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

[Muizer]

Since the rise of identity politics in the West, that begun in early 2010s US (but arguable begun much earlier with "slow march" of ideological marxists into Western academia and entertainment industries in XX century), many have already grown accustomed to the archetype of self-hating Western man.

That's not an archetype. That is you projecting the only thing that you can imagine could bring Western men to the viewpoint that the patriarchical past wasn't all that great after all and that the people who complain about its vestiges have a point. The people who actually have those views for the most part aren't that bothered at all. I think that if there is an 'hatred' (I think annoyance, and impatience would be better terms) it's with people who are so anchored in atavistic traditions they're holding everybody else back.

In a paradoxical mental twist, you have people who often hate their culture, hate their civilization and often even hate their own race and ethnicity. The significant aspect of this is that it is strictly unique to the West, since we don't see that in non-Western nations be it well-developed Japan or some poor nation in Central Asia. But sadly, we do see examples of same phenomena is civilizations that were in their declining stages, meaning that ours is showing same alarming symptoms, oikophobia being one of them.

Ironically, the real lesson we can draw from a video that was intended to highlight how the Japanese aren't 'oikophobic' is how much they have been Westernized. The 'decandent' West, seems to do a much better job of westernizing those Asian nations than vice versa. If you do want to draw parallels between Rome and the modern West, it's that the Coca Cola and Hollywood are to the West what baths and theatres were to the Romans: means of establishing hegemony through 'decadence'.

The simplest way of defining oikophobia is as the opposite extreme of xenophobia. As xenophobia means the fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners, so oikophobia means the fear or hatred of home or one’s own society or civilization, oikos being the ancient Greek word for home, house, household. The term was coined in this sense by British philosopher Roger Scruton in 2004, in his book England and the Need for Nations. He calls oikophobia “the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’” As the title of his book suggests, Scruton is mainly concerned with England, and so within this framework he places the rise of oikophobia after World War II. There is much truth to this, but it is also true, to go beyond Scruton, that the oikophobe occurs and recurs throughout history. The oikophobia that developed after World War II is therefore only the latest manifestation of the phenomenon, and nothing truly new. The reason why we are experiencing oikophobia in the United States today is that we are in about the same phase of historical development now as England was after World War II, or a little earlier: a great power, but on the decline.

I see. So, the decline of the British Empire (and the French) had nothing to do with being bled dry by two World Wars and a newly hegemonic United States not allowing them to have their empires back. Well well, you learn something new every day.

So oikophobia is a natural outgrowth of the way cultures, and certainly Western cultures, develop. It occurred in ancient Greece, in Rome, in the French and British empires, and now in the United States. To give a very brief overview of this development, we may say that in the beginning, a people relatively uncivilized and uncultured, but possessed of great mobility and untested strength, awakens and, as it were, goes to war in service of its deities. Initial successes against surrounding peoples lead to greater wealth and prestige, and a national identity is forged, accompanied by literary epics and other accoutrements of culture. Eventually, the people reaches its pinnacle of success, with so much wealth that a broad and permanent leisure class can be established, and this era of greatest political power will generally coincide, more or less, with the pinnacle of the nation’s cultural and scientific achievements. There is finally enough wealth nd power for the leisure class, and in many cases for people lower on the social ladder as well, to become more occupied with achieving higher states of wealth and prestige vis-à-vis their countrymen than they are with the health of the community itself.

This is where oikophobia sets in. Diverse interests are created that view each other as greater enemies than they do foreign threats. Since the common civilizational enemy has been successfully repulsed, it can no longer serve as an effective target for and outlet of people’s sense of superiority, and 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. Since this condition of leisure and empowerment, as well as a perception of external threats as non-existential, are the results of a society’s success, success is, ironically, a prerequisite for a society’s self-hatred. What Freud has called the “narcissism of small differences” (in Civilization and Its Discontents)—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.
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. Earlier in the civilizational development, the cooperation of a larger proportion of the people is essential for survival at a time when the state is poorer and individuals more reliant on one another for basic security. But once the society has taken off and become affluent, there is greater opportunity to excel and more room, therefore, for people to start criticizing their own culture in an effort to get ahead personally. People are always self-interested, of course, but the gulf between immediate self-interest and the interest of the state is smaller when the state itself is smaller and weaker.

I've been trying to match up what I know about history with this theory, and to be honest I can barely find any correspondence at all. So help me out. How does this work for, say, the French?

So as we see, Western self-hatred isn't a sign of some sort of political "woke enlightenment" that oikophobic left is trying to present itself as, but, rather typical phenomena for a declining civilization, where civilization has already reached its zenith and now it simply benefits one more to work against your own community then with it. This stems from establishment of permanent leisure class of corporate CEOs and bankers who no longer identify with their nations and people, but view them as an obstacle to wealth and power instead - hence why oikophobic ideas such as marxism and globalism spread from bourgeois elites, rather then common folks.
Here's another good video that explains oikophobia and draws parallels between late Roman Empire and modern West, explaining why latter is in severe decline:
So without a doubt, our civilization has seen better years, or even centuries.
So how bad is current civilization decline of the West? What can be done to prevent it or at least postpone it?

As I pointed out earlier, if you could shake off the idea that 'civilization' is an attribute of tribes, nations or empires you would see very clearly that Western civilization is anything but in decline. Western civilization is everywhere in the world. Western values are seeping into and 'perverting' cultures world wide, spearheaded by commerce and backed up with guns.

Western culture isn't losing. You just hate the way it's winning.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Can anybody tell me when Roman living standards suddenly declined?

During the 5th century in the Western part (Germanic invasions), during the 7nth century in the Eastern part (Arab and Avar/Slavic invasions).

[Aexodus]

Western culture isn't losing. You just hate the way it's winning.

In a world where China is fast becoming more and more dominant in the world politically and economically, and where Western countries are becoming increasingly politically and socially divided, this statement is off the mark.

[antaeus]

In a world where China is fast becoming more and more dominant in the world politically and economically, and where Western countries are becoming increasingly politically and socially divided, this statement is off the mark.

Only if you believe in a zero sum world. In reality, there can be more than one successful country at any one time.

Who said anything about genetics.

Being born and bred French/English/Brazilian exists.

Yes, but the only natural born thing that makes one French or Brazilian is the coincidental physical location of birth. Everything else is a social construct. And you can opt out of either by handing back your passport and taking up another. I have 3. I could hand the one of my birth back and not be that nationality any more.

[Aexodus]

But you can still come to hate your own mother country with enough malicious propaganda thrown at you.

[antaeus]

But you can still come to hate your own mother country with enough malicious propaganda thrown at you.

Certainly. But is that a specific structural thing? Or just someone being upset that they disagree with something that happens in their country?

Every person in the history of countries has disagreed with something their country has done. I'd suggest democracy depends on it.

[Muizer]

In a world where China is fast becoming more and more dominant in the world politically and economically, and where Western countries are becoming increasingly politically and socially divided, this statement is off the mark.

Only if you cannot separate 'western civilization' from 'western nations'. The point stands that almost all of the world's cultures have substantially westernized and are continuing to do so (which btw explains why 'the west' is hated so much in some quarters). If China becomes top dog in the world as a result, that's still a victory for 'western civilization'.

Btw, I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm offering this up as the more grounded alternative to the entirely unhinged ideas expressed in the OP.

[Heathen Hammer]

That's not an archetype. That is you projecting the only thing that you can imagine could bring Western men to the viewpoint that the patriarchical past wasn't all that great after all and that the people who complain about its vestiges have a point. The people who actually have those views for the most part aren't that bothered at all. I think that if there is an 'hatred' (I think annoyance, and impatience would be better terms) it's with people who are so anchored in atavistic traditions they're holding everybody else back.

So you are saying that liberalism and egalitarianism are atavistic traditions? Makes sense that people who promote those ideologies are hateful, not only to themselves but also to their own cultures and people.

Ironically, the real lesson we can draw from a video that was intended to highlight how the Japanese aren't 'oikophobic' is how much they have been Westernized. The 'decandent' West, seems to do a much better job of westernizing those Asian nations than vice versa. If you do want to draw parallels between Rome and the modern West, it's that the Coca Cola and Hollywood are to the West what baths and theatres were to the Romans: means of establishing hegemony through 'decadence'.

No, Japanese just don't hate themselves. They are still a very proud and nationalistic nation, they definitely wouldn't raise a fuss over ethnic clothing being used in an ad like morbidly obese proponents of "progress" do in countries like USA. Comparison of consumerism to Roman culture is quite cute, but definitely doesn't fir the bill. Roman culture had practicality behind it, Hollywood and Coca Cola do not.

I see. So, the decline of the British Empire (and the French) had nothing to do with being bled dry by two World Wars and a newly hegemonic United States not allowing them to have their empires back. Well well, you learn something new every day.

That had something to do with cosmopolitan upper banker crust lobbying for said wars on both sides.

I've been trying to match up what I know about history with this theory, and to be honest I can barely find any correspondence at all. So help me out. How does this work for, say, the French?

What works? You quoted to paragraphs that talk about many things.

As I pointed out earlier, if you could shake off the idea that 'civilization' is an attribute of tribes, nations or empires you would see very clearly that Western civilization is anything but in decline. Western civilization is everywhere in the world. Western values are seeping into and 'perverting' cultures world wide, spearheaded by commerce and backed up with guns.

Western culture isn't losing. You just hate the way it's winning.

Well, one can "shake off" facts if they are inconvenient to one's political beliefs, but thing about facts is that they don't change even after being "shaken off" to fit a progressive paradigm about civilizations just happening and having nothing to do with tribes, nations and empire.
Roman civilization in late 300s was also everywhere in the world. and to a Christian zealot (who are are quite similar to proponents of progressive globalist liberalism in the modern West in terms of irrationality of their ideology and how cult-like it is) decline may not be the case, but nonetheless it was in quite the obvious decline and collapsed shortly after.

[dogukan]

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

Judging by your simplified your world-view, my endless struggle with fellow Turkish members on this forums is clear sign of oikophobia and Turkey is going down the drain because of critical people like me? Is that it?
I should be blindly supporting Turkey's militarism, anti-minority policies, narrative of grandeur, denial of genocidal historical events, lack of rule of law and worship a one-man that is teaching the whole world "a lesson".

Is this the way to be a great civilization that does not degenerate?
I thought it was relevant because I've probably debated with millions of nationalistic Turks and many called me a "self-hating" Turk...which has nothing to do with my criticisms.

Meanwhile, the "Marxist" N.Korea and China are some of the most ultra-nationalist states that stand on this earth. Something does not add up...

[PointOfViewGun]

When one exchanges one dogma for an other the result is not self-hatred but lack of standards or principles. Symptoms should not be confused for causes.

[Ludicus]

Western civilization is.... 'perverting' cultures world wide, spearheaded by commerce and backed up with guns...

That's right, backed with guns...
I would say that the western expansion, in the global context, helped to carry the seeds of change that transformed old patterns of evolution.I would argue that the stuff of the world history is primarily not economic, but cultural. In fact, we, westerns,we played a vital role - for the african blacks and native Americans in the US and Brazil a very lethal one - in creating the Atlantic networks around which our Western civilization took shape. I would argue that the balance swing decisively in western's favor in the 19th century for India and China. I would say that the relationship between our European imperialism and Western economic growth is obscure, problematic, and as we already know, fiercely debated. And is almost certain that relative economic/political/military power is shifting away from the West, mostly to Asia, but also to other regions.

Finally, the long read- we should be humble, There is no such thing as western civilisation | Philosophy

(...)Values aren’t a birthright: you need to keep caring about them. Living in the west, however you define it, being western, provides no guarantee that you will care about western civilisation. The values European humanists like to espouse belong just as easily to an African or an Asian who takes them up with enthusiasm as to a European. By that very logic, of course, they do not belong to a European who has not taken the trouble to understand and absorb them. The same, of course, is true in the other direction. The story of the golden nugget suggests that we cannot help caring about the traditions of “the west” because they are ours: in fact, the opposite is true. They are only ours if we care about them. A culture of liberty, tolerance, and rational inquiry: that would be a good idea. But these values represent choices to make, not tracks laid down by a western destiny.

We live with seven billion fellow humans on a small, warming planet. The cosmopolitan impulse that draws on our common humanity is no longer a luxury; it has become a necessity. And in encapsulating that creed I can draw on a frequent presence in courses in western civilisation, because I don’t think I can improve on the formulation of the dramatist Terence: a former slave from Roman Africa, a Latin interpreter of Greek comedies, a writer from classical Europe who called himself Terence the African. He once wrote, “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.” “I am human, I think nothing human alien to me.” Now there’s an identity worth holding on to.

[Aexodus]

creating the Atlantic networks around which our Western civilization took shape.

It’s this pernicious idea that the West is based on slavery that I don’t like, and which fuels a fair bit of the self doubt and self hatred that holds us to a standard absolutely no other country/ies are held to.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-reith-lecture

Until the same is said about all other countries, this rubbish is pure rot.

[Abdülmecid I]

He's not wrong, though. The term '''western culture'' is a modern invention that is ambiguous enough that everybody is able to define it however he wants it. The title might seem offending, but that's more the result of the influence of political correctness than any substantial inaccuracy. The concept of Western civilisation has been created relatively recently, purely for political purposes, which is also why it is still being used today by as diverse bodies as the European Union and the alt-right movement. Europe was always home to a huge variety of traditions, religions and ideas that you cannot possibly lump them all together, because the end result would a self-contradictory monstrosity.

This is why its 20th century and contemporary proponents selectively took into consideration only the ideas that fit their narrative: The fascists cared about military supremacy, but not modern tolerance, the liberals focused on parliamentary democracy and secularism, but not fascism and religious bigotry. Imagine how absurd it would be to talk about Asiatic or African culture. To be honest, all these terms sound implicitly racist, implying that such vast, diverse, prosperous and cosmopolitan continents are just monolithic entities, totally incapable of producing anything revolutionary, innovative and actually different. By the way, the author (whose father was born in Ghana) has taken a harsh stance against the chauvinism of Pan-Africanists, so I don't find anything inconsistent in his attitude. Unless, to come back to the OP's point, Appiah's treasonous act is a sign of how African self-hatred will ultimately lead to African, civilisational decline...

[Cope]

The claim that contested meanings, imprecision or exceptions to the rule can be used to invalidate nuanced ideas is a form of irrational negation. From observation, this sort of anti-intellectualism is typically deployed when the claimant has some sort of cynical opposition to the idea itself.

From Wikipedia:

Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Occidental culture, the Western world, Western society, and European civilization, is the heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, artifacts and technologies that originated in or are associated with Europe. The term also applies beyond Europe to countries and cultures whose histories are strongly connected to Europe by immigration, colonization, or influence. For example, Western culture includes countries in the Americas, such as Canada or the United States, and Oceania, such as Australia or New Zealand, whose language and demographic ethnicity majorities are of European descent without indigenous influence. Western culture is most strongly influenced by the Greco-Roman and Christian cultures.

[Aexodus]

What does pan-Africanism have to do with the west existing?

[Ludicus]

The title might seem offending, but that's more the result of the influence of political correctness than any substantial inaccuracy.. To be honest, all these terms sound implicitly racist, implying that such vast, diverse, prosperous and cosmopolitan continents are just monolithic entities, totally incapable of producing anything revolutionary, innovative and actually different.

Splendid post, Abdul.
---------

It’s this pernicious idea that the West is based on slavery

"creating the Atlantic networks" it was also said as a compliment. The western Atlantic networks pioneered transfusions of blood and transfusions of cultures across the Atlantic, the dissemination of flora and fauna, the discovery/ knowledge of the Atlantic winds and wind patterns, the flow and reflux of people, the transmission of ideas,mores and styles (architectonic and life-styles) - the beginning of a global world- a cultural, linguistic and intellectual diffusion from Europe to Asia and from Asia to Europe ; from Europe to Africa and vice versa; in fact the African culture was transmitted to Americas in slave ships. If we ask what difference it made on the world, the answer is:huge, the world's today wouldn't be recognizable without it. With that said, initially, the western expansion was based on three things:search for gold/slavery, scientific curiosity, and religion conversion.

[sumskilz]

the dissemination of flora and fauna

Including these genocidal monsters:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although archeologically and linguistically we can trace ultimate responsibility for the menace to the ancient Near East and Egypt.

[athanaric]

Finally, the long read- we should be humble, There is no such thing as western civilisation | Philosophy

The quote you've provided is certainly interesting and the author may have a point, but I also want to point out that people who make statements beginning with "There is no such thing as xyz" or "The xyz (e.g. Islam, Chinese language, etc.) doesn't exist" are usually full of . Because firstly, those statements are usually factually incorrect, and secondly, they're inflammatory clickbait.
I don't know, maybe the headline was written by someone else, I've heard that often happens in newspapers.

[swabian]

Including these genocidal monsters:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although archeologically and linguistically we can trace ultimate responsibility for the menace to the ancient Near East and Egypt.

Cats aren't a menace, they are a blessing!
Are you some weird rodent lover?

[sumskilz]

Cats aren't a menace, they are a blessing!
Are you some weird rodent lover?

I'm just impressed they managed to wipe out 63 species.

As a 1/64th Mi'kmaq myself, I can assure you that before the French arrived with their genocidal cats and their cigares aux choux, my people lived peacefully in harmony with nature, using every part of the giant sloth, rarely ever torturing anyone to death unless they were Iroquois.