The Evolution of Civilizations
Title: The Evolution of Civilizations
Author: Carroll Quigley, Harry J. Hogan
Publisher: Liberty Fund, Inc.
ISBN: 0913966568
Mentioning Carroll Quigley to someone these days will elicit a range of responses, ranging from respect to apathy to wild-eyed paranoid rantings. Mostly, however, you get blank stares. Those that have heard of him, though, tend to associate him mostly with his other books, namely Tragedy & Hope and the Anglo-American Establishment. Evidently these books lay the foundation for a lot of the right-wing paranoid “new world order” conspiracy theories. This was news to me, and seemingly in odd contrast to the tone of this book, which is very straightforward, scientific, and thoughtful. I can’t speak with any authority to this slightly murkier and odd side to Quigley, but I enjoyed this book tremendously.
In the Evolution of Civilizations, Quigley begins by explaining his intentions in the book: to lay out a scientific, analytical framework to apply to — you guessed it — the evolution of civilizations. He aims to delineate clearly the line between knowledge and understanding — something that he obviously sees as a problem with the field of History. He wants to create a “vocabulary” for understanding history, social problems, and civilizations, and to create a distinction between arguing ideas and semantics. This hits home for me, as I am perpetually frustrated by arguments fueled only by an inability to recognize a disagreement as one of pure semantics, but I digress.
He begins by dividing the interactions of people into three social aggregates: social groups, societies, and civilizations. He defines a social group as persons that have long-standing relationships and regard themselves as a unit, with exclusivity as a defining feature. An example of this would be a football team, a chess club, etc. A society, on the other hand, is “a group whose members have more relationships with one another than they do with outsiders.” Civilizations, then, are the next level of social interaction and are the meat of this book.
Throughout the book, Quigley introduces many ideas that are useful not just in analyzing history, but in critical thinking in general. One of these is the inclination of humans to polarize a continuum — to divide what is really a smooth continuum into two separate poles. Black/white, short/tall, good/evil, etc. He explains that while the framework he will subsequently attempt to lay out is a useful guideline it’s critical to acknowledge that it’s simply the polarization of what is in actuality a fluid continuum. There is, of course, no absolute date that delineates “The Dark Ages” from “the Rennaissance”, but it is a useful framework for analysis.
He also introduces the idea of “instruments” and “institutions”. In Quigley’s field of sociology, institutions are hardly a new idea, but Quigley’s definition is different in this context than in the traditional definition. He talks about the requirement of every civilization to have an “instrument of expansion.” This is the driving force for the civilization’s success. An institution, on the other hand, is an instrument that has ceased to benefit or serve the civilization at a whole and instead has become self-serving.
Quigley’s model civilization is subject to 7 distinct stages:
- Mixture
- Gestation
- Expansion
- Age of Conflict
- Universal Empire
- Decay
- Invasion
He then proceeds to subject various periods of history to this model, analyzing their beginnings, growth, and decay according to these 7 stages. Let me just say that although Quigley’s goal in writing the book was this analytical model, it’s also a remarkable tour of history that I found particularly interesting. He covers the birth of the earliest civilizations, Mesopotamia, Canaanite and Minoan civilizations, Classical civilization, and of course, Western civilization. For each, he demonstrates how each civilization adheres roughly to these 7 stages, but elaborates on the exceptions. He notes that you can actually go back and forth between several stages as new instruments of expansion are discovered, using Western civilization as a prime example of this.
Quigley’s style is quirky and endearing. He takes his commitment to developing a “vocabulary for understanding” to the literal level when he invents the word “clarid”, for lack of a better term. He demonstrates an astounding wealth of knowledge, with digressions into the natural sciences, as well as a comprehensive lesson in a wide spread of civilizations. I found his descriptions of the Minoan civilzation, in particular, to be intriguing. It is a tremendously educational book, both in matters of knowledge and of understanding. What I took away most from this book, however, was the ability to properly distinguish between the two.
NOTE: I am interested in Quigley as a person, although I haven’t been able to find much in the way of a biography, or really any information about him at all. A google search for “Carroll Quigley” seems to turn up mostly reviews of his books, and many “new world order” references and conspiracy theories. Evidently Clinton was a student of Quigley’s, so you find a lot of stuff accusing Clinton of right-wing leanings and globalization conspiracies. I find it intriguing (and laughable). If anyone knows anything more about this, or has any opinions on Quigley, let me know!.
I was in Quigley’s Development of Civilization course in 1959-1960. At one point he told the class that he had a morning paper route — yes, delivering newspapers! — for the excercise. This was years before “Aerobics.” I thought he was kidding, but at that time I had no idea that a lot of people considered him an eccentric, so in retrospect it may well have been true.
He was a compelling, fascinating lecturer, and it surprised me not at all to read recently that just about everyone who took his course considered him one of the strongest influences in their thinking.
Maybe instead of dismissing the “conspiracy theories” as paranoia, you should actually read the other books.
Quigley himself acknowledges “The Conspiracy” but he views it favorably, while others like the John Birch Society disagree with it, as do I and others who do not wish to be ruled by a self serving group of elites.
Try to find articles and Quigley’s own statements about the supression of “Tragedy and Hope.”
What i find “laughable, to use your word, is how people respond in such a trained manner to the hint of conspiracy. You have been condition to respond to the idea of conspiracies in exactly such a way. “Right wing paranoia” “New world Order”.
Quigley himself even details that the “left versus right” game is a complete sham. It is not a left versus right issues, it is a freedom versus tyranny issue.
If you want a sweeping introduction to the REAL world, I would suggest G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” The conspiracy is real, the question is whether or not you enjoy having your blinders on and respond relexively and label it “right wing paranoia”
Dr. Quigley was my advisor at Georgetown from 1971-1975. He was a brilliant lecturer. I can still remember his guidance in learning to think critically and see beyond the facts.
Like many brilliant people, he was eccentric. His Plato lecture, in which he explained that Plato’s ideas were not the work of one committed to democracy, was particularly compelling. His ideas on weaponry and weapons systems as a determinant of democracy were equally fascinating.
What I remember most, however, was his insistence that there was no conspiracy to rule the world. Rather, there were groups of people whose interests led the world in different directions. People, he held, were neither intellengent nor well-organized enough to pull off a worldwide conspiracy to rule. At the same time, interests of the rich, the media, and other interest groups would pull the world in many possible directions. He impressed upon us that we had to choose what we believed was the best future for all and take responsibility to create it.
That is why, today, I choose to teach.
The most disheartening aspect of the Quigley legacy appears to be that most remember him for “Tragedy and Hope” rather than for “Evolution of Civilizations”. In and if itself that would not be bad but they(most conspiricists) did not even read the former in entirety either.
As for me reading “Evolution of Civilizations” in 2003 has been one the most important events of my life. After being a career history undergrad I was somewhat disillusioned by the minute view of history that was being, quite frankly, forced on me at the schools I’d attended. It turns out Quigley had been the mentor I had always been searching for.
His effect was so profound that I checked every available source on the net to see if he was a legitimate scholar. Incredibly it turned out that he was an immensely famous proffessor in my hometown. In lieu of this information I began to polish my resume to hopefully get a job at Georgetown(a school I could never afford) with the hopes of continuing my education and somehow touching or more likely keeping others in touch with his legacy.
p.s. If you ever want to discuss “Tragedy and Hope” or the “Anglo-American Establishment” email me. They are not as fundamental as evolution but just as profound.
hello Ralph,
I have a question regarding a detail of Quigley’s bio that I’ve not been able to find just yet.
No doubt, his scholarship regarding Russian history is a matter of record.
However, does anyone know whether or not he was ever able to visit Russia?
I’d be much obliged.
Thanks!
Steve
[...] But it does make a foray into different arenas of social sciences perpetually challenging. When reading Carroll Quigley, you have to learn what he means by “institution”, which as it turns out is easy because he spends several chapters defining it. When you read Marx, you have to understand what he means by “alienation” and the other countless German words he made up, which is not so easy, because he didn’t define shit. Galbraith as well, I think, was fond of making up words to match an idea that didn’t otherwise have one. These sorts of vocabularies, specific to fields and even authors, can make it different to compare, contrast, and combine different theories from different areas — especially when the vocabularies overlap and conflict. The tortured use of the word “institution” in various aspects of social theory is probably the best example of this, or at least one I’ve run into over and over. And then there’s the matter of making sure your vocabulary hasn’t become so refined, nuanced, subjective and context-specific as to be rendered meaningless — or conversely, that some jerk isn’t taking advantage of that and making you look like a fool. [...]
I was Quigley’s student in Dev Civ and Intellectual History of Western Civ in the mid-sixties. During the past two decades
I’ve recalled much that he taught that has clearly influenced
us and our times. So kudos to our great prof, and a Big Question — how do we assemble a bright new civilization from the detritus of greedy crumbling empire?
Hello Rahn,
I would be delighted to chat with you about C. W. Quigley’s works. Feel free to e-mail me : d_ysrap1@hotmail.com