"progress" vs. "golden age"

ok, this is about one of the fundamental changes in the human history.
The only problem is, nobody agree on when and where the change happened.
Someone pins it to the french revolution, some others to the industrial revolution, others to the english revolution, other again to the bolshevic revolution.
But it is a fact that something happened in the way mankind saw history and his perspectives, switching from the idea that there was a good situation somewhere in the past to be used as a model and an ispiration, towards the complete different idea that the future could be better (and radically different) than the past.
While "revolutions" in ancient history always tried to get some legitimacy from the past presenting themselves as a coming back to the "good, old customs", in modern history they became effectively Revolutions with a capital R, and tried instead to emphatize their character of being something new, different from the past.
Because Revolution was the midwife of the future, dragging the world kicking and screaming towards its new bright future, when earth will be as heaven.
And since Revolution is not a kind midwife, many took the idea that you had to swim through a lake of blood in order to drag the heaven down to earth.

So my questions is:
1) what exactly is the POD here?
2) could it be averted, or could at least the two vision coexist?
3) what the consequences?
 
I think there are a number of problems with what your conception of "golden age" societies. But it has always seemed to me that Europe progressed along a different path from the other regions (India, China, Asia) after the New World and contrary to Years of Rice and Salt, the present day would be quite a bit closer to the "golden age" model than the "progress" model. Things would probably continue to progress but not nearly the rate they have been and maybe taking different paths.

I'd say a mixture of geographic determinism and economics myself. Europe had been essentially been exploited by the other regions for 2000 years. So you had the combination of their being able to exploit the new world resources, the drive to the top, and geographic issues like Europe being essentially the best place to reach the rest of the world from and you had a catalyst to move to something different.
 
Last edited:
I think you're missing the point; I apologize for not being clear.
I'm not interested here on why Europe become the master of the world, but rather on how came that people changed their way of looking at the past and to the future, switching fom a once-upon-a-time-we-lived-in-Eden perspective to a let's-build-a-new-heaven-on-earth one
 
Perhaps because Europe became the master of the world?

At some point things changed so fast that progress became noticeable during peoples own lifetimes.
They experienced it, rather then to have to base the notion on comparing historical records.
 
Last edited:
I would say this is a product of the Enlightenment and looking at the world scientifically. That's where you need to place your POD.

I'd also say that, at least in the US, the golden age mentality is alive and well. In fact I bet you could construct an argument around this being the central difference between the two political parties: progress on the one side and return to a golden age on the other.
 
I would say this is a product of the Enlightenment and looking at the world scientifically. That's where you need to place your POD.

I'd also say that, at least in the US, the golden age mentality is alive and well. In fact I bet you could construct an argument around this being the central difference between the two political parties: progress on the one side and return to a golden age on the other.

Quoted for truth that is just about it.
 
Perhaps because Europe became the master of the world?

At some point things changed so fast that progress became noticeable during peoples own lifetimes.
They experienced it, rather then to have to base the notion on comparing historical records.

I would say this is a product of the Enlightenment and looking at the world scientifically. That's where you need to place your POD.
That OP, is why you need to look at why Europe became master of the world, because what we think of as the idea of "progress" came largely out of a Europe as a result of their rise to mastery.
 
But it is a fact that something happened in the way mankind saw history and his perspectives, switching from the idea that there was a good situation somewhere in the past to be used as a model and an ispiration, towards the complete different idea that the future could be better (and radically different) than the past.

Many scholars will argue that Christianity had a lot to do with this. While the classical view looked back to a golden age and viewed history as cyclical, Christians viewed history as a story moving towards a definite endpoint, the millennial kingdom of God. Whether or not this is true, I don't know (you probably find some elements of both views in every age and every civilization, so we're really just talking about the mix, which is hard to measure), but certainly by the time of Joachim of Fiore the idea of historical progress moving towards a future utopia was baked into the cake. Marxism and Jacobinism and all the rest are just part of the Western tradition.
 
That's a pretty difficult question.

Anyway, here my personal view on the matter.

To view the past as a "golden age" had been a central part of european philosophy, theology and general world view since the early middle ages. This view has declined over the last 300 to 500 years (depending on whom you ask you get very different dates). This world view is imho mainly inspired two things.

1) The "Fall" of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of the so-called Dark Ages / the transition to the Early Middle Ages. This combines an actual decline in technology with a de-urbanization, depopulation of (wide parts) of northern and western Europe and the loss of central structures, which meant an over all decline of trade, exchange of ideas, the beginning of feudal rule and warfare, a loss of personal rights and an overall loss of everyday security.

This trauma has been increased and preserved by factor number two.

2) The jewish-christian tradition and mythology. Now, many cultures have myths about a "golden age" in the past, ruled by gods. But, as far as I'm aware, the jewish and later christian mythology is stronger in this point than others. It's not only said that the people of the "golden age" lived under the direct rule of god(s), but that adam and eve lived literally in paradise. The fact that the christian god is exclusively good and by that is less "human" than other deities like the roman-greek gods. No human king/emperor could recreate this paradise through wise rule, since only god or Jesus on his behalf could recreate paradise on earth.

Those two facts combined produced a very positive view of the past, combining mythical/religious and historical concepts.

This world view changed slowly during Early Modern Times/Modern Times. (based on your definition of Early Modern Times and your interpretation of social history, intellectual history, etc.)
One important fact was the rapidly increasing rate of technological inventions, like Halcyon Dayz said. People could actually experience (technological) changes, either during their own lifetime or through a combination of personal experiences and tales of parents, grandparents and the like.
Now, the philosophical and social part of the change happened slower than technological inventions and was heavily fought over, both in intellectual debates and in actual wars. Yet, the changes of philosophical ideas and concepts of society/government was critical to further technical/scientific progress.
In religious debates/reforms, all sides usually claimed for the longest time to interpret god's will in the only right way, which was always said to be the "original" way. All reformations aimed to return back to the right way.
Now, philosohpy and state and social theories became more independent of christianity since the 15/16th century, but really began to go their own way after 1648 (at least in central europe), but the idea of returning back to a better way and correct modern errors was prominent until the mid-20th century (in europe) at least.

For a POD to prevent this, there isn't a single one. You would have to both slow down the rate of technological improvement drastic, especially the rate at which ideas spread (read: no printing press), keep the church in a position of authority and make monarchy and later absolutism more successful than IOTL and last longer.

Hope that helps and is understandable.
 
Perhaps because Europe became the master of the world?

At some point things changed so fast that progress became noticeable during peoples own lifetimes.
They experienced it, rather then to have to base the notion on comparing historical records.

The european first big push (1500-1600) came in a period of relative technological stability (at least, compared to the 1800 explosion).
Military revolution was mainly a matter of tactics and training than a fact of technological advancement.
And a good share of the "inventors" used to claim they "re-discovered" their ideas in old Aristotile texts.
Also, the bigger player (imperial spain) was not exactly a whirlwind of innovative ideas.

I think the progress-became-noticeable argumentation is interesting, but it need at least 1700 to be really appreciated
 
Perhaps because Europe became the master of the world?

.

I'm not sure. Europe conquered the Americas in the XVI century, but didn't abandoned the golden age mentality till the XVIII century. The Renaiisance was an attempt to restaure at least a bit of the splendour of the Antiquity. In the XVII century, according to Toynbee, English writers were still discussing if they had already matched the sophistication of the Ancients (Romans and Greeks). Even a century later, both the American and the French revolutions had appeal to Roman motives in order to get legitimacy.

But that's it. After this period, future revolutionaries would look back to these revolutions, not to the Classical past of Europe.
 
The european first big push (1500-1600) came in a period of relative technological stability (at least, compared to the 1800 explosion).
Military revolution was mainly a matter of tactics and training than a fact of technological advancement.
And a good share of the "inventors" used to claim they "re-discovered" their ideas in old Aristotile texts.
Also, the bigger player (imperial spain) was not exactly a whirlwind of innovative ideas.

I think the progress-became-noticeable argumentation is interesting, but it need at least 1700 to be really appreciated
That's not when Europe became dominant. The Ottoman struggle is a good indicator in that the Europeans did not reach parity until the end of the 17th or start of the 18th century. 1500-1600 was not a time of colonization (that is, New Imperialism) as we mostly think of it. It took time for the increased resources, greater knowledge of other cultures etc. to lead into the change you're talking about. For example, Europe didn't exceed the GDP of China until much later than 1500. TBH, I think it's that combination of resources, the continued push to becoming more powerful than the other regions (in an abstract sense) and the weakening of religion in the 18th century that spurred the new ideas.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting and important question to ask, Mailinutile!

The period when progress philosophy becomes really dominant is when Enlightenment is put to political practice, so "French Revolution" is close. Enlightenment itself was - to a large degree - just an atheistic (or deistic) variant of golden-age world views, speaking about the "original pure state" of humans. But during the French Revolution, suddenly a political and atheistic eschatology appeared, featuring the "end of history" (which is achieved when the globe is covered with republics).
On the other hand, also the young French Republic still has some Golden Age sentiments, which you can see from calling themselves a "Republic" and thus referencing back to the Roman Republic - as the USA shortly before and the Netherlands 200 years before also had done. But this may have been necessary as a counterweight to the long roots the monarchists were claiming - back to Constantine.
But the deliberate change of very long traditions - only think of the attempt at extending the week from 7 to 10 days after perhaps 3000 years! - was bearing one particular message: We can change anything if we want, the past is neither authoritative nor helpful to us.


So you were asking for a PoD to keep the Golden Age mentality more productive (of course, it has never died completely). The above considerations lead to the assumption that a more peaceful French Revolution would help a great deal. This is not so easy, but the example of England and the Netherlands show that it's possible ...


On the other hand, the great changes before usually represented themselves as corrections in Golden-Age stye.
Examples:
Reformation: "back to the truth of the gospel".
German Peasants' War: "When Adam was digging and Eve was yarning, was there any nobleman?"




Many scholars will argue that Christianity had a lot to do with this. While the classical view looked back to a golden age and viewed history as cyclical, Christians viewed history as a story moving towards a definite endpoint, the millennial kingdom of God.

This is completely true. This difference between Pagan Roman and Jewish-Christian world view should not be underrated, even though it was mitigated by the Hellenisation of Judaism and Christianity.
But the crucial difference is whether you are waiting patiently for the Return of Christ, and nobody knows the hour, not even the son, or if you think it is up to you to pursue progress and change conclusively what always had been different.
 
This is completely true. This difference between Pagan Roman and Jewish-Christian world view should not be underrated, even though it was mitigated by the Hellenisation of Judaism and Christianity.
But the crucial difference is whether you are waiting patiently for the Return of Christ, and nobody knows the hour, not even the son, or if you think it is up to you to pursue progress and change conclusively what always had been different.

Excellent point, though to an extent even the Christians of late antiquity did believe that the Roman Empire was a force for making the world a "better" (i.e., more Christian) place. They certainly saw the spread of the Christian Gospel as progress and it wasn't purely outside divine action like you're talking about with the Second Coming: it was something that Christians did. So it fits your definition of progress. What is less clear is whether, once the Roman state became Christian, Christians continued to believe in some over-all human-driven progress from that point.

However, skipping ahead a few centuries, by the time of Joachim of Fiore, you do get some Christian groups that definitely see themselves as having a role in bringing to pass the Future (i.e., the Kingdom of God on Earth). Like I said before, Jacobins and Marxists are part of a Western tradition that traces back to the Middle Ages.
 
That's true. The idea of "progress" is also contained in the Christian package.
So we are basically discussing when the balance shifted so dramatically from "mostly golden-age" to "basically only progress".

Obviously the political eschatologies of Marxism or also of the French Revolution lean heavily on Christian ideas. However, they arise relatively late, so they don't really contribute much to the argument of Christians actively pursuing a historical development. But you are definitely right about Christians supporting/fostering the Kingdom of God, in particular, mission.


And yes, this aspect of world view has little to do with the pace of actual progress, nor with the level of religiosity, nor with European domination.

In particular, both Christian and Atheistic/Agnostic convictions can adapt to either golden-age or progress "style". I am, however, not aware of a non-Abrahimitic religion convincingly combined with the idea of progress. Perhaps this is another aspect where Christian theology and philosophy has equipped the Enlightenment philosophers?
 
While the arguments about christian influence have some good points, I frankly do not think that the frantic pace of progress could be easily settled ito the boundary of religion.
Any religion, expecially a written-down one.
There are strong links between progress and violence which irks the religious hypothesys.
Progress is often seen as Change in apocalyptic terms (here the capital C) and often a lake of blood is considered essential to build the new heaven
 
That's true. The idea of "progress" is also contained in the Christian package.
So we are basically discussing when the balance shifted so dramatically from "mostly golden-age" to "basically only progress".

Obviously the political eschatologies of Marxism or also of the French Revolution lean heavily on Christian ideas. However, they arise relatively late, so they don't really contribute much to the argument of Christians actively pursuing a historical development. But you are definitely right about Christians supporting/fostering the Kingdom of God, in particular, mission.


And yes, this aspect of world view has little to do with the pace of actual progress, nor with the level of religiosity, nor with European domination.

In particular, both Christian and Atheistic/Agnostic convictions can adapt to either golden-age or progress "style". I am, however, not aware of a non-Abrahimitic religion convincingly combined with the idea of progress. Perhaps this is another aspect where Christian theology and philosophy has equipped the Enlightenment philosophers?

I agree completely.
 
While the arguments about christian influence have some good points, I frankly do not think that the frantic pace of progress could be easily settled ito the boundary of religion.
Any religion, expecially a written-down one.

I think you have to make a distinction between the belief in Progress as an idea and the actual cultural and technological changes that are part of real progresss. The fact that the latter threatens any codified belief system does not mean that belief systems would not promote Progress. In many ways, the march of time has exposed Marxism and even parts of the Enlightenment project, but Marxism and the Enlightenment believed in Progress all the same.

There are strong links between progress and violence which irks the religious hypothesys.
Progress is often seen as Change in apocalyptic terms (here the capital C) and often a lake of blood is considered essential to build the new heaven.

I actually agree that modern religions, especially Christianity, tend to have a peaceful influence. BUT millennarian sects can be very, very comfortable with violence. Look at the terms you use--"apocalypse" is a religious term, as is "new heaven," (both are from the Book of Revelations), and I believe even the "lake of blood" idea is from Revelations. Look at the Anabaptists in Germany, the Levelers in England, the followers of the Mahdi in the Sudan, the Taiping or the Yellow Turbans in China, the Jewish revolt in antiquity--they were all pretty comfortable with the notion that the children of darkness had to be cleansed from the world with sword and fire.
 
I used the terms on cue ;)
Millenarism is certainly an important aspect of "Revolutionary" changes, but I do not see it as an integrating part of formalized religions.
This is the reason for all the millenaristic movements to be always dubbed as "heretic sects".
Of course the lake of blood played a part into it, too :D
 
Top