What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex and Culture
In Sex and Culture (1934), the ethnologist and social anthropologist J. D. Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote; "Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity."
According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."
According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:
"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."
721 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1934
155 people are currently reading
2104 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 - 20 of 20 reviews
March 9, 2022
This blew my mind. The "monotonous" pattern (meaning it's so predictable it's almost boring) is that "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". He also said that a society has three generations (~100 years) after a sexual revolution before its collapse. Western civilization had its sexual revolution recently; we are now decaying into what Unwin calls "zoistic"--self-focused and uncivilized, at which point every civilization has been destroyed or taken over by one with more "energy".
I read a condensed version of this book, here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1asL0...
I read a condensed version of this book, here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1asL0...
January 10, 2022
Did Prof. Unwin intend, upon the publication of his book in 1934, to predict the eventual collapse of Anglo-American civilization? Based on a complex and exhaustive system of gradings of Western societies in history and of 'savage' cultures throughout the world as reported by field anthropologists, Unwin deduced that collapse begins one generation after any society abandons its insistence that brides be virgins. Family breakdowns, disruptions of fertility and childrearing, the weakening of the minds and bodies of young people, losses of belief in personal honor and rationality, and growing uninterest in God and religion ensue, leading to a coarser, more monotonous and lower energy culture.
Britain’s upper classes at the time, as portrayed in the books of Aldous Huxley and Evelyn Waugh, were already showing signs of depravity as did its feckless appeasement of Hitler soon afterwards, but the United States remained chaste at all social levels, retaining energy and power until its sexual revolution in the 1960s. Unwin’s predicted loss of cultural creativity and energy did in fact hit us a generation later, with American visual arts turning crappy or commercial, some of its music becoming unlistenable, vulgar or repetitive, even as its fictional superheroes began to show signs of ennui and confusion in the advent of the new millennium.
Now, as Unwin’s predicted social collapse follows we see outbreaks of fatal drug addiction, traitorous generals, one political party playing power politics unchecked by the other party or by respect for the U.S. Constitution or God, and plunging birth rates, while tech overlords, an ever-growing army of federal workers, science bureaucrats and Wall Street financial engineers, strive to elevate themselves high above the American people in pursuit of personal wealth and comfort, and the Devil take principle.
Would the United States have avoided the never-before-seen irrationality of its response to the China virus or the unnecessary and disastrous surrender to the Taliban had we avoided the sexual revolution in the 1960s? In the world of investments, we can "backtest" the viability of a trading strategy by discovering how it would have played out ex-post facto. As world events continue to backtest the truth of Unwin's discovery, astonishingly, this seems quite likely to be so.
Britain’s upper classes at the time, as portrayed in the books of Aldous Huxley and Evelyn Waugh, were already showing signs of depravity as did its feckless appeasement of Hitler soon afterwards, but the United States remained chaste at all social levels, retaining energy and power until its sexual revolution in the 1960s. Unwin’s predicted loss of cultural creativity and energy did in fact hit us a generation later, with American visual arts turning crappy or commercial, some of its music becoming unlistenable, vulgar or repetitive, even as its fictional superheroes began to show signs of ennui and confusion in the advent of the new millennium.
Now, as Unwin’s predicted social collapse follows we see outbreaks of fatal drug addiction, traitorous generals, one political party playing power politics unchecked by the other party or by respect for the U.S. Constitution or God, and plunging birth rates, while tech overlords, an ever-growing army of federal workers, science bureaucrats and Wall Street financial engineers, strive to elevate themselves high above the American people in pursuit of personal wealth and comfort, and the Devil take principle.
Would the United States have avoided the never-before-seen irrationality of its response to the China virus or the unnecessary and disastrous surrender to the Taliban had we avoided the sexual revolution in the 1960s? In the world of investments, we can "backtest" the viability of a trading strategy by discovering how it would have played out ex-post facto. As world events continue to backtest the truth of Unwin's discovery, astonishingly, this seems quite likely to be so.
September 3, 2022
One of the most important books on the effects of sexual freedom on cultures and civilizations.
The whole premise of the book is that increased sexual freedom leads to civilization's decline while limited sexual freedom leads to civilization's advance.
An absolute must-read if you want to fully understand why some civilizations and cultures thrive and prosper while others fail.
Some quotes from the book:
"Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom."
"By sublimation is meant a process in which an instinctive tendency, more or less fostered by experience, which would normally find expression in some kind of undesirable conduct, has its energy diverted into a channel in which it comes to have a positive social value."
"We believe that civilization has been built up by sacrifices in gratification of the primitive impulses, and that it is to a great extent for ever being recreated as each individual repeats the sacrifice of his instinctive pleasures for the common good. The sexual are amongst the most important of the instinctive forces thus utilized: they are in this way sublimated, that is to say, their energy is turned aside from its sexual goal and diverted towards other ends, no longer sexual and socially more valuable."
The whole premise of the book is that increased sexual freedom leads to civilization's decline while limited sexual freedom leads to civilization's advance.
An absolute must-read if you want to fully understand why some civilizations and cultures thrive and prosper while others fail.
Some quotes from the book:
"Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom."
"By sublimation is meant a process in which an instinctive tendency, more or less fostered by experience, which would normally find expression in some kind of undesirable conduct, has its energy diverted into a channel in which it comes to have a positive social value."
"We believe that civilization has been built up by sacrifices in gratification of the primitive impulses, and that it is to a great extent for ever being recreated as each individual repeats the sacrifice of his instinctive pleasures for the common good. The sexual are amongst the most important of the instinctive forces thus utilized: they are in this way sublimated, that is to say, their energy is turned aside from its sexual goal and diverted towards other ends, no longer sexual and socially more valuable."
June 8, 2024
Overview and Initial Thoughts
This book covers the relation between a civilization’s success and the sexuality of its people. It demonstrates that the more sexual regulations there are, the higher cultural achievement it produces. The more sexually liberal it is, the more quickly its downfall ensues. This should be common sense, but apparently we need an anthropologist to write a 700 page book explaining this.
The fact that many people today object to sexual restrictions as outdated, intolerant, or a negative byproduct of the patriarchy is itself cause for concern because these same people claim they should have libertarian autonomy over their sexuality for no reason other than it being their “human right” (whatever that means) to do so, which essentially means they should not be told what to do because a) there is nothing wrong with it and b) even if there is something wrong with their behavior, they should be allowed to do what they want anyway because it’s no one else’s business telling them what they can or cannot do with their body. The negative repercussions their actions have on their own nation and people they interact with mean nothing to them. In fact, they demand the opposition to not only tolerate them, but to promote them.
What’s more is that many prominent figures in the cultural sphere such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who portray themselves as rational centrists and approach moral and cultural issues through an objective, scientific lens, end up agreeing with said people. What is inconvenient for all the aforementioned groups is that we do in fact have undeniable and irrefutable data to demonstrate that sexual deviancy does have detrimental effects on society and that if a culture or nation is to not only thrive, but just survive at a basic level, it must implement regulations. Unwin demonstrates this to be the case.
The book is long and very detailed. Unwin analyzes about 86 societies, most of which he categorizes as uncivilized, others as civilized. He uses these select societies because they are the only ones he says we have clear, indisputable evidence for. He categorizes them further into different aspects of society, but two of them take precedence over the others. These two are cultural condition and pre-nuptial sexual restriction.
Cultural Condition
The culture condition of a society breaks down a civilization into four categories: zoistic, manistic, deistic, and rationalistic. A civilization fits into one of these by asking a set of questions about their spiritual/religious beliefs:
Deistic: “‘Did these people build temples?’ If the answer is in the affirmative, they were in the deistic cultural condition.” (14)
Manistic: “If, therefore, we receive a negative answer to our first question, we must put a second question: ‘Did these people pay some kind of post-funeral attention to their dead?’ If the answer is in the affirmative, they were in the manistic cultural condition.” (14)
Ziostic: “Some societies neither erected temples nor paid any kind of post-funeral attention to their dead. All such societies were in the ziostic cultural condition. We place in this class all those societies concerning which we receive negative answers to the questions I have just mentioned.” (14)
Summary: Deistic societies have temples and have consideration for their deceased (there are no societies which erect temples and do not consider their deceased). Manistic societies consider their deceased but do not have temples. Ziostic societies neither have temples nor do their care for their dead. The rationalistic societies will be addressed later on.
One may wonder what any of this has to do with sexual activities, but it all becomes clear once we examine the correlation between the cultural condition of a society and its pre-nuptial sexual regulations. In the chart that Unwin assembles, it becomes clear that every single society that had a prenuptial restriction on sex was also deistic. Societies that had some sort of restriction but not as stringent were manistic, and societies that had no regulations at all were zoistic (625-626). These results are without fail. If there is one thing Plato got right, it was that every regime needs a religion, even if it is a false one. I say this as an agnostic, that religion is a necessary part of every civilized nation, even if we adopt some sort of religious fictionalism.
Pre-nuptial Sex
What exactly is the point of prohibiting pre-nuptial sex then, and what benefit does it provide to a civilization? It has to do with sublimation.
“By sublimation is meant a process in which an instinctive tendency, more or less fostered by experience, which would normally find expression in some kind of undesirable conduct, has its energy diverted into a channel in which it comes to have a positive social value.” (315) In other words, the energy and strong sense of desire (lust, fornication, etc, in this sense) is channeled into other means. It is a sacrifice of some sort, and demonstrates discipline, restraint, and focus. It is not coincidence then that when observing deistic societies in which sublimation occurs, we see a pattern of great cultural achievement. The energy which is produced by practicing sexual restriction is referred to as “social energy” (317). This social energy is broken down into two categories:
Expansive Social Energy: Conquest, colonization, commerce
Productive Social Energy: Art, science, utilization of resources
“Now in human records there is no trace of any display of productive energy which has not been preceded by a display of expansive energy” (314). And so for everyone who reads this information and wants to pretend they can bask in the glory and progress of science and art without the “bigoted fascism” (or whatever other buzzwords they wish to use) of conquest and expansion, know that one cannot exist without the other, at least not for long. This is one of the many blunders of the secular humanist crowd that I mentioned earlier, and a tough pill to swallow.
It’s at this point that Unwin mentions the rationalistic cultural condition. What separates the rationalistic cultures from the deistic ones is that “A society which displays productive energy possesses a rationalistic culture. Expansive energy is more typical of desitic societies.” (318) Rationalistic societies essentially take one step further in terms of their social energy.
Post-nuptial Sex
While the restrictions on pre-nuptial sex are very important in the cultural advancement of a society, the post-nuptial regulations are what separates a civilized society from an uncivilized one (at least in some sense; there are different aspects to this and the exception is that all societies we know of end up loosening up on them in some capacity). In this case, one cannot exist without the other (345). All societies that have post-nuptial sexual restrictions also had pre-nuptial ones.
The most important post-nuptial regulation that rationalistic, civilized societies implement is that of absolute monogamy. This means that a marriage is:
1. Between a man and a woman.
2. Is confined to one man and one woman. (as opposed to polygamy)
3. Is permanently binding. (as opposed to modified monogamy, which allows for divorce)
This may be another uncomfortable truth for some people, but absolute monogamy is consistent with every rationalistic, civilized society (the one exception is the Moors, who “in their case the women whom the men took to wife had been reared in an absolutely monogamous tradition” and practiced polygamy. Only men had multiple wives; it was never the inverse) (346). A change to modified monogamy always leads to a decrease in cultural energy (346). That is why, even with the rationalistic, civilized societies today, we are seeing them collapse because they all now allow for modified monogamy.
Concluding Remarks
There is so much more I could have mentioned about the central topics and even others that are brought up, such as monogamy vs polygamy, different kinds of sexual restrictions and regulations, continuity of religion, gender roles, evolution, and much more, but the review would end up being a summary that would go on too long. Hopefully what you have read here is enough to spark your interest. Any questions or objections you have I can almost guarantee are addressed elsewhere in the book. If the topics here do seem of interest but you don’t feel like reading through the whole thing, I would say that a good portion of it is skippable because the chapters concerning the data of each civilization are summarized in the charts in the appendix. Reading the first and the last two chapters are enough to grasp all the information provided.
Aside from the obvious relevance to our modern times in the Western world regarding sexuality, there are other key themes and correlations with the same civilizations that we see being attacked today, such as religion, ethnic pride, and adherence to traditional practices of one’s society. The traits of the rationalistic, civilized societies are now labeled as extremist and bigoted by the media and our education systems. And while the West has largely been negatively affected by these vociferous attacks, the same is beginning to happen in the East as well. The optimistic side of me is hoping that those who have the common sense to instinctively know everything that has been proven in this book will thrive and out-live their liberal counterparts that are akin to the many civilizations that died out from living the way they want to, rather than the way they should.
This book covers the relation between a civilization’s success and the sexuality of its people. It demonstrates that the more sexual regulations there are, the higher cultural achievement it produces. The more sexually liberal it is, the more quickly its downfall ensues. This should be common sense, but apparently we need an anthropologist to write a 700 page book explaining this.
The fact that many people today object to sexual restrictions as outdated, intolerant, or a negative byproduct of the patriarchy is itself cause for concern because these same people claim they should have libertarian autonomy over their sexuality for no reason other than it being their “human right” (whatever that means) to do so, which essentially means they should not be told what to do because a) there is nothing wrong with it and b) even if there is something wrong with their behavior, they should be allowed to do what they want anyway because it’s no one else’s business telling them what they can or cannot do with their body. The negative repercussions their actions have on their own nation and people they interact with mean nothing to them. In fact, they demand the opposition to not only tolerate them, but to promote them.
What’s more is that many prominent figures in the cultural sphere such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who portray themselves as rational centrists and approach moral and cultural issues through an objective, scientific lens, end up agreeing with said people. What is inconvenient for all the aforementioned groups is that we do in fact have undeniable and irrefutable data to demonstrate that sexual deviancy does have detrimental effects on society and that if a culture or nation is to not only thrive, but just survive at a basic level, it must implement regulations. Unwin demonstrates this to be the case.
The book is long and very detailed. Unwin analyzes about 86 societies, most of which he categorizes as uncivilized, others as civilized. He uses these select societies because they are the only ones he says we have clear, indisputable evidence for. He categorizes them further into different aspects of society, but two of them take precedence over the others. These two are cultural condition and pre-nuptial sexual restriction.
Cultural Condition
The culture condition of a society breaks down a civilization into four categories: zoistic, manistic, deistic, and rationalistic. A civilization fits into one of these by asking a set of questions about their spiritual/religious beliefs:
Deistic: “‘Did these people build temples?’ If the answer is in the affirmative, they were in the deistic cultural condition.” (14)
Manistic: “If, therefore, we receive a negative answer to our first question, we must put a second question: ‘Did these people pay some kind of post-funeral attention to their dead?’ If the answer is in the affirmative, they were in the manistic cultural condition.” (14)
Ziostic: “Some societies neither erected temples nor paid any kind of post-funeral attention to their dead. All such societies were in the ziostic cultural condition. We place in this class all those societies concerning which we receive negative answers to the questions I have just mentioned.” (14)
Summary: Deistic societies have temples and have consideration for their deceased (there are no societies which erect temples and do not consider their deceased). Manistic societies consider their deceased but do not have temples. Ziostic societies neither have temples nor do their care for their dead. The rationalistic societies will be addressed later on.
One may wonder what any of this has to do with sexual activities, but it all becomes clear once we examine the correlation between the cultural condition of a society and its pre-nuptial sexual regulations. In the chart that Unwin assembles, it becomes clear that every single society that had a prenuptial restriction on sex was also deistic. Societies that had some sort of restriction but not as stringent were manistic, and societies that had no regulations at all were zoistic (625-626). These results are without fail. If there is one thing Plato got right, it was that every regime needs a religion, even if it is a false one. I say this as an agnostic, that religion is a necessary part of every civilized nation, even if we adopt some sort of religious fictionalism.
Pre-nuptial Sex
What exactly is the point of prohibiting pre-nuptial sex then, and what benefit does it provide to a civilization? It has to do with sublimation.
“By sublimation is meant a process in which an instinctive tendency, more or less fostered by experience, which would normally find expression in some kind of undesirable conduct, has its energy diverted into a channel in which it comes to have a positive social value.” (315) In other words, the energy and strong sense of desire (lust, fornication, etc, in this sense) is channeled into other means. It is a sacrifice of some sort, and demonstrates discipline, restraint, and focus. It is not coincidence then that when observing deistic societies in which sublimation occurs, we see a pattern of great cultural achievement. The energy which is produced by practicing sexual restriction is referred to as “social energy” (317). This social energy is broken down into two categories:
Expansive Social Energy: Conquest, colonization, commerce
Productive Social Energy: Art, science, utilization of resources
“Now in human records there is no trace of any display of productive energy which has not been preceded by a display of expansive energy” (314). And so for everyone who reads this information and wants to pretend they can bask in the glory and progress of science and art without the “bigoted fascism” (or whatever other buzzwords they wish to use) of conquest and expansion, know that one cannot exist without the other, at least not for long. This is one of the many blunders of the secular humanist crowd that I mentioned earlier, and a tough pill to swallow.
It’s at this point that Unwin mentions the rationalistic cultural condition. What separates the rationalistic cultures from the deistic ones is that “A society which displays productive energy possesses a rationalistic culture. Expansive energy is more typical of desitic societies.” (318) Rationalistic societies essentially take one step further in terms of their social energy.
Post-nuptial Sex
While the restrictions on pre-nuptial sex are very important in the cultural advancement of a society, the post-nuptial regulations are what separates a civilized society from an uncivilized one (at least in some sense; there are different aspects to this and the exception is that all societies we know of end up loosening up on them in some capacity). In this case, one cannot exist without the other (345). All societies that have post-nuptial sexual restrictions also had pre-nuptial ones.
The most important post-nuptial regulation that rationalistic, civilized societies implement is that of absolute monogamy. This means that a marriage is:
1. Between a man and a woman.
2. Is confined to one man and one woman. (as opposed to polygamy)
3. Is permanently binding. (as opposed to modified monogamy, which allows for divorce)
This may be another uncomfortable truth for some people, but absolute monogamy is consistent with every rationalistic, civilized society (the one exception is the Moors, who “in their case the women whom the men took to wife had been reared in an absolutely monogamous tradition” and practiced polygamy. Only men had multiple wives; it was never the inverse) (346). A change to modified monogamy always leads to a decrease in cultural energy (346). That is why, even with the rationalistic, civilized societies today, we are seeing them collapse because they all now allow for modified monogamy.
Concluding Remarks
There is so much more I could have mentioned about the central topics and even others that are brought up, such as monogamy vs polygamy, different kinds of sexual restrictions and regulations, continuity of religion, gender roles, evolution, and much more, but the review would end up being a summary that would go on too long. Hopefully what you have read here is enough to spark your interest. Any questions or objections you have I can almost guarantee are addressed elsewhere in the book. If the topics here do seem of interest but you don’t feel like reading through the whole thing, I would say that a good portion of it is skippable because the chapters concerning the data of each civilization are summarized in the charts in the appendix. Reading the first and the last two chapters are enough to grasp all the information provided.
Aside from the obvious relevance to our modern times in the Western world regarding sexuality, there are other key themes and correlations with the same civilizations that we see being attacked today, such as religion, ethnic pride, and adherence to traditional practices of one’s society. The traits of the rationalistic, civilized societies are now labeled as extremist and bigoted by the media and our education systems. And while the West has largely been negatively affected by these vociferous attacks, the same is beginning to happen in the East as well. The optimistic side of me is hoping that those who have the common sense to instinctively know everything that has been proven in this book will thrive and out-live their liberal counterparts that are akin to the many civilizations that died out from living the way they want to, rather than the way they should.
April 9, 2022
Though I didn't read every single section of the robust research that Unwin conducted on 80 different societies, I found Sex and Culture to be an important, meaningful, and prescient work. The turn-of-the-century psychologist presents three different groups of societies to readers that are found throughout history and even modern-day culture: zoistic, manistic, and deistic. These different "schools" of society all have different belief systems that a) acknowledge or do not acknowledge a higher power; b) exercise different levels of pre-nuptial sexual restraint in their respective cultures.
...Essentially, the societies that have upheld stringent chastity measures prior to marital unions have been overwhelmingly deistic, and have expended greater "social energy" than their manistic and zoistic counterparts (who have historically been more lax or totally lax when it came to pre-martial relations). Unwin uses the term "social energy" to denote the flourishing of a society in terms of its ability to create, build, grow, and ultimately, thrive. His theory suggests a formula resembling the following:
Deistic societies = less pre-nuptial sexual opportunity = more "energy" to put forth into the growth and development of society.
Interestingly, in his conclusion, Unwin admits that there is no ultimate determination that a society that expends more social energy is necessarily BETTER than a society that does not expend as much social energy; he only asserts that the correlation between pre-marital chastity and social energy is, in fact, causative. He also states that a) the designation of the type of society that forms over time (zoistic, manistic, or deistic) largely has to do with the WOMEN'S sexual opportunity in those cultures; b) it takes any given society at least three generations to shift from one type of culture to another.
I found Sex and Culture to be -- other than a bit long-winded -- extremely relevant and thought-provoking, as I consider the behavior and patterns of my own culture. I would recommend this as an objective source to anyone interested in the factors that contribute to a civilization's growth, or its ultimate decline.
...Essentially, the societies that have upheld stringent chastity measures prior to marital unions have been overwhelmingly deistic, and have expended greater "social energy" than their manistic and zoistic counterparts (who have historically been more lax or totally lax when it came to pre-martial relations). Unwin uses the term "social energy" to denote the flourishing of a society in terms of its ability to create, build, grow, and ultimately, thrive. His theory suggests a formula resembling the following:
Deistic societies = less pre-nuptial sexual opportunity = more "energy" to put forth into the growth and development of society.
Interestingly, in his conclusion, Unwin admits that there is no ultimate determination that a society that expends more social energy is necessarily BETTER than a society that does not expend as much social energy; he only asserts that the correlation between pre-marital chastity and social energy is, in fact, causative. He also states that a) the designation of the type of society that forms over time (zoistic, manistic, or deistic) largely has to do with the WOMEN'S sexual opportunity in those cultures; b) it takes any given society at least three generations to shift from one type of culture to another.
I found Sex and Culture to be -- other than a bit long-winded -- extremely relevant and thought-provoking, as I consider the behavior and patterns of my own culture. I would recommend this as an objective source to anyone interested in the factors that contribute to a civilization's growth, or its ultimate decline.
May 17, 2021
MUST-READ and SAVE YOUR CIVILIZATION. This is a valuable research work but the tragedy is people resist any good thing if it imposes any sort of restriction on their passion even if it is in their best interest.
January 19, 2022
It's difficult to overstate the importance of Unwin's work toward understanding the rise and fall of civilizations. I came to this book after hearing Camille Paglia, herself a masculine lesbian and self described decadent, state that artwork depicting sexual ambiguity became frequent just before the collapse of civilizations. This was an interesting idea, but didn't appear to show causality. Web searching for this idea led me to 'Sex and Culture'.
There can't be scientific controlled studies on civilizations rising and falling, but Unwin set out to observe and categorize some roughly objective measures of civilizations over the past 5,000 years that he could document. He excluded many because of incomplete documentation, but noted that civilizations rose and fell on every continent. Unwin categorized the state of cultures as being 'zoistic' (the lowest), 'manistic', 'deistic' to 'rationalistic' (the highest). In the zoistic state, humans reacted to their immediate biological state but had little regard for larger or longer term perspectives. Cultures in the deistic did think of lifetime durations, marked by burials of the dead. Desitics also considered longer term consequences marked by durable temples. Religion tended to coincide with considering the eternal and the ubiquitous. Very few cultures advanced beyond deistic to rationalistic. In this view, rationalism evolved from deism through ascriptions of the super-natural less to gods, and more to causal understanding.
In Unwin's analysis, religiosity tended to coincide with monogamy. To advance to the highest levels of culture, civilizations practiced 'absolute monogamy' in contrast to the relative promiscuity of zoistic cultures. I took exception with one of Unwin's aphorisms which was to suggest that the mechanism of civilization advance from 'absolute monogamy' was through Freudian 'subliminal sexual energy' which was diverted from preoccupation with getting laid to building civilization.
There is a possibility of causation other than 'subliminal sexual energy' that Unwin even describes. Unwin notes that as part of absolute monogamy, ascending ancient civilizations often practiced both abortifacients and infanticide specifically of pregnancies before or out of marriage. Other penalties including excommunication would act against the intemperate and for the monogamous. To those with background in socio-biology and genetics, these observations are quite indicative.
Human brains appear to be separated between quick reactions of the amygdala and the slower reasoning of long term memories from the hippocampus. Quick reactions are quite useful in emergencies, but the facility with which one can organize and recall past experience is necessary to both consider and predict the future. By eliminating the offspring of the more impulsive through abortion or infanticide and perhaps by eliminating the impulsive directly through expulsion, ancient nascent civilizations directly selected for higher intelligence and lower impulsivity. Armed with this long term focus, the peoples of these civilizations considered not only the present gratification a la the zoistic, but thought about next winter, and the future of children, and the full length of one's life, and what happened after death, and even the future of the civilization. Civilizations would seem to persist only if present generations think about future generations of that civilization!
Though one of his associates was Julian Huxley, Unwin does not mention genetics or evolution. It's not clear that peoples of the past completely understood the consequences of their practices. However, it wouldn't be surprising if they did. We know that ancient peoples bred both horses and dogs for specific characteristics. Perhaps they also knew the same principles applied to themselves.
Should they read this book, and be knowledgeable about modern understanding of heritability, many would have negative reactions.
The ideas appear to be eugenic (and dysgenic). Unwin points out that civilizations have risen and fallen on all continents. The eugenics of civilizational rise would appear to have taken place mostly -within- otherwise homogenous groups. Still, this idea is unacceptable to many. One reason heritability causes reaction is determinism, which Unwin attempts to discuss.
Some of the religious appear to extol Unwin because of the evidence that religion coincides with marital morality and the advance of civilizations. These advocates may be overlooking the importance of abortion and infanticide to selecting for future generations.
In 'Sex and Culture', Unwin dedicates sections to feminism, emphasizing the value of female rights and freedoms, but at the same time notes the cost of these freedoms to future civilization. Clearly, sexual freedom of promiscuity and premarital birth are noted by Unwin as indicators of decline.
This leads to the true terror of Unwin:
-CIVILIZATION ITSELF IS DYSGENIC AND LEADS TO ITS OWN DEMISE-
I live in the United States whose creed and Constitution emphasize and enumerate liberty. Since reason represents the processes contained within a single brain, only a free individual can reason. Since economies advance with free trade, the common economic well being is also a result of this freedom. It appears, however, that civilizations arose, not with freedom, but with strict adherence to a communal code that perhaps murderously selected for the benefit, not of the present, but of the future.
The whole point of a civilization would seem to be the rationalism that arrives with free thought but that freedom may ultimately decay the civilization.
Those the mannerisms of the writing are somewhat difficult to read, but to the curious, I highly recommend this one.
There can't be scientific controlled studies on civilizations rising and falling, but Unwin set out to observe and categorize some roughly objective measures of civilizations over the past 5,000 years that he could document. He excluded many because of incomplete documentation, but noted that civilizations rose and fell on every continent. Unwin categorized the state of cultures as being 'zoistic' (the lowest), 'manistic', 'deistic' to 'rationalistic' (the highest). In the zoistic state, humans reacted to their immediate biological state but had little regard for larger or longer term perspectives. Cultures in the deistic did think of lifetime durations, marked by burials of the dead. Desitics also considered longer term consequences marked by durable temples. Religion tended to coincide with considering the eternal and the ubiquitous. Very few cultures advanced beyond deistic to rationalistic. In this view, rationalism evolved from deism through ascriptions of the super-natural less to gods, and more to causal understanding.
In Unwin's analysis, religiosity tended to coincide with monogamy. To advance to the highest levels of culture, civilizations practiced 'absolute monogamy' in contrast to the relative promiscuity of zoistic cultures. I took exception with one of Unwin's aphorisms which was to suggest that the mechanism of civilization advance from 'absolute monogamy' was through Freudian 'subliminal sexual energy' which was diverted from preoccupation with getting laid to building civilization.
There is a possibility of causation other than 'subliminal sexual energy' that Unwin even describes. Unwin notes that as part of absolute monogamy, ascending ancient civilizations often practiced both abortifacients and infanticide specifically of pregnancies before or out of marriage. Other penalties including excommunication would act against the intemperate and for the monogamous. To those with background in socio-biology and genetics, these observations are quite indicative.
Human brains appear to be separated between quick reactions of the amygdala and the slower reasoning of long term memories from the hippocampus. Quick reactions are quite useful in emergencies, but the facility with which one can organize and recall past experience is necessary to both consider and predict the future. By eliminating the offspring of the more impulsive through abortion or infanticide and perhaps by eliminating the impulsive directly through expulsion, ancient nascent civilizations directly selected for higher intelligence and lower impulsivity. Armed with this long term focus, the peoples of these civilizations considered not only the present gratification a la the zoistic, but thought about next winter, and the future of children, and the full length of one's life, and what happened after death, and even the future of the civilization. Civilizations would seem to persist only if present generations think about future generations of that civilization!
Though one of his associates was Julian Huxley, Unwin does not mention genetics or evolution. It's not clear that peoples of the past completely understood the consequences of their practices. However, it wouldn't be surprising if they did. We know that ancient peoples bred both horses and dogs for specific characteristics. Perhaps they also knew the same principles applied to themselves.
Should they read this book, and be knowledgeable about modern understanding of heritability, many would have negative reactions.
The ideas appear to be eugenic (and dysgenic). Unwin points out that civilizations have risen and fallen on all continents. The eugenics of civilizational rise would appear to have taken place mostly -within- otherwise homogenous groups. Still, this idea is unacceptable to many. One reason heritability causes reaction is determinism, which Unwin attempts to discuss.
Some of the religious appear to extol Unwin because of the evidence that religion coincides with marital morality and the advance of civilizations. These advocates may be overlooking the importance of abortion and infanticide to selecting for future generations.
In 'Sex and Culture', Unwin dedicates sections to feminism, emphasizing the value of female rights and freedoms, but at the same time notes the cost of these freedoms to future civilization. Clearly, sexual freedom of promiscuity and premarital birth are noted by Unwin as indicators of decline.
This leads to the true terror of Unwin:
-CIVILIZATION ITSELF IS DYSGENIC AND LEADS TO ITS OWN DEMISE-
I live in the United States whose creed and Constitution emphasize and enumerate liberty. Since reason represents the processes contained within a single brain, only a free individual can reason. Since economies advance with free trade, the common economic well being is also a result of this freedom. It appears, however, that civilizations arose, not with freedom, but with strict adherence to a communal code that perhaps murderously selected for the benefit, not of the present, but of the future.
The whole point of a civilization would seem to be the rationalism that arrives with free thought but that freedom may ultimately decay the civilization.
Those the mannerisms of the writing are somewhat difficult to read, but to the curious, I highly recommend this one.
Read
September 10, 2024The book description got my attention:
“According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:”
"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."
This is a long book. I read the introduction, part of chapter 1 & part of chapter 5, which is the conclusion. I would have liked to have finished it, but did not have the time to read it all.
I have highlighted a few of the more interesting points.
“According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:”
"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."
This is a long book. I read the introduction, part of chapter 1 & part of chapter 5, which is the conclusion. I would have liked to have finished it, but did not have the time to read it all.
I have highlighted a few of the more interesting points.
December 24, 2021
I don’t love the way this book was written, but the idea it argues is fascinating. Only super religious, anti-hedonistic people breed and conquer. We see this in our own time. He can’t tell you why that is, but he can show you that throughout history, this rule is a solid rule. (And he can speculate about energy, which he does.)
He points out that when we learn about history, historians always treat societies — like Ancient Greece or Rome — as stagnant. “This is the way it was,” when in fact the culture was always changing. Every generation had new laws, new values, etc. Women were oppressed and then emancipated repeatedly throughout history. This simple fact is so huge, so story-changing, I can’t believe this is the first time I am hearing about it.
He points out that when we learn about history, historians always treat societies — like Ancient Greece or Rome — as stagnant. “This is the way it was,” when in fact the culture was always changing. Every generation had new laws, new values, etc. Women were oppressed and then emancipated repeatedly throughout history. This simple fact is so huge, so story-changing, I can’t believe this is the first time I am hearing about it.
March 12, 2024
I appreciate how much he goes into his methods which to me seemed very responsible given this subject but they became very monotonous. Despite that this was super interesting. I apologize for over simplifying the points made in this book. Unwin found that the more you limit sexual opportunity in a society the greater degree of energy it will manifest. After 3 generations of limiting sexual opportunity the society starts directing this creative/primal energy into its culture or the workings of its mind. He’s very careful not to equate terms like ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ to terms like ‘better’ or ‘worse.’ These are merely different conditions experienced by the human animal. More “civilized” just means showing greater social and creative energy. Whether or not that’s good or bad will be interpreted by individuals themselves as we all are from different strands of culture. The societies that employed the sexual limitation style of absolute monogamy always produced the highest increase in social energy but was always accompanied by the suppression of women’s rights.
All societies came out of this cultural condition by first emancipating women which also accompanied the increase in sexual opportunity and thus a decrease in cultural/social energy. It was very interesting to see that this emancipation was not some unique thing but very common in every society who reached this cultural condition. He is tedious in the examples he gives. He concludes that if humans want to reach and keep a cultural degree they haven’t experienced that they need to ensure that both sexes are both socially equal while at the same time limiting sexual opportunity to the very minimum. So far, the greatest energy we have seen so far has been produced by societies who had adopted absolute monogamy for an extended period. He also says that it does take multiple generations for these regulations to affect culture. It takes 3 generations of absolute monogamy to start affecting culture and similar for a culture to start degrading (losing energy and vigor) after absolute monogamy has been abandoned. Again, this doesn’t mean the culture is good or utopian, it just means this is what has created the most energy that expands into a cultures architecture, philosophy, legends, desire to grow, political structure, etc. it does not mean the society is free from morally abhorrent things like the desire for war or to oppress others.
It was interesting to see the comparison of the 4 cultural conditions that are monistic, zoaistic, deistic and rationalistic. The further down you go in the scale the less nuance you have in how they treat the dead, how they relate to the unknown energies and powers of the universe and even how many numbers they have. Each of these cultural signifying behaviors were what he described as monotonous in how reliable they were throughout his research. Some of the lower cultures for example used the same word for ghost and tree spirit and grass spirit and god while the more complex cultures had distinct words for ghost, god , ancestors and even started to remember the dead and create legends and myths that they would attach offerings too. The further up you go the more nuanced and complex these myths get until you get things like the pantheons and more distinct religions with deeper philosophies. The highest cultures mirrors the lower cultures but more complex and with more moving pieces. Less energetic cultures may have simple math while higher cultures have complex mathematics and architecture. We see this pattern in the development in physical technologies. First it’s simple but the more mental energy we put into technology the more nuanced and complex it becomes.
Over all he sees this as something inherent in the human organism. Building societies is just what we do. There is a part of mankind that is still seemingly evolving that isn’t related to our physical bodies and throughout history this behavior has manifested in a variety of colorful expressions and in many different ways that seem to be tied to how we use our sexual energies.
All societies came out of this cultural condition by first emancipating women which also accompanied the increase in sexual opportunity and thus a decrease in cultural/social energy. It was very interesting to see that this emancipation was not some unique thing but very common in every society who reached this cultural condition. He is tedious in the examples he gives. He concludes that if humans want to reach and keep a cultural degree they haven’t experienced that they need to ensure that both sexes are both socially equal while at the same time limiting sexual opportunity to the very minimum. So far, the greatest energy we have seen so far has been produced by societies who had adopted absolute monogamy for an extended period. He also says that it does take multiple generations for these regulations to affect culture. It takes 3 generations of absolute monogamy to start affecting culture and similar for a culture to start degrading (losing energy and vigor) after absolute monogamy has been abandoned. Again, this doesn’t mean the culture is good or utopian, it just means this is what has created the most energy that expands into a cultures architecture, philosophy, legends, desire to grow, political structure, etc. it does not mean the society is free from morally abhorrent things like the desire for war or to oppress others.
It was interesting to see the comparison of the 4 cultural conditions that are monistic, zoaistic, deistic and rationalistic. The further down you go in the scale the less nuance you have in how they treat the dead, how they relate to the unknown energies and powers of the universe and even how many numbers they have. Each of these cultural signifying behaviors were what he described as monotonous in how reliable they were throughout his research. Some of the lower cultures for example used the same word for ghost and tree spirit and grass spirit and god while the more complex cultures had distinct words for ghost, god , ancestors and even started to remember the dead and create legends and myths that they would attach offerings too. The further up you go the more nuanced and complex these myths get until you get things like the pantheons and more distinct religions with deeper philosophies. The highest cultures mirrors the lower cultures but more complex and with more moving pieces. Less energetic cultures may have simple math while higher cultures have complex mathematics and architecture. We see this pattern in the development in physical technologies. First it’s simple but the more mental energy we put into technology the more nuanced and complex it becomes.
Over all he sees this as something inherent in the human organism. Building societies is just what we do. There is a part of mankind that is still seemingly evolving that isn’t related to our physical bodies and throughout history this behavior has manifested in a variety of colorful expressions and in many different ways that seem to be tied to how we use our sexual energies.
February 23, 2021
An important forgotten book of our previous century. If I come around to it, I’ll write a detailed review.
Also, if anyone sees this comments and has any ideas why this text was just left behind? I can understand his views are dated and are based on previous understandings of anthropology, but the idea that this book is not important and the thesis does not at least have some weight is not fair to assume by any means. Especially his conclusions on “primitive” cultures.
Also, if anyone sees this comments and has any ideas why this text was just left behind? I can understand his views are dated and are based on previous understandings of anthropology, but the idea that this book is not important and the thesis does not at least have some weight is not fair to assume by any means. Especially his conclusions on “primitive” cultures.
September 25, 2023
I did not like this book. I only give 3 stars because I found the topic quite interesting and I think we can learn something from it but he is just a realy bad writer.
If you are interested in this topic, read the abstract
If you are interested in this topic, read the abstract
Read
June 25, 2022I think it's very important
December 6, 2025
Certain retards on Twitter use this book to argue that women should be oppressed to legal nonentities and chattel, as that was the prior strategy for enforcing monogamy.
But too many men have serious reading comprehension problems.
"It seems to me that it was the unequal fate of the women, not the compulsory continence, that caused the downfall of absolute monogamy [and decline of civilizations]. No society has yet succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain for an extended period. ... if ever such a result should be desired, THE SEXES MUST FIRST BE PLACED ON A FOOTING OF COMPLETE LEGAL EQUALITY."
In other words, what he actually concludes is that monogamy cannot be sustainable in any society without sex equality.
The prior strategy was making women slaves. Given that women are equally entitled to basic human rights, this is not an acceptable strategy. Men must learn to regulate themselves and to have equal standards. Men can reason. Men have agency. Why do they demand that women be reduced to slaves for the purpose of regulating them? Ridiculous.
Unwin goes over how women inevitably rebel against inequality. This, in my opinion, applies to more than just rebelling against legal inequality. Since women have gained near legal equality in many places, sex differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors have narrowed, with the result that society has become more and more promiscuous, and this trend will continue until men take responsibility for their own behavior instead of insisting on entitlement to “spread their seed” when they, in reality, cannot even afford to ejaculate more than once every 2-3 days without getting depleted to near or below subfertile.
“The greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy. In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate."
He is saying that every major civilization was built on female slavery. Female slavery was used to enforce monogamy or what he calls “absolute polygamy” (polygyny, with enforced female chastity only), and monogamy (regulation of both) has correlated with the most civilizational success.
Female slavery should be off the table now. Maybe men should be the slaves this time if men so badly believe slaves are necessary to incentivize monogamy.
Certain men really need to cut it out with their biased “science” and stop expecting women to act like slaves. Female nature is not actually what has been defined by men based on female behavior under conditions of slavery.
The only viable solution is for men to stop denying having any sexual agency, glorifying male promiscuity, and to regulate themselves. Men want to bang on about how “men are the leaders.” Then lead by example rather than by oppressing. “Mommy needs to control where I put my penis.” Retarded.
But too many men have serious reading comprehension problems.
"It seems to me that it was the unequal fate of the women, not the compulsory continence, that caused the downfall of absolute monogamy [and decline of civilizations]. No society has yet succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain for an extended period. ... if ever such a result should be desired, THE SEXES MUST FIRST BE PLACED ON A FOOTING OF COMPLETE LEGAL EQUALITY."
In other words, what he actually concludes is that monogamy cannot be sustainable in any society without sex equality.
The prior strategy was making women slaves. Given that women are equally entitled to basic human rights, this is not an acceptable strategy. Men must learn to regulate themselves and to have equal standards. Men can reason. Men have agency. Why do they demand that women be reduced to slaves for the purpose of regulating them? Ridiculous.
Unwin goes over how women inevitably rebel against inequality. This, in my opinion, applies to more than just rebelling against legal inequality. Since women have gained near legal equality in many places, sex differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors have narrowed, with the result that society has become more and more promiscuous, and this trend will continue until men take responsibility for their own behavior instead of insisting on entitlement to “spread their seed” when they, in reality, cannot even afford to ejaculate more than once every 2-3 days without getting depleted to near or below subfertile.
“The greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy. In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate."
He is saying that every major civilization was built on female slavery. Female slavery was used to enforce monogamy or what he calls “absolute polygamy” (polygyny, with enforced female chastity only), and monogamy (regulation of both) has correlated with the most civilizational success.
Female slavery should be off the table now. Maybe men should be the slaves this time if men so badly believe slaves are necessary to incentivize monogamy.
Certain men really need to cut it out with their biased “science” and stop expecting women to act like slaves. Female nature is not actually what has been defined by men based on female behavior under conditions of slavery.
The only viable solution is for men to stop denying having any sexual agency, glorifying male promiscuity, and to regulate themselves. Men want to bang on about how “men are the leaders.” Then lead by example rather than by oppressing. “Mommy needs to control where I put my penis.” Retarded.
November 13, 2025
J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture is a timeless masterpiece of anthropological scholarship that deserves a spot on every thinker's shelf. Drawing from an exhaustive study of 86 societies spanning 5,000 years of human history—from ancient Sumer to medieval Europe—Unwin meticulously uncovers profound correlations between sexual regulations and the peaks of cultural achievement. His central thesis, that societies thrive most vibrantly under norms of premarital chastity and strict monogamy, is presented with such rigorous data and clear-eyed analysis that it's impossible not to be captivated.
I am giving this book 5 stars because Unwin was 100 years ahead of his time. In 1955, Marcuse wrote his
which is the blueprint for destroying Western Civilization. Unwin's book is the antidote to Marcuse's Marxist aggression. Marcuse saw civilization's boundaries on sex (such as monogamy and healthy boundaries on promiscuity) as "excess repression." What Unwin's thesis points out is that such boundaries are necessary for supporting the nuclear family which is the undisputed social structure in history that provides a foundation for self-governance and a bulwark against tyranny.
What sets this book apart is Unwin's unflinching commitment to empirical evidence over ideology. He doesn't preach; he observes, letting the patterns speak for themselves. The ebook format is a godsend—crisp, searchable text that makes navigating his dense tables and case studies effortless on any device. Whether you're a historian, sociologist, or just curious about the roots of civilization, this work challenges assumptions and sparks deep reflection.
Unwin's insights remain strikingly relevant today, offering a lens to understand societal dynamics in ways few books do. A must-read—thought-provoking, well-researched, and utterly rewarding. Highly recommended!
I am giving this book 5 stars because Unwin was 100 years ahead of his time. In 1955, Marcuse wrote his
which is the blueprint for destroying Western Civilization. Unwin's book is the antidote to Marcuse's Marxist aggression. Marcuse saw civilization's boundaries on sex (such as monogamy and healthy boundaries on promiscuity) as "excess repression." What Unwin's thesis points out is that such boundaries are necessary for supporting the nuclear family which is the undisputed social structure in history that provides a foundation for self-governance and a bulwark against tyranny.What sets this book apart is Unwin's unflinching commitment to empirical evidence over ideology. He doesn't preach; he observes, letting the patterns speak for themselves. The ebook format is a godsend—crisp, searchable text that makes navigating his dense tables and case studies effortless on any device. Whether you're a historian, sociologist, or just curious about the roots of civilization, this work challenges assumptions and sparks deep reflection.
Unwin's insights remain strikingly relevant today, offering a lens to understand societal dynamics in ways few books do. A must-read—thought-provoking, well-researched, and utterly rewarding. Highly recommended!
March 1, 2020
NOGLE NOTER
Unwin bruger flest kræfter på 80 primitive samfund, mens en håndfuld civiliserede samfund som romerne, grækerne, sumererne, angel-sakserne fylder mindre.
Korrelationen mellem en streng seksualmoral og kulturel tilstand i de primitive samfund virker overbevisende. Årsagen forklarer Unwin med inspiration fra noget psykoanalyse, hvor den ophobede seksuelle energi ledes over i samfundsmæssig expansion og produktion. Den forklaring er noget spekulativ. Korrelationen hos de civiliserede samfund hviler på et lille antal målepunkter, så den virker også noget spekulativ, men sammen med observationerne fra alle de primitive samfund virker den sandsynlig og tilsyneladende ikke tilbagevist.
I starten definerer Unwin den kulturelle tilstand alene med religiøse karakteristika, og det er de karakteristika, han observerer hos de 80 primitive kulturer: "the cultural condition of a society is determined by its answers to two questions: 1) What powers manifest themselves in the universe? 2) What steps are taken to maintain a right relation with those powers?"
Men senere bruger han det i en bredere forstand om en civilisations generelle ekspansionsevne og produktivitet: "Among the accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce. All these things, and their like, are manifestations of what I call expansive social energy. A society which displays productive social energy develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material universe bends nature to its will."
Men koblingen mellem det religiøse og det ekspansive og produktive synes ikke at være baseret på noget systematisk studie, men mere Unwins personlige indtryk af mønsteret. Enten er det ikke særligt robust, eller også har jeg misset noget.
Graden af seksuel begrænsning inddeles i fire kategorier - fra mest restriktiv til mindre restriktiv: Absolut monogami, absolut polygami, modificeret monogami og modificeret polygami. I absolut polygami indskrænkes kvindernes seksuelle frihed maksimalt, mens mændenes seksuelle frihed er mindre begrænset end i absolut monogami.
Unwin bruger flest kræfter på 80 primitive samfund, mens en håndfuld civiliserede samfund som romerne, grækerne, sumererne, angel-sakserne fylder mindre.
Korrelationen mellem en streng seksualmoral og kulturel tilstand i de primitive samfund virker overbevisende. Årsagen forklarer Unwin med inspiration fra noget psykoanalyse, hvor den ophobede seksuelle energi ledes over i samfundsmæssig expansion og produktion. Den forklaring er noget spekulativ. Korrelationen hos de civiliserede samfund hviler på et lille antal målepunkter, så den virker også noget spekulativ, men sammen med observationerne fra alle de primitive samfund virker den sandsynlig og tilsyneladende ikke tilbagevist.
I starten definerer Unwin den kulturelle tilstand alene med religiøse karakteristika, og det er de karakteristika, han observerer hos de 80 primitive kulturer: "the cultural condition of a society is determined by its answers to two questions: 1) What powers manifest themselves in the universe? 2) What steps are taken to maintain a right relation with those powers?"
Men senere bruger han det i en bredere forstand om en civilisations generelle ekspansionsevne og produktivitet: "Among the accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce. All these things, and their like, are manifestations of what I call expansive social energy. A society which displays productive social energy develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material universe bends nature to its will."
Men koblingen mellem det religiøse og det ekspansive og produktive synes ikke at være baseret på noget systematisk studie, men mere Unwins personlige indtryk af mønsteret. Enten er det ikke særligt robust, eller også har jeg misset noget.
Graden af seksuel begrænsning inddeles i fire kategorier - fra mest restriktiv til mindre restriktiv: Absolut monogami, absolut polygami, modificeret monogami og modificeret polygami. I absolut polygami indskrænkes kvindernes seksuelle frihed maksimalt, mens mændenes seksuelle frihed er mindre begrænset end i absolut monogami.
October 6, 2022
This book was simply mind blowing. As someone who has very much come to believe that a lot of societies issues stem from the break down of monogamous marriage, reading what appears to be a very well researched book that says this so clearly from the 1930s is still something of a shock. A lot of liberal progressive types would really struggle with this but it is they who perhaps need to grasp the implications the most.
July 24, 2022
A bit of a slog, but, has interesting conclusion.
Want to read
August 27, 2024End of wonen
abandoned
December 20, 2024Stopped at 7% (Loc. 1452)
Book was a little more technical than anticipated, which made it hard to follow.
Book was a little more technical than anticipated, which made it hard to follow.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews