long-term benefits of sexual morality in a culture

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I found kind of an interesting blog post on sexual mores and how it relates to cultural development. It summarizes a book written by a social anthropologist from the early 20th century summarizing his life's work categorizing human cultures and if there was a relationship between sexual morality and how those cultures developed. It seemed like interesting food for thought.


One winter afternoon I was relaxing with a half-dozen fellow graduate philosophy students discussing theories of law and punishment. About an hour into the discussion, it occurred to me that some moral laws are necessary because, although they might limit pleasure and enjoyment in the short term, they actually minimize suffering and maximize human fulfillment in the long term.

A few days ago I finished studying Sex and Culture for the second time. It is a remarkable book summarizing a lifetime of research by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin.[1] The 600+ page book is, in Unwin’s words, only a “summary” of his research—seven volumes would be required to lay it all out.[2] His writings suggest he was a rationalist, believing that science is our ultimate tool of inquiry (it appears he was not a religious man). As I went through what he found, I was repeatedly reminded of the thought I had as a philosophy student: some moral laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing long term.

Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s and are now in a position to test the conclusions he arrived at more than 40 years earlier.

Unwin’s cultural categories
Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture” and degrees of flourishing measured in terms of architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture, and so forth. The primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.[3]
  1. zoistic: Entirely self-focussed on day-to day-life, wants, and needs, with no interest in understanding nature. Described as a “dead culture” or “inert”.
  2. monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.
  3. deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to a god or gods
  4. rationalistic: Use rational thinking to understand nature and to make day-to-day decisions.
Unwin’s degrees of sexual restraint
Degrees of sexual restraint were divided into two major categores—prenuptial and postnuptial. Prenuptial categories were:[4]
  1. Complete sexual freedom—no prenuptial restraints at all
  2. Irregular or occasional restraint— cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence
  3. Strict Chastity —remain a virgin until married
Postnuptial categories were:[5]
  1. Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.
  2. Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.
  3. Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures)
  4. Absolute polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but wives must “confine their sexual qualities (i.e., activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”
So what did he find?

I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes from his book that summarize his findings; but even that would leave you with a significant under-appreciation of the rigour and fascinating details revealed in data from 86 cultures. Here are a few of his most significant findings:
  1. Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
  2. Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
  3. Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
  4. Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
  5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
  6. Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation. (Note: I’ve added a clarifying footnote at the end of this article. See footnote #13)
How does this compare with our culture today?
Unwin published his findings in 1936, long before the sexual revolution that occurred in the West. We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern. Unwin’s “generation” appears to be approximately 33 years, so it should take about a century for us to see the cultural changes take full effect, but we are far enough along in the process that we should be able to observe certain predicted effects.
We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern.
Prior to the sexual revolution which began in the late 1960’s, prenuptial chastity was still held in strong regard by Western culture. But, starting in the 1970’s, pre-marital sexual freedom became increasingly acceptable. By the early 2000’s, the majority of teens were sexually active, to the extent that remaining a virgin until marriage was regarded with disbelief if not ridicule. At the same time, our culture moved from a social norm of absolute monogamy to “modified monogamy”.
Unwin’s predictions for our culture
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Thanks to the rationalist generations that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant decline in culture, but the data shows that this “having your cake and eating it too” phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in. Unwin wrote:

The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.[6]

Looking at our own sexual revolution, the “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have lasted into the early 2000’s. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification or falsification of Unwin’s predictions.
Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations.
Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century?
  1. As predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970’s, the mainstream of our culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage.
  2. Deism is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960’s, a combination of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960’s, but there has been a trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a “monistic” culture, two levels down from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, “zoistic” level of Unwin’s categories.[8]
  3. The swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970’s is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism, characterized by “scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” and “a general suspicion of reason”.[9] But it gets worse … post-modernism is giving way to “post truth”. In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture abandons “shared objective standards for truth” and instead, stands on appeals to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now “identify” themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin that has become particularly a propos in the last couple decades since our own sexual revolution …
If I were asked to define a sophist, I should describe him as a man whose conclusion does not follow from his premise. Sophistry is appreciated only by those among whom human entropy is disappearing; they mistake it for sound reasoning. It flourishes among those people who have extended their sexual opportunity after a period of intense compulsory continence. [11]
Summary of where our culture is going, given Unwin’s findings
For the first part of the 1900’s, mainstream Western culture was rationalist and experienced enormous technological advances — from horse-and-buggy to cars; from hot air balloons to supersonic flight and spacecraft landing people on the moon; from slide rules to computers. Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation, somewhere in the last third of this century.
Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation
Will our culture be the exception?
I suppose we can hope, but there is always a tendency to want to believe “it cannot happen to us.” Unwin describes this attitude as a “pardonable egocentricity” and a “quaint and comfortable doctrine”, that flies in the face of data, which indicate that the pattern of decline happens with “monotonous” regularity. That's another way of saying that “insanity is doing the same thing yet again but expecting different results.” The primary predictions are already unfolding with alarming “alacrity”.

Why is there such a “monotonous” perfect inverse correlation?
The old adage, “correlation does not entail causation”, probably holds true here as well. Unwin makes it clear that he does not know why sexual freedom directly leads to the decline and collapse of cultures, although he suggests that when sexual energy is restrained through celibacy or monogamy, it is diverted into more productive social energy.

Perhaps, but I find it difficult to accept it as a primary cause. Mary Eberstadt’s recent research into mass killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression, and the explosion of identity politics is a “primal scream” due to the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity—essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]
Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.
Her research indicates that increased sexual freedom led to the decimation of the family, which resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces Eberstadt’s ‘primal screams’—a massive increase in mental health issues, mass killings, and the rise of extreme identity groups at war with each other … all symptoms of a society rapidly spiraling into collapse. This appears to have greater explanatory power than Unwin’s psychological suggestion, although the two may actually be closely related, given what Eberstadt shows.

Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide substantial evidence that a sexual revolution has long-term, devastating consequences for culture and civilization. As Unwin states, “The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions,” and it appears that our civilization is following the same, well-travelled road to collapse.

Back to the philosophical thought
So back to that afternoon in the philosophy seminar when it occurred to me that some moral laws will seem to limit human pleasure in the short term, but will prevent great suffering or maximize happiness and fulfillment in the long term. For years, it has been my thinking that God’s moral laws are not simply a bunch of arbitrary rules given to restrict mankind's freedom. Instead, they are like operating instructions designed to spare people from suffering while maximizing human flourishing. Unwin’s and Eberstadt’s research provides strong rational justification for the inference that God’s moral laws pertaining to our sexuality, although they may restrain us from some immediate pleasure, protect us from enormous long-term suffering while maximizing our long term flourishing.

References and Notes:
  1. A downloadable, pdf version of Unwin’s Sex and Culture is available here.
  2. I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes that can provide a more detailed understanding of Unwin’s book, but it is highly recommended that the reader, at minimum, at least skim Unwin’s book to get a better idea of the rigour and breadth of his research, as well as some of the many examples the data provides.
  3. See section 7, Unwin, page 13 for a fuller understanding of these terms.
  4. Unwin, page 341.
  5. Unwin, page 342
  6. Unwin, page 412
  7. See, for example, Stuart Vyse, ‘Why are millennials turning to astrology?’, Skeptical Inquirer, 2018. and Denyse O’Leary, ‘As traditionalism declines, superstition—not atheism—is the big winner’, Intellectual Takeout, 2018.
  8. Note: A non-religious culture is not necessarily an atheistic culture. They do not deny or accept the existence of God or gods. Rather, belief in a god or gods is simply not part of their lives; it is irrelevant.
  9. Britannica, ‘Postmodernism’.
  10. Description of Post Truth
  11. Unwin, page 413
  12. Mary Eberstadt, Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics.
  13. A loosening of sexual constraints probably does not occur in one year or even one decade. In our case, one could argue that the sexual revolution began in the late 1960's, lasted throughout the 70's and possibly into the early 1980's. According to Unwin, only small changes in a culture occur in the first generation, due to the cultural 'momentum' of the previous generation, which still continues to be a heavy influence in the generation after the loosening (or strengthening) of sexual restraints. The changes become more prevalent in the second generation, but it is not until the third generation, after the initial generation has completely died off, that the changes reach their full effect, occurring rapidly over the course of that third generation. By the end of the third generation, the changes have fully taken place and the culture stabilizes at its new level. However, if it has stabilized at the highest level, then the flourishing of that culture continues to increase in subsequent generations (though Unwin observes that no culture maintains that state very long). If it has stabilized at the lowest level (i.e., a "collapse"), then that culture is destroyed from within, or conquered or taken over by a more "energetic" culture.
Quotes and Chapter summaries of the book itself are in the pdf here:
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I suppose what I thought was most interesting was that while the author of the book wasn't really religious his research did find support for the traditional (at least in the west) views on sexuality (i.e. that it should be confined to a lifelong marriage). The connection to Freud's concept of sublimation was kind of interesting in itself, although it may take me awhile to write out my thoughts further on that topic.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I suppose what I thought was most interesting was that while the author of the book wasn't really religious his research did find support for the traditional (at least in the west) views on sexuality (i.e. that it should be confined to a lifelong marriage). The connection to Freud's concept of sublimation was kind of interesting in itself, although it may take me awhile to write out my thoughts further on that topic.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Interesting that you mentioned Freud - reading the quotes, I kept thinking that this is almost the direct opposite of what Freud thought, or at least how people understood Freud: that we need to liberate the "it" from the evil father (aka. patriarchy) that suppresses our "natural" sexual desires, which supposedly leads to neuroses and such. Go figure!
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Interesting that you mentioned Freud - reading the quotes, I kept thinking that this is almost the direct opposite of what Freud thought, or at least how people understood Freud: that we need to liberate the "it" from the evil father (aka. patriarchy) that suppresses our "natural" sexual desires, which supposedly leads to neuroses and such. Go figure!
My understanding of Freud from “Civilization and its discontents” was that there were many societal benefits to repressing or sublimating natural desires, but that that process can go wrong in a number of ways and lead to neuroticism instead of a more healthfully channeled attitude. Seeing the superego as by definition evil is foreign to Freud’s actual thought.

I suppose the second part of this critique is how much the western rationalists or progressives have this idea that society is just a machine we can turn a few dials on to experiment on it and optimize it, but the damage that can accumulate from a history of progressively bad decisions is not always reversible or noticeable.

I remember in the Soviet Union they dismantled family institutions like monogamy, familial inheritance, etc, but they had to reverse course very shortly after (less than ten years) because of the massive numbers of abandoned children that were surfacing up, literally millions. I think progesterone based contraception was the only thing that prevented the sexual revolution of the sixties in the Anglosphere being an immediate repeat of this. An attempt to sexualize the masses was also attempted via the Marquis de Sade during the revolutionary period of France. That didn’t last either because it was obvious that things didn’t work out well in the end for the children.
 

Hello H2O

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Yes, thanks for sharing Whitecoast. I was thinking while reading that article, that these declines in sexual morality are likely not random, but possibly can be manufactured and manipulated.

Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations.
I did find it interesting that rational thinking disappeared. I think we can see this in spades now.

I haven't read it all yet, but those are some initial thoughts. I think there is a lot to chew on there...
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thanks, Whitecoast! Quite interesting!

Yes, thanks for sharing Whitecoast. I was thinking while reading that article, that these declines in sexual morality are likely not random, but possibly can be manufactured and manipulated.
Indeed. And it reminded me of what Laurent Guillenot says about the sexual revolution. I don't have the text at hand, but the "zionist connection" was quite possible based on his arguments, I thought.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I also wonder if the whole "sexualisation of the youth", hedonistic culture, and instant gratification, among other things we see nowadays aren't a direct contributor to mental illness, so prevalent like a plague.
 

Carl

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Very interesting read, thanks for sharing. It's amazing how many examples of this he was able to find. In other words we are not so special or novel at all, only the added technology brings extra complexity to our situation here now.

It may not be that sexual liberation directly caused decline in rational thinking and order etc., but more like it is just one symptom of the work of entropy upon society. The family, traditional values, religion and everything else seems to just decay at the same time. It does seem like an important catalyst and tipping point though. I suppose this "liberation" is actually like a society giving out a signal en masse that it values short term pleasure over long term well being and responsibility.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Very interesting indeed! It seems to me that Unwin’s timeframe for collapse could have been significantly reduced today especially after the invention of the internet. I also think he probably couldn‘t take into account the pretty global spread of such a culture back in his days. Today, it is pretty much global with a few exemptions (although even they are pretty effected by it and are mostly outside of the west).
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The article cites a book called Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics by Mary Eberstadt. I read that recently and it was excellent. Her argument is that the destruction of family, religion and community in the West via the sexual revolution of the 60's has led to the "primal screams" of mass killings, extremist identity politics and a massive increase in mental illness. I could not recommend it enough. She's obviously a conservative in nature and religious, but it's hard to argue with her points so I don't think it's a case of confirmation bias. It's under 200 pages and pretty sure it only took about 5 or 6 hours or reading time to finish. That was one of those books I was bummed was over! Here's the relevant part from the article:

Mary Eberstadt’s recent research into mass killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression, and the explosion of identity politics is a “primal scream” due to the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity—essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]

Her research indicates that increased sexual freedom led to the decimation of the family, which resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces Eberstadt’s ‘primal screams’—a massive increase in mental health issues, mass killings, and the rise of extreme identity groups at war with each other … all symptoms of a society rapidly spiraling into collapse. This appears to have greater explanatory power than Unwin’s psychological suggestion, although the two may actually be closely related, given what Eberstadt shows.

Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide substantial evidence that a sexual revolution has long-term, devastating consequences for culture and civilization. As Unwin states, “The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions,” and it appears that our civilization is following the same, well-travelled road to collapse.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thank you Whitecoast for post the nice article. Here is the link to Unwin's book from archive.org. He seems to taken many cultures in all the continents to come to this conclusion. He seems to be saying, If one wants to destroy a culture, remove the chastity, one will lead to other automatically for the collapse.

Looks fascinating in the modern casual-ised sexualized world, but it should be pretty common sense given the gender anatomy was architect-ed for pro-creation, nurturing and spreading of lineage in optimal way. Competition with lack of chastity, multiple partners harms this process.
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thank you for sharing Whitecoast, very interesting read.

My understanding of Freud from “Civilization and its discontents” was that there were many societal benefits to repressing or sublimating natural desires, but that that process can go wrong in a number of ways and lead to neuroticism instead of a more healthfully channeled attitude. Seeing the superego as by definition evil is foreign to Freud’s actual thought.
I do remember reading Freud's book back in school and the feeling I got from it was that there is no way that you can have a civilization without people being sexually repressed, neurotic and generally 'discontent'. It felt much more like a lament of his rather than a matter-of-fact analysis or a defense of the idea that it's a price worth paying. I found it generally quite pessimistic, to say the least. I mean, we still live within the confines of civilization and it's not like we are literally miserable all the time, nor is it true that savages are any happier. I also did get the sense from all his work that he meant to say that the superego was oppressive.

It may not be that sexual liberation directly caused decline in rational thinking and order etc., but more like it is just one symptom of the work of entropy upon society. The family, traditional values, religion and everything else seems to just decay at the same time. It does seem like an important catalyst and tipping point though. I suppose this "liberation" is actually like a society giving out a signal en masse that it values short term pleasure over long term well being and responsibility.
As I was reading the article I wondered what was the causating factor between sexual activity and the success or decay of a civilization. First I thought with the author of the book that energy is wasted in sexual pursuits that could otherwise be used on anything else of a creative nature. Then I read what Eberstadt said about the disruption of the family and it's obvious that it has got to be a central factor. Finally, what you say above applies as well - sexual freedom is a consequence of 'entropy, which I would call the nihilistic, materialistic, subjectivist, postmodern worldview. Actually, I don't see why all three options can't be all equally valid.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The article cites a book called Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics by Mary Eberstadt. I read that recently and it was excellent. Her argument is that the destruction of family, religion and community in the West via the sexual revolution of the 60's has led to the "primal screams" of mass killings, extremist identity politics and a massive increase in mental illness. I could not recommend it enough. She's obviously a conservative in nature and religious, but it's hard to argue with her points so I don't think it's a case of confirmation bias. It's under 200 pages and pretty sure it only took about 5 or 6 hours or reading time to finish. That was one of those books I was bummed was over! Here's the relevant part from the article:
That does sound interesting, and it seems like things like extended family size and closeness could be studied to see how well they correlate with mental health issues and the like. Does it provide those kind of numbers or research?

I tend to see sexual liberation as one star in a constellation of changes that Liberalism (broadly speaking, the ideology of Anglo countries) effects on a society, other things being technological transformation; globalisation; atomisation of traditional communities into more elective, ephemeral connections; the eroding of time and place and traditional sources of identity (church, town, country, etc.) Ultimately the ideology came down to freedom from the accidents of birth, including communal/family/state ties and obligations. This was covered extensively in Patrick Deneen's book Why Liberalism Failed (for which I provided a lot of chapter summaries in the link ;-)). You can actually begin to see cracks forming in a lot of the literature of the early 20th century as well, where themes of alienation became extremely pervasive, somewhat similar to how Dostoevsky's work provided portents on the effect of a materialistic/positivist world order on the moral fabric of people and society.

Jonathan Pageau has a good video about this as well, which talks about how the passions and the lack of a central moral value system (both individually and socially) can lead to what he calls the tyranny of the particular (of which mass shooters are a sad and pernicious instance). In the video he does criticize the idea of freedom/individualism as a standalone value, showing it doesn't really have the capacity to organize an individual's life in a way that is naturally meaningful (i.e. that connects it to others or to something higher) without other values like responsibility, virtue, etc.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I do remember reading Freud's book back in school and the feeling I got from it was that there is no way that you can have a civilization without people being sexually repressed, neurotic and generally 'discontent'. It felt much more like a lament of his rather than a matter-of-fact analysis or a defense of the idea that it's a price worth paying. I found it generally quite pessimistic, to say the least. I mean, we still live within the confines of civilization and it's not like we are literally miserable all the time, nor is it true that savages are any happier. I also did get the sense from all his work that he meant to say that the superego was oppressive.
I've read "Das Unbehagen in der Kultur" a long time ago, and my take is similar. Sure, you will find ambivalent statements, but that's more due to the weasely nature of thinkers like Freud and Darwin. The general thrust is, and sure has been interpreted that way by the Freudo-Marxists, that civilization suppresses sexuality and therefore creates neuroses and misery and the patriarchy, which can only be corrected by the sexual revolution. I know first-hand that this was pretty much what 68er intellectuals believed, and practiced, much to their own and society's misfortune. In that regard at least, Freud seems like a good example of a schizoidal thinker who feels "oppressed" by the world of normal people.

As I was reading the article I wondered what was the causating factor between sexual activity and the success or decay of a civilization. First I thought with the author of the book that energy is wasted in sexual pursuits that could otherwise be used on anything else of a creative nature. Then I read what Eberstadt said about the disruption of the family and it's obvious that it has got to be a central factor.
I tend to agree with Windmill knight - maybe it's not just one further factor, but a central, if not the central factor: it all begins with the destruction of marriage and the associated customs and taboos. From there flows the destruction of the family, of communities, of society. And look at where we are today: prenuptial chastity seems like a concept from another world, even among conservatives! Who still practices it except a few hyper-religious folks? I bet even most of them don't take it seriously anymore. It's pretty much gone.
 
Top Bottom