Arnold Toynbee and Macrohistory

A dialog from the PhilOfHi list, October 1998

Glenn Sandberg wrote:

> “Encyclopaedia Britannica” (1993), Volume 11, p. 880:
>
> Toynbee has been severely criticized by other historians. In general, the
> critique has been leveled at his use of myths and metaphors as being of
> comparable value to factual data and at the soundness of his general
> argument about the rise and fall of civilizations, which relies too much
> on a view of religion as a regenerative force. Many critics complained
> that the conclusions he reached were those of a Christian moralist
> rather than of a historian. His work, however, has been praised as
> a stimulating answer to the specializing tendency of modern historical
> research.

There are other views on Arnold Toynbee. He developed what is perhaps the most famous of the cyclical theories of historical change in his monumental 12-volume work A Study of History. Toynbee offered 30 civilzations and spengler, Kroeber, Coulborn and Quigley between eight and 15.

BTW, have you read A Study of History? Or are you basing your jusgement that Toynbee is a “hack” only on Encyclopedia Britannica?

Bertil Haggman

Perhaps others on this list will recall, as I do, wading through large chunks of Toynbee in graduate school (a two-volume abridgement of the original twelve volumes, if memory serve). For us it was penance for sins we never quite understood. Then, behold, the salvific grace of Peter Geyl, the Dutch historian who, strand by strand, pulled apart Toynbee's flimsy web.

The issue with Toynbee was never his writing (in the end, a matter of taste), nor his remarkable erudition (still breathtaking). It lay, rather, with the structure he sought to impose on the vista of the past—some twenty-three (as I recall, but maybe thirty, as has bee suggested) “civilizations” all accounted for by an appeal to “challenge and response”, terms with negligible epistemic value. Moreover his so-called “civilizations” included both 16th/17th century Holland and the entire Roman republic and empire, which, Geyl noted, was comparing apples and oranges.

It seems to me that the conceptual weaknesses of such speculative theories and accounts of history—represented by both Toynbee and Spengler—contributed directly to the analytical turn in philosophy of history of the past 40 or so years, at least for historians (philosophers came at it from a different route). Something, perhaps, to bear in mind in the current fashion for macrohistory.

Michael Hobart
Bryant College

Michael Hobart wrote:

> Perhaps others on this list will recall, as I do, wading through large
> chunks of Toynbee in graduate school (a two-volume abridgement of the
> original twelve volumes, if memory serve). For us it was penance for
> sins we never quite understood. Then, behold, the salvific grace of
> Peter Geyl, the Dutch historian who, strand by strand, pulled apart
> Toynbee's flimsy web.
>
> The issue with Toynbee was never his writing (in the end, a matter of
> taste), nor his remarkable erudition (still breathtaking). It lay, rather,
> with the structure he sought to impose on the vista of the past—some
> twenty-three (as I recall, but maybe thirty, as has bee suggested)
> “civilizations” all accounted for by an appeal to “challenge and
> response”, terms with negligible epistemic value. Moreover his so-called
> “civilizations” included both 16th/17th century Holland and the entire
> Roman republic and empire, which, Geyl noted, was comparing apples and
> oranges.

Toynbee changed his views concerning the number of civilizations:

In course of the ten first volumes T. arrived at 23 full blown civilizations, four that were arrested in an early stage of growth, and five were abortive.

Would you please provide some information on how the 16th/17th Netherlands was placed as a civilization. Have not seen during my readings of Toynbee?

By 1958–59 Toynbee had come to the conclusion that his first list needed revision:

I Full-blown Civilizations Un-related to Others

II Abortive Civilizations 6

Best wishes

Bertil Haggman

Bertil Haggman wrote:

>Would you please provide some information
>on how the 16th/17th Netherlands was
>placed as a civilization. Have not seen
>during my readings of Toynbee?

In my earlier posting I relied on memory (always and increasingly a fallible tool) for my remarks about Toynbee and Geyl. Unfortunately I have apparently jettisoned their works in various housecleanings, so shall have to check the sources in the library when I can find a spare moment.

In the meantime, I think the issue lies less with the specific example than with Toynbee's general use of ‘civilization’ as a unit of comparison, whose conceptual weakness I remember Geyl exposing. Perhaps you could jog my memory a bit. In the revised list you provided, what criteria does Toynbee invoke to identify a ‘civilization’?

Regards,
Michael Hobart

Michael Hobart wrote:

> In my earlier posting I relied on memory (always and increasingly a
> fallible tool) for my remarks about Toynbee and Geyl. Unfortunately I
> have apparently jettisoned their works in various housecleanings, so
> shall have to check the sources in the library when I can find a spare
> moment.

Don't think you will find it but take a look at Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History - Reconsiderations Volume XII (1961) for the full coverage of the first list of civilizations and the revision made for the last volume.

> In the meantime, I think the issue lies less with the specific example
> than with Toynbee's general use of ‘civilization’ as a unit of comparison,
> whose conceptual weakness I remember Geyl exposing. Perhaps you could jog
> my memory a bit. In the revised list you provided, what criteria does
> Toynbee invoke to identify a ‘civilization’?

Well, Professor Toynbee himself admits in Volume XII that he had no explicit definition. But he points out also that the word itself is a hybrid compunded by a Latin adjectival stem, a Fremch verbal affix, and a Latin abstract substantival suffix. T. believes this indicates an ongoing process of definition.

We have had several discussions on this list on the meaning of civilization and I am not going to repeat myself, but I admit it is a fascinating subject. But to go directly to your your latest contribution:

Toynbee writes (p. 274): “When one has described civilization as being a kind or a phase of culture, and when one has discussed the date at which it made its first appearance, one has perhaps implied that one has already arrived at a definition of what civilization is. I myself has been criticized for having operated with the idea without having defined my usage of the word explicitly.”

But Toynbee goes on to explain that to propound a definition before on has surveyed the phenomena to which it applies is to expose oneself of the risk of seeing one's preliminary labour lost. On p. 279 he continues to define civilization “in spiritual terms”. “Perhaps it might be defined as an endeavour to create a state of society in which the whole of mankind will be able to live together in harmony, as members of a single all-inclusive family. This is, I believe, the goal at which all civilizations so far known have been aiming unconsciously, if not consciously.”

Personally I think you made a mistake by getting rid of what you had of Toynbee. Personall yI am convinced that macrohistory is making a comeback and the interest in this list, I believe, is one proof of that. There are many fine, modern US macrohistorians but the subject of macrohistory does not seem to attract European historians to the same degree.

Bertil Haggman

Michael Hobart wrote:

> 3) This brings me to Toynbee and Bertil Haggman's kind response to my
> query. Clearly by Vol. XII Toynbee was also doing some backing and
> filling in his efforts to shore up his use of the term ‘civilization’,
> as thinkers should and will do. Perhaps he might have done better to
> appeal to Burke's distinction between “discernible” and “definable”
> truths. In a loose sense, we all might recognize a civilization even
> though being hard put to define the term with much rigor. (I entered
> this list after the ‘civilization’ discussion so am unaware of how far
> efforts went in that direction.) I certainly have no qualms about using
> the term loosely.
>
> But, loose terminology notwithstanding, Toynbee wanted more. Bertil
> cites him thus: “Perhaps it [civilization] might be defined as an
> endeavour to create a state of society in which the whole of mankind will
> be able to live together in harmony, as members of a single all-inclusive
> family. This is, I believe, the goal at which all civilizations so far
> known have been aiming unconsciously, if not consciously.” The last line
> harbors the difficulty, which is quite analogous to the above points. What
> sense can we make of the claim, even metaphorically, that civilizations
> aim unconsciously (or even consciously) at a goal, not to mention a goal
> that entails the whole of mankind living together in harmony? Has not
> Toynbee invested ‘civilization’ with a supra-historical (metaphysical)
> entity/agency that, like Hegel's Reason, purports to give purpose to the
> world? How refute such claims? Basically, like Samuel Johnson refuted
> Berkeley: kick a rock.
>
> 4) Having both written some analytical philosophy of history and taught
> some world history (among other topics) for nearly 20 years, I am quite
> interested in how to frame and pursue broad, even macro- historical
> questions, but I am also convinced that these appeals to supra-historical
> agencies, metaphysical niceties or theological subtleties avail little in
> this regard. Foundationalism in philosophy expired decades ago; it will
> not rise again, perforce of someone's wish or say-so, at dusk on the
> wings of Minerva's owl. This I take to be the central, and salutary
> thrust of Haines' critical comments.

Let me start with a Joseph Fletcher quote that much covers my view on macrohistory:

“The fact remains, however, that the field of history, as it is cultivated at most European and American universities, produces a microhistorical, even parochial outlook…Historians are alert to vertical continuities (the persistence of tradition, etc.) but blind to horizontal ones… However beautiful the mosaic of specific studies that make up the ‘discipline’ of history may be, without a macrohistory, a tentative general scheme of the continuities, or at least, parallelisms in history, the full significance of the historical peculiarities of a given society cannot be seen…”

Then on to civilization. We have had some discussion on this list concerning definitions. Personally I find Quigley's to be one of the best. Society, he writes, in the _Evolution of civilizations_, is humans + culture. Basically he is referring to for different kinds of groups: (1) social groups (2) societies (3) producing societies (4) civilizations. Quigley admits it is not easy to distinguish between producing societies and civilizations. Most civilizations have, however, had writing and city life. As a ‘temporary’ definition Quigley starts out with claiming the civilization is a producing society that has writing and city life.

Furthermore Quigley seems to agree with other macrohistorians (Vico, Spengler, Toynbee) that civilizations pass through a process of rise and fall. That this is a fact of life does not take a macrohistorian to conclude. It is a rather self evident fact. The question is more how it is described and what conclusions are drawn.

The question put by Toynbee, the question concerning moving toward a world state is of course basic in nature. The fall of the Soviet Union certainly was a step toward such a state but development since 1991 does rather indicate a global split up in several power blocs.

The 20th century seems to end as the “American century” (or the century of Western civilization, as we are using those terms). And at present there seems to be no challenger.

Best wishes

Bertil Haggman