Stable Societies Cannot Exist Without Stable Families and Livelihoods
One of the few good things about YouTube, other than videos about specialized and niche topics, is the ability to re-view old movies and TV shows. One of the hidden gems in this genre is a Channel 4 BBC show, known as ‘Time Team', which ran from 1994-2014, or about two decades. A very quick description of that show is as follows: At the start of each episode, the host (Tony Robinson) explains why the team visited the site in question. Most of them are suggested by a member of the public. They then uncover as much archaeology and history of the site, as they can, in three days. During these excavations, Tony encourages all of the archaeologists to explain their decisions, discoveries and conclusions in a manner comprehensible to the lay person.
As you might have already guessed, the vast majority of episodes are about archeology in UK and cover a very wide time range from various parts of the Paleolithic, Bronze age, Iron age, Roman occupation, Saxon occupation, Dark Ages, Norman occupation, Plantagenet and Tudor era, Regency to the Victorian era. After watching almost all of the episodes within past couple of years, I noticed an interesting pattern. You see.. it is very common to find sites with evidence of almost continuous habitation from the late Paleolithic age, through Bronze and Iron age, Roman era onwards to the present. In fact, almost every single site which contains Roman remains is often built upon or near previous settlements from the Bronze and Iron age. And there is something else about these sites which is especially interesting.
While there is no accurate way to measure multi-generational continuity at sites from before the Roman era in UK (AD 43), this becomes much easier afterwards because of easily dated coins, earthenware, graveyards, mosaic patterns, written records etc. One consequence of this shift in type of archeological objects found is that it is becomes possible to follow the general pattern of occupation of sites over multiple generations. This is my way of saying that, even if we don't know the names of the people, we can make educated guesses about their lifestyle and kinship. So how is a discussion about some British TV show on archeology connected with the title of this post?
Well.. in spite of political instability at the core of Roman Empire (many rebellions, wars, plagues, assassinations etc), the life of most people outside these hot zones in that era was remarkably stable and relatively prosperous. For example- it was very common for local leaders of Romanized Celts in UK to have big fancy villas with hot baths, underfloor heating, glass windows, beautiful mosaic floors and lots of imported luxury items from all over the empire. Moreover, the same families kept residing in these big villas, which were often expanded over later decades, over the timespan of over two centuries. And this was not unique to UK, as similar archeological evidence can be found in France and Spain- more frequently and on an larger scale. Even the more prosperous farmers in these places adopted many Roman ideas about comfort and luxury. But why does this matter to us today?
Consider this.. the roman way of life in UK survived for multiple centuries, and even improved and evolved over all that time despite the empire being politically unstable. Now compare this to cities, towns and infrastructure in USA which has really gone down the toilet over past four decades in most parts of the country- in spite of a very 'stable' government. How do you explain that? The more autistic might say something about this instability being the cost of technological progress and declining costs of cell phones and computers etc. But does that really explain it? The biggest and most significant leaps in technology occurred between early 1800s and 1960s. The last four decades have, if anything, been an era of technological stagnation. And what is the use of cheap cell phones and computers if most people are living from paycheck to paycheck making them very sensitive to every small disruption in their employment status, global logistic chains and personal relationships.
During the time it was present in UK (43 AD - 410 AD), the Roman Empire survived multiple dynasty changes, many emperor assassinations, at least two very destructive pandemics, a large number of adverse weather events and much much more. And yet.. life went on, villas kept getting built and expanded, yeoman farmers built bigger and better houses, trade within the empire went on, roads and public buildings were built and maintained. So why was the Roman empire far more resilient than the American one? Here is my theory- it has a lot to do with the personal and social environment in which it existed, more specifically the presence of stable families and kin-groups in combination with a system that guaranteed fairly stable livelihoods for most people in the empire, ensured that popular support for the system was always high enough for it to successfully overcome multiple and often severe adverse events.
People will stay and fight together if they feel part of a system which appreciates and rewards them for their loyalty and sacrifice. Atomized social systems, on the other hand, are based on the farcical delusions of materialistic autists and encourage intra-group competition and outright treachery making them especially fragile when faced with anything beyond mild temporary adversity. It also helped that the Roman empire and many other older long-lasting empires were far more decentralized and tolerant than their modern hyper-conformist counterparts. Did I mention that elites of older long-lasting empires had far more contact with physical reality than the present crop of "clever" idiots pumped out of incestuous ivy league universities. But why talk only about the past.. there is a current example- Japan.
Have you ever wondered why Japan, a developed country with an aging and gradually declining population, still manages to complete ambitious civil engineering projects on time, keep its dense cities clean and well-maintained and continue making quality consumer and industrial goods despite experiencing very little "economic" growth for almost three decades now. How come the quality of life for the average Japanese has actually increased over those three decades? The simple answer is that Japan, in stark contrast to many western countries, still has stable families and livelihoods- at least for the majority of the population. Consequently there is far more social cohesion and sense of purpose. Even the rural areas of Japan which have experienced population loss due to migration of young people to cities are kept in far better shape than their equivalents in USA and other western countries.
The point I am trying to make is that societies which offer stable families, kin-groups, living environments and livelihoods will always be far more resilient than those based around social atomization, empty intellectual fads and endless rounds of materialistic competition among its people. Japan, in spite of its current demographic issues, will be be around in 50 years- barring some extraordinary catastrophe. The same cannot be said for USA and most other western countries.
What do you think? Comments?