Aspects of the
Cultural Cycles[1]
Mário Ferreira
dos Santos
Lecture transcription,
1967
Translated by
Rodrigo Morais
By considering the cratic phases in History one can verify that the
political “kratos” – as a social cohesion force as well as a super cohesion
force hovering above the social groups – is always an object of ambition, both
by the social groups and by the individuals themselves. Properly speaking, the
social kratos is the political power structured upon the great cultural
cycles, upon what constitutes the “state” and which gives a certain coherence
to society – even though this coherence is based upon political laws and,
above all, institutional violence.
The cultural cycles can be divided in different periods with its
different phases. The juvenile period marks the culture formation and it is
mainly characterized by the advent of a new worldview that gives the true
consensus to the new cycle. The first period has three phases easily observed
throughout History.
Firstly, in the theocratic phase,
the culture is tensionally structured over a theocratical form. It originates
from God and is transmitted to man through the mystical figure of an
illuminated person whose personality scumbles the line dividing history and
legend. This "divinity" does not necessarily belong to the theocratic phase but
will be the central symbol of all the statements of the dominant theocracy. For
example, Rama amongst the Aryans, Mohammad amongst the Muslims, Moses amongst
Hebrews, Saint Paul amongst Christians, Thoth or Hermes Trismegistus amongst
the Egyptians, etc. Around this divine figure or around its signification
represented by a structured body of hieratic or sanctified men who regulate,
comply with and enforce the law, the second cratic phase slowly emerges, which
is the hierocracy (from Gr. hieros, saint)
of the sanctified men[2] or priests.
Encircling the priests a bigger group
starts forming of virtuous men, who, progressively, by their courage and the
impetuosity of their faith, promotes a faith propelling material force. They
are not only priests but men arising from all social sectors and they finally
take control of the political kratos to establish the third phase of the first
period, the aretocracy (from Gr. arête, virtuous).
At the same time, other social strata
emerge, such as the aristocracy, whose economical power creates the desire for
political kratos. Then, the first great revolution comes, the aristocratic
revolution, which rises to power. The priests still participate, but
increasingly in a secondary position. At this point, the prince appears. The aristocracy (from Gr. aristos, the best ones) gradually forms
a chosen group around the prince to constitute power and the second phase of
the second period comes to light, which is the oligarchy (from Gr. oligos,
chosen one). The kratos belongs to a small group that totally rules society. As
the priests become more and more subordinate, finally emerges a time of
absolutism of the aristocracy, which is the third phase of the second period,
the monocracy (from Gr. monos, one),
when power emanates from an almighty king who becomes the incarnation of the
state.
The next emerging stratum to desire
political power once acquired economical influence is the bourgeoisie. The
second great revolution of the cultural cycle, then, inaugurates the third
period, democracy. To come to this
point it could have even been that the aristocracy shared some of its power and
rights with the so-called third state. As the bourgeoisie acquires power, it
becomes dominated by a more powerful group from within, the group of the
richest, the plutocracy (from Gr. plutos, rich). This group constitutes
the second phase of the third period, i.e., when the businessmen are ruled by
the richest amongst them. This group, then, gives way to a third group, the
money rulers, starting the third phase of the third period, the argirocracy (from Gr. argiros, silver).
At this moment the great popular
uprisings emerge, when elements from different strata start agitating the
masses and preparing them for the third great revolution. Those masses in
turmoil by the demagogues blast the social order and initiate the fourth period,
which is the period of ochlocracy
(from Gr. oclos, street masses). As
the ochlocrats cannot keep the power – the masses can never keep the power –
powerful men begin to arise with military force to save from immediate
catastrophe and social chaos. Ascend to power these men called Caesars, of the caesarocracy, which is the second phase
of the fourth period and grooms the inevitable final disorder of the cultural
cycle as well as prepares the advent of new ideas, a new faith and a new
consensus. Insofar as the new consensus embeds society and new people from
other regions immigrate, the soil is fertile for the establishment of a new
cycle, a new hope for mankind.
It is noteworthy the existence of a
tension of two antagonist forces driving all cultural cycles since its
formation: a constructive and solidifying impetus and a destructive and
corruptive one. To establish the formative causes of the cultural cycles in an
Aristotelian manner, that would be to say that the material cause is the group
of individuals throughout the various generations and the formal cause is the structuring
general worldview. The corruptive dispositions within the cultural cycle are
forces seeking to sever the cycle cohesion and even can, in certain cases,
prematurely destroy a cycle in formation – as History has proven.
There are essential properties of a
cultural cycle, such as the medium term[3].
The medium term is the consensus, which is the worldview, the fundamental
religious faith of the cycle. It coerces its different parts and the tensional
renews of a cycle and creates another essential property, the community of
ethic interests, such as religious, sociological, ecumenical, historic, legal,
etc. Likewise, there are accidental properties of a cultural cycle, such as the
ethnical component, the ecological outline and the dynamically considered
interests, objects of change according to different ruling groups, phases and
periods of society.
The historical development of a
cultural cycle is always proportional to its constitutional form and matter and
its potentialities, consequently, are proportional to the actualizing stages it
might have. Amongst a series of potentialities, those that actually happen are
called prometheic and those that do not actualize are called epimetheic. The
properties of the cultural cycles – either essential or accidental – form a
antipathetic polarity: on one side those aspects that build and preserve a
normal development and, on the other hand, those dispositions of corruption
that act towards destroying the cycle.
The thetic elements strengthen the
integration of society and undermine the corruptive dispositions. Considering
those properties apart from concrete existence – in an abstract manner – can give
a clearer view of each period. For example, the valorization of the theological
superiority, typical of the first period, works as to place mankind as a medium
term connected to the divine inasmuch as the world around has a relative and
inferior valorization. Those are thetic aspects, positively structuring and
strengthening the cultural cycle.
A justification of the fundamental worldview
within the cycle is a strong feature of the first period, mainly in the second
and third stage, seeking to fortify the worldview by apologetic means. The
fundamental in this period is the religious idea of the salvation of mankind.
Consequently, all aspects of knowledge are subordinated to this worldview. Theology
superimposes upon Philosophy. The worldview is merely religious.
Progressively, the worldview needs
more and more of a philosophical justification. It is the period of
scholasticism observed in all cultural cycles, related to the transition from
the first to the second period. Nevertheless, the antithetic forces are very
much actives. There is a dispute of residual elements from previous cycles as
well as incorporated elements from internal conflicts within the religious
worldview. Those antithetic onslaughts are quite strong. It is the era of
heresies, of ideas emanated from foreign sectors denying validity to the
fundamental worldview.
Those antithetic facets manifest by
an excessive valorization of the cosmological aspects in opposition to the
theological worldview, i.e., a struggle to appreciate the anthropological
values and deny the cognitive possibilities of man. Therefore, the appearance
of ideas such as skepticism, pragmatism, nihilism and the valorization of
Philosophy over Theology, mainly practical philosophies, as understood in an empirical aspect. The value of reason is pointed out not to justify the
worldview but its opposing ideas, its antithesis. There is also a valorization
of the empirical, the rational and a constant denial of the human possibilities
of accessing the Absolute, inasmuch as it seeks to separate Philosophy from
Theology and Religion as well as Science from Philosophy. To the accelerated
development of technology, a complete disconnection of Science and Philosophy
is finally achieved, which is properly the transition from the second to the
third period.
Before the arrival of the democratic
period there is a predominant pantheistic approach towards the accepted axioms,
principles and postulates, i.e., the constant denial of their validity. Rise of
skepticism, agnosticism, criticism, pragmatism, positivism, materialism, and
nihilism, until when, by the beginning of the third period, a romantic reaction
takes place, but disorderly and unable to rescue the past positivenesses of the
cultural cycle.
Finally, the philosophical postulates
are gradually superseded by ideological doctrines, which, instead of promoting
the truth-seeking pursuit amongst the general public, divide society into
ideological and isolated interest groups. Insofar as the thetic aspects develop
throughout History, the antithetic aspects proportionally grow. As the first
one justifies its position against the oppositions and the antithesis are
debuted, demonstrated or even justified as favoring the thetic position,
immediately the antithetic development turns against the ideas it defended
before but utilizing another destructive power within the cycle.
For example, in the beginning of the
cycle the worldview fundaments are based upon divine revelation given to
mankind throughout the chosen ones. Then the antithetic aspects deny revelation
and deem the religious set of beliefs as a set of psychological myths under
fictional projections. Doubt is presented against the validity of general
ethical postulates. There is an indifference towards religious ideas and
skeptical suspicions emerge. The validity of the revelation is undermined.
Ethics is reduced to Morals and that our knowledge is based only in experience,
founded upon the empirical later rationalized.
As the group representing the
constructive and thetic aspects demonstrates that the empirical-rational is a
philosophical fundament for the theological worldview, immediately the
antithetic side starts doubting about the abstractive abilities of reason.
Relativism, skepticism and criticism come to light. In this phase the power of
reason is denied over the sole acceptance of the experiential. When the thetic
part justifies that Metaphysics is founded in the reality known by experience
and the rationalization based in real foundations, then the antithetic part denies
the abstractive faculties of men affirming that even the empirical reality is
unobtainable: “the world is a set of man-created fictions”. From this point it
is natural to question the real content of the concepts and nominalism
emerges. Words are merely names given to things and Logic becomes a logic of
extensionality. The first principles and the importance of the principle of
identity, the principle of contradiction, the principle of causality and the
principle of sufficient reason are rejected. Also seek to deny the cognitive
power of men: knowledge is merely pragmatic. The positivist position is valued
and capitalism is systematic. The value of demonstration is denied and the
accepted proofs depend upon a priori given prejudices to be classified by man.
As concept implies essence, the new era tries to substitute the concept by the
merely classificatory, once conceptualization entails incursion into the
essential, which is now banned.
The question of revelation –
fundamental in the previous stages – becomes secondary. Mankind salvation can
only happen within the cosmic-immanent sphere. The solution can only come from
one of the Ethics disciplines, such as Sociology, Economics, Politics.
Philosophy is put into doubt and can even be denied. So is the Speculative
Science and even the Practical Science weakens. A pragmatic science – merely
classificatory – strengthens, as modernly can be observed as an extreme
valorization of the protocolary.
At this point the antithetic aspect
comes to an end, disemboguing into its last alternative, the nihilism. This
third period sees the rule of the antithetic aspect and the thetic position is
firmly attacked. The wars amongst nations have ideological reasons, once to all
social problems there can only be an economical, political or sociological
solution that must prevail. Ideologies are put together with a promise to
accomplish salvation through predetermined means, since salvation can only be
achieved in this world.
The foundations of the thetic
position is shattered, bringing to life a new certainty, a new conviction,
founded in human experience and knowledge, reveled through superior men, which
structure new possibilities. Bound in a tensional manner, it will serve as a
new coming worldview to a new cultural cycle.
Finally, it is noteworthy the fact
that all worldview advocating thetic aspects have an affirmative position and its
resulting philosophies are always affirmative. They are always interested in
affirming, postulating, and demonstrating. On the other hand, the antithetic
corresponding philosophies are always negative. Always denies and rejects the
validity of the demonstrative means.
It also illustrates a certain dynamic
throughout the cycle in which for each affirmative position corresponds an
adverse position in the extreme contrary. For example, the excess of
rationalism was faced with an excess of romantic irrationalism and that with
the rise of modern phenomenology and other concepts seeking to oppose the
negative aspect. No phase develops without a tensional adversity and dynamic of
accommodation between its thetic and antithetic aspects.
[1] Or Social Cycles, as the
terminology used by P. R. Sarkar. (Translator’s note)
[2] The social kratos dominators
are the real representatives of the law but they are not necessarily always the
holders of the state power. As a matter of fact, they possess the power in
general of society, from which even the political power emanates and depends
upon. They are the superior men who represents the upper authority within the
cyclic phase. (Author’s note)
[3] In Sociology, the medium term is the
one that gives cohesion to the social relationship, for example in a family the
mother is the medium term. (A.N.)
No comments:
Post a Comment