There is a wide-spread and pernicious argument which has been circling for quite some time, saying that the Western World is in decline, that it is in crisis, and that new challengers have arisen to dethrone the West.
Okay, let’s unpack this a bit.
First, we need to ignore the real question within – what actually is the West – and assume that the charge pertains to the “classical” understanding of the West, namely Europe and North America, maybe also Australia and New Zealand, possibly also Japan and South Korea. Countries that since the mid-20th century at the latest have been on a solid democratic, modern and more or less progressive trajectory.
Is there decline or crisis?
Certainly, let’s make a brief list:
- Rise of populism from the left and the right due to a sense of disaffection by various groups in society – people feel that the government and the establishment do not represent them very well, and they feel left behind, discriminated, unable to change things for the better. This is a question of perceived or real democratic deficit – and a question whether democracy can help solve these problems arising from a complex process of transformation of society due to several factors.
- Challenges brought up by what is derided as “wokeism”: the demand to create a more just society which would need to overcome the last vestiges of racism, sexism, classism, ageism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. in order to truly become democratic. Some of these demands have received severe blowback, either because they speak to changing traditional norms, or because they are protected by powerful interests that would like to keep things – and the order of things – the same.
- Other countries may be becoming economically stronger, such as China and India.
- The loss of traditional values (whatever that means, but let’s accept it as a charge for now) has made Western societies weaker, less potent, and less able to face the challenges of the time. This is put forth primarily by the anti-modern critique uttered by some Russian and similar anti-modern philosophers.
- The West has lost its moral advantage due to past colonialism, recent and current failures to live up to their own values, and military setbacks such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is quite a mouthful, and I hope my paraphrasing of these attacks is roughly representative. Certainly, there is more out there – but let’s stick with these and pluck them apart a bit:
- This basically says: your democracy is not democratic enough, please make sure you improve your system to become even more democratic to ensure your people can live lives of dignity, in freedom, under the fair rule of the law, with all the opportunities given so that people can thrive. AGREE! Yet somehow, those who pose the criticism mentioned above seem to prefer dictatorship over democracy, and thus are unable to put up a viable alternative. If the problem of democracy is that there is not enough democracy, this should be fixed indeed with more democracy (and, also necessarily, a strong separation of powers with functioning checks and balances), instead of with more authoritarianism. Basically, the West needs to double down on its core promise. Here, the critique of the West just looks rather like an endorsement for evil empires.
- What is the alternative to “wokeism”? The term has been misunderstood, misused, abused, and ridiculed – but it basically means to strive for a just society for everyone. The alternative? What is the alternative to anti-racism? To anti-sexism? To human rights? Is the proposed answer – “traditional values” – simply code for “boys shall be boys”, “women should know their place”, “no more LGBTQ”, “listen to God (through authoritarian churches aligned with an authoritarian state)”? Are these alternatives? No. Seriously, think this through if you don’t think you like “wokeness.” If I hear Republicans complain about “woke stuff”, I remind them that as the Party of Lincoln, as the party of the Emancipation Proclamation, they are the original “woke” party. Now, certainly, some people do silly things claiming to be “woke,” and not everyone even on the self-proclaimed “woke” side seems to know what that means. Alas, simply put: you want justice, this means being “woke.” You disagree with “wokeness”, you reveal that you side with a discriminatory power dynamic that perpetuates injustice. Here, the critique of the West just looks rather unpalatable.
- If India and China become economically stronger, that is great! They will be able to alleviate poverty in their countries, and become even better trading partners. More trade will mean more interactions, more interdependence, and hopefully, more peace. And yet, China certainly is no longer economically on the upward trajectory, and India has its own problems – but at least a better future than China currently as India is democratic. Here, the critique of the West just looks not quite thought through and ill-informed.
- This is similar to 2, but has a clearly traditionalist-fascist bent. I have read similar thoughts recently by Sergei Karaganov, who takes the decline of the West as a given and just produced a horrifying text calling for nuking the West to unshackle the Russian future. This is more than “anti-woke”, this is apocalyptic, anti-emancipatory, anti-modern and outright fascist in a philosophical sense. Here, the critique of the West just looks dark, very dark, Darth Vader dark.
- Yes, indeed, we need to confront our colonial past – which, by the way, was not limited to “the West.” Russia still holds on to its colonial belongings in Asia and wages colonial wars now in Ukraine, Syria, the Sahara and North Africa. China has colonized Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and is set to do the same to Taiwan. The West needs to confront its bad practices and also some bad understandings of the world, sure – but so does the rest of the world. Those claiming to take human rights seriously need to actually do so lest they be taken as a hypocrite. But as to military setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan: Make no mistake about it (and yet Putin did): The United States had no real interest in building up Iraq (which is the real crime here), and they simply got bored with Afghanistan and annoyed that the Afghan people seemed less invested in their own fight against the Taliban than the Allied Forces. The US was not defeated in either case. The method chosen by Russia in Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine could very well have been applied by the United States – but that’s not what that was about. The West may be hypocritical, occasionally still cruel, sometimes insanely stupid, but it is certainly not worse than the alternative. Here, the critique of the West is the pot calling the kettle black.
No, the West is not in decline. Economies wax and wane, issues come and go, and there is always room for improvement, but we seem to eventually be heading there. The democratic West is fighting it out over issues, values, strategies – as any democratic entity should.
Let’s not accept this facile attempt at making us complicit in our own self-destruction and actually fix our problems as we should.
Also, where do all the autocrats, oligarchs, and their families and friends like to vacation? Where do they believe their money to be safe, where do they believe the best schools and universities and research hospitals and best connections for the future are? Right, in what we would call the West or its allies. That should say it all.
If the West declines it will only be if the rest of the world has become a better, more democratic, more hopeful, more educated and more progressive part of the West – but this does not invalidate the idea of the West, on the contrary: it confirms it. Alternatively, we will all go down a bad path – which certainly is not a desirable option, I would surmise.
Erratic Attempts 