‘Oikophobia’: Our Western Self-Hatred as a sign of Western civilizational decline

[Heathen Hammer]

Eh, a society of people pursuing more wealth and prestige for oneself would be like the end of Roman Republic which can hardly be considered declining. In fact it's right the opposite, although you may consider youtube views or fb likes as prestige - in that case I'd agree.

Self-reflection, laughable "enlightenment" or elements of self-hatred have always been there, but they were not the focus especially not politically, because people had more important things to do and good reasons to overlook whatever in or outside of their society, when there was an enemy.

What's happening IMO is that politicians are now seeing those as the main and only issues. Those issues and the reactions, whether elitist or populist, are ultimately driven by primitive human feelings with no regard of long-term benefits to the civilization. What's good according to a person or conventional moral value is not necessarily good to a society, and governments in the past had done a lot of worse, unspeakable things to get what we have today.

The decline of Rome was postponed by establishment of pax Romana and de-facto end of the Republic.

Make a new enemy?

I'd say limit the political power of the leisure class via economic and legal reforms.

The modern left is archconservative, capitalist and Bolshevik. I hope everyone is getting this down.

That's not what I said, but sure, pretend to miss the point.

[irontaino]

The modern left is archconservative, capitalist and Bolshevik. I hope everyone is getting this down.

It's whatever his narrative needs it to be.

[Gigantus]

This is the only part from the quoted article in the OP that made any sense to me:

"human psychology generally requires an adversary for the purpose of self-identification, and so a new adversary is crafted: other people in the same civilization."

So it appears it's not really a hate of home or own culture but rather the absence of a common enemy that let's a society turn inward in search for an opponent. That can certainly not be beneficial for that society as a whole and does tend to more often then not result in civil strife and even internal wars.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'self hate', more a directional misguidance in dick swinging.

[Heathen Hammer]

This is the only part from the quoted article in the OP that made any sense to me:

"human psychology generally requires an adversary for the purpose of self-identification, and so a new adversary is crafted: other people in the same civilization."

So it appears it's not really a hate of home or own culture but rather the absence of a common enemy that let's a society turn inward in search for an opponent. That can certainly not be beneficial for that society as a whole and does tend to more often then not result in civil strife and even internal wars.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'self hate', more a directional misguidance in dick swinging.

If it was the case, we'd see oikophobia in other nations - however phenomena itself is only specific to the West and is actively promoted by cosmopolitan permanent leisure class of bankers and corporate elites that view "populism" (blanket term for pretty much any anti-establishment narrative, left and right, former is just easier to subvert) as an existential threat to their lifestyle and positions of power.

[Gigantus]

I am still having difficulties to understand what you perceive as being 'oikophobia'. I am talking about the lack of external opponents that turns the search for the opponent needed for 'self identification' inward - that certainly does not involve any 'fear\self hatred of home'. No self hate involved wanting to hurt your brother as far as I am concerned.

I am guessing 'non western' countries have no issue with it because they have plenty external opponents, be it real and created by neighbors or what you term western countries as well as simply imagined ones created by governments, usually based on 'patriotism' - itself still being the most expedient means to create an opponent. Religion not being far behind.
Or they simply have a government policy to promote internal unity. I do know there are less then savory methods to achieve that and which you would love to try your vocabulary on, but let's skip that, please?

While telling others about phobias to create what isn't there, it does sell well lately mind you, terming the above 'oikophobia' (a fear\self hatred of home) is a rather silly confabulation. Try 'inimicumphobia' instead.

[Heathen Hammer]

I am still having difficulties to understand what you perceive as being 'oikophobia'. I am talking about the lack of external opponents that turns the search for the opponent needed for 'self identification' inward - that certainly does not involve any 'fear\self hatred of home'. No self hate involved wanting to hurt your brother as far as I am concerned.

I am guessing 'non western' countries have no issue with it because they have plenty external opponents, be it real and created by neighbors or what you term western countries as well as simply imagined ones created by governments, usually based on 'patriotism' - itself still being the most expedient means to create an opponent. Religion not being far behind.
Or they simply have a government policy to promote internal unity. I do know there are less then savory methods to achieve that and which you would love to try your vocabulary on, but let's skip that, please?

While telling others about phobias to create what isn't there, it does sell well lately mind you, terming the above 'oikophobia' (a fear\self hatred of home) is a rather silly confabulation. Try 'inimicumphobia' instead.

There are non-Western countries with living standards higher then most Western nations, yet they don't have oikophobia, despite the fact that in a similar way their society lacks the external opponents. So clearly, it is a strictly Western phenomena, which means that it has less to do with lack of external opponents as much as it does to do with subversion that comes from cosmopolitan permanent leisure class which simply views nationalism and patriotism as existential threat to the precious "status quo" where they have money and power. They don't want to lose legal immunity, tax havens, and political power - and "populists" threaten to do just that.

[Gigantus]

I would be interested which non-western nations you refer to and how you come to the conclusion that they do not have external opponents or a policy of internal unity, but in the meantime let me expand:

There is one thing, or more exactly a comment, in the article that has me baffled and which you appear to base your argument on:

"This “domestic” competition means that by rejecting one’s culture as backward, one automatically sets oneself above all the other interests that are parts of that culture."

It totally makes no sense. It asserts that domestic competition equates the rejection of ones culture. And above what interest of a culture does one set oneself when engaging in a domestic competition?

After all just before the author laid down his definition of 'domestic competition': "...the urge to compete against others even through minor distinctions like a virtuous action or the newest gadget—becomes one motivation through which a particular interest expresses its superiority over others."

Having a bigger gadget then the neighbor and getting it by any means available is as old as humankind. People max out their credit to look better then their peers, and not just since the event of the credit card. Peer pressure is usually blamed, my bet however is on the urge to be king of the dung heap.

Sticking with Plato would have been a better choice for the author instead of confabulating it: "Plato explains that the more freedom and equality is to be found in a society, the more its members will hold themselves above the state." Not above or against their own culture.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm yet to see an example of a non-Western nation with oikophobia.

It asserts that domestic competition equates the rejection of ones culture. And above what interest of a culture does one set oneself when engaging in a domestic competition?

As I pointed out above, upper societal crust of Western nations tend to be view the rest of the nation that hosts them as a threat to their wealth and position of power. Trudeau's hateful rants about "old-stock" Canadians spring to mind.

Having a bigger gadget then the neighbor and getting it by any means available is as old as humankind. People max out their credit to look better then their peers, and not just since the event of the credit card. Peer pressure is usually blamed, my bet however is on the urge to be king of the dung heap.

The idea that "economy is everything" is relatively recent in Western society.

[Gigantus]

I'm yet to see an example of a non-Western nation with oikophobia.

As I pointed out above, upper societal crust of Western nations tend to be view the rest of the nation that hosts them as a threat to their wealth and position of power. Trudeau's hateful rants about "old-stock" Canadians spring to mind.

The idea that "economy is everything" is relatively recent in Western society.

None of that actually has any relevance to what I was asking\saying.

1. Having a bigger gadget has nothing to do with 'economy is everything' - it's about being in the top group of your peer group (and possibly beggaring yourself while trying to get there).
2. I suppose the first line in this quote is just messed up formatting as you do not provide a response to me posing that question?
3. The existential angst of your 'upper societal crust' has no relevance why domestic competition is equated with the rejection of one's culture. Unless 'upper societal crust' is a an essential part of the existing culture? Which would lead us to the question what (or more precisely 'who') actually defines 'culture' - I do love myself a rabbit hole. Wanna go down it?
3a. Aspiration to get to the top always turns to rejection (see your Trudeau anecdote) of that very top if the ascent cannot be achieved. It forms the base of overthrowing the leadership of any group since time immemorial so the aforesaid existential angst does have a solid foundation. Refer to point 1 as well here. But then what's so special about it in the circumstances of this discussion?

[Cope]

None of that actually has any relevance to what I was asking\saying.

1. Having a bigger gadget has nothing to do with 'economy is everything' - it's about being in the top group of your peer group (and possibly beggaring yourself while trying to get there).
2. I suppose the first line in this quote is just messed up formatting as you do not provide a response to me posing that question?
3. The existential angst of your 'upper societal crust' has no relevance why domestic competition is equated with the rejection of one's culture. Unless 'upper societal crust' is a an essential part of the existing culture? Which would lead us to the question what (or more precisely 'who') actually defines 'culture' - I do love myself a rabbit hole. Wanna go down it?
3a. Aspiration to get to the top always turns to rejection (see your Trudeau anecdote) of that very top if the ascent cannot be achieved. It forms the base of overthrowing the leadership of any group since time immemorial so the aforesaid existential angst does have a solid foundation. Refer to point 1 as well here. But then what's so special about it in the circumstances of this discussion?

Conservative attitudes toward social and cultural issues often act as a barrier to unfettered global profiteering; by framing said attitudes as insular and bigoted, the "upper societal crust" is able to manipulate large parts of the population into rejecting traditional understandings of nationhood and the culture which underpins it. This then facilitates the sort of expansive internationalism which suits the economic elite.

When your interlocutor claims that "economy is everything", he is arguing that the wealthy are prioritizing their narrow economic interests up and above all other concerns (which is by no means a new phenomenon).

[Heathen Hammer]

None of that actually has any relevance to what I was asking\saying.

1. Having a bigger gadget has nothing to do with 'economy is everything' - it's about being in the top group of your peer group (and possibly beggaring yourself while trying to get there).
2. I suppose the first line in this quote is just messed up formatting as you do not provide a response to me posing that question?
3. The existential angst of your 'upper societal crust' has no relevance why domestic competition is equated with the rejection of one's culture. Unless 'upper societal crust' is a an essential part of the existing culture? Which would lead us to the question what (or more precisely 'who') actually defines 'culture' - I do love myself a rabbit hole. Wanna go down it?
3a. Aspiration to get to the top always turns to rejection (see your Trudeau anecdote) of that very top if the ascent cannot be achieved. It forms the base of overthrowing the leadership of any group since time immemorial so the aforesaid existential angst does have a solid foundation. Refer to point 1 as well here. But then what's so special about it in the circumstances of this discussion?

1. Again, "only economy is real" is a relatively recent way of thinking in the West. Even middle-of-the-road boomer political narratives tend to avoid that.
2. Like I said, if your premise was correct, we'd see plenty of non-Western states with oikophobia.
3. Of course upper crust is linked to that, they are the ones that back openly oikophobic narratives, be it by ownership of mainstream media or by funding politicians with such views.
3a. That doesn't really addressed why Western elites tend to hate their own host nations.

[Prodromos]

If someone is against Western culture (whatever that is), by definition they're not culturally Western. Self-hating Westerner is an oxymoron. It's like saying someone who hates golf and doesn't play it is a self-hating golfer.

[Aexodus]

You can be born western, you aren't born a golfer. That's the biggest single reason your analogy doesn't work.

[Prodromos]

You can't be born culturally Western. If a Chinese tourist gives birth in France and then goes back to China the next day, we don't say that her child was born culturally French. No one is born with a culture. If someone thinks a certain belief system is wrong, they're not a self-hating believer in that belief system, they're just... not a believer in that belief system.

[Aexodus]

Yeah but you can be born French. That’s what I mean. There’s no opt-out.

[antaeus]

Yeah but you can be born French. That’s what I mean. There’s no opt-out.

What genetic traits makes someone French?

[Cope]

Culture and nationality are typically a product of law and social conditioning, although blood ties (jus sanguinis) can also be a factor. Ethnicity is more associated with genetic traits common within certain populations in addition to cultural and religious traits. Conservatives would ordinarily understand groups such as the "French" according to these ideas (culture, nationality and ethnicity); liberals have a tendency only to consider a person's legal status.

[PointOfViewGun]

Is the attempt to use the term "oikophopia" not denial of one's own cultural fallibility or getting triggered by criticism? I haven't seen much in this thread to say otherwise.

[Heathen Hammer]

You can't be born culturally Western. If a Chinese tourist gives birth in France and then goes back to China the next day, we don't say that her child was born culturally French. No one is born with a culture. If someone thinks a certain belief system is wrong, they're not a self-hating believer in that belief system, they're just... not a believer in that belief system.

I think the phenomena in question is hate of your own nationality and culture, which go beyond belief system.

[Aexodus]

What genetic traits makes someone French?

Who said anything about genetics.

Being born and bred French/English/Brazilian exists.