Given that it’s a show absolutely dripping with pseudo-science, with Brennan as the main voice thereof, it’s not surprising that she’d be able to instantly diagnose a culture with decadence. Needless to say, I don’t really like Bones.
I’m with you on the ass, though. Good golly.
For the record, the Roman elite were into lavish, expensive orgies in the late Republic and early Empire. That sort of thing went out of fashion under the Antonines, and the Empire turned Christian and rather puritanical long before it fell. So it’s not the case that the Empire fell because that kind of “decadence” rotted it.
They were still a rising power when Cortez arrived. They had always practiced human sacrifice, so you really can’t say they had “decayed” from an earlier, higher state of civilization.
If you read German literature of the period, most writers denounced the 1920’s German society as decadent. Writers like Stefan Zweig noted the sexual excess, public drunkeness, etc., and saw a nation in decline. Yet 1920’s Germany gave us the Bauhaus, Kur Weil, Fritz Lang, and great advances in physical sciences-the Atomic Agewas born in 1920’s Germany. So, one man’s decadence is usually another man’s advances.
I think periods of decadence are usually associated with big changes in public mores-
I expect that the USA will begin to pull out of its presnet decadence, once we cease to be the sole superpower. This is probably a very good thing for us.
Actually I am one of the few people that isn’t running around like a chicken with my head cutoff trying to dismiss the usefulness of the meaning of the word decadence via ad hominems meant to dismiss some target group that uses the word. I’m giving you a more general example.
Our current partisanship would be one, where people care more about opposing the other partisan group than they do about policy goals. That’s one example of decadence.
Another example of decadence would be building up lots of houses in order to ‘flip’ them, creating an artificial and unsustainable demand that disproportionately benefitted the wealthy, while increasing the Gini coefficient considerably leading to massive numbers of foreclosures taxpayer money being used to bailout banks, and rampant unemployment. This also translates to the speculation on pretty much anything where the price is stripped from any practical value and the trading of the stock makes the actual good prohibitively expensive until someone is left holding the bag at the end of the gamble and the price corrects itself.
Another example would be millions in venture capital going to fund websites that have no rational expectation of profit outside of an ‘ad-driven’ model, as though the actual production of goods is irrelevant as to whether or not there is advertising money. That ad-money mostly coming from other similar websites that were spending their venture capital to advertise on other similar websites. This eventually came crashing down.
People don’t need to dismiss the word. That would in fact be a stupid thing to do, it’s a word with a stable meaning, one’s distaste for people they have heard use it is irrelevant and shouldn’t be a consideration when discussing it as that is argumentum ad hominem which is a logical fallacy. One can give examples of Decadence, and one can also give examples of cultures that have lost their Asabiyyah over time. Then one can make an argument linking the two, or make an argument that the two are linked. None of this has anything to do with whether or not decadence is an useful term, it is, without a doubt, an useful term because one can give specific examples of where decadence did direct harm to people.
Now whether or not this eminently useful word ever caused the collapse of a society is another question. It depends on what one’s definition of ‘society’ is, first and foremost, and I mean that in a specific sense, not seeking the dictionary definition.
For example: King Herod around the time of when Jesus was supposed to have lived. He was caught between subservience to Rome and allegiance to the people he ruled, a people who largely did not accept him due to his lineage. The people under his rule were under almost constant civil strife. It is said that Herod was a rather decadent King. If indeed his wife had a popular Rabbi’s head delivered to her on a plate, that would be a pretty good example of decadence. Regardless of the veracity of New Testament stories however, we do see historically that first century Judea shook apart due to a loss of Asabiyah and that the legitimacy of the ruling King was supported more by the foreign Empire than it was by the local populace.
An example of the use of Decadence in conquest would be the British Opium trade in China, which created an epidemic of decadence whereby China tried to crack down and make Opium illegal, but the British fought to maintain it’s legality.
Another modern example would be the drug war, which specifically targets young minorities, particularly black and hispanic males, leaving them with a legacy of felony convictions that relegates them to a permanent underclass that has an even greater limitation on their ability to rise from poverty than they had before receiving that felony conviction. The assumption amongst a certain group of people that they simply will do jail time in their life creates a de facto caste system that people simply accept. Even though the evidence is overwhelming that Prohibition is far more societally damaging than it is helpful, we continue to spend billions to maintain this underclass, and have done immeasurable harm to our vassal states particularly in the Southern part of this hemisphere, creating unneeded enmity at our government from both our own lower castes as well as the countries that cannot afford not to play along with the super-power to the North. This has lead to the creation of supercartels in Mexico that have all but taken over the government, who in some provinces are more powerful than the government and are nearly impossible to take down. Meanwhile those cartels gain more and more ground within the United States itself. Before prohibition these cartels did not exist at all. So the decadence of the drug war has specifically lead to the downfall of Mexico, whether or not it will be the downfall of the United States of America remains to be seen.
Nazi Germany, this is a country that was able to build one of the grandest and most efficient war machines ever devised. Their single-minded obsession with killing Jews, who could have contributed much to the war effort as bureaucrats, scientists and many other parts of the educated class, instead became a net drain on the war machine’s efforts to transport materiel to the front. The use of trains to transport Jews to death camps meant that those trains were not available to transport parts for tanks, or guns, much less troops and ammunition. So here is a good example of where decadence stopped the creation of a pan-Germanic European Empire.
The only one that is obviously topical.
No, not the fall of the empire, but an argument can be made for the fall of the Republic.
And
Aztecs: Decadent
Somalia: Not a civilization
I’ve just started reading From Dawn to Decadence, by Jacques Barzun, which discusses Western history in these terms. Here and here are a couple of reviews.
Slight hijack. This is “Betelgeuse Bridge” by William Tenn. Great story.
You seem to be centering decadence in power. I believe power contains the seeds of its own destruction, but I also would maintain that without that certain blindness to reality, power would never last long enough to accomplish anything - good OR bad.
I don’t think it’s a matter of keeping the decadent impulse under control, either. I really believe that’s beyond our capability as humans, or as societies made up of humans. It has to come out somewhere and do some harm - the question is whether it can be stopped in time, or without simply changing the cast of characters and continuing to play by the rules of the game.
Yes and no. The word Decadence fundamentaslly is about weakness; specifically, a weakness in public spirit and unity, which may be expressed in terms of increasingly lavish and selfish living. Contrary to what Blake said, I see no reason to believe that Spartans and Amish would call eeach other decadent. They might have many things to say about each other, but that is not one of them.
The core of decadence is weakness, usually manifesting as an internal rot. That is, a lack of internal unity well beyond the norm of human fractiousness, combined with a lack of care even for one’s own decendants. The decadent are those who eagerly throw their wealth away on petty pleasures and constantly grasp for more even though it drains their households, nation, or whatnot of resources. meanwhile, they ignore significant problems or threats even as they become increasingly dangerous. Decadence is relative to the scale: a family, a city, or a nation might be decadent. However, it’s also important to see that while we use the term on the whole, it may only be the leading or wealthy element (family heads, city elites, national rulers) who actually display the characteristic.
What’s also important is that while “Decadent” ages may inspire arts and learning, they’re also not really known for preserving or putting them to use, and they tend to ultimately destroy what they create. It’s no coincidence that Berlin’s own Roaring (and wild and wasted) 20’s not only created Bauhaus and nuclear theories, but also led to those ideas being sent abroad and the Nazis dominating the scene. In a similar manner. People, frankly, get tired of desperate living for the moment after a while. It’s seemingly fun, exciting and even glamorous, but it drains people of energy and wealth. Eventually, they often start favoring more authortarian or strict ways of living as a means of getting their lives (and heads) straight. This is not always a bad thing - the late Roman Empire nearly recovered all its former glory and might stillbe around today. (It largely failed because Magnus stripped the border garrisons and marched on Rome in a greedy bid to kill the Emperor and claim the Empire.)
Well, the US may be the sole superpower for a long while yet. Even China, the supposed newcomer who will surely knock us off, has huge problems and it remains to be seen if they can effectively dominate their own neighborhood, much less those far off.
That said, I generally agree with you thesis here. I currently believe that most of the Dems and Reps must be purged, particularly the powerful coastal elites. The process is already begun in the GOP, and may soon extend to the Donkeys as larcenous cheats like Dodd are voted out (hopefully).
No, I am centering decadence on the decoupling of social value for the in-group from individual value. Basically when individualism overtakes the social contract, then a society can be deemed decadent and people will cease to view one another as being a common part of the same society. Kind of how you see on this board people talking about conservative Americans like they were aliens. This isn’t an objectively bad thing. It’s subjectively bad from the point of view of anyone who believes the collective asabiyah of that particular social unit is something worthy of maintaining.
I don’t know how well you can keep the decadent impulse under control as succumbing to the decadent impulse is an individual thing. If I gain power and want to use it to my benefit and your detriment, and I disproportionately have greater power than you do, there is little you can do to stop me other than revoke your cooperation.
LOL, particularly the coastal elites. Read: Particularly the Democrats.
Infighting is a sign of civilization, not decadence. Esprit de corps is a sign of barbarism. I am explicitly not denigrating barbarism. For instance, when English Victorians may look down on the middle east, italy, or ancient rome as being too treacherous and therefore decadent, it is a sign that while they may have considered themselves “vibrant”, that’s because those cultures are indeed more civilized than Victorian England.
(You know who else revelled in being called barbarians and looked down upon civilization as being decadent?)
Yes, there is such thing as decadence - it looks like this: [noparse]http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/B/barry_lyndon_xl_03--film-A.jpg[/noparse]
In order for something to be decadent, it must be set in the mid to late 18th century among the upper class in England or France. Everyone must wear wigs, makeup, and have little black dots on their faces to cover syphillis sores. There must be an abundance of large-breasted women in puffy dresses which are partially undone, and several men passed out on the floor. Bonus points if there is spilled food or drink and a small dog like a spaniel eating it up.
Then why didn’t that work for the British? 
Ah. And, according to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, published in 1951. So, definitely Silver Age.
Isn’t there a strain of modern political conservatism that insists, “There is no such thing as society”? Didn’t Margaret Thatcher say something like that?
See this map. The Blue-Red divide is not Coasts vs. Heartland, it’s Cities (Decadence?) vs. Countryside (Barbarism?).
You have just described Paris Hilton’s last birthday party.
I think ‘decadence’ is a convenient excuse on which some historians blame the downfall of certain civilizations. I don’t find that it’s consistent enough throughout fallen societies to be labeled a precursor. It does, however, smack of a certain moral justification for the failure of whatever particular civilization/society is under discussion.
That’s not true at all. Barbarian cultures are, if anything, much more fractious and prone to infighting. The common charge against the middle eastern cultures is not that it was decadent, but that it was barbarous, although the two could and still can easily coexist. Note also that the English permitted a very high degree of personal liberty and social mobility: far higher than the others you mentioned, where massive changes in status were done more through force of arms or by a close alliance with the already-powerful.
I didn’t say that, and I wouldn’t say that. It’s easy to think of New York and California and see the Dems have their problems, but I also look at some of the Republican strongholds in Florida and southern Cali, or even nomnally conservative wealthy cultural elites like Buckley Jr. They often are well-educated, smart, and perceptive. However, they are also very inbred culturally and while tyhey see very well, also only see what is easily accessible. They are all prone to identify with other well-off, well-educated, short-on-real-experience people.
Sarah palin is a good example, in that neither her overly-excited supporters nor her hate-filled adversaries understand a bloody thign about her. She’s not the second coming of Reagan crossed with the Virgin Mary, but at the same time, she’s absolutely nothing like the self-contradicting lefty image of her as psychotic Christianist Theocrat come to enslave all with laws while walking around barefoot and pregnant. I won’t turn this into a Palin thread, but she’s neither of those things, but rather something much different (and probably a lot more positive). Whether or not you agree with her politics, she derserves serious consideration. But the elites of neither Right nor Left could muster up anything more than lies or a snear. And that snear was based largely on the fact that she was hugely successful without them and without living her life in their accepted manner. She didn’t go to an Ivy league school; she didn’t drink martinis at the Harvard club while sneering. Her children made some stupid choices, and she opted to raise a developmentally disabled child. She’s not like them. But that doesn’t make her worse. That’s as may be.
I’m talking about a wider concept of “coast” than some. And believe me, if I had wanted to say Democrats, I would have.
![http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/B/barry_lyndon_xl_03--film-A.jpg[/noparse]](http://www.channel4.com/film/media/images/Channel4/film/B/barry_lyndon_xl_03--film-A.jpg%5B/noparse%5D){kind=link}
