Eden, Empire and Everything After

One of the things that struck me most when reading John Michael Greer’s book; 'The Long Descent' was his thoughts on our collective mythologies and how, in particular, so many of our current political ideologies are based on our underlying subconscious assimilation of a Christian theology. Thus the doctrines of Marxism are at least in part a playing out of the central Christian myth; Eden is primitive communism, original sin is the invention of private property while the Coming of the proletariat is almost messianic, a New Jerusalem of the final return of Communism.

For the neoprimitivists, JMG argues that Marxist economics are replaced with anthropology. Here Eden is the hunter-gatherer societies of the paleo and mesolithic, the Fall is the invention of agriculture, the frequently forecast collapse of civilisation giving us apocalyptic transformation, with a return to hunter gathering for the surviving chosen ones.

For my money, I still feel we're at the door in this point of our history of something truly significant; with so much at stake it could hardly be otherwise. But if we choose to adopt or continue with a Christian worldview, whatever dressing of philosophy we may choose to place over it, then we could do worse than to do so consciously and benefit from the many centuries of that religion's philosophy. But the most common polar expectations of what we face from here on in are often inherently limited and are partially informed by a simplifed interpretation of a Christian mindset; a continued Utopia of never ending progress or else some apocalyptic vision of catastrophe.

The likely answer of what’s coming, something that JMG spells out pretty convincingly, probably lies somewhere in between these polar visions. A scaling down of our dependence on resources and cheap energy that takes place over decades, even centuries, seems quite likely. The picture painted is still harsh and uncompromising but ultimately far more hopeful than an outright and almost overnight crash of civilisation.

Dreams and memories and stories can help to steer us through even when things seem at their most dark. We need those dreams as keenly now as ever. JMG argues that a degree of flexibility holds the key in finding those that serve us best; the many centuries of recorded history, the scenarios suggested with increasing clarity by archaeology, not to mention the great wealth of the stories of our traditional cultures - we can be guided by this wealth and breadth today, not be stuck in some loop of single narratives. The key thing is that whatever stories we tell ourselves, we need to hold onto the visions of that which can keep us together, which can help to see us through.

The situation which comes most strongly to mind for me, not least for its strong parallels with our own situation now, is the retraction of the Roman empire, a process that itself, all told, took the best part of a generation. Whatever your views of the Roman occupation (and they did some great and truly dreadful things) the point here is that when the empire began it’s slow decline, whatever bloodshed it was founded on, it was seen by many as a thing worth holding onto. Now I'm no big fan of empires; even the notion that they helped, or can help, to maintain peace and order is largely false, apart from in their most sheltered interiors. But as a parable of what we now may face, I cannot help but somehow be inspired by the story of the Roman empire's spirited defence. Imperfect systems often have their compensations, may offer more to everyone intact, not purged by ideology or brutal circumstance. They may hold the promise of the benefits of continuity and opportunity for ordered and constructive change. The challenge that we face today is one of instigating some kind of revolution, even if it may be one primarily, or intitially, of consciousness, of everyone awakening to a call. But tomorrow there may be as much of a challenge in holding onto the best of what we already have, of managing the inevitable transition in the most productive way.

And the example of post Roman Britain can at least be instructive if not inspirational. While towns and cities contracted and in many cases disappeared, while the continental legions left, the structures of administration carried on and when they too dissolved, people often held together and co-operated largely for the sake an idea, the long held memory of being part of an united world. Rome meant many things to many men but at its best meant more than simply grandeur. It brought both learning and philosophy, besides the more commonly trumpeted feats of engineering. For sure, the lifestyles of the super rich within it were all too opulent while, on the continent at least, the peasantry were crippled by harsh taxes. But the Romano British of the West, staging a long and dignified retreat, were a people changed by their exposure and may have felt a bond of gratitude for what they had inherited.

It was a seriously troubled time but a degree of continuity persisted, even when new kingdoms and new rulers emerged from the morass; many of them chose to style themselves upon this dream of previous culture, however idealised that image may have been. They saw themselves as the inheritors of something meaningful, something that gave their government a certain strength, that lifted them up above the mere matter of survival, a light that offered something more than blood.

The systems that we live under today we know have many faults, not least the crippling situation of many national economies paying tribute to the current global hegemony in a curious echo of Roman client kingdoms. And yet holding onto many of our existing social and political structures, seeking with all our power to reform them seems a way ahead that holds less suffering than some heady sweeping all away. And by this I mainly mean our national and local democratic institutions; with the obvious exception of the UN and so many NGO's, the great monolithic global mechanisms that have dominated international development for so long are clearly on a very shaky moral footing. It may be in the long run that for many nation states the continuity I speak of will be a struggle to maintain, a legacy in no small part to other, later empires. In which case, holding onto the basic sense of shared ideals or at least some common thread of human decency, of a sense of personal responsibility is nothing less than vital. But such scenarios will hopefully be far from universal. To my mind the model of some stepping down to a culture that is in itself no less in substance though far less energy intensive, of some degree of unity persisting both locally and on a national and global level, a drawn out transition that helps to clear the way for something new while retaining the best of our inheritance; this feels like an ideal that can, potentially, do us all a monumental favour.