One winter afternoon I was relaxing with
a half-dozen fellow graduate philosophy students discussing theories of law and
punishment. About an hour into the discussion, it occurred to me that some
moral laws are necessary because, although they might limit pleasure and
enjoyment in the short term, they actually minimize suffering and maximize
human fulfillment in the long term.
A few days ago I finished studying Sex
and Culture for the second time. It is a remarkable book summarizing
a lifetime of research by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin.[1] The 600+
page book is, in Unwin’s words, only a “summary” of his research—seven volumes
would be required to lay it all out.[2] His writings suggest he was a
rationalist, believing that science is our ultimate tool of inquiry (it appears
he was not a religious man). As I went through what he found, I was
repeatedly reminded of the thought I had as a philosophy student: some moral
laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing
long term.
Unwin examines the data from 86
societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual
freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially
interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late
1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s and are now in a position to test the conclusions he
arrived at more than 40 years earlier.
Unwin’s
cultural categories
Unwin described four “great patterns of
human culture” and degrees of flourishing measured in terms of architecture,
art, engineering, literature, agriculture, and so forth. The primary criterion
for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it
contains.[3]
1.
zoistic: Entirely self-focussed on day-to
day-life, wants, and needs, with no interest in understanding nature. Described
as a “dead culture” or “inert”.
2.
monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs
and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.
3.
deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to
a god or gods
4.
rationalistic: Use rational thinking to
understand nature and to make day-to-day decisions.
Unwin’s
degrees of sexual restraint
Degrees of sexual restraint were divided
into two major categores—prenuptial and postnuptial. Prenuptial categories
were:[4]
1.
Complete
sexual freedom—no
prenuptial restraints at all
2.
Irregular
or occasional restraint—
cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence
3.
Strict
Chastity —remain a
virgin until married
Postnuptial categories were:[5]
1.
Modified
monogamy: one
spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.
2.
Modified
polygamy: men can
have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.
3.
Absolute
monogamy: only one
spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures)
4.
Absolute
polygamy: men
can have more than one wife, but wives must “confine their sexual qualities
(i.e., activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”
So what
did he find?
I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes from his book that summarize
his findings; but even that would leave you with a significant
under-appreciation of the rigour and fascinating details revealed in data from
86 cultures. Here are a few of his most significant findings:
1.
Effect
of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always
led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom
always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
2.
Single
most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important
correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity
was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
3.
Highest
flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled
with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination
for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area,
including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and
agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained
this level.
4.
Effect
of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute
monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three
generations.
5.
Total
sexual freedom: If
total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within
three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as
“inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who
have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this
level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with
greater social energy.
6.
Time
lag: If there is a
change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the
full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation. (Note: I’ve
added a clarifying footnote at the end of this article. See footnote #13)
How
does this compare with our culture today?
Unwin published his findings in 1936,
long before the sexual revolution that occurred in the West. We now have an
opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is
following the predicted pattern. Unwin’s “generation” appears to be
approximately 33 years, so it should take about a century for us to see the
cultural changes take full effect, but we are far enough along in the process
that we should be able to observe certain predicted effects.
We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing
if our own culture is following the predicted pattern.
Prior to the sexual revolution which
began in the late 1960’s, prenuptial chastity was still held in strong regard
by Western culture. But, starting in the 1970’s, pre-marital sexual freedom
became increasingly acceptable. By the early 2000’s, the majority of
teens were sexually active, to the extent that remaining a virgin until
marriage was regarded with disbelief if not ridicule. At the same time, our
culture moved from a social norm of absolute monogamy to “modified
monogamy”.
Unwin’s
predictions for our culture
Thanks to the rationalist generations
that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual
restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant
decline in culture, but the data shows that this “having your cake and eating
it too” phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in.
Unwin wrote:
The history of these societies consists
of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which
aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original
thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity
with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint),
the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate
desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to
declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to
abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however,
seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The
reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake
and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great
energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for
more than one generation.[6]
Looking at our own sexual revolution,
the “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have lasted into the early
2000’s. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification
or falsification of Unwin’s predictions.
Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was
abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared
within three generations.
Unwin found that when strict prenuptial
chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking
disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how
are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution
at the end of the 20th century?
1.
As
predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming
the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970’s, the mainstream of our
culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and
common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly
changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have
become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more
likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage.
2.
Deism
is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960’s, a combination
of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not
only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960’s, but there has been a
trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and
the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal
pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in
superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a “monistic” culture, two levels down
from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has
also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies
itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, “zoistic” level of Unwin’s
categories.[8]
3.
The
swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970’s is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism,
characterized by “scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” and “a general
suspicion of reason”.[9] But it gets worse … post-modernism is giving way to
“post truth”. In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture
abandons “shared objective standards for truth” and instead, stands on appeals
to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now “identify”
themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational
thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of
governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right
to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported
by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin
that has become particularly a propos in the last couple
decades since our own sexual revolution …
If I were asked to define a sophist, I should describe him as a
man whose conclusion does not follow from his premise. Sophistry is appreciated
only by those among whom human entropy is disappearing; they mistake it for
sound reasoning. It flourishes among those people who have extended their
sexual opportunity after a period of intense compulsory continence. [11]
Summary
of where our culture is going, given Unwin’s findings
For the first part of the 1900’s,
mainstream Western culture was rationalist and experienced enormous technological
advances — from horse-and-buggy to cars; from hot air balloons to
supersonic flight and spacecraft landing people on the moon; from slide rules
to computers. Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism,
deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate
prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the
third generation, somewhere in the last third of this century.
Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism,
deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate
prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the
third generation
Will
our culture be the exception?
I suppose we can hope, but there is
always a tendency to want to believe “it cannot happen to us.” Unwin describes
this attitude as a “pardonable egocentricity” and a “quaint and comfortable
doctrine”, that flies in the face of data, which indicate that the pattern of
decline happens with “monotonous” regularity. That’s another way of saying that
“insanity is doing the same thing yet again but expecting different results.”
The primary predictions are already unfolding with alarming “alacrity”.
Why is
there such a “monotonous” perfect inverse correlation?
The old adage, “correlation does not
entail causation”, probably holds true here as well. Unwin makes it clear that
he does not know why sexual freedom directly leads to the decline and collapse
of cultures, although he suggests that when sexual energy is restrained through
celibacy or monogamy, it is diverted into more productive social energy.
Perhaps, but I find it difficult to
accept it as a primary cause. Mary Eberstadt’s recent research into mass
killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression,
and the explosion of identity politics is a “primal scream” due to the loss of
identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family
with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which
provided identity—essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from
various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of
the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]
Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this
decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at
the end of the 20th century.
Her research indicates that increased
sexual freedom led to the decimation of the family, which resulted in the loss
of family identity, which produces Eberstadt’s ‘primal screams’—a massive
increase in mental health issues, mass killings, and the rise of extreme
identity groups at war with each other … all symptoms of a society rapidly
spiraling into collapse. This appears to have greater explanatory power than
Unwin’s psychological suggestion, although the two may actually be closely
related, given what Eberhardt shows.
Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide
substantial evidence that a sexual revolution has long-term, devastating
consequences for culture and civilization. As Unwin states, “The history of
these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions,” and it appears
that our civilization is following the same, well-travelled road to
collapse.
Back to
the philosophical thought
So back to that afternoon in the
philosophy seminar when it occurred to me that some moral laws will seem to
limit human pleasure in the short term, but will prevent great suffering or
maximize happiness and fulfillment in the long term. For years, it has been my
thinking that God’s moral laws are not simply a bunch of arbitrary rules given
to restrict mankind’s freedom. Instead, they are like operating instructions
designed to spare people from suffering while maximizing human flourishing. Unwin’s
and Eberstadt’s research provides strong rational justification for the
inference that God’s moral laws pertaining to our sexuality, although they may
restrain us from some immediate pleasure, protect us from enormous long-term
suffering while maximizing our long term flourishing.
References
and Notes:
1.
A
downloadable, pdf version is
available here.
2.
I
have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes that can
provide a more detailed understanding of Unwin’s book, but it is highly
recommended that the reader, at minimum, at least skim Unwin’s book to get a
better idea of the rigour and breadth of his research, as well as some of the
many examples the data provides.
3.
See
section 7, Unwin, page 13 for a fuller understanding of these terms.
4.
Unwin,
page 341.
5.
Unwin,
page 342
6.
Unwin,
page 412
7.
See,
for example, Stuart Vyse, ‘Why are millenials turning to astrology?’, Skeptical
Inquirer, 2018. (https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/why_are_millennials_turning_to_astrology/)
and Denyse O’Leary, ‘As traditionalism declines, superstition—not atheism—is
the big winner’, Intellectual Takeout, 2018. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/traditional-religion-declines-superstition-not-atheism-big-winner )
8.
Note: A non-religious culture is not
necessarily an atheistic culture. They do not deny or accept the existence of
God or gods. Rather, belief in a god or gods is simply not part of their lives;
it is irrelevant.
9.
Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy
11.
Unwin,
page 413
12.
Mary
Eberstadt, Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity
politics.
13.
A
loosening of sexual constraints probably does not occur in one year or even one
decade. In our case, one could argue that the sexual revolution began in the
late 1960’s, lasted throughout the 70’s and possibly into the early 1980’s.
According to Unwin, only small changes in a culture occur in the first
generation, due to the cultural ‘momentum’ of the previous generation, which
still continues to be a heavy influence in the generation after the loosening
(or strengthening) of sexual restraints. The changes become more prevalent in
the second generation, but it is not until the third generation, after the
initial generation has completely died off, that the changes reach their full
effect, occurring rapidly over the course of that third generation. By the end
of the third generation, the changes have fully taken place and the culture
stabilizes at its new level. However, if it has stabilized at the highest
level, then the flourishing of that culture continues to increase in subsequent
generations (though Unwin observes that no culture maintains that state very
long). If it has stabilized at the lowest level (i.e., a “collapse”), then that
culture is destroyed from within, or conquered or taken over by a more
“energetic” culture.
https://frjohnpeck.com/why-sexual-morality-may-be-far-more-important-than-you-ever-thought/
