What do you think?
Rate this book
The Once and Future World Order: Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West
The epic story of the past, present, and future of world order, revealing how the decline of the West may be a good thing for the world.
Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, the West has been in crisis. Social unrest, political polarization, and the rise of other great powers - especially China - threaten to unravel today's Western-led world order. Many fear this would lead to global chaos. But the West has never had a monopoly on order.
Surveying five thousand years of global history, political scientist Amitav Acharya reveals that world order - the political architecture enabling cooperation and peace among nations - existed long before the rise of the West. Moving from ancient Sumer, India, Greece, and Mesoamerica, through medieval caliphates and Eurasian empires into the present, Acharya shows that humanitarian values, economic interdependence, and rules of inter-state conduct emerged across the globe over millennia. History suggests order will endure even as the West retreats. In fact, the end of Western dominance offers us the opportunity to build a better world, where non-Western nations find more voice, power, and prosperity. Instead of fearing the future, the West should learn from history and cooperate with the Rest to forge a more equitable order.
This is the definitive account of how world order evolved and why it will survive the decline of the West.
Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, the West has been in crisis. Social unrest, political polarization, and the rise of other great powers - especially China - threaten to unravel today's Western-led world order. Many fear this would lead to global chaos. But the West has never had a monopoly on order.
Surveying five thousand years of global history, political scientist Amitav Acharya reveals that world order - the political architecture enabling cooperation and peace among nations - existed long before the rise of the West. Moving from ancient Sumer, India, Greece, and Mesoamerica, through medieval caliphates and Eurasian empires into the present, Acharya shows that humanitarian values, economic interdependence, and rules of inter-state conduct emerged across the globe over millennia. History suggests order will endure even as the West retreats. In fact, the end of Western dominance offers us the opportunity to build a better world, where non-Western nations find more voice, power, and prosperity. Instead of fearing the future, the West should learn from history and cooperate with the Rest to forge a more equitable order.
This is the definitive account of how world order evolved and why it will survive the decline of the West.
464 pages, Hardcover
Published April 8, 2025
53 people are currently reading
346 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 7, 2025
"The headlines and laments in the West about the end of the American-led world order are louder than ever these days..."
The Once and Future World Order started off well, and then progressively went completely to crap. As the saying goes: "Gradually, then suddenly." The book suffers from some very serious structural, factual, and narrative issues.
I am admittedly a fan of contrarian takes, and this one's provocative title drew me in. Unfortunately, the book's title wrote a cheque that the writing could not cash. More below. Get comfortable, because this review will be a long one.
Author Amitav Acharya is a scholar and writer, who is Distinguished Professor of International Relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Initiative.
Amitav Acharya:
Acharya writes with a good style here, and I found the book to be decently readable. This was nice, especially given that it was a pretty long read (the audio version I have clocks in at a bulky ~14.5hrs). If you are going to write a book over 300 pages, then you had better make the writing engaging.
The author drops the quote at the start of this review early on, and it continues:
The book's thesis is a bit convoluted. Although the subtitle says "Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West," he does not get around to talking about this until the last ~40mins of the writing. And then only a few paragraphs are devoted to this discussion. For most of the rest of the book, he aims to challenge the paradigm that The West is the Best. He mentions Francis Fukuyama's The End of History as well as Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations many times. (As a quick aside, either of these books would be a much better allocation of your reading time than this one).
In this quote, he introduces the aim of the book to the reader early on:
On the positive side, there's quite a lot of interesting "big history" covered here. The author gives the reader a brief summary of many historical civilizations. It was all going along fairly well, and then quickly went to crap. Where to begin?? Let's take a look.
As mentioned, I like reading contrarian takes, but they have to be persuasive. This one was not. It was an extremely biased and cherry-picked work. It crossed the line into intellectual dishonesty many times. The book is really nothing more than a long-form treatise on victimology, cultural relativism, and cultural Marxism. Basically, all "developing" civilizations are lionized and revered. Anything European is picked apart and criticized. The entire book is pretty much ~14 hours of White Man Bad. The author cherry picks the worst of European history, ignores the best, while cherry picking the best of other societies, and ignoring the worst. Brilliant work, professor!
Although starting off innocuously enough, the book quickly slid into no more than the rantings of the ideologically possessed. Alarm bells went off for me early on as the author uses some slippery wording to talk about Islam. He talks about the concepts of "dar al harb" and "dar al Islam." The terms are central to understanding the expansionist nature of political Islam. "Dar al Islam" roughly means "house of peace." These include countries that are peaceful because they are under the rule of an Islamic theocracy. The other countries in the world are in the "dar al harb," or the "house of war." These are countries that are not yet under Islamic rule, and open for conquest. These basic definitions are missing here.
Acharya spends a great deal of time talking about slavery in the book. Slavery was a commonplace practice in the past. It was used across dozens of different separate cultures for millennia. However, the author here chose to focus on the Atlantic Slave trade (because of course he does). In another glaring omission, the author downplays Islamic slavery. The Islamic slave trade lasted ~1,300 years; the longest documented slave trade in history. It enslaved more people than the Atlantic slave trade. You don't see descendants of those slaves living in the Middle East today because they were all castrated. As a result, IIIRC - up to 60% of them died as a result of the gruesome process.
It was the British Royal Navy that eventually forcibly ended slavery, costing them enormous sums of money (something like billions of pounds in today's money). Slavery still existed in the modern world until 1962 in Saudi Arabia. Some North African countries still use chattel slavery today (2025). Slavery was practiced virtually everywhere, by almost everyone historically, but was ended solely by the decree and military might of the West. Surprise: this is also downplayed by the author.
The author spends quite a lot of time waxing nostalgic about the "Golden Age of Islam," roughly 1,000 years ago. He talks about paper-making, and the mathematical concept of zero. But what have they done lately? How many modern inventions come from the Islamic World? How much art; literature, music, etc?? Sam Harris destroys the narrative of "The Golden Age of Islam" in this short clip.
Acharya talks about jihadist violence, and says that it's "nothing that other religions didn't do." He tries to make apologetics for jihad, partly by using some slippery wording around the definition of the two kinds of jihad. For the record, "Jihad" means "struggle." The "Greater Jihad" is the struggle inside oneself to be a pious observer of the faith. The "Lesser Jihad" is the spreading of political Islam via the sword, spoken word, the pen, or money. There have been >47,000 Islamic jihadist terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. The fact that the author tries to downplay this is pretty gross...
In the last half of the book, he spends a substantial time detailing and condemning European expansionism. He completely glosses over if not downright omits the Islamic conquest of all of the Middle East, North Africa, and even up into Europe for a few hundred years.
He spends countless pages talking about European racism, but paradoxically doesn't dwell on the Islamic concept of dhimmitude, or racism by any other ethnicities. I mean, in his home country of India (one he speaks very highly of btw), they still live in a caste-based society. He even makes the ridiculous claim that the modern concept of racism is a Western, white construct. LMAO. Does this moron not realize that the human animal is deeply tribal, and every single ethnic group in the world has a strong in-group bias? Apparently not...
In one jaw-droppingly hilarious bit of whataboutism, he talks about how the Aztecs supposedly sacrificed 80,000 people at one time, but then says: "Western historians, while denouncing the barbarism of Aztec sacrifices, often forget to mention the brutal practices and large-scale public executions in other civilizations."
Moving on, Acharya talks about Africa and the West not recognizing their "contributions" to the modern world. I'm sorry, but when the white Boer settlers arrived in South Africa in the ~1600s, the Africans there had no written language, no utilization of the wheel, and no structure over 2 stories tall. Is it still accurate to call these primitive hunter-gatherer societies "Civilizations??" Because words have meanings.
In the year 2025, pretty much every single sub-Saharan African country still can't even manage to produce a functioning egrarian-level society and a semblance of stable governance. The post-colonial history of pretty much all of Sub-Saharan Africa is a complete gong show of a SNAFU stuck in endless cycles of "Big Man Rule."
He goes on and on here about the evils of European colonialization. Conveniently, he doesn't acknowledge that (for better or worse), just about every civilization that could has tried to expand their lands and/or their spheres of influence. Mankind is an exploring and warring creature by nature. The story of all of humanity since well before recorded history is that of conquest and warfare. He's missing the bigger picture here...
The author spends many hours detailing individual components of modernity that different civilizations contributed, but never mentions that it was the West that amalgamated and implemented them all together. Sure, other places had some of the ingredients, but it was the West that put the recipe together and baked the cake, ushering in the era of modernity that we currently reside.
Finally, we can't help but acknowledge the supreme irony in the fact that this professor spends the majority of the book telling the reader how terrible the West is, and how bad white people are, but doesn't seem to mind living in The United States or his cushy academic job at one of our intitutions of higher learning. If he hates the West and white people so much, what is he doing here? Maybe he should return to the "utopia" of his home country, India and preach this anti-civilizational subversion to his own people. Why did he immigrate to a country that's so terrible??
********************
This book was a complete dumpster fire of misinformation. It is a masterclass on intellectual dishonesty and fallacious reasoning.
That this person is teaching impressionable young minds at a University scares the shit out of me.
Remind me to take a hard pass on anything else that this moron produces.
1 star, and off to the return bin, where it belongs.
The Once and Future World Order started off well, and then progressively went completely to crap. As the saying goes: "Gradually, then suddenly." The book suffers from some very serious structural, factual, and narrative issues.
I am admittedly a fan of contrarian takes, and this one's provocative title drew me in. Unfortunately, the book's title wrote a cheque that the writing could not cash. More below. Get comfortable, because this review will be a long one.
Author Amitav Acharya is a scholar and writer, who is Distinguished Professor of International Relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Initiative.
Amitav Acharya:
Acharya writes with a good style here, and I found the book to be decently readable. This was nice, especially given that it was a pretty long read (the audio version I have clocks in at a bulky ~14.5hrs). If you are going to write a book over 300 pages, then you had better make the writing engaging.
The author drops the quote at the start of this review early on, and it continues:
"...They’re coming from scholars, policy research institutes, journalists, and commentators, and they stem from two convictions: One is that the present world order, led by the United States and the West, has by and large been a good thing, preventing major wars and allowing for international trade, economic growth, and a remarkably stable and prosperous international system. Two is that the rise of the non-Western nations and the emergence of an alternative to the familiar American-led world order will be frightening, unpredictable, and almost surely a change for the worse. For the West at least, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a stark warning about the dangers of the breakdown of the American-led world order and its replacement with a kind of Putinesque law of the jungle, a breakdown aided and abetted by an ever more powerful China."
The book's thesis is a bit convoluted. Although the subtitle says "Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West," he does not get around to talking about this until the last ~40mins of the writing. And then only a few paragraphs are devoted to this discussion. For most of the rest of the book, he aims to challenge the paradigm that The West is the Best. He mentions Francis Fukuyama's The End of History as well as Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations many times. (As a quick aside, either of these books would be a much better allocation of your reading time than this one).
In this quote, he introduces the aim of the book to the reader early on:
"Would the end of US and Western dominance really be so bad?
In this book, I argue, contrary to much elite opinion, that it need not be, especially over the long run. This is not because the West’s fears about the rise of non-Western powers, including China and Russia, are always exaggerated, although sometimes they are, due to the loss of power and prestige. But it is because Western supremacy has itself contributed to plenty of instability, injustice, and disorder that might be eased by its decline. More importantly, centuries of dominance have led the West to a kind of arrogance and ignorance about the rest of the world, overlooking the ideas and contributions of other civilizations to stability and progress throughout history. We have forgotten that world order—the political architecture enabling cooperation and peace among nations—existed long before the rise of the West, and that many of the ideas we assume are Western inventions actually originated in other civilizations. Mechanisms and values that are central to world order—such as diplomacy, economic interdependence, freedom of seas, principles for the protection of people in war and peace, preservation of the environment, and cooperation among major powers, to name a few—emerged over millennia across the globe."
On the positive side, there's quite a lot of interesting "big history" covered here. The author gives the reader a brief summary of many historical civilizations. It was all going along fairly well, and then quickly went to crap. Where to begin?? Let's take a look.
As mentioned, I like reading contrarian takes, but they have to be persuasive. This one was not. It was an extremely biased and cherry-picked work. It crossed the line into intellectual dishonesty many times. The book is really nothing more than a long-form treatise on victimology, cultural relativism, and cultural Marxism. Basically, all "developing" civilizations are lionized and revered. Anything European is picked apart and criticized. The entire book is pretty much ~14 hours of White Man Bad. The author cherry picks the worst of European history, ignores the best, while cherry picking the best of other societies, and ignoring the worst. Brilliant work, professor!
Although starting off innocuously enough, the book quickly slid into no more than the rantings of the ideologically possessed. Alarm bells went off for me early on as the author uses some slippery wording to talk about Islam. He talks about the concepts of "dar al harb" and "dar al Islam." The terms are central to understanding the expansionist nature of political Islam. "Dar al Islam" roughly means "house of peace." These include countries that are peaceful because they are under the rule of an Islamic theocracy. The other countries in the world are in the "dar al harb," or the "house of war." These are countries that are not yet under Islamic rule, and open for conquest. These basic definitions are missing here.
Acharya spends a great deal of time talking about slavery in the book. Slavery was a commonplace practice in the past. It was used across dozens of different separate cultures for millennia. However, the author here chose to focus on the Atlantic Slave trade (because of course he does). In another glaring omission, the author downplays Islamic slavery. The Islamic slave trade lasted ~1,300 years; the longest documented slave trade in history. It enslaved more people than the Atlantic slave trade. You don't see descendants of those slaves living in the Middle East today because they were all castrated. As a result, IIIRC - up to 60% of them died as a result of the gruesome process.
It was the British Royal Navy that eventually forcibly ended slavery, costing them enormous sums of money (something like billions of pounds in today's money). Slavery still existed in the modern world until 1962 in Saudi Arabia. Some North African countries still use chattel slavery today (2025). Slavery was practiced virtually everywhere, by almost everyone historically, but was ended solely by the decree and military might of the West. Surprise: this is also downplayed by the author.
The author spends quite a lot of time waxing nostalgic about the "Golden Age of Islam," roughly 1,000 years ago. He talks about paper-making, and the mathematical concept of zero. But what have they done lately? How many modern inventions come from the Islamic World? How much art; literature, music, etc?? Sam Harris destroys the narrative of "The Golden Age of Islam" in this short clip.
Acharya talks about jihadist violence, and says that it's "nothing that other religions didn't do." He tries to make apologetics for jihad, partly by using some slippery wording around the definition of the two kinds of jihad. For the record, "Jihad" means "struggle." The "Greater Jihad" is the struggle inside oneself to be a pious observer of the faith. The "Lesser Jihad" is the spreading of political Islam via the sword, spoken word, the pen, or money. There have been >47,000 Islamic jihadist terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. The fact that the author tries to downplay this is pretty gross...
In the last half of the book, he spends a substantial time detailing and condemning European expansionism. He completely glosses over if not downright omits the Islamic conquest of all of the Middle East, North Africa, and even up into Europe for a few hundred years.
He spends countless pages talking about European racism, but paradoxically doesn't dwell on the Islamic concept of dhimmitude, or racism by any other ethnicities. I mean, in his home country of India (one he speaks very highly of btw), they still live in a caste-based society. He even makes the ridiculous claim that the modern concept of racism is a Western, white construct. LMAO. Does this moron not realize that the human animal is deeply tribal, and every single ethnic group in the world has a strong in-group bias? Apparently not...
In one jaw-droppingly hilarious bit of whataboutism, he talks about how the Aztecs supposedly sacrificed 80,000 people at one time, but then says: "Western historians, while denouncing the barbarism of Aztec sacrifices, often forget to mention the brutal practices and large-scale public executions in other civilizations."
Moving on, Acharya talks about Africa and the West not recognizing their "contributions" to the modern world. I'm sorry, but when the white Boer settlers arrived in South Africa in the ~1600s, the Africans there had no written language, no utilization of the wheel, and no structure over 2 stories tall. Is it still accurate to call these primitive hunter-gatherer societies "Civilizations??" Because words have meanings.
In the year 2025, pretty much every single sub-Saharan African country still can't even manage to produce a functioning egrarian-level society and a semblance of stable governance. The post-colonial history of pretty much all of Sub-Saharan Africa is a complete gong show of a SNAFU stuck in endless cycles of "Big Man Rule."
He goes on and on here about the evils of European colonialization. Conveniently, he doesn't acknowledge that (for better or worse), just about every civilization that could has tried to expand their lands and/or their spheres of influence. Mankind is an exploring and warring creature by nature. The story of all of humanity since well before recorded history is that of conquest and warfare. He's missing the bigger picture here...
The author spends many hours detailing individual components of modernity that different civilizations contributed, but never mentions that it was the West that amalgamated and implemented them all together. Sure, other places had some of the ingredients, but it was the West that put the recipe together and baked the cake, ushering in the era of modernity that we currently reside.
Finally, we can't help but acknowledge the supreme irony in the fact that this professor spends the majority of the book telling the reader how terrible the West is, and how bad white people are, but doesn't seem to mind living in The United States or his cushy academic job at one of our intitutions of higher learning. If he hates the West and white people so much, what is he doing here? Maybe he should return to the "utopia" of his home country, India and preach this anti-civilizational subversion to his own people. Why did he immigrate to a country that's so terrible??
********************
This book was a complete dumpster fire of misinformation. It is a masterclass on intellectual dishonesty and fallacious reasoning.
That this person is teaching impressionable young minds at a University scares the shit out of me.
Remind me to take a hard pass on anything else that this moron produces.
1 star, and off to the return bin, where it belongs.
September 18, 2025
Niall Ferguson is a twit. Amitav Acharya does not need to waste precious bandwidth demonstrating that fact as he does in this book. It reminds me of the mixed emotions that I had when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham. I enjoyed watching Nye demolish the idiocy of Ham, but in the end, Ham still spouts his non-sense as if he had something worthwhile to say and his brain dead fans get the win by being on the same stage with Nye.
The first 90% of this book gave very little that wasn’t already familiar to me. He stated a factoid that surprised me when he said literacy was universal among the Aztec. I looked that up on google and it was way more nuanced than he led me to believe.
The author thinks the model for the world going forward is a Global Peace of Westphalia. Let’s ask the Poles how well that worked for them shortly after 1640 or how the Ukrainians feel today.
There are two things that I know for certain: one, you can’t read a person or country’s mind, and two, the future is unknown. Acharya violates those universal truths as he cookie cutters his brand of world government’s control and power dynamics.
There’s a monstrous nature of humans the author talks about as he unveils the history. I know this, it’s a good history presentation if by the end of the narrative you’re disgusted by the actions of humans than the history was told correctly. Acharya makes the reader see the colonial exploitation for the disgusting behavior that it is.
The world order is changing and morphing into unexpected forms. A universal truth: countries and people will always do what they perceive is in their own best interest. Another truism: everything Kissinger ever said about world politics is as wrong as Niall Ferguson and this author seemed to get that truism.
One can just as easily blame religions for the horrors outlined in this book. The author noted how ‘saving souls’ was often a motivating factor. I hold all religions that people take too seriously are dangerous. All forms of nationalism be it MAGA or Chinese people saying their right because of their morality not right because of their power (the author had a quote to that effect).
Most of the book was superfluous in as much as it was too familiar. The end of the book was a good read. The author makes a point that the ancient Greeks are Asian more than European, and he’s right as far as I’m concerned. He quoted from Said’s book “Orientalism” which is a brilliant book when one realizes that Said’s main point is that self-appointed experts often never get out of their own epistemological bubble, and that’s actually a warning I would give to this author for his conclusions.
The first 90% of this book gave very little that wasn’t already familiar to me. He stated a factoid that surprised me when he said literacy was universal among the Aztec. I looked that up on google and it was way more nuanced than he led me to believe.
The author thinks the model for the world going forward is a Global Peace of Westphalia. Let’s ask the Poles how well that worked for them shortly after 1640 or how the Ukrainians feel today.
There are two things that I know for certain: one, you can’t read a person or country’s mind, and two, the future is unknown. Acharya violates those universal truths as he cookie cutters his brand of world government’s control and power dynamics.
There’s a monstrous nature of humans the author talks about as he unveils the history. I know this, it’s a good history presentation if by the end of the narrative you’re disgusted by the actions of humans than the history was told correctly. Acharya makes the reader see the colonial exploitation for the disgusting behavior that it is.
The world order is changing and morphing into unexpected forms. A universal truth: countries and people will always do what they perceive is in their own best interest. Another truism: everything Kissinger ever said about world politics is as wrong as Niall Ferguson and this author seemed to get that truism.
One can just as easily blame religions for the horrors outlined in this book. The author noted how ‘saving souls’ was often a motivating factor. I hold all religions that people take too seriously are dangerous. All forms of nationalism be it MAGA or Chinese people saying their right because of their morality not right because of their power (the author had a quote to that effect).
Most of the book was superfluous in as much as it was too familiar. The end of the book was a good read. The author makes a point that the ancient Greeks are Asian more than European, and he’s right as far as I’m concerned. He quoted from Said’s book “Orientalism” which is a brilliant book when one realizes that Said’s main point is that self-appointed experts often never get out of their own epistemological bubble, and that’s actually a warning I would give to this author for his conclusions.
April 16, 2025
I'm a history geek, so I appreciated the author's walk through time, describing the various civilizations that grew so big they were empires, and then the subsequent fall, being replaced by a new civilization. The history lessons was good but dry in its execution. I mean, the author is talking about the some of the greatest civilizations--ever--so I expected to be more wowed than I was.
I remember reading about the fall of the Roman Empire in elementary and high school, yet I could never understand how they failed. There have been many times over the years where I have reacted to something going on in the United States and thought, "this is how the fall of the Roman Empire started." And right now, it feels that way in spades. Which is what the second part of The Once and Future World Order focuses on
And while I connected to some of this book, I really felt like it was two books in one: the past and the current state of affairs. I don't think anyone that's studied history or taken economics in college would argue with the thesis of this book, just that the execution could have been better.
I remember reading about the fall of the Roman Empire in elementary and high school, yet I could never understand how they failed. There have been many times over the years where I have reacted to something going on in the United States and thought, "this is how the fall of the Roman Empire started." And right now, it feels that way in spades. Which is what the second part of The Once and Future World Order focuses on
And while I connected to some of this book, I really felt like it was two books in one: the past and the current state of affairs. I don't think anyone that's studied history or taken economics in college would argue with the thesis of this book, just that the execution could have been better.
April 15, 2025
I think this book could have easily been divided into two parts: one focusing on the history of major civilizations, their rise and fall, and a separate story dedicated to how we came to live in today’s world order.
If that was the case, I’d say the first ‘book’ failed in much the same way as some of the civilizations it described — it was rushed, trying to cover thousands of years in just a few short chapters, leaving little that stuck with me. Clearly, an author aimed to include only the most relevant aspects for the ideas that followed, but the information was too sparse to be truly informative. I was left with many unanswered questions, particularly regarding the history of the Americas. Since I’m interested in the topic, I’ll definitely be seeking out additional sources to fill in the gaps.
That said, the book improves significantly as it shifts toward modern history. The clear explanations of imperialism, the rise of the Western world order, and US path to the world dominance - all this is well-executed, well structured and in details explained.
If that was the case, I’d say the first ‘book’ failed in much the same way as some of the civilizations it described — it was rushed, trying to cover thousands of years in just a few short chapters, leaving little that stuck with me. Clearly, an author aimed to include only the most relevant aspects for the ideas that followed, but the information was too sparse to be truly informative. I was left with many unanswered questions, particularly regarding the history of the Americas. Since I’m interested in the topic, I’ll definitely be seeking out additional sources to fill in the gaps.
That said, the book improves significantly as it shifts toward modern history. The clear explanations of imperialism, the rise of the Western world order, and US path to the world dominance - all this is well-executed, well structured and in details explained.
April 19, 2025
I listened to an advanced readers edition of the audiobook, courtesy of NetGalley and Hatchette Audio. All opinions shared in this review are my own and I was not paid for my review.
Right off the bat, the cover and title of this book are striking. The reader is presented with a bold premise through the stark bold lettering of the title, underscored by a vivid school bus yellow background, which to me signifies a message of education, possible warning, and also positivity. I was intrigued, while also a bit fearful: The Once and Future World Order, sounds so foreboding! Yet my curiosity won out, and I was hooked with the subtitle: Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West.
Amitav Acharya put a lot into this book. While I am glad I listened to the audiobook, I am tempted to purchase a physical copy for future reference. There was so much material provided in the course of 400+ pages, i.e. 14 audiobook hours, I feel like I need to see it in print in order to absorb all that it is offering. That being said, I am glad I listened to the book before reading, because it is dense and being able to digest it in smaller pieces made it easier for me to follow.
The expanse of history covered in this book was not only across all populated continents throughout human history, but also included context into societies such as their religious and moral belief systems. It gave me so much more to process than a cursory overview of only Western civilization. Too often, the focus of Western history is to fixate on history from the last few centuries; it sometimes includes a glimpse at Greek and or Roman Empire, but often overlooks ancient and modern societies including Egyptian, Incan, Indian, Chinese, and African. Acharya does not do this! He takes his time in what feels like a series of essays, to outline different societies, their values, and how their people worked copacetically with one another and surrounding civilizations throughout history. He shares what each society did well, and also what they struggled with.
I think it is easy as a Western reader to be disheartened by the news that the West may be in decline, however Acharya provides an honest outlook and describes what he sees as an opportunity for global civilization to rise. Change is inevitable, and does not have to be seen as irrevocable or without hope. We too, in the West, have a chance to evaluate where we came from and where we are going, which I think is worth listening to and considering. I would recommend this book, especially to those who might be concerned about the direction of Democracy, or what could come next.
Pacing:
The audiobook took me about a week to listen to at a speed between 1.25-1.75, listening to one or two chapters at a time. The narrator, Fajer Al-Kaisi, provided a calming yet animated voice. His speech was never monotone, and he offered varied pitch and intensity as he read. The narrator kept me listening, he never seemed to drone on, which was good, because I could see the slew of information coming into my ears as being something that could make me zone out if I was not properly engaged. His enunciation of words was clear, and I felt like his speech was easy to discern.
Feedback for the publisher:
I noticed the word hegemony used frequently; nothing is wrong with the word, but as a nitpick, when I hear a word used often it stands out and I wonder if there are other words that could be used to provide variety in listening (or reading on the page).
The audiobook on NetGalley did not have chapter titles, only numbers with which to navigate. I do hope that the physical book and published audiobook contain either a table of contents or index for readers to cross-reference topics of interest, since there is a lot of material to navigate. Thank you for the opportunity to listen and review this book prior to its publication. I do hope that my review garners interest in the book and helps promote its sales and spread in popularity.
Right off the bat, the cover and title of this book are striking. The reader is presented with a bold premise through the stark bold lettering of the title, underscored by a vivid school bus yellow background, which to me signifies a message of education, possible warning, and also positivity. I was intrigued, while also a bit fearful: The Once and Future World Order, sounds so foreboding! Yet my curiosity won out, and I was hooked with the subtitle: Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West.
Amitav Acharya put a lot into this book. While I am glad I listened to the audiobook, I am tempted to purchase a physical copy for future reference. There was so much material provided in the course of 400+ pages, i.e. 14 audiobook hours, I feel like I need to see it in print in order to absorb all that it is offering. That being said, I am glad I listened to the book before reading, because it is dense and being able to digest it in smaller pieces made it easier for me to follow.
The expanse of history covered in this book was not only across all populated continents throughout human history, but also included context into societies such as their religious and moral belief systems. It gave me so much more to process than a cursory overview of only Western civilization. Too often, the focus of Western history is to fixate on history from the last few centuries; it sometimes includes a glimpse at Greek and or Roman Empire, but often overlooks ancient and modern societies including Egyptian, Incan, Indian, Chinese, and African. Acharya does not do this! He takes his time in what feels like a series of essays, to outline different societies, their values, and how their people worked copacetically with one another and surrounding civilizations throughout history. He shares what each society did well, and also what they struggled with.
I think it is easy as a Western reader to be disheartened by the news that the West may be in decline, however Acharya provides an honest outlook and describes what he sees as an opportunity for global civilization to rise. Change is inevitable, and does not have to be seen as irrevocable or without hope. We too, in the West, have a chance to evaluate where we came from and where we are going, which I think is worth listening to and considering. I would recommend this book, especially to those who might be concerned about the direction of Democracy, or what could come next.
Pacing:
The audiobook took me about a week to listen to at a speed between 1.25-1.75, listening to one or two chapters at a time. The narrator, Fajer Al-Kaisi, provided a calming yet animated voice. His speech was never monotone, and he offered varied pitch and intensity as he read. The narrator kept me listening, he never seemed to drone on, which was good, because I could see the slew of information coming into my ears as being something that could make me zone out if I was not properly engaged. His enunciation of words was clear, and I felt like his speech was easy to discern.
Feedback for the publisher:
I noticed the word hegemony used frequently; nothing is wrong with the word, but as a nitpick, when I hear a word used often it stands out and I wonder if there are other words that could be used to provide variety in listening (or reading on the page).
The audiobook on NetGalley did not have chapter titles, only numbers with which to navigate. I do hope that the physical book and published audiobook contain either a table of contents or index for readers to cross-reference topics of interest, since there is a lot of material to navigate. Thank you for the opportunity to listen and review this book prior to its publication. I do hope that my review garners interest in the book and helps promote its sales and spread in popularity.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 29, 2025
This one is a mixed bag. The title is a little bit of a bait-and-switch, as it leads the reader to believe it is political science book about how things could change in the future. This book is actually mix of political history and the author’s thesis to prove that political ideology was developed all over the world, not only in the “West” (meaning the United States and Europe).
The author’s thesis is correct on a fundamental level and it’s definitely worth understanding how different cultures organized and thought about governments. However, this book doesn’t do a great job with that either, with many chapters devolving into ranting or hyperbole.
The author does talk about “the future world order” in the last chapter. Here the author’s points and projections are undercut by his omissions of global warming and population decline. These are two big meta problems that are going to shape global politics and economics, and they are briefly, if ever mentioned.
In summary, I believe there are better books to read instead of this one to educate yourself on the author’s thesis.
The author’s thesis is correct on a fundamental level and it’s definitely worth understanding how different cultures organized and thought about governments. However, this book doesn’t do a great job with that either, with many chapters devolving into ranting or hyperbole.
The author does talk about “the future world order” in the last chapter. Here the author’s points and projections are undercut by his omissions of global warming and population decline. These are two big meta problems that are going to shape global politics and economics, and they are briefly, if ever mentioned.
In summary, I believe there are better books to read instead of this one to educate yourself on the author’s thesis.
August 27, 2025
This book was ok. It talks about the inventions and innovations of non-western empires, and how the U.S. needs to adjust its foreign policy and its attitudes towards non-western societies in international relations. I thought it was a bit vague and superficial, but generally correct. It’s written for a general audience, and I kind of feel like you could just read Orientalism and basically get the main idea, making this book about 50 years too late. It does talk about the rise of China and India as part of why the US needs to prepare for a different world order.
August 2, 2025
I found it very easy to accept the basic principles of this book that: (i) from the beginnings of human civilization there have been concepts of "world order" by which various groups of humans arranged relationships within groups and between groups, (ii) these principles developed over time and spread between groups to create common understandings and a common heritage; (iii) many of the principles that we think of as embodying American or Western values didn't originate in Europe or America, but are part of a much broader tradition that came from many sources; (iv) despite our claims that our principles are benign and for the common good of humanity, Europe and America have many black marks against them in a history of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, oppression, racism and exploitation, (v) even today when we recognize past errors we continue to do many things claimed to be for the general good that are really mainly for own good and that work to the detriment of others, particularly the poor and the people of the Global South, (vi) the once dominant position of the United States is changing to a position where the United States is one of multiple significant powers, (vii) this may be a good thing for everyone, given our spotty record, and it won't be a shift into chaos and tyranny because of the common heritage of world order that has developed over human history.
But all of this could have been said with equal persuasive force in a hundred pages instead of 450. And too often I felt that Mr. Acharya was being selective in his choice of facts and emphasis. This weakened his arguments rather than strengthening positions that are basically sound. And then when he gets to the end and starts talking about where we are going as the dominant position of the United States wanes, the discussion becomes pure speculation. Of course, the truth is that, though we might be able to predict some general trends, we have no idea where we are going. Probably some will be good, and lot will be bad. At least there are some reasons to think, as Mr. Acharya says, that there will be some continuing modes of stability that will keep us from each other's throats.
But all of this could have been said with equal persuasive force in a hundred pages instead of 450. And too often I felt that Mr. Acharya was being selective in his choice of facts and emphasis. This weakened his arguments rather than strengthening positions that are basically sound. And then when he gets to the end and starts talking about where we are going as the dominant position of the United States wanes, the discussion becomes pure speculation. Of course, the truth is that, though we might be able to predict some general trends, we have no idea where we are going. Probably some will be good, and lot will be bad. At least there are some reasons to think, as Mr. Acharya says, that there will be some continuing modes of stability that will keep us from each other's throats.
August 7, 2025
“The Once and Future World Order” is both a history of contributions from the great civilisations of the world, and an optimistic review of “Why global civilisation will survive the decline of the West” -- with the latter quote being the subtitle of the book.
The author, Amitav Acharya, takes us on a journey of how the world’s great civilisations – starting with the Sumerians and Egyptians and leading through the Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese and finally the West – have managed to govern both their peoples and those whom they influence and conquer. He takes the various methods from decentralised (Persia) to tributes (China) to authoritarian (many examples) ways of governing – largely with the point that there have been many ways to govern and manage large numbers of people effectively – in addition to the way the West has done this for the past 300 years.
I liked the book for both its viewpoint that intelligence and skills are global and not only limited to the West, but also to his moderately contrarian perspective. The West has left an incredible mark on history, yet it appears to now be in decline, struggling with various factions within each nation, and with the rise of other nations and large-scale immigration. It’s rare to have a critical point of view be – at the same time – optimistic about the world.
The book is well researched and well written giving a comprehensive view of history.
There were a few things that I think could have been improved in the book. There was little talk about how Immigration is changing and will accelerate the decline of the West. I also felt that the author shied away from projecting what kind of world will evolve from the current states of affairs.
Clearly this is a difficult matter, but I think it naturally begs the questions that if the West is in decline, and the world is changing, what will this look like in say 50 or 100 years of time. The author did not really touch upon this.
All that said this is an excellent book!
The author, Amitav Acharya, takes us on a journey of how the world’s great civilisations – starting with the Sumerians and Egyptians and leading through the Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese and finally the West – have managed to govern both their peoples and those whom they influence and conquer. He takes the various methods from decentralised (Persia) to tributes (China) to authoritarian (many examples) ways of governing – largely with the point that there have been many ways to govern and manage large numbers of people effectively – in addition to the way the West has done this for the past 300 years.
I liked the book for both its viewpoint that intelligence and skills are global and not only limited to the West, but also to his moderately contrarian perspective. The West has left an incredible mark on history, yet it appears to now be in decline, struggling with various factions within each nation, and with the rise of other nations and large-scale immigration. It’s rare to have a critical point of view be – at the same time – optimistic about the world.
The book is well researched and well written giving a comprehensive view of history.
There were a few things that I think could have been improved in the book. There was little talk about how Immigration is changing and will accelerate the decline of the West. I also felt that the author shied away from projecting what kind of world will evolve from the current states of affairs.
Clearly this is a difficult matter, but I think it naturally begs the questions that if the West is in decline, and the world is changing, what will this look like in say 50 or 100 years of time. The author did not really touch upon this.
All that said this is an excellent book!
October 5, 2025
Viitorul când #LecturaEPutere „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West”, Amitav Acharya
„O civilizație globală ar însemna un gen de interconectare între civilizații, care concurează dar și colaborează păstrând diferențele culturale și politice” p.21 Amitav Acharya, „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West”, Basic Books, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pew80...
Că te sperii sau încă speri, termenii în care se pune problema ordinii mondiale sunt tot mai abrupți. Profesorul Amitav Acharya îți arată cum își răspund viitorul și trecutul ordinii mondiale. În cartea „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West” ai ocazia să deslușești o lume în care Vestul nu mai e starul principal, ci doar un actor într-un ansamblu multicultural. Sună apocaliptic? Ei bine, Acharya îți arată că e de fapt o oportunitate! Cartea explorează cum declinul Vestului nu înseamnă sfârșitul civilizației, ci nașterea unei noi ordini globale, mai diverse și mai echilibrată. E ca și cum ai trece de la un concert solo la o simfonie complexă. Acharya te provoacă să privești dincolo de scenariile tradiționale despre „ciocnirea civilizațiilor". În viziunea sa, viitorul e despre colaborare în diversitate, nu despre dominație culturală. Dar nu te aștepta la o utopie naivă! Autorul recunoaște provocările, dar arată cum acestea pot să funcționeze drept catalizatori pentru inovație și progres global. E ca un joc de strategie la scară planetară, unde toți jucătorii pot câștiga dacă învață să coopereze.
„Ordinea ține de instituțiile și ideile subiacente care au apărut din mai multe zone ale lumii”. p.350 Amitav Acharya, „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West”, Basic Books, 2025
„O civilizație globală ar însemna un gen de interconectare între civilizații, care concurează dar și colaborează păstrând diferențele culturale și politice” p.21 Amitav Acharya, „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West”, Basic Books, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pew80...
Că te sperii sau încă speri, termenii în care se pune problema ordinii mondiale sunt tot mai abrupți. Profesorul Amitav Acharya îți arată cum își răspund viitorul și trecutul ordinii mondiale. În cartea „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West” ai ocazia să deslușești o lume în care Vestul nu mai e starul principal, ci doar un actor într-un ansamblu multicultural. Sună apocaliptic? Ei bine, Acharya îți arată că e de fapt o oportunitate! Cartea explorează cum declinul Vestului nu înseamnă sfârșitul civilizației, ci nașterea unei noi ordini globale, mai diverse și mai echilibrată. E ca și cum ai trece de la un concert solo la o simfonie complexă. Acharya te provoacă să privești dincolo de scenariile tradiționale despre „ciocnirea civilizațiilor". În viziunea sa, viitorul e despre colaborare în diversitate, nu despre dominație culturală. Dar nu te aștepta la o utopie naivă! Autorul recunoaște provocările, dar arată cum acestea pot să funcționeze drept catalizatori pentru inovație și progres global. E ca un joc de strategie la scară planetară, unde toți jucătorii pot câștiga dacă învață să coopereze.
„Ordinea ține de instituțiile și ideile subiacente care au apărut din mai multe zone ale lumii”. p.350 Amitav Acharya, „The Once and Future World Order- Why Global Civilization Will Survive the Decline of the West”, Basic Books, 2025
October 7, 2025
I have to say that I am glad I am taking Professor Acharya's class on Civilizations and World Order. The reason is that it is an ongoing political-economic issue at this moment. In my opinion, this book does a fair job in taking on a balanced and direct explanation of why the LIO needs to change and invite the Rest alongside the West. The stories and history in the beginning of the book were interesting, and definitely cover different regions of the world's contribution to the general concept of world order. Although the LIO might be able to reform itself and to better able to serve humanity, the multiplex idea that Acharya suggests is one to think about as well. I would treat this book as a history lesson or a more balanced and improved version of Henry Kissinger's World Order.
July 20, 2025
Another "West vs. the Rest" airport book, just as stupid as the other ones, but this time by an illiberal Third Worldist who calls Trump "daddy" on Twitter, thinks Modi is "a decent person," blames NATO expansion for the invasion of Ukraine, and calls for "cautious optimism" in a NYT oped over defunding USAID. The book doesn't dive into those crank opinions, but it's amusing to keep in mind when American reviewers present him as a progressive leftist because of the book's anti-racist critiques of western empires.
Instead over four hundred pages, Acharya offers rose-colored capsule histories of non-western empires, then in the final chapter claims that world order is not a strictly western concept therefore liberalism is not necessary to a more prosperous, peaceful and equitable world order (a bizarre argumentative leap). No further explanation is provided, though Acharya, in an obvious contradiction, has gone on to say this new world order will likely be less stable.
Instead over four hundred pages, Acharya offers rose-colored capsule histories of non-western empires, then in the final chapter claims that world order is not a strictly western concept therefore liberalism is not necessary to a more prosperous, peaceful and equitable world order (a bizarre argumentative leap). No further explanation is provided, though Acharya, in an obvious contradiction, has gone on to say this new world order will likely be less stable.
July 25, 2025
The Once and Future World Order by Amitav Acharya takes on the monumental task of tracing the rise and fall of major civilizations while simultaneously unpacking the origins and future trajectory of today’s global order. The book is intellectually ambitious and deeply researched, offering important insights into the shifting nature of power and influence across history.
That said, I found the structure a bit overwhelming. The narrative might have been more effective if it were split into two distinct volumes—one devoted entirely to the historical arc of empires and civilizations, and another focused specifically on the formation and challenges of the modern world order. At times, the transitions between epochs and themes felt rushed, making it difficult to absorb the full weight of either story.
Still, Acharya’s perspective is valuable, especially in challenging Western-centric narratives of global power. I appreciated the effort to present a more pluralistic and dynamic understanding of international relations.
Thank you to Hachette Books and the author for the advance copy and the opportunity to provide my honest feedback. This is a thought-provoking read, though perhaps best suited to those already familiar with the complexities of global history and geopolitics.
That said, I found the structure a bit overwhelming. The narrative might have been more effective if it were split into two distinct volumes—one devoted entirely to the historical arc of empires and civilizations, and another focused specifically on the formation and challenges of the modern world order. At times, the transitions between epochs and themes felt rushed, making it difficult to absorb the full weight of either story.
Still, Acharya’s perspective is valuable, especially in challenging Western-centric narratives of global power. I appreciated the effort to present a more pluralistic and dynamic understanding of international relations.
Thank you to Hachette Books and the author for the advance copy and the opportunity to provide my honest feedback. This is a thought-provoking read, though perhaps best suited to those already familiar with the complexities of global history and geopolitics.
May 31, 2025
Acharya’s book compellingly dismantles the myth of Western exceptionalism, demonstrating that global order has always been shaped by multiple civilizations. From the Iroquois Confederacy to the Aztecs, he revives forgotten contributions to international thought and institutions.
June 28, 2025
good to get historical non-western perspectives into what society could be like.
September 17, 2025
A well researched account of evolution of world order over the years. Clearly the future world order is going to be centred around global south. A must read.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews