The Problem of Decadence

by Julius Evola

Julius Evola examines societal decadence, contrasting traditional civilizations rooted in spiritual hierarchy with modern, individualistic societies, arguing that decay arises when spiritual leadership and order collapse.

Anyone who rejects the already largely failed myth of progress and evolution in order to interpret history according to higher values notices a predominance of the negative and comes to understand the problem of decadence. If belief in progress is based on a logical impossibility — since “more” cannot arise from “less,” and the higher cannot emerge from the degenerate — then a similar difficulty seems to arise in explaining negative evolution. How can the higher degenerate at all? How can a given intellectual level be lost?

The solution would not be difficult if one were content with mere analogical conclusions: The healthy can fall ill; the virtuous can succumb to vice. A natural law, of course, ensures that every organism, after birth, development, and reaching a peak, ages, withers, and dies. But this is merely an observation, not an explanation, even if one assumes a complete similarity between both phenomena. How could it be otherwise? After all, we are dealing with civilizations, with political and social organizations, in which human will and freedom play a greater role than in these natural processes.

However, the same objection applies to Oswald Spengler’s theory, which adopts the analogy of a fateful development, according to which — like every organism — each civilization experiences a dawn, full bloom, autumnal aging, sclerosis, and eventually death and dissolution. The cycle begins with organic, spiritual, and heroic forms — what Spengler calls culture — and ends with inorganic, materialistic, mass, and soulless forms — what he calls civilization. In terms of the “cyclical laws,” this theory repeats that of tradition, which, however, concerns much broader, even metaphysical areas and can help us delve deeper into our problem. In fact, it offers an approach to explanation by referring to a force that gradually depletes: just as, to use a commonplace but useful comparison, the movement of a piston slows and gradually stops unless a new force is supplied (which would then trigger a new cycle). As far as humans are concerned, this force should primarily be understood as a higher ordering force, which binds and shapes the lower forces.

In the context of our problem, this perspective should prove useful. The starting point, similar to Spengler’s, is the contrast between two types of civilization and, consequently, two types of state.

On the one hand, we find traditional civilizations, which differ in their form and contingent aspects but agree in their principles: here, spiritual, supra-individual forces and values are the measure of general organization and the justification for every subordinate reality. On the other hand, there is the so-called modern, anti-traditional civilization, which is based solely on human-earthly, individualistic, and collectivist moments: the complete unfolding of all possibilities of a life that no longer knows “more than life.” Decadence manifests itself as the “sense of history,” in that traditional civilizations perish to increasingly give rise to a new “modern” civilization across the planet.

The question, then, is how this was possible. Now the problem is posed more practically, and we can examine what truly relates to a hierarchical structure and the principle of leadership, for this is the key to many other processes. In the traditional hierarchies, whose formation we mentioned earlier in connection with cyclical laws, the assertion that they were fundamentally imposed through direct control and violent rule must first be rejected. This would mean equating the higher with the lower. Additionally, we must acknowledge the decisive importance of the spiritual moment. In the world of tradition, one could speak of a “moment without action”; the mystery of the “unmoved mover” (in the Aristotelian sense), the pole, the unchanging axis of every ordered movement of subjective forces, was valid; for true leadership, the attribute was “Olympian”; true rulers needed no force, their presence was enough; sometimes people spoke of the magnet, which, as we will further show, also solves our whole problem. The idea of the violent origin of every hierarchical state organization, as repeatedly put forward by leftist historians and writers, must be rejected as primitive, false, or at least incomplete.

It would also be absurd to think that the representatives of true spiritual leadership chased after people to bind each one to a place and thus create and maintain hierarchical relationships, thereby securing their rule. Not mere subjugation, but the consent and recognition of the subordinate is the basis of every normal and traditional hierarchy. It is not the higher who needs the lower, but the lower who needs the higher; the leader does not need the followers, but the followers need the leader. The essence of hierarchy lies in the fact that what is clearly developed in some people appears in others only as a vague longing, as a premonition, as a dark striving. Thus, the latter necessarily follow the former and naturally subordinate themselves. Here, subordination is not external coercion but rather applies to a true “self.” Hence the spirit of sacrifice, conscious heroism, and masculine devotion in the world of former hierarchies; hence also the prestige, authority, quiet power, and influence that even a tyrant with the mightiest army would never have enjoyed.

This insight sheds new light not only on the problem of decadence but also on the general possibility of every revolutionary overthrow. Is the following not repeated often enough: if a revolution succeeds, it is only because the previous leadership was weak and the upper class had degenerated? This may be true, but it is not enough. One might think of it in terms of dogs on a leash suddenly overpowering their master; the leading hands are simply no longer strong enough. However, if one does not believe in the creation of a true state through violence and considers the hierarchy mentioned earlier, then things are different. Such a hierarchy is only supported in one case: when the descent affects everyone, when each person misuses their essential freedom to sever their life from everything higher and thus mutilates it. Then, all connections must break; the tension that held together the traditional organism, whose political form represented an ascent and integration process for every human being, weakens; each individual force wavers in its path, trying in some cases to replace the lost tradition with nationalist and utilitarian systems, and ultimately drifts away.

The peaks may remain pure and untouched. But the rest, which previously clung to them, sets in motion like an avalanche — first slowly, almost imperceptibly, then ever faster — losing its balance and crashing downward to the valley floor into liberalism, socialism, mass society, and communism.

Herein lies the secret of decadence in the area we are considering. Here lies the secret of every revolutionary upheaval. The revolutionary first kills the hierarchy within himself and thus loses the possibilities that arose from inner order, an order he then goes on to destroy externally. Without prior inner destruction, there is no revolution in the sense of an anti-hierarchical and anti-traditional upheaval. And since this preparatory process escapes the superficial or short-sighted observer, who only sees and evaluates “facts,” revolutions are ultimately regarded as irrational phenomena, or they are merely explained by materialistic and social factors, which are secondary in every civilization.

When Catholic mythology attributes the fall of the first man and even the rebellion of the angels to metaphysical freedom, it essentially resorts to the same explanation. It speaks of the dangerous innate capacity of man to use his freedom for spiritual destruction, to reject everything that could elevate him to a higher dignity. This is a metaphysical decision that we encounter throughout history and in various forms, such as anti-traditionalism, revolutionism, humanism, secularism, and “modernism.” This decision is, in fact, the cause of decadence and anti-tradition, which would otherwise remain mysterious.

Now one also understands the meaning of ancient traditions that appear somewhat encrypted to us and refer to leaders who are somehow already present — because they have always been there. These leaders can be found again (either themselves or their “seats”) through actions of symbolic character described in various ways. This search actually means a reordering, a behavior that — like the feeling of iron for the magnet — discovers the leader, orients itself towards him, and strives towards him. We have said enough about this; whoever wishes may delve deeper.

However, in today’s world, we must endure a profound pessimism. If true leaders were to appear now, they would go unrecognized unless they wore the mask of demagogues and advocates of social myths. For this reason, the era of kingship is over. Until then, and as long as order existed, the mere symbol sufficed; it was not always necessary for the symbol’s bearer to fully live up to his task as a person.

(Translated from the Italian by Heinrich Matterhorn)