J.D. Unwin and Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought
The Proposal by Sir Alma Tadema, 1892
( Read the Spanish version of this article)
(Version in Traditional Chinese plus videos)
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 might limit pleasure and enjoyment in the short term but in the long term minimize suffering and maximize human fulfillment.
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]
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”.
monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.
deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to a god or gods
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]
Complete sexual freedom—no prenuptial restraints at all
Irregular or occasional restraint— cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence
Strict Chastity —remain a virgin until married
Postnuptial categories were:[5]
Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.
Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.
Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures)
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?
Hesperus, the evening star, sacred to lovers by Joseph Noel Paton, 1857
I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes from his book that summarize his findings (2), 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1934, 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?
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.
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]
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.
Note A: If you enjoyed this article, you may be interested in another article Kirk has written, ‘What Does it Mean to be Human: Vastly More than You can Imagine’.
Note B: A downloadable pdf of the above article is available here.
(If you would like to subscribe to Kirk’s articles, podcasts (upcoming) and short videos, you can do so at the bottom of this page.)
References and Notes:
A downloadable, pdf version of Unwin’s Sex and Culture is available here.
I have prepared a 26-page summary in the form of a 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.
See section 7, Unwin, page 13 for a fuller understanding of these terms.
Unwin, page 341.
Unwin, page 342
Unwin, page 412
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.
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.
Britannica, ‘Postmodernism’.
Unwin, page 413
Mary Eberstadt, Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics.
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.
Comments (91)
The aspect of the sexual revolution that most people never consider is that it was ushered in by forces that wanted to collapse western society so that it could be re-shaped into their idea of a socialistic utopia. Problem is, while the promise was (is) absolute freedom the end result (goal) is a system of constraints that are far more powerful than the moral system of traditional western society. http://yvancross.blogspot.se/2017/04/how-sexual-revolution-revolutionized.html Many people will say that what is done in private is of no concern for society and yet private practices have public consequences. We can easily see that in regards to the collapsing birthrate as well as a sense of nihilism growing in the young population.
In the USSR to get works past the censors, people put politically correct boilerplate at the start and end while having the content in the middle. Unwin's reciting the shibboleth about how wonderful female emancipation is strikes me as this.
The reason is long, but the simplest part of the explanation is women desire men who are higher status then themselves. Raise the status of women and the birth rate craters with the elite being hit the worst (since elite women can no longer find matches). A good example of this is Saudi Arabia; the increase of women's status and rights has resulted in the birth rate going from 6.3 to 2.04 in 18 years (and still dropping). This is without making premarital sex acceptable!
It's not just the end of the book that he discusses this, and there was no real incentive to end the book with some politically correct statement back in the 1930's. He fleshes out earlier in the book why this is good, primarily because a rationalist society realizes the injustice of a double standard. The emancipation of women, therefore, is a step forward in a rationalist society.
Sure there was. The idea of equality as good was the politically correct idea he couldn't question. Look at this:
"He fleshes out earlier in the book why this is good, primarily because a rationalist society realizes the injustice of a double standard."
Men and women should be treated exactly the same because equality is good even if this results in society collapsing and everyone dying!
The other indicator he was laboring under PC is he talks about chastity and not explicitly and exclusively female chastity as the requirement. Because if he did do this, it would make exceedingly obvious why granting women equality leads to the end of pre-marital chastity.
"Well, actually, most of the cultures he studied emphasized female chastity, and he makes no attempt to 'sanitize' the data."
But he states chastity is important, not female chastity. If A causes X and B has no correlation saying (A B) causes X is deceptive.
" The men then take advantage of both the women, and the opportunity. "
Urwin is talking about of both sides of his mouth here. Women are the equals of men and women must be protected from their decisions are mutually exclusive. It also implies giving women what they want is exploiting them which again is Urwin moving back and forth from two positions.
Let me be clear- there are two things here. One is the general trend of chastity and sexual morality which I agree with. The other is the causation on which Urwin is lying through his teeth.
"Unwin states very clearly that he does not know the cause. "
" The men then take advantage of both the women, and the opportunity. "
So, to recap Urwin says society goes from one where men get laid by contributing to society to one where men get laid by appealing to women and the question of 'why do men stop contributing to society' is one Urwin can't answer.
I have no idea why you think Urwin is honest. What part of what I am saying doesn't make sense?
Unwin states very clearly that he does not know the cause. He speculates that it has something to do with the psychological repression of sexual energy, but he is very clear that this is only a theory. So when discussing Unwin ‘s research one must make a very clear distinction between the how the data correlates and the cause. Unwin can hardly be accused of “lying through his teeth” when he makes it crystal clear that he does not know. His research centres around the data and what it shows, not what the cause is. It looks like you really need to read the book if you wish To understand what his research is about.
Well, actually, most of the cultures he studied emphasized female chastity, and he makes no attempt to 'sanitize' the data. Regarding the emancipation of women, for the two cultures that reached the peak (Hellenists and Romans), the emancipation of women always preceded a loosening of sexual constraints, which then preceded the slow, three-generation collapse. Correlation, however, does not entail causation with Unwin, so he explores why in his analysis. He concludes that it was because 'sexual opportunity' significantly increases when it is no longer 'taboo' for women to engage in the same level of sex as men. The men then take advantage of both the women, and the opportunity. This, then, results in a loosening of sexual constraints, the precursor to the three-generation collapse. I recommend chapters 2 and 3 if you would like the details.
(The following comment was emailed to an individual in the USA who, in turn, emailed it to me (Kirk Durston). Thankfully, I have no idea who the commenter is, so I can respond forthrightly. It is an excellent illustration of how our post-rationalist culture reacts to something it does not like. Instead of dealing with the argument, it attacks the one who presented it. My response follows.) Here is the comment that was emailed to me …
I am not a social / cultural anthropologist and therefore not in a position to evaluate J. D. Unwin’s conclusions in “Sex and Culture” … "Durston, of course, is an evangelical Christian who’s spent much of his adult life with Power to Change (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ). Being an evangelical Christian does not somehow automatically disqualify him from making an argument regarding the significance of human sexual behaviour in our world today, but I think it does help identify where he is coming from. That starting point is social conservativism that comes from the perspective of a straight, white, middle-aged, middle class male. From this flows his particular use of Unwin’s “Sex and Culture”, which use, I note, proceeds without any thoughtful critical analysis of Unwin’s work nor any reference to how that work, from 85 years ago, is viewed by anthropologists today.
"Durston’s argument is essentially that “science” (in the form of Unwin’s book) has “proven” that human societies flourish and grow when (heterosexual) monogamous relationships are strictly maintained and enforced, with no sex before or outside of socially-regulated marriage. The claim is that pent-up (male) sexual energy is thus re-directed into socially and economically positive activities that create wealth, progress and power. However, when the social commitment to “absolute monogamy” begins to weaken, that male energy is no longer usefully harnessed but spills out into destructive, deviant and decadent behaviours, sexual and other, that lead to societal collapse. For Durston, “absolute monogamy” is therefore clearly God’s will for us, crucial to our survival and well-being. Moreover, because our society does no longer enforce strict heterosexual monogamy (nor does it ignore / deny / repress anymore all other expressions of sexuality, i.e. LGBTQ), God will oversee our society’s certain and imminent destruction, as He has of other societies in the past which have “crossed the line” and become “evil”.
"Well, Michael, you probably will not be surprised to learn that, unlike yourself, none of the above resonates with me. In my view, it is a crude, not to say untenable, use of a single resource – Unwin – in order to develop what is in effect an apologetic for the white male privilege and patriarchal power now (thankfully) fading from view. “Absolute (heterosexual) monogamy” is merely code for men controlling women, and their access to women, in order to maximize their energies for control over other men – e.g. of other competing nations, groups – and above all to maximize their control over nature, creation itself. Durston suggests this control has brought us many benefits, a facile belief in “progress” typical of many of his generation. He lists cars, spacecraft and computers, items perhaps to be expected of someone with his engineering / science background. Of course the human effort in the modern age to become masters of all we survey has also given us extreme disparities between wealthy elites and mass poverty, social alienation, nuclear weapons, and, most critically, global biospheric degradation that now threatens us with extinction.
"Durston’s simplistic approach, using Unwin, is that we (men) just need to get back to controlling women like we used to, so that we can get back to controlling / manipulating / exploiting nature even more effectively, and thereby build up our society’s wealth and power to its former dominance – a project currently known in the U.S. as “Make America Great Again”. To me this is plainly a reactionary social and political agenda that, if followed, would only serve to oppress women while also greatly accelerating the unfolding climate emergency. Perhaps Durston himself senses this difficulty when he consoles himself with the thought that, even if nobody listens to him, his God, as Father, Judge, etc. – the Big (White) Man in the Sky – will destroy our society and everybody in it, at least all those who don’t think like Durston does. (That belief, incidentally, says a lot to me about Durston’s possible lack of clarity in distinguishing himself from the Divine.)
"Still, having said all the above, I nonetheless entirely agree that committed loving relationships between two people – straight or LGBTQ – are crucially important for family life and social well-being. I think that loving (non-intimate) relationships with neighbours, and with all living beings, are also critical to our survival and well-being and the well-being of creation. Not for the sake of “progress” and “power” and “control” over women, others or nature, but because this is the true way of life for us, the Way of Love, the gospel of Jesus Christ. The world we have made – the world which Durston loves so uncritically – is dying. It is unsustainable and, alas, for the very reasons that he celebrates. Our world, and we ourselves, need to be re-born. That is the task before us, not to insist on what was but, while preserving the best of it, move forward into what is yet to be. New wine requires new wineskins and I think the Spirit has been working hard to reveal the new vintage, in the wisdom of indigenous and elders, in the leadership and dignity of women, in interfaith dialogue, in the welcoming of the LGBTQ, in the emerging ecological consciousness. I hope that, whether conservative or not but always as Christians together, we can surely agree on the primacy of love and our common need every day to be re-born. On that basis my hope is that all of us disciples can move forward, with our Lord leading, and we will not be afraid."
As I stated in the preamble to the above comment, it is an excellent illustration of how a post-rationalist culture reacts to something it does not like. Instead of dealing with the argument or facts, it attacks the person who presented them. The thinking (or some might say lack thereof) is that if one launches a personal attack against the presenter, then the argument has been somehow refuted. In the case of the above comment, it is almost entirely devoted to attacking Durston, rather than discussing the data and Unwin’s analysis.
I should note that the commenter started off with the admission that they were “not in a position to evaluate J. D. Unwin’s conclusions”. In a rationalist culture the person, having just stated they had nothing substantive to offer, would have then fallen silent and sat down. Instead, the individual engages in what has become a distinguishing feature of our post-rationalist culture—attack the one who presented the argument or findings.
It is worth studying the person’s comment for the variety of post-rationalist strategies used, not against Unwin’s findings, but against the one presenting them. For example, one can use socially-acceptable, pejorative and denigratory terms to marginalize another person, such as “straight, white, middle-aged, middle class male”. We see that Durston holds “facile” beliefs and takes a “simplistic” approach and has a motive for publishing his review. Durston is guilty of not having done “any thoughtful critical analysis of Unwin’s work”, despite the fact that the article examined three major predictions of Unwin’s findings, to see if our own culture verified or falsified those predictions … the gold standard of theory testing. (I should add that professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, who has taught Unwin, posted on his Facebook page in response to my article, “This is a fine reflection by Kirk Durston on the work of the late Cambridge University sociologist/historian J.D. Unwin. … There is a long cross-cultural historical record to consult and learn from, and Unwin mastered it.)
Then there is jaw-dropping, over-the-top misrepresentation of both Durston and Unwin. We see that Durston wants to “control women”. This is particularly puzzling since Unwin’s view is that a society only reaches its maximal ability to flourish when women are given equal legal rights to men. Unwin feels so strongly about this that it constitutes the closing sentences of his conclusions. The commenter then associates Durston with Donald Trump’s “Make American Great Again” despite the fact that I am not American, I do not live in America, and I have little interest in the MAGA project—whatever it might be.
Intellectual integrity and critical thinking: There is a lesson to be learned from the individual’s post-rationalist, reactive comment. It is one that I emphasize over and over again to my students. It can be summarized in two points. First, before critiquing any argument, make sure one understands it well enough to accurately summarize it such that the author of that argument would agree with ones summary. Second, focus on the argument, not who presented it. What the author’s motives might have been, whether the author is a pot-smoking Baboon, or what the author’s personal beliefs are as to which soccer team is best … all of this is irrelevant. It is the argument that counts.
Thank you for the article. I struggle with a small, yet important point in Unwin's post-nuptial argument. Unwin argues, "So far as the production of social energy is concerned, the sexual opportunity of the female is of more importance than that of the male." He states, "Thus, if the male members of an absolutely polygamous society mate with the females of an absolutely monogamous society, the new generation display a greater energy than that displayed by the sons of women born into a polygamous tradition." He then uses the example of the absolutely polygamous Moors marrying females from the absolutely monogamous Spain as evidence of his point. He argues that after the Moor conquests of Spain, the initial supply of absolutely monogamous Spanish women for the Moor men was sufficient to produce a rationally-inclined culture in the early generations, which regressed back to a deistic culture once the supply of those women dwindled.
Here's where I struggle with that. The next two sentences are the crux of my argument, which I would like to bring attention to. The sexual opportunity of the female in an absolutely monogamous society is identical to the sexual opportunity of the female in an absolutely polygamous society. The only thing that changes between an absolutely monogamous vs absolutely polygamous society is the sexual opportunity of the male.
Thus, using Unwin's example of the Moors, it would appear that the sexual opportunity of the male is more important than that of the female, because the sexual opportunity of the Spanish, absolutely monogamous women was equal to the sexual opportunity of the home-grown Moor women in their absolutely polygamous culture; both women were chaste before marriage and limited to one man during their lifetimes. The only difference between the two cultures is the sexual opportunity of the men. Somehow, we have to accept that being raised in the Spanish culture, where men would have had more restricted post-nuptial sexual opportunity, in some way affected the Spanish women years later when they were married to Moors.
The only way to make his argument somewhat tenable, as far as I can see, is to concede that there is some cultural component (other than the sexual opportunity of a female) in the absolutely monogamous society that is not present in the absolutely polygamous society that produces a trait in women that causes them to produce more rationally-inclined men. Unfortunately, this tears down his argument, because his whole point is that it is sexual opportunity itself that precedes cultural-development, and not some other peripheral, undiscovered factor. However, we can see that the sexual opportunity of both the male and the female in his example is identical in the early generation of Moors (with a high supply of females raised in an absolutely monogamous society) vs the later generations with only the absolutely polygamous women, and without the foreign supply of absolutely monogamous ones. So, if we are to accept his example, we also have to accept that it is not sexual opportunity itself that produced the phenomenon he documented in Moor culture, where there was an early progression to a rational culture before the regression to a deistic culture.
Good question, which reflects how even my 26 page quote summary is insufficient to give an adequate appreciation for what Unwin discusses. He discusses this in one or two places, one of which is on page 430. It was the effect of the women on the children they raised. Even though the fathers might have practiced strict polygamy, their wives who had been raised to hold to strict pre-nuptial chastity and strict monogamy, taught their sons and daughters to hold to those same values, raising the culture from deist to rationalist. He uses the Moores as an example of this on page 430.
What is considered to be a “generation”?
For Unwin, the three generation collapse typically took around a century, so roughly 33 years per generation.
I wonder of our society, with its many subsocieties - some of which still adhere to the stricter sexual mores (I'm thinking of religious groups, mainly), some of whom have completely abandoned them - will be a proper test. In the past societies and nations were quite small, maybe not even as large as some of our subgroups. Would that mean that though we think of Western Culture as monolithic the smaller cultures within it would function as part of Western Culture, or as separate societies within the West? Would they then be the societies that flourish while other geoups within the West will fall apart (or be 'conquered' so to speak, by the more successful groups)?
The data that Unwin looked at indicated that many societies have different "layers". One of those layers becomes the predominant influence in the overall culture. Individual "layers" that adhere to a higher standard of sexual constraints might flourish, limited only be the extent the predominant "layer" permits. In our own western culture, we have different layers. Orthodox Christianity would be one of them. They are no longer the predominant influence, however. In general, our culture could be described as secular. Unwin used different terms.
Excellent article! This makes for some good argument's against Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha's Sex at Dawn which tries to argue against pretty much all of your points. They however seem to assume that we would be better off if society and civilization had not evolved. I tend to agree with your line of thought and that of Jared Diamond's Why is Sex Fun biological basis for monogamy.
"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."
Which three cultures?
According to Unwin, the Hellenists, the Romans, and the British Empire (from our perspective, we might extend that to 'The West'. As for the latter, keep in mind that Unwin published his research in 1936 when the West would not experience its own sexual revolution for another 30 years.
There is a problem with this, otherwise well made argument. This is the first time in history in which women have control over reproduction because of the availability of contraception. Assuming the argument is correct in the analysis of historical events, the causation breaks down in modern times, because the consequences are different. The availability of medical treatments for venereal disease is another big change that has not existed at any previous time. Then there is education for women. These times we live in really are different. None of this absolutely refutes the argument, but it does mean that the inference from past events is no longer adequate to make predictions.
Although Unwin stated that he did not know the cause, the data does rule certain things out. Sexually transmitted infections did not seem to have any roie in the rise or decline of cultures.
Unwin found that the emancipation of women (equal legal rights, including education) always preceded a loosening of sexual restraints, which then produced a collapse of the culture within three generations. He believed that the emancipation of women was a good and just thing, but there was always an "increase in sexual opportunity" for women when that occurred. The Hellenists, with equal legal rights for women, and women joining men as highly educated, are one of the examples that Unwin looked at. As for contraception, if Mary Eberhardt's work is any indication, contraception will accelerate the collapse of a culture. According to the data in her research, she found that our current huge increase in mental health issues (especially anxiety and depression), the rise of mass killings, and the rise of extreme identity groups (left and right and sexual) is a consequence of the loss of family identity that previous generations enjoyed (growing up with lots of siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles). Our own sexual revolution resulted in shorter marriage/common law relationships, smaller families, very small extended family, and the loss of the kind of security and identity that came with the disintegration of family. The result is what she termed "primal screams" (the issues I mentioned above). If her analysis of our own culture's data is right, contraception has actually accelerated both our sexual revolution, as well as the collapse of our culture, due to is role in smaller or non-existent families. This, of course, is an extremely brief (i.e., simple) summary of her findings and one really does need to read the book, including the commentaries of the three other people included in her book. I would like to write up and summarize her findings, but that will be a different post in the future.
Thanks, fascinating article. St Thomas Aquinas specified eight 'daughters of lust' -- that is, vices that lust has a tendency to bring about. (Lust means only <i>disordered</I> sexual desire, of course.) Four pertain to the intellect, and four to the will. The first four, if applied to a civilizational level, correlate exactly with Unwin's findings:-
More here, including St Thomas's discussion of why lust is so dangerous to the mind: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/02/whats-deal-with-sex-part-ii.html
Intriguing.
I view sexuality as a simple (as in meat-and-potatoes) appetite, and appetite which, when met properly and within the confines of relationship as outlined by the Judeo-Christian worldview, results in more human energy and productive power, due to the satisfaction and curtailment of a desire that drives an unwilling celibate nearly wild.
George Orwell wrote that in his opinion, the greatest injury to homeless men was their lack of access to female partnership. It is my opinion that, in a proper human marriage relationship beginning at roughly age 15 and ending at death, sexual frustration is exchanged with sexual peace, after a time of marriage, to work off the sexual frustration of youth.
This internal peace allows, like all peace, the flourishing of humanity.
It is my observation that sexual liberation, the various -sexualities, and particularly pornography, wreak havoc in the human psyche and body, producing impossible appetites and nearly fantastic overstimulation, much the same as addiction to chemical narcotics. And, similar to all chronic need ie starvation, other aspects of human flourishing are forgotten. After all, when dying of thirst, who thinks about justice, much less about civil engineering or functional economics?
Whereas the traditional commandment, using the same features of humanity, wires a person into a spouse-osexual, where their wiring becomes so tuned that almost complete peace of the sexual impulse starts to exist; where any other sexual stimulus is more or less muted, in favor of the spouse.
A person, in fact, becomes whole. And it is my belief that it is this human wholeness that in no small way contributes to human greatness in the same way a full stomach gives a person energy.
I can't get the reply button to work to reply to you concerning my previous comment, so it's here...
It seems the prescription, from a Christian point of view, is a strong dose of complementarianism. Which is interesting because more progessive Christianity is arguing against complementarianism in favor of full egalitarianism, which places them on interesting footing as far as any attempt to defend traditional sexual mores.
I like to point out that biblical sexual codes were based on property rights, the women being property, either of their husbands or their fathers. Thus in the OT, the penalty for any man raping an unmarried (and unbetrothed) woman was simply to pay off the father and marry her, a solution completely abhorrent to modern sensibilities.
I'll have to point out that if we can't help but fall as a sexually liberated society, this seems to imply a major reversal in women's rights, not just concerning sex. I can't help but think of "The Handmaid's Tale" here.
You say humans can't find a balance between women's rights and restrained sexuality, but I think maybe China's policy of limiting childbirth (two children now, used to be only one) could count.
Unwin definitely though that equal legal rights for women was a good thing, and a step forward in the flourishing of a culture. The unfortunate thing is that a loosening of sexual constraints always followed. The trick is to accomplish both equal legal rights for women and high sexual moral constraints. History says it is an extremely unstable state and no culture can maintain it for long. Your mention of China brings up Mary Eberstadt's findings. The two-child policy is still decimating the family, just as the sexual revolution did in the west. The end result is still a collapse of the culture. Having said that, it appears that China is a more well-disciplined culture (albeit at the expense of personal freedom).
What makes you say that? China has a list of things you aren't allowed to talk about (which you can be informed if you ask) that has been getting smaller over time. The west has a list of things you can't talk about that you aren't informed about and has been growing larger over time.
Oddly enough, there's another post on the Imaginative Conservative that's very similar, in some ways, to this one. I just posted this comment there:
"The corrosive power on the culture brought about by sexual license, in part the product of birth control pharmaceuticals introduced in the early 1960s and in part due to the mainstreaming of pornography following World War Two ( https://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/search/label/pornography ) is undeniable for anyone who has eyes to see. Indeed, one (the pill) followed the other, with the net result of turning women into toys and adult men into boys
Like most collapses, of course, its not really evident that this was going on at first. The movement of pornography from the sometimes illegal brown paper bag magazine sold in the red light district of town to the slick production offered in Playboy and its followers didn't seem to be fully destructive at the time, even if it was recognized as partially so early on, and the vast destruction brought about by the sexual revolution took some time to occur, so it isn't until the present age when things are so obviously amiss that we really can see what's fully going on.
Sadly, there's no real examples of societies getting to this point and saving themselves. We're now so acclimated to the situation that even news that should be fully obvious, that birth control has destructive physical results that would lead the FDA to ban it if it were introduced now, has no effect ( https://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-chemical-news-new-study-links-birth.html ). Watching a collapse is no fun, but at this point, the collapse can hardly be lamented."
To add just a bit to what I otherwise posted, it wasn't all that long ago that I would have taken the position that we might hit rock bottom and bounce back. But after a week in which I've encountered the child of a couple that I know well who is obviously already exploring a bondaryless track, and in which I've received a Christmas Card taken in the direction noted here, I'm not holding up much hope. Things are a mess.
Didn't the Romans, perhaps humanity's most successful and influential culture, fuck everything in sight for literally a thousand years non stop? were those 300 year long generations?
Unwin repeatedly expressed his frustration over those who stereotype cultures (i.e., The Greeks were X or the Romans were Y). The data shows that no culture is homogeneous not does it remain in stasis over its lifetime. A given culture will evolve and at each point, it will often have layers within it of different classifications. As for the Romans, they were one of the three cultures that achieved peak flourishing and Unwin deals in detail with them. They achieved their peak flourishing during the phase of strict prenuptial chastity/strict monogamy. That phase did not last, however, and they underwent their collapse within three generations as well.
Excellent article. Well written and easy to follow all the way through.
One question, being that this research was conducted or complied pre ww2 I do wonder about the 3 generation timeline. We certainly live in exponential times as compared to the eras being researched. So isn’t it logical to conclude that three generations of 33 years each needs to be compressed?
Not trying to be an alarmist “sky is failing” type anymore than the article itself but research also bears out that things, ideas, concepts are taking hold at an accelerated pace to former generations. 2060 or 2040?
It is risky to try to be too precise. There are things that could speed it up this time (the global emersion in online porn, for example) but there are things that might slow it down (our international connectedness and ready access to knowledge). From the predictions that arise out of Unwin's investigation into the historical data, and how swiftly and accurately we are seeing them verified, I would say we are on track with the general, three-generation timeline.
Intriguing article.... It would be interesting to see modern data to J. D. Unwin's work... Adds to the idea of the "golden triangle of freedom" that America has possessed yet is becoming fragile...
Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University commented last week that Unwin "mastered" the historical data on sex and culture. What modern data could do is add to what Unwin discovered, since we have just experienced our own loosening of sexual constraints. From what I see, some of which I noted in my article, modern data would serve to verify Unwin's findings with remarkable accuracy.
Women's rights and sexual liberation go hand in hand.
This is something that Unwin noticed in the data of history. Every culture that reached the rationalist flourishing stage, arrived at a point where it addressed the unjust legal treatment of women and brought about what Unwin termed the "emancipation" of women--legal equality. Unwin regarded this as just and good. He noticed, however, that shortly after legal equality was reached, the "sexual opportunity" of women increased, men took advantage of this, an increase in sexual freedom occurred, and within three generations the culture had collapsed. There were no exceptions. Unwin's closing statement at the end of his book is ...
"A lesser energy is easily secured, for the force of life seems to flow backwards, and the members of the society will not be slow to take advantage of any relaxation in the regulations. If, on the other hand, a vigorous society wishes to display its productive energy for a long time, and even for ever, it must re-create itself, I think, first, by placing the sexes on a level of complete legal equality, and then by altering its economic and social organization in such a way as to render it both possible and tolerable for sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period, and even for ever. In such a case the face of the society would be set in the Direction of the Cultural Process ; its inherited tradition would be continually enriched ; it would achieve a higher culture than has yet been attained; by the action of human entropy its tradition would be augmented and refined in a manner which surpasses our present understanding."
Sadly, history demonstrates that humanity is incapable of this balance. However, I think authentic Christianity has the secret to the solution that Unwin proposed, where the husband "loves his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her", treats her as a daughter of God, a "co-heir" of eternal life, "nourishes her as his own body" while, at the same time, both men and women are given a high standard of sexual constraint (prenuptial chastity and postnuptial absolute monogamy), but with the spiritual power to actually live this way if they are totally surrendered on a daily bases to their Creator.
Wow, EXCELLENT article! As I read, I was reminded of this passage from Jordan Peterson's recent book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos:
"Was it really a good thing, for example, to dramatically liberalize the divorce laws in the 1960s? It's not clear to me that the children whose lives were destabilized by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation introduced would say so. Horror and terror lurk behind the walls provided so wisely by our ancestors. We tear them down at our peril. We skate, unconsciously, on thin ice, with deep, cold waters below, where unimaginable monsters lurk" (pg. 119).
Thank you for this very interesting article and summarizing Unwin's findings. Just from the demographics (fewer and fewer births so that we are below the replacement level) one can see the fall of the west. So I am very curious how one can reverse it or is it that another culture will take over before we can ever have a chance to repent and reverse this self-destructive trajectory.
Unwin found that once the sexual restraints were loosened, no culture succeeded in reversing the collapse within three generations. What usually happened is that the culture was taken over/invaded/conquered by an external, more "energetic" culture. The collapse itself, in the third generation, can result in enormous loss of life unfortunately.
A general question of curiosity, as it popped into my head as I was reading: what about Islam, as regards their views & practices of sexuality?
Is that group treated in any depth in other areas of Unwin's writing?
Yes it is.
As Bundini Brown used to say to Muhammad Ali, “Keep the hard on champ!” Unspent sexual energy channeled into, and elevating, other efforts. Maybe. In decline, our conscience hamstrings and enervates us, as we float downstream, not yet able to relax, resisting passively. After that, what are we? And what we we become? Something must fill the breach. What rough beast, and new idols and heroes?
Without knowing about this study, I wrote about this issue some weeks ago on my e-mail to the OECD introducing my thesis on sexual equality and birth rates. I suggest the introduction of a toll on polyamory that motivates people to enter and remain in stable 1 on 1 relationships, and generates money to subsidize incels and mothers. It be a kind of monetarized sexual socialism, respecting freedom of choice and association. I would combine this with progressively reducing the amount of men in society using genetic engineering to balance sexual demand between men and women, as some feminists have asked.
The Woman who thinks reducing the male population by 90% will solve everything. Vice (2014).
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/5gkkj5/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems?fbclid=IwAR2y2GsOiqtz50JhD8hMs88d9CuAmG-BvzHwcXIW24sOqd3f8Ed3Ickmsa4
You can read the whole thing here:
E-mail to the OECD:
" ... To sum it up, complete sexual sexual freedom, that has been sold as choice, variety and abundance in the access to sex, is not such for everyone. In a context of complete sexual freedom, brutal inequalities arise, especially among men, who are precisely the most dependent on this field. These sexual inequalities are at the base of most of the problems affecting our societies, including lack of children, persistent violence and greed in men, growing economic inequalities, obsession with looks, bloated conspicuous consumption, and mounting debt. Sexual freedom only resembles equality among homosexuals, who nonetheless, are also subject to harsh lookism and racism. They give a false impression to heterosexuals on how lightly relationships could work for men of all sizes, but the dynamics of power are completely different for normal people.
In the same way that we care for equality in the labor market, we must seek equality in the sexual market after the de facto fall of monogamy; both for the sake of social justice and to avoid all the negative externalities that complete freedom generates. Sexual freedom only works at the beginning to progress and boost economic growth in a country while most people still follow the traditional rule, but it quickly reaches a point of negative returns and Western Society as a whole finds itself in this situation. The lie that there is one man for every woman and that this is the final allocation when everyone follows their heart and works hard (soul-mates and fairy tales), is no longer sustainable. In a context of complete sexual freedom, polygamous schemes arise due to the preferences of women. Internet and dating apps have made this reality all too obvious. Transferring power to women in the labor market and society in the pursuit of "true equality" and "closing the gender gap" only makes the situation worse because they become more demanding. This gives incentives to men to compete harder, increasing violence, greed and corruption. New controls on the sexual market are needed, either in the form of regulations, quotas or a tax.
Monogamy was in fact a 1 on 1 quota full of regulations. Going back to this system would be the most egalitarian thing to do, but probably too repressive and who knows if functional in current times. The solution I propose is not backwards, but rather feminist in a communitarian sense, and intersectional. I recommend the introduction of a toll on promiscuity or polyamory that motivates people to enter and remain in stable relationships, and generates money to compensate sexual losers and subsidize motherhood (single, in traditional families or in polyamorous schemes altogether) ..."
Thesis on sexual equality and birth rates introducing Flower Power Tax. I've shared it with Western Authorities already.
https://www.academia.edu/40699045/Flower_Power_Tax_Academic_Supports_FULL_
So state sanctioned death of Christians in America is coming by 2066. I see that happening sooner based on current trajectory and temperature of politics
Correlation is not causation. Repeat that until it sinks in, as many times as it takes.
This entire argument sinks on that single shoal.
The argument is simply that there IS a correlation between sexual freedom and societal collapse. Also, the argument continues to show correlation with a decline in religion and rational thought. The author is merely presenting the facts that America is experiencing all of these correlations as would be expected IF the hypothesis is true, that these events do in fact correlate with the decline of society. A wise society would seek to prove that avoiding those correlations will result in a flourishing society. Sadly, irrationality will not allow this. So, unfortunately, we may see the collapse of American society. But because the irrational mind is unwilling to change its course in pursuit of higher ideals (the cost being moral restraint), we might never see the aforementioned hypothesis proved or disproved. Yet, the correlations will likely remain.
I infer that you did not finish reading the article. Please continue reading the section that begins with the sentence, "The old adage, “correlation does not entail causation” . You are also badly mistaken if you do not learn from history. Unwin stated that he did not know why this correlation existed, but his work was based on the data, not speculation as to the cause (although he did advance a hypothesis). This entire article is not, as you mistakenly infer, based on speculation as to the cause. Rather, it is based on data ... cold, hard, data. We may speculate as to why, but the data is there, and as someone once said, "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results". So one can bury ones head in the sand and deny the historical data, but then one is doomed to repeat history.
As you point out at the end of the article as well as throughout the comments (and which was apparently lost on Dr. Unwin), the reason that sexual license leads directly to general degradation is because it contradicts the natural order in which we were created by God. In fact, this natural order is the basis of the whole moral law: God created us according to a certain order of things (reflecting His own nature and attributes), and if man acts in accord with that order, he lives in peace and flourishing intellectual activity; if man acts against that order, he comes into pain, frustration and despair. And due to our fallen state after Eden, with our darkened intellect and weakened will, we are continually walking that thin line between rational intellectual activity or diving headlong into the indulgence of the flesh. Of course Dr. Unwin, as I understand it, wasn't looking at this from a "spritiual" or "religious" perspective, but nonetheless this is the truth of things, and science will necessarily reflect this.
Which brings up the questions about discerning what cultures have attained full "rationality" and then the timelines of their decay. Unwin's research, for what it is, seems more revealing when studying cultures that have not received the fullness of Divine revelation - so to see this in the Hellenists and Romans is an important indicator of human nature "apart" from Christianity, if you will. But with the advent of the Church, we have a whole new and direct force for leading men to live according to their nature, with the grace to actually do it. I would certainly think the high Middle Ages were a time of intense "rationality". Then rushing forward to our own time, we have similarly organized forces working to lead men away from living according to their nature, directly opposing what the Church has done. These factors will affect Unwin's timelines; but because it's all still founded upon our human nature, the process he outlines is completely valid.
Does Unwin provide clear criterion for what is considered “human flourishing”? For example, cathedrals vs mud huts, aqueducts vs buckets, rococo vs mandalas?
From my limited observation, it seems that most cultural anthropologists from 19th and early 20th centuries were a bit ethnocentric in judging other cultures. Unwin wrote his book just a few years before the Second World War. I wonder if he would look at the ruins of Europe and still consider this as flourishing? Or perhaps the genocide, slavery, and Jim Crow laws of the U.S. Is that considered flourishing?
I am all for restrained sexual morality, lifetime monogamy, abstinence before marriage, etc., and I think much of the prevalence of STDs, abortion, unplanned pregnancy, and ubiquitous family breakups are a direct result of the sexual revolutions of the 60’s and 70’s, but as a rationalist... does Unwin give an adequate reason (and concrete criterion) for the objective definition of “human flourishing”, or is it just his personal subjective opinion?
Unwin was very aware of ethnocentric biases, points them out, and established criteria that are objective. Even concepts like 'marriage' and 'morals' were too subjective for him. An appreciation for his approach, and its objectivity, can be had by reading chapters 1, 2, and 3. He was rather meticulous.
Thank you for this work Kirk. There is much food for thought.
"No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history. A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group."
Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History
Great article! Now it is much clearer why Jesus taught absolute monogamy in Matt 5:31-32 as that is the best standard.
Good read! I think of my young children and what they will be facing in the year 2060! Third generation. I’ll be 75 ! I guess I really can not count on my social security! I hope for a Christian spiritual revival to hit this world!
Yes, we can pray for a massive spiritual awakening. I pray for my grandchildren and those yet to come, daily.
The Romans knew God but apostasized: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened...” We are taught to see their subsequent immorality as a judicial act of God: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...” Should we not see this “godlessness” as the root cause of social disintegration, lest one come to the conclusion that sexual prohibition is all that is needed for a society to prosper?
Unwin only looked at the correlation between sexual restraints and the flourishing of cultures. In the passage you mention, the term 'gave them up' is mentioned a few times. The Greek word means to release someone in the direction they are already pulling toward. Unwin noticed this as well .... that cultures and people have a natural bent toward increased sexual freedom, with disastrous results. As for why this correlation exists, I think there are two reasons. First, God's moral laws are designed to minimize pain and suffering and maximize flourishing. So if we pull away from them, God releases us to dive headfirst into the natural consequences of pain and suffering that the laws were designed to protect us from. Second, as you point out, and probably most importantly, people have a natural tendency to suppress the truth about God. Since we have been created for a relationship with God, to suppress the truth about God is essentially a headlong plunge into darkness.
Kirk,
Thanks for investing the time to put together this wonderful article.
T.S. Eliot in "Notes Toward a Definition of Culture," says that a moral code must always be embodied in religious belief – a view that apparently you share as well. However, I don't think that view bears scrutiny. In what sense, for example, was the age of Pericles and the flourishing of Plato and Aristotle dependent upon religious belief? In what sense was any flourishing in the East after the widespread adoption of Confucianism dependent upon religious belief, especially since that system has no transcendent element whatever?
Terry Hulsey
Unwin found that sexual restraint by itself, was the factor. Sometimes sexual restraint was promoted by religion or a moral code, but not always. In general, and as I suggest near the end of my article, there are objective moral laws that transcend humanity. They are designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing. People who live by those moral laws benefit, regardless of whether they are religious or not. I certainly cannot speak for all religions, but authentic Christianity gives a person the power to live in a way that is right. But Romans chapter 2, in the Bible, states that everyone has been given moral intuitions by God, be they atheist, agnostic, religious, non-religious. Thus, we all know there is such a thing as right and wrong, whether we are religious or not.
So, you would have no disagreement with Sam Harris, who in The Moral Landscape argues for an objective rather than transcendent morality?
Transcendent moral laws are objective, and I would go with transcendent moral laws. However, if there are transcendent moral laws that have been designed for a reason, the historical data should show the benefits of living by those transcendent moral laws. Harris's approach to morality has no grounds other than pragmatism, and pragmatism is very prone to exceptionalism.
If “[t]ranscendent moral laws are objective,” as you say, then they are fully corroborated by natural laws and therefore redundant. Furthermore, the whole effort of justifying transcendent moral laws, from the point of view of those engaged in the effort, is to circumvent the perceived self-justification and subjectivity of those, like Harris, who find natural laws fully sufficient. In short, it’s either one or the other.
In saying that "if transcendent moral laws are objective then they are fully corroborated by natural laws and therefore redundant", aren't you making a rather large assumption? Namely that these natural laws are not contingent on the transcendent moral laws in the first place.
The term 'objective' does not mean that "they are fully corroborated by natural laws". It simply means that a) there is a moral reality and, b) this moral reality is independent of subjective human thinking.
This research reminds me of this scripture from Exodus 34
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
I should probably add that about a dozen years ago a friend and I talked about Unwin’s timeline. She offered this insight – – perhaps this cycle (“cancer”)will move more quickly in our society because of information technology, national and international media, and other factors. The Romans did not have TV, print media, Internet, and movies.
I've wondered that myself, but one of the "anchors" that keep a culture from degrading too quickly is the fact that the pre-sexual revolution generation still continues to exist (along with their influence) for at least the first generations. Nevertheless, the global porn epidemic has saturated the global mix of cultures and we may, in fact, see a quicker degradation of civilization than previous cultures. I must admit I was surprised at how swiftly all of Unwin's primary symptoms of a culture heading to collapse, have occurred for our culture. No past culture has been as interdependent as our western culture (and even global culture) is today. Thus, for the individual, an interdependent culture could have quite a disastrous collapse by the end of the third generation after the loosening of sexual constraints. We just do not know; we are the observers.
Keep in mind that those anchors – – essentially parents and the family – – have been disintegrating pretty quickly. And pornography is not the only problem, Hollywood, smartphones, pads, music, and other negative moral influences abound. If you have a television, a lot of this is has been in the home for decades. All of it is also in the palm of our hands. It might be interesting to analyze how many of the markers Unwin saw in the second and third generations are already here.
Yes, that is correct. In my article I mention the research of Mary Eberstadt, who shows that it may be the decimation of the family (which results from the sexual revolution), that causes the collapse. What is interesting is that in her book, she has three commentators. One of them points out that Chinese culture is experiencing the same downward spiral even though they never had the sexual revolution of the west. What they do have, however, is the decimation of the family due to the one-child policy (now two-child if I understand correctly) which should cause a similar collapse. However, China has a strict, authoritarian government which might be able to hold things together for another decade, but those strict, authoritarian cultures often experience a more violent collapse. However, the safest thing to do is to simply watch, take notes, and learn.
Watch, take notes, learn, and apply? Perhaps those of us who understand this need to do a better job of making our voices heard in a positive way about how these principles—when applied to our personal lives—can improve our families and the future of our society?
"Apply". Absolutely right!
I read this book about a dozen years ago. Thanks for a great summary!
What were the three cultures that practiced absolute monogamy and rational thinking?
I hate to mention their names because people almost always tend to think of them as a homogeneous stereotype, but they were the Hellenists, the Romans, and the "English" (as Unwin put it in the 1930's at the height of the British Empire) ... none of which should be stereotyped. The "English" continued to evolve into what today we call "western culture", and its own sexual revolution occurred in the late 60's, through the 70's and into the early 80's. Unwin repeatedly makes it clear that the data of history shows that a culture evolves. For example, at one stage, the Roman culture practiced strict prenuptial chastity and strict monogamy, which led to the climax of its flourishing. It soon had its own loosening of sexual morality and eventually became quite debauched. Although those three civilizations peaked, he discusses many other cultures that also had their peaks before their own collapses, but they never achieved the degree of flourishing (defined by various objective attributes) of the three rationalist cultures. I would highly recommend reading Unwin's chapters 2 and 3 to get a much more accurate understanding of this than I can give here.
Ok so we all have understood this trajectory for a long time.... my question is “When and where and why has the reset occurred to create a new ethos of chastity after a culture has slid into amorality? What examples have occurred in the past and how can it be recreated? Does it require a physical or economic disaster to create the fertile ground for the growth of a new culture? Last question— how does Islamic culture fit into this paradigm ? It has some significant restrictions on sexuality but certainly hasn’t created a plethora of progress lately. Thanks for the great article!
Unwin does discuss Islamic culture (and it is not a homogenous culture, so he looks at the different types and geographical areas of Islamic culture over the past thousand years. As for strict monogamy, the strict chastity must come first. To get a better idea of the different factors that could bring that about, you would need to go through Unwin's chapters 2, 3, and 4. There are different factors. For example, in the British Empire (which became what we know today as 'western culture') it was the Judea-Christian moral code, but two other cultures (I hate to mention their names because people almost always tend to think of them as a homogeneous stereotype, but they were the Hellenists and the Romans ... neither of which should be stereotyped) had different factors that led to strict chastity at one point in their histories, which led to strict monogamy, rationalist thinking, and ultimate flourishing before they, too, degraded.
I am so glad to find this article and grateful that you took the time and effort to study the discoveries of Joseph Daniel Unwin (one of my favorite authors on these topics, although quite ignored by academia, unfortunately, passed away still young, interrupting important future works)
I like to CONGRATULATE you for this correct and concise analysis.
I personally, have being researching these matters. See:
https://www.slideshare.net/jegonzal/family-breakdown-andcivilizationdecline
Very interesting article, thank you for taking the time and energy to write it.
Best regards
Nelly
I really like how you put all this together. I agree that moral laws are always based on natural laws. These are not arbitrary rules but simply point out the laws of nature. Sexual sin always leads to a natural consequence. No one has ever cheated on a spouse and not acknowledged that. The seeking for pleasure, at the expense of long-term sacrifice, always leads to a degenerate culture. Sexual degeneracy leads to steady decrease in sustained love and nurture - people need love and nurture to thrive and to focus on other aspects of human flourishing. Motherhood is denigrated, families are seen as burdens - and people are left alone and without connection.
Dear Kirk, thank you for your research! Greetings from Pastor Michael from Switzerland
Glad you enjoyed the article, Pastor Michael.
Very well done Kirk. I've been longing to hear something academic on something I've always pondered and speculated.
Sounds very similar to Sir John Glubb's famous essay "the Fate of Empires" with more emphasis on the sex. Please check that out.
Thank you Mr. Durston for this amazing blog post! I am sharing it like crazy (while trying to not seem crazy) on my social media and in a Swedish libertarian closed forum. Your post is great discussion material.
I am Swedish and I can see this very clearly here, probably even more than in the US, since we are the most extreme culture in the world according to the IFFS Culture Map from 2015 (it is even more extreme today) https://www.iffs.se/media/1910/Culture-Map_WVS6.jpg
I do think that Unwin was right, but that it will be faster than 3 generations. I think that internet and the negative consequences of it will speed things up. It is so incredibly easy to access everything and anything, and since the family is no longer the strong moral foundation it once was, the natural man will most likely misuse that access to damaging influences.
If we can use the Bible as an example, we see that when “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” there was the same result. God delayed the collapse many times but in the end destruction came.
Encouragement comes from the fact that God is in no hurry to give us what we deserve and that He always has a contingent who continue to carry the torch.
Thanks for doing all this research, Kirk. It’s fascinating.
The sexual revolution in the West began in the 1920s, after the Great War. Thus, you will have to adjust your timetables. Before 1929, no Christian religion regarded the use of birth control as ethical; after that point, more and more came to do so, and even forgot their own prior objections.
In the case of the West, it was the Great War itself, its horrific and senseless destruction, that triggered the sexual revolution that followed. This, too, must influence our conclusions.
Important points, however, Unwin takes a great deal of pains to distinguish between those events that lead up to, or "trigger" a sexual loosening of constraints, and when the change in attitudes and practice actually goes mainstream and new sexual practices become predominant. If you will read Unwin, you will see that there is a distinction between what leads to an increase in "sexual opportunity" (as he calls it), and when a change in sexual constraints actually goes mainstream. If you were to plot the relevant aspects of a sexual revolution, it would look like a bell curve, with some factors out on the tail and falling into place decades before the mainstream cultural shift. For an example from Unwin from the data of history, the emancipation of women always precedes an increase in "sexual opportunity" and a loosening up of society's sexual constraints, no exceptions (he chides our culture for thinking we are the only ones who have experienced equal legal rights for women which, by the way, he strongly supported way back in the 1930's). Yet the emancipation of women, and in our case birth control (as you mentioned) may precede a mainstream shift by decades. So Unwin underscores a difference between those things that "triggered the sexual revolution" as you put it, and the sexual revolution itself. Using Unwin's criteria, the main part of the "bell curve" would have started in the mid-1960's, peaked in the 70's, and began to subside to the new reality in the 80's. A professor at Princeton University, who has taught Unwin, read my article yesterday and posted a very positive review in which he mentioned that when it comes to sex and culture, Unwin had "mastered" the historical data. Your critique is a good one, provided Unwin's work is not actually consulted. But, the rigour of his work lays it to rest. I should also mention that he never regards a culture as homogeneous; there are usually layers within it that, although they are there, they are not predominant. So there have always been those within a culture that will have sexual practices that differ from what is the predominant attitude and practice of the day, but they do not define the culture. They can, as you suggest, eventually trigger a mainstream loosening of sexual attitudes and constraints. The three-generation lag time only begins at that phase in a culture's history.
Kirk,
Thanks for tackling a very important topic. You may want to consider augmenting your reading with "Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar" by Tom Holland. It was similar in that [often inverted] sexual ethics had a part to play in the demise of Rome. For example, sex with slaves was normative, regardless if it including pedophilia, orgies or homosexuality, but married Roman women were expected to be monogamous.
Could I add your article to my reading list for my sociology class on Marriage and Family?
Denis
Yes, please use it.
Interesting analysis--thank you!
The one quibble I have with it is your counting of dates. You mention the 3rd generation in a couple of places, and I appreciated your telling how long Unwin considered that to be. However, from some of your quotes, it looks like the effects take place during the 3rd generation, not specifically at the end of it. If this is true, then counting from about 1970, this would put the major effects beginning anywhere from 2036 to 2069, more like the middle of this century than at the end of it.
Thank you for that clarifying question. I'll put my response as a footnote to my article for others who may have the same question. 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 culture '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 notable 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. By the end of the third generation, the changes have fully taken place and the cultural stabilizes at its new level. However, if it has stabilized at the highest level, then the flourishing of that culture really increases in subsequent generations (though history indicates 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.
This thesis is remarkably similar to 'The Fate of Empires' by John Glubb.