Question
What is the foundational story of Western civilization?
Answer
The basic universalist Grand Narrative (GN) of course, goes something like this:
1. In the beginning there were Greece and Rome which raised humans above the barbarism of the decadent near eastern "pre-civilizations" like Persia and Egypt to something that deserves the term "civilization."
2. Rome fell, triggering a dark age characterized by a loss of that rise to civilization, with the spread of Christianity being the only thing that prevented the West from falling back into the pre-civilizational barbarism of Asia and the Near East.
3. Christianity defended the Western soul by defending the continent against Islam during the crusades
4. But Christianity declined and was corrupted, until Martin Luther and others sparked the reformation, and saved the soul of the West, moving the center of gravity of the civilization from the south to the north
5. Then there was the renaissance: rediscovery of the civilizational and aesthetic truths of Greece and Rome
6. Then there were the age of discovery and the scientific and industrial revolutions which enabled the West to "leap ahead" of the rest of the world on the material plane, not just the spiritual plane
7. And then America was discovered, and the West was able to truly fulfill its destiny as the enduring vanguard of the evolution of civilization
Like it or not, this is the incumbent, default GN in the West. It tends to stop just before the American Civil War, with the narrative logic beyond that being part of a more global grand narrative.
There are liberal Westerners who are offended by its "we are special/better" tone and try to highlight its dark side and "non special" nature/role of environment/luck etc. in making it happen. Some believe the story is self-serving bs, while others resonate with it and feel guilty about it.
There are conservative Westerners who basically believe this to be true in its essentials, and soften it a little bit to try and not offend the rest of the world, but basically stick to it in their thinking.
And there are Westerners who don't think much about all this at all (the majority), but without knowing it, end up assuming it as the basis for the more ordinary/everyday ideas and opinions they hold, leading to a natural, implicit assumption of civilizational superiority.
There are 3 other universalist GNs in the world that are on a similar "we are the stewards of human destiny" scales: Islamic, Indian and Sinic. Until about 1200 AD, each of those had the same amount of confidence and self-assurance that the Western storyline does today. Since then, each of those stories has had to be reframed in reaction to the _material_ rise of the West. None of these alternative GN's accepts the spiritual dimension of the West's account of itself, but generally acknowledges the material dimension. i.e. they accept the facts underlying point 6 (though not necessarily the interpretation that it was a "leap ahead") but reject basically everything else. They don't see Greece/Rome as the starting point for anything, or historicist tale of Christianity as being of any particular relevance.
The default reframing for the Islamic GN is "decadent west/pure Islam and Godly virtues under siege"
The default reframing for the Indian GN is "Way more ancient, denied credit for contributions, with the rise of the West being fueled by loot and fraud from colonialism." (If you've ever met an Indian in a big hurry to yell "we invented the decimal system" in even the most peripheral conversation, you've seen the tip of the iceberg that is this GN).
The default reframing for the Sinic GN is "How the hell did all these barbarians get ahead? Must be an accident, let's reclaim the central civilizational place for the Middle Kingdom."
All this is just my attempt at an objective summary of the condition of the world, and its inventory of universalist grand narratives. Please do not take anything I've said as either condoning or condemning any one of them.
My personal views are kinda orthogonal to this whole way of thinking about civilization, within which the roles of individual racial/cultural/geographic GNs is kinda peripheral. Also, in my own views, different periods/regions of history get far greater emphasis (in particular, the period between 10,000 BC and 4000 BC... the early part of the neolithic revolution, and the role of pastoral nomads on the peripheries of the GN civilizations... Genghis Khan matters a heck of a lot more in my version of world history than Alexander or Cyrus, for instance). Someday, I'll write up my GN on my blog. Guaranteed to make absolutely nobody happy.
1. In the beginning there were Greece and Rome which raised humans above the barbarism of the decadent near eastern "pre-civilizations" like Persia and Egypt to something that deserves the term "civilization."
2. Rome fell, triggering a dark age characterized by a loss of that rise to civilization, with the spread of Christianity being the only thing that prevented the West from falling back into the pre-civilizational barbarism of Asia and the Near East.
3. Christianity defended the Western soul by defending the continent against Islam during the crusades
4. But Christianity declined and was corrupted, until Martin Luther and others sparked the reformation, and saved the soul of the West, moving the center of gravity of the civilization from the south to the north
5. Then there was the renaissance: rediscovery of the civilizational and aesthetic truths of Greece and Rome
6. Then there were the age of discovery and the scientific and industrial revolutions which enabled the West to "leap ahead" of the rest of the world on the material plane, not just the spiritual plane
7. And then America was discovered, and the West was able to truly fulfill its destiny as the enduring vanguard of the evolution of civilization
Like it or not, this is the incumbent, default GN in the West. It tends to stop just before the American Civil War, with the narrative logic beyond that being part of a more global grand narrative.
There are liberal Westerners who are offended by its "we are special/better" tone and try to highlight its dark side and "non special" nature/role of environment/luck etc. in making it happen. Some believe the story is self-serving bs, while others resonate with it and feel guilty about it.
There are conservative Westerners who basically believe this to be true in its essentials, and soften it a little bit to try and not offend the rest of the world, but basically stick to it in their thinking.
And there are Westerners who don't think much about all this at all (the majority), but without knowing it, end up assuming it as the basis for the more ordinary/everyday ideas and opinions they hold, leading to a natural, implicit assumption of civilizational superiority.
There are 3 other universalist GNs in the world that are on a similar "we are the stewards of human destiny" scales: Islamic, Indian and Sinic. Until about 1200 AD, each of those had the same amount of confidence and self-assurance that the Western storyline does today. Since then, each of those stories has had to be reframed in reaction to the _material_ rise of the West. None of these alternative GN's accepts the spiritual dimension of the West's account of itself, but generally acknowledges the material dimension. i.e. they accept the facts underlying point 6 (though not necessarily the interpretation that it was a "leap ahead") but reject basically everything else. They don't see Greece/Rome as the starting point for anything, or historicist tale of Christianity as being of any particular relevance.
The default reframing for the Islamic GN is "decadent west/pure Islam and Godly virtues under siege"
The default reframing for the Indian GN is "Way more ancient, denied credit for contributions, with the rise of the West being fueled by loot and fraud from colonialism." (If you've ever met an Indian in a big hurry to yell "we invented the decimal system" in even the most peripheral conversation, you've seen the tip of the iceberg that is this GN).
The default reframing for the Sinic GN is "How the hell did all these barbarians get ahead? Must be an accident, let's reclaim the central civilizational place for the Middle Kingdom."
All this is just my attempt at an objective summary of the condition of the world, and its inventory of universalist grand narratives. Please do not take anything I've said as either condoning or condemning any one of them.
My personal views are kinda orthogonal to this whole way of thinking about civilization, within which the roles of individual racial/cultural/geographic GNs is kinda peripheral. Also, in my own views, different periods/regions of history get far greater emphasis (in particular, the period between 10,000 BC and 4000 BC... the early part of the neolithic revolution, and the role of pastoral nomads on the peripheries of the GN civilizations... Genghis Khan matters a heck of a lot more in my version of world history than Alexander or Cyrus, for instance). Someday, I'll write up my GN on my blog. Guaranteed to make absolutely nobody happy.