved identifying common patterns and processes across different civilizations. He sought to develop general principles of historical development through careful comparison and analysis of specific historical cases.

This comparative approach allowed Toynbee to avoid some of the sweeping generalizations that characterized Spengler's work. Toynbee was more attentive to the unique features of individual civilizations, even as he sought to identify common patterns.

Toynbee's methodology evolved over the course of his career. In his later work, he became increasingly interested in the interactions between civilizations and the possibility of cultural synthesis, reflecting a more global and interconnected view of history[23].

## Views on Progress and Decline

The question of whether history represents progress, decline, or cyclical patterns is central to both Spengler and Toynbee's work, but they approached this issue in markedly different ways.

### Spengler's Rejection of Progress

Spengler emphatically rejected the idea of historical progress. He saw the Enlightenment belief in continuous human advancement as a delusion, specific to Western culture in its declining phase[1].

For Spengler, each culture had its own unique values and achievements, which could not be measured against a universal standard of progress. He argued that what appeared as progress from one cultural perspective might represent decline from another.

Spengler's view of history was fundamentally cyclical. He saw cultures as passing through predictable stages of growth and decay, with no overall direction or purpose to historical change. This perspective led him to a profoundly relativistic view of cultural values and achievements.

### Toynbee's Qualified Belief in Progress

Toynbee's view of progress was more nuanced than Spengler's outright rejection. While he recognized cycles of growth and decline in civilizations, Toynbee did not see history as purely cyclical or meaningless[22].

For Toynbee, the possibility of progress lay in the cumulative growth of human knowledge and spiritual insight. He believed that each civilization had the potential to build on the achievements of its predecessors, leading to a kind of spiritual evolution of humanity as a whole.

However, Toynbee did not see progress as automatic or inevitable. He believed that it depended on creative responses to challenges and on the spiritual and moral development of individuals and societies.

Toynbee's later work increasingly emphasized the possibility of a synthesis between different civilizations, leading to a higher level of human unity and understanding. This vision of potential global progress set him apart from Spengler's more pessimistic outlook.

## Impact on Historiography and Social Thought

Both Spengler and Toynbee had a profound impact on 20th-century historiography and social thought, though their influence has waxed and waned over time.

### Spengler's Influence

Spengler's "The Decline of the West" was a sensation when it was first published, capturing the mood of disillusionment in post-World War I Europe. His ideas influenced a wide range of thinkers, from philosophers to artists to political theorists[1].

Spengler's concept of distinct cultural "souls" and his critique of Western universalism had a particular impact on anti-colonial and non-Western thinkers. His relativistic view of cultural values provided ammunition for those challenging Western cultural hegemony.

In the realm of historiography, Spengler's work contributed to a growing interest in comparative civilizational studies. While his specific theories were often criticized, his emphasis on understanding cultures as organic wholes influenced later historians and anthropologists.

Spengler's pessimistic view of Western civilization resonated with many conservative and reactionary thinkers. His ideas about the decline of democracy and the rise of "Caesarism" influenced some far-right political movements in the interwar period[19].

### Toynbee's Influence

Toynbee's "A Study of History" was widely read and discussed in the mid-20th century, both in academic circles and among the general public. His work helped to popularize the study of world history and comparative civilizations[13].

Toynbee's emphasis on the role of creative minorities in responding to historical challenges influenced thinking about leadership and innovation in various fields, from politics to business.

In the field of international relations, Toynbee's later work on civilizational interactions and the possibility of global synthesis contributed to discussions about globalization and cross-cultural understanding[23].

Toynbee's ideas about the spiritual dimensions of historical change resonated with some religious thinkers and contributed to discussions about the role of religion in modern society.

## Criticisms and Debates

Both Spengler and Toynbee's theories have been subject to extensive criticism and debate within academic circles.

### Critiques of Spengler

Spengler's work has been criticized for its determinism and lack of empirical rigor. Many historians have argued that his sweeping generalizations about cultural "souls" oversimplify the complex realities of historical change[7].

Spengler's relativistic view of cultural values has been challenged by those who argue for universal human rights and cross-cultural ethical standards.

Some critics have pointed out that Spengler's theory fails to account for the persistence and adaptability of civilizations over long periods. The continued vitality of Western civilization long after Spengler's predicted decline has been seen as a refutation of his ideas.

Spengler's association with conservative and far-right political movements has led some to question the ideological motivations behind his historical theories.

### Critiques of Toynbee

Toynbee's work has been criticized for its sometimes arbitrary classification of civilizations and its tendency to force historical events into predetermined patterns[16].

Some historians have argued that Toynbee's emphasis on the role of religion and spirituality in historical change reflects his personal beliefs more than objective historical analysis.

Toynbee's later interest in civilizational synthesis and global unity has been seen by some as overly idealistic and not sufficiently grounded in historical realities.

Critics have also pointed out that Toynbee's theory of challenge and response doesn't adequately explain why some societies fail to respond creatively to challenges while others succeed.

## Relevance in the 21st Century

Despite the criticisms leveled against them, both Spengler and Toynbee's ideas continue to resonate in various ways in the 21st century.

### Contemporary Echoes of Spengler

Spengler's pessimistic view of Western civilization finds echoes in contemporary discussions about the decline of Western global hegemony and the rise of non-Western powers, particularly China[19].

His critique of materialism and spiritual exhaustion in late-stage civilizations resonates with some critiques of consumer capitalism and environmental degradation.

Spengler's emphasis on understanding cultures as organic wholes with distinct worldviews remains relevant in discussions about cultural diversity and the challenges of globalization.

### Toynbee's Continuing Relevance

Toynbee's concept of civilizational challenge and response remains a useful framework for understanding how societies adapt to major historical shifts, such as technological revolutions or climate change[21].

His interest in inter-civilizational dialogue and the possibility of global synthesis aligns with contemporary discussions about multiculturalism and global governance.

Toynbee's emphasis on the role of creative minorities in driving historical change resonates with modern ideas about innovation and leadership in various fields.

## Conclusion

Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee represent two distinct approaches to understanding the grand sweep of human history. Spengler's deterministic, cyclical view of cultural rise and fall contrasts sharply with Toynbee's more optimistic emphasis on human agency and the possibility of creative responses to historical challenges.

Spengler's work, with its bold pronouncements about the decline of the West, captured the pessimistic mood of interwar Europe and continues to resonate with those who see signs of Western decline in the 21st century. His emphasis on understanding cultures as organic wholes with distinct worldviews remains relevant in an era grappling with questions of cultural identity and diversity.

Citations:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_of_History

[3] https://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks2/Grabner/Grabner-181000.pdf

[4] https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/philosophy/culture_civilization_oswald-spengler_history_philosophy_decline/

[5] https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/toynbee_study_history.html

[6] https://www.collegenp.com/article/comparative-analysis-toynbee-spengler-gibbon

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler

[8] https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1806&context=ccr

[9] https://campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/oswald-spengler/

[10] https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/jkt712/how_right_was_oswald_spengler_about_western/

[11] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Oswald-Spengler

[12] https://www.usiofindia.org/publication-journal/Indian-Civilisation-from-the-Perspective-of-Oswald-Spengler.html

[13] https://cdn.britannica.com/40/233640-050-E7E21DFC/British-historian-Arnold-Toynbee.jpg?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJvOzB9qSLAxXMrJUCHbNZFckQ_B16BAgHEAI

[14] https://toynbeeprize.org/posts/the-2017-toynbee-prize-lecture-arnold-toynbee-and-the-problems-of-today-jurgen-osterhammel/

[15] https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2716&context=uclrev

[16] https://historum.com/t/toynbee-and-spengler-in-the-21st-century.39788/

[17] http://askwhy.co.uk/adelphiasophism/080History.php

[18] https://sociopedia.co/post/cyclical-theories-of-society-social-cycle-theory

[19] https://chroniclesmagazine.org/remembering-the-right/remembering-oswald-spengler/

[20] https://testbook.com/ugc-net-history/cyclical-theory-of-history

[21] https://testbook.com/ugc-net-history/challenge-and-response-theory

[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toynbee_Prize?oldformat=true

[23] https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/toynbee-arnold-j/

[24] https://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~bloevy/ArnoldJToynbee/Toynbee-CycleOfCivilizations.pdf

[25] https://testbook.com/question-answer/the-cyclical-theory-of-social-change-has-been-adva--62efa93fd4f7d54ef3ba3626