Whither High Culture?

What direction?

I previously harshly commented on Steuben’s Counter-Currents essay about a “Spenglerian High Culture,” which I considered inferior to my own essay on a Overman High Culture (links to both essays contained in the EGI Notes post link provided). Others have critiqued the Steuben piece; for example, see this.

If you are a planning a book I have another objection which might interest you. It is that Spengler himself is the ultimate Faustian man, and his work is essentially Faustian – Spengler himself stands outside of all history, making repeated pronouncements on how nobody before him had understood history as well as he, for he has to rise above all cultural cycles to be able see their forms. In many ways he is a 20th century Faust. And therefore a new cultural epoch, if it was truly new in the Spenglerian sense, could only look with incredulity and probably contempt at Faustian spirit of The Decline of the West. They would certainly consign such a book to the flames, for any non-Faustian people would find the idea of stepping outside of history incomprehensible, hubristic, and absurd. Whatever their world feeling, it will not permit Spengler’s foray into a space outside of all peoples, all cultures and all of history. To do this is essentially Faustian. Rather, they will be fully rooted within a world view and a world picture, as all peoples and cultures are except one, the Faustian one. Indeed this is also the proof that we ourselves are still Faustian people, for we too could hardly comprehend adopting such a world view, and certainly could never be at home in it. For good or ill we belong to this Faustian world and only a truly Faustian person can take seriously a project like The Decline of the West.

If one looks at my criticisms of the Steuben piece, as well as criticism from others, such as that quoted above, it is clear that my own Overman essay suffers from some of the same problems. It is certainly prescriptive, not descriptive. More to the point, it is obviously derived from someone with a Faustian mindset; indeed, one can certainly critique my essay as advocating a “new” High Culture that is nothing more or less than a “super-Faustian” one: Faustianism without limits, without inevitable failure, the road to godhood. What could be more Faustian than that?

That is all true. However, I have two ripostes to that argument.  First, as I have suggested over the years, we should not be so deeply wedded to Spengler’s thesis in its absolute form. Yes, it does have some explanatory power. Yes, in its broad outlines, it may well be true. That doesn’t mean one needs to accept all of it, in every detail, particularly with respect to some of Spengler's more dogmatic assertions and predictions. A dedicated Spenglerian would deny any upward trend in human history; it is merely cyclical, with each High Culture, and component of each High Culture, being (objectively) no better or worse than all of the others. Yockey - certainly a “dedicated Spenglerian” - classified both the Egyptian and Western/Faustian High Cultures as having “mighty technics,” as if there is no real difference between several large pyramids and a modern city with its plethora of towering skyscrapers, or between a chariot and an atom bomb.  At the very least, science and technics, together with the standard of living, has shown an upward trend. Is that subjective from a Faustian perspective? Well, if you say so. However, if you really believe that there have been no objective scientific/technical advances in human history then who is being objective and who is being subjective? The assertion of improvement in things such as ethics is, I will admit, more subjective, but strong arguments can be made here as well that ethical standards, at least among those on the Right, have become more refined, and here among European Man if among no other group.  I would argue that if history is “cyclical” then it is manifested by an upward spiral of cycles, but, perhaps, that it is only true of European Man. Certainly, all of the advancements in the human condition – or nearly “all” of them – both material and otherwise, have sprung from the minds and efforts of only one of the various extant hominid races (or species). That of course means that future advancement would be dependent on the continued existence of that people; and their demise would doom “humanity” (more, properly, hominidity) to a true futile cycle of "high cultures." Here is some objective analysis – if the Earth were threatened by an extinction event, such as an asteroid or comet strike, only one of the Earth’s High Cultures up to this point in time would have the will and the capability to recognize the threat and do something about it, and that is the Western/Faustian High Culture.  None of the others have had the will or the capability, and Steuben’s Bring Out Your Dead hobbit hole “high culture” certainly would not. Isn’t the ability to potentially save humanity, and save the existence of “high culture” itself, at the very least a manifestation of objectively superior science and technics?  And, objectively speaking, the ability to destroy humanity, also characteristic of the same high culture, is a negative objective manifestation of that same innate superior advancement in science and technics.

If Spengler is incorrect in that, then one does not need to consider him and his thesis as infallible. Perhaps other things Spenglerian can also be re-considered. Can a certain High Culture, particularly one defined by constant upward striving and over-coming, experience repeated rebirth rather than permanent death?  Is the act of Spenglerian self-awareness of historical cycles, made possible by a Faustian “standing outside history,” which itself is a manifestation of the Western/Faustian High Culture, the spark that would allow the Western/Faustian High Culture to escape the fate of others?

Second, I have to say (and this may be ascribed to me being embedded in a Faustian mindset), if the death of the Faustian High Culture, and its replacement by something new, means a devolution of the human condition, if it means the triumph of backwardness, ignorance, of Counter-Currents’ dream of cowering Whites hiding from life “snug in their hobbit holes,” then please count me as a Culture Retarder who will fight for the old Faustian High Culture and would reject the new. Or, count me as someone who rejects Spenglerian inevitability, and rejects that the development if a new high culture is a purely undirected organic process, and count me as someone who wants to intentionally guide the development of a new culture (i.e., to the Overman direction). That may be “pseudomorphosis” – but who cares?  The higher development of humanity is more important than Spenglerian dogma.

It is important for people on the Right to move away from blind dogma and simplistic explanations and accept the complexity of reality, of life, and of the human condition in general.  It is better to try and fail than not to try at all.  At least the former approach contains the possibility of victory while the latter dooms you to defeat.  If one is to go on a doomed Faustian quest to influence the future of High Culture, then at least make the attempt to be reaching for something higher, rather than hastening a collapse into a hobbit hole of backwardness and of endless despair for humanity.