Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Noble gentlemen and ladies in [Japan’s] Heian period (794-1185) were often remarkably promiscuous. … “Heian society was on the whole governed by style rather than by any moral principles, and good looks tended to take the place of virtue.” … It was, as all this suggests, a rather effete culture. The aristocratic ideal of male beauty—highly perfumed, moon-faced, smooth-skinned, extravagantly dressed—was close to the feminine ideal. A distinct air of decadence during the peak of the Heian period also suggests the approaching end of a regime, a world, in Genji’s words, “where everything seems to be in a state of decline.”
Less than two hundred years later, the self-obsessed nobility of the Heian court, distracted by the rituals and refinements of palace politics, oblivious of the world outside the capital, and mostly bored out of their minds, were overwhelmed by more vigorous provincial clans, notably the samurai, with their warrior codes and martial ideals. But in Genji’s time, the early eleventh century, the imperial capital (today’s Kyoto) still held sway; anyone unlucky enough to live in the provinces was considered too uncouth to be taken seriously. (more)
This seems a familiar history story, that elite self-indulgence and moral decadence causes social decay and displacement. It contributes to the Hunger Games stories, for example. It also seems a common foundation of conservative thought. But, is it true? I ask because I actually do not know. Has anyone done statistical tests on systematic historical datasets to see if decadence actually causes decay and displacement? I could imagine counter arguments, such as that decadence promotes peace instead of destructive war-mongering. So I’d prefer not to have to rely only on a few anecdotes and plausible intuitions.
Does Decadence Cause Decay?
I have a different theory: that altruism survives in small endogamous groups, but in larger population centers the prevalence of selfish behavior increases. Power centers go through cycles of rise and decay in response to the degree of unity and altruism in the dominant group. The longer a group stays in power, the larger it becomes and the more it attracts selfish climbers. Once the decay collapses the power center, there is space for a new smaller -- but more altruistic and therefore more powerful -- group to take its place.
This idea works whether you see group cohesion as genetically or as culturally determined. More directly, size can weaken the ethnic bonds between group members, and the lack of the need to gain power can subvert relevant virtues.
It was, as all this suggests, a rather effete culture. The aristocratic ideal of male beauty—highly perfumed, moon-faced, smooth-skinned, extravagantly dressed—was close to the feminine ideal.
Does the author really mean "effete?" Heian society might very well have been effete, but that is hardly clear from the passage cited. Instead, it sounds like the author meant to say "effeminate." Big difference.