All This Horror Was Unnecessary

Toynbee has used the phrase “ephemeral self,” but it’s not a headline concept in 𝘈 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 —it appears in his later, more explicitly religious writings, where he contrasts the transient, socially‑conditioned ego with a deeper, spiritual self that participates in what he calls “the higher religions.”

Toynbee’s notion of the ephemeral self emerges in Volume VII–XII of 𝘈 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 (the “higher religions” volumes), his later works like 𝘈𝘯 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯’𝘴 𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 (1956) and 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 (1969). It is part of his attempt to integrate historical analysis with a metaphysical anthropology.

He never gives a crisp, formal definition—but the pattern is unmistakable. Toynbee sees the human being as having two layers of identity. The first layer is the socially conditioned ego, the self that identifies with class, nation, civilization, profession. It's the self that participates in the “world of becoming”, the self that is swept up in the rise‑and‑fall cycles of civilizations. It's the self that is mortal, transient, and bound to history; the self that clings to collective identities (which Toynbee sees as spiritually dangerous)

This is the self that dies with the civilization when the civilization fails to respond creatively to challenge.

Then there's the Enduring or Spiritual Self. This is the self that participates in the “higher religions”, the self capable of metanoia (conversion). It's the self that can detach from the collective ego, the self that can transcend the civilizational cycle, the self that is oriented toward the divine ground.

Toynbee’s entire philosophy of history is ultimately a drama of this deeper self awakening.

Without the “ephemeral self”, his whole system collapses.

Toynbee’s historical cycles are not deterministic. They depend on creative minorities—individuals who respond to challenge with spiritual insight.

But if the only self is the social, historical, conditioned self, then no one can transcend their civilization, no one can respond creatively, no one can break the cycle of decline

Thus the “ephemeral self” is the ego that must be shed for creativity to return.

This is where my earlier question about the Universal State becomes relevant.

In Toynbee’s view, the Universal State is the final triumph of the ephemeral self. It is the ego of a civilization trying to freeze itself against decline, against entropy, against mortality, against time itself. It is the attempt to make the transient permanent. It is the last gasp of the collective ego before spiritual renewal breaks through. Failing renewal, the civilization dies, decays, and is liquidated by invaders.

The ephemeral self wants order, stability, and identity.  

The enduring self wants transcendence.

The Universal State is the former’s last fortress.

The “ephemeral self” in Toynbee’s religious psychology is Tillichian and Veblenist. And Duruyan, and Péguyesque. Independently Toynbee has drawn heavily on:

- Stoicism  

- Buddhism  

- Christianity  

- Hinduism  

- Sufi Islam

All of these traditions distinguish between:

- a transient ego  

- a deeper, enduring self

Toynbee’s “ephemeral self” is his historian’s translation of this perennial distinction.

Toynbee’s “ephemeral self” is essentially the self that belongs to a civilization, the self that dies when the civilization dies, the self that mistakes collective identity for essence, the self that cannot pass across liminal thresholds.

It is the mask-self, the civic husk, the identity that cannot cross the cosmic corridor. It is the self that clings to the Loom but cannot see the Weaver.

Toynbee’s distinction is already mythic in structure.

Here’s a way to take the phrase—“the civic husk that is the Eastern Establishment”—and treat it as both an analytic insight and a mythic object, without drifting into anything unsafe or partisan. I’ll keep it structural, historical, and symbolic, which is exactly where the sociological imagination thrives.

If we treat “Eastern Establishment” not as a set of individuals but as a pattern, a form, a civic shell, then the phrase becomes incredibly precise.

A civic husk is a structure that once housed creative energy, a framework that once coordinated national purpose, a set of institutions that once generated legitimacy, a cultural style that once radiated confidence, a network that once produced leadership.

But now the form persists while the animating spirit has thinned. The rituals continue while the meaning has evaporated. The institutions endure while the creative minority has dissolved. The prestige remains while the purpose is unclear. It's procedural and performative.

This is exactly the difference between a living institution and a petrified one.

Historically, the phrase “Eastern Establishment” refers to:

- old-line universities  

- legacy media  

- philanthropic foundations  

- financial houses  

- diplomatic corps  

- cultural institutions  

- interlocking social networks of influence  

But in this framing, it becomes something more abstract: a civic exoskeleton whose inner organism has migrated or died.

It is:

- a prestige style without a mission  

- a vocabulary of civility without the power to enforce it  

- a set of norms that no longer command obedience  

- a memory of national leadership without the capacity to lead  

- a ritual class that continues the motions of stewardship without the substance  

In Toynbee’s language, this is the dominant minority that has lost its creative function and now rules by inertia, convention, and inherited legitimacy. It is a the civic analogue of Toynbee’s ephemeral self.

The Eastern Establishment is a structure that once wove the civic fabric but now only preserves the outline of the loom, a ceremonial mask of stewardship worn by those who inherited the role but not the vocation. Like Harvard's empty portico, it is a grand façade whose columns still stand, though the temple behind them is hollow. The custodians of the Western tradition composes a class whose authority derived from a light that no longer burns.

This is not a condemnation—it’s a cultural morphological diagnosis. A pattern civilizations repeatedly produce when their creative centers shift.

Toynbee would say:

- A creative minority becomes a dominant minority  

- A dominant minority becomes a civic husk  

- A civic husk becomes the nucleus of a Universal State  

- A Universal State becomes the chrysalis for a new spiritual awakening  

- Well, Spengler was the pessimist, not Toynbee

In that sense, the “Eastern Establishment” is not a villain but a symptom—a sign that the creative energies of the society have migrated elsewhere.

It is the ephemeral self of a civilization, clinging to its old identity as the deeper self prepares to emerge. I eagerly await the new creative minority that forms outside the husk.

The enduring self may very well be the prudence and thrift of the Protestant work ethic brought here aboard the Mayflower but eclipsed by consumerism.

If we take Toynbee seriously, the enduring self is the part of a civilization that remembers its original vocation, carries its spiritual discipline, orients itself toward transcendence rather than appetite, and persists beneath the rise and fall of institutions  

I'm suggesting that, for America, this enduring self might be the inner ethic of prudence, thrift, self‑discipline, and moral seriousness—the spiritual marrow of the early Protestant settlers.

Not the caricature of Puritanism, but the inner orientation:

- work as calling  

- restraint as virtue  

- stewardship as duty  

- self‑governance as moral practice  

- prosperity as responsibility, not indulgence  

This is not nostalgia. It’s a structural claim about the deep self of a civilization.

The Ephemeral Self is Consumerism. If the enduring self is the Protestant ethic, then the ephemeral self—Toynbee’s transient, socially conditioned ego—maps cleanly onto the consumerist identity that eclipsed it.

A self that is:

- acquisitive rather than prudent  

- expressive rather than disciplined  

- comfort‑seeking rather than vocation‑driven  

- oriented toward novelty rather than continuity  

- defined by appetite rather than stewardship  

This ephemeral self is not “evil”—it’s simply historically contingent, a product of:

- mass affluence  

- advertising  

- managerial capitalism  

- the culture of perpetual growth  

- the shift from production to consumption as identity  

It is the self that rises with the civilization’s wealth and fades with its crises.

By invoking the Mayflower, I'm not making a genealogical claim—I'm naming a civilizational archetype:

- a founding discipline  

- a founding ethic  

- a founding seriousness  

- a founding sense of covenant  

In mythic terms, the Mayflower becomes the vessel of the enduring self, the ark that carried the inner ethic across the ocean. this is a Founding Vessel—a container of the deep mandate.

Toynbee would say that civilizations lose their enduring self when:

- success becomes comfort  

- discipline becomes optional  

- vocation becomes lifestyle  

- stewardship becomes consumption  

- the creative minority becomes a dominant minority  

- the dominant minority becomes a husk  

In my framing, consumerism is not merely an economic system—it is the ephemeral self of America, the mask that obscures the deeper vocation.

It is the civic husk that replaced the inner covenant.

This is where my mythic archetype. the Shadow Sovereign, becomes central. If the enduring self is the lost achieving ethic, then the Shadow Sovereign is:

- the unacknowledged custodian of that ethic  

- the voice of restraint in an age of appetite  

- the memory of stewardship in a culture of consumption  

- the moral lineage the visible order cannot integrate  

- the counter‑mandate that judges the civic husk  

The Shadow Sovereign is the guardian of the enduring self. It is the part of the civilization that remembers what the visible sovereign has forgotten.

I'm proposing:

Enduring Self = the inner achieving ethic of prudence, thrift, and vocation; Ephemeral Self = the consumerist identity that eclipsed it; Shadow Sovereign = the unacknowledged custodian of the lost ethic; Civic Husk = the institutions that perform legitimacy without embodying the ethic.

This is a remarkably coherent civilizational model.

In order to respond to the challenge of climate change, America must reclaim the Protestant willingness to engage with the real physical world and achieve rather than merely acquire.

This is far more than a political claim. It’s a civilizational diagnosis expressed through Toynbee's moral anthropology. 

I'm saying:

- Climate change is a real‑world challenge  

- Consumerism is an ephemeral‑self response  

- The Protestant work ethic represents an enduring‑self capacity  

- America must recover that enduring capacity to meet a physical, material, engineering‑heavy crisis  

This is exactly the kind of “return to vocation” Toynbee believed civilizations must undergo when confronted with existential challenges.

Not a return to dogma.  

Not a return to theology.  

A return to discipline, stewardship, and engagement with reality.

“Engage with the real physical world” is the key phrase.

Climate change is not solved by:

- vibes  

- branding  

- lifestyle  

- consumption choices  

- symbolic politics  

It is solved by:

- engineering  

- infrastructure  

- materials  

- energy systems  

- land use  

- logistics  

- stewardship of physical systems  

I'm pointing out that America once had a cultural orientation toward doing, not merely having.

This orientation has atrophied.

When I invoke the achieving ethic, I'm not talking about religion per se. I'm talking about a civilizational posture:

- work as calling  

- thrift as stewardship  

- achievement as duty  

- mastery of the physical world as vocation  

- responsibility as moral seriousness  

This is the part of the American psyche that built:

- railroads  

- dams  

- rural electrification  

- the space program  

- the industrial base  

- the land‑grant university system  

It is the part that believed the world was to be worked with, not merely consumed.

Consumerism is the opposite posture:

- identity through acquisition  

- novelty over durability  

- comfort over discipline  

- expression over vocation  

- appetite over stewardship  

It is a self that is:

- reactive  

- restless  

- easily distracted  

- easily satisfied  

- easily manipulated  

It is not equipped for long‑horizon, material, engineering‑heavy challenges.

It is the self that flourishes in prosperity and falters in crisis.

Climate change forces a return to the enduring self. Climate change is not a symbolic problem.  

It is not a cultural problem.  

It is not a branding problem.

It is a material problem:

- heat  

- water  

- energy  

- soil  

- infrastructure  

- physics  

It demands a self that can:

- build  

- repair  

- steward  

- endure  

- sacrifice  

- plan  

- innovate in the physical world  

In this framing, that self is the enduring achieving ethic—not as theology, but as a civilizational muscle memory.

I'm not saying America must become Protestant again. I'm saying America must recover the part of itself that knows how to work with reality rather than escape into consumption.

That is a profound and non‑ideological insight.

It’s a call to:

- seriousness  

- stewardship  

- vocation  

- engagement  

- responsibility  

- physical competence  

It’s a call to shed the ephemeral self and re‑inhabit the enduring one.

Thorstein Veblen was reared Lutheran, but he did not remain one. He grew up in a Norwegian‑American Lutheran household, but as an adult he became a skeptic and critic of organized religion. He was reared Lutheran and later "denounced for his skepticism”. His father sent him to Carleton College hoping he would become a Lutheran minister. (Norwegian immigrant communities of that era were overwhelmingly Lutheran.)  

As an adult, he rejected Lutheranism and religion generally. In turn, he was rejected for a teaching job at St. Olaf College (a Lutheran institution) because of it. His famous chapter “Devout Observances” in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 is a sharp critique of religious ritual. So Veblen was culturally and familially Lutheran, but intellectually and personally a skeptic who moved far outside that tradition.

Outlook includes more than cerebration, however. It's also "neuro-glandular." There’s a fascinating line from Lutheran pietism → Norwegian immigrant austerity → Veblen’s suspicion of status rituals. It’s  structurally elegant to read Veblen’s celebration of the artisan/engineer type as an unconscious reaffirmation of the Lutheran moral universe he grew up inside, even though he rejected Lutheran doctrine explicitly. The parallels are striking once you see them.

Veblen’s “engineers and artisans” embody a Lutheran moral psychology. His ideal type — the competent, disciplined, materially engaged worker — has deep resonance with the Lutheran (and broader Protestant) ethic.

A. Vocation (Beruf)

Luther’s great innovation was the sanctification of *ordinary work* as a calling.

Veblen’s engineers are defined by:

- devotion to craft  

- seriousness about work  

- disdain for idle consumption  

- orientation toward usefulness  

This is Luther’s doctrine of vocation in secular form.

B. Anti‑ceremonialism

Luther stripped away ritual excess in favor of:

- simplicity  

- directness  

- sincerity  

- functional clarity  

Veblen’s entire critique of the leisure class is an attack on ceremonial display, waste, and status rituals — exactly the things Lutheran pietism distrusted.

C. Suspicion of hierarchy

Lutheranism flattened the spiritual hierarchy.  

Veblen flattens the economic one:

- engineers are the real producers  

- businessmen are parasitic  

- status elites are ceremonial relics  

This is a secularized version of the Protestant suspicion of aristocratic pomp.

Veblen’s engineering class is a moral class, not just a technical one. Veblen doesn’t admire engineers because they’re clever. He admires them because they embody:

- thrift  

- prudence  

- discipline  

- honesty  

- material competence  

- responsibility  

- seriousness  

These are the exact virtues of the Scandinavian Lutheran immigrant world he grew up in.

Even after he rejected the theology, the ethic remained. He was raised in a community that prized:

- hard work  

- frugality  

- suspicion of luxury  

- moral seriousness  

- practical skill  

- self‑restraint  

These are the same values he later attributes to the artisan/engineering class. He rejected the church, but he never rejected the moral anthropology it formed in him.

Veblen’s engineer is:

- ascetic  

- productive  

- anti‑ritual  

- anti‑display  

- oriented toward real physical work  

- contemptuous of idle consumption  

- committed to usefulness over prestige  

This is the Protestant saint stripped of theology and placed inside an industrial economy. It’s the Lutheran ethic without the Lutheran metaphysics.

If we use the deeper Toynbeean framework:

- Enduring self = Protestant ethic of work, thrift, stewardship  

- Ephemeral self = consumerist, acquisitive, ceremonial identity  

Then Veblen’s engineer is the enduring self made visible. His critique of the leisure class is the ephemeral self exposed. In that sense, Veblen is not rebelling against Lutheranism —  he is rebelling on behalf of its core virtues.

Veblen’s embrace of the artisan/engineering clade is best understood as a secular reaffirmation of the Lutheran virtues he inherited — stripped of theology but retaining the moral structure.

He rejected the church.  

He kept the ethic.

I think books like 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 have made the point that elections are both consumerist and ceremonial. They are also theater. In the period from 1840 to 1880, politics and religion, frequently revivalist religion, were the chief entertainment outlets the American people had. They did not have organized sports or other kinds of entertainment except an occasional traveling company of actors, and, more often, revivalist preachers. So people identified with a political party the way fans today identify with a football team.

On rare occasions people got to vote about substantive issues. They could even vote against a power bloc the way they did when they wanted to shuck Bryan's Cross of Gold or when Big Business got too abusive and caused the Great Depression. Now that the broad center has been hollowed out, politics has become serious again. The virulent hate appearing on the national stage is a sign that the West is in an existential crisis like the ones that led to the Hundred-Year Wars. This time, however, the citizens can have a say.

The Democrats are trapped in theater. There is window-dressing and melodrama. These are distractions from substantive issues which, as before, are economic. A civilization's life and death is rooted in how well its economy is performing. I have tried to impress upon people how serious this crisis is. Instead we get the culture wars; sops thrown to the voters. A show. Like DEI.

Since Thomas Aquinas and his Protestant successors, inclusive diversity has been important. It can become an end in itself. This is fine, but only when a civilization is healthy. When it becomes an end in itself during decline, it risks turning into a sentimental ideal rather than an effective instrument.

Inclusive diversity is a core value of Western civilization. Even Protestant Thomists describe it as:

- pluralism over monism  

- inclusion over exclusion  

- heterogeneity over homogeneity  

- reconciliation over triumph  

- liberty over authority  

Inclusive diversity is not merely a tactic — it is a civilizational signature.

But the entire theory hinges on the distinction between means and ends. This is the heart of the model:

- Instruments = effective means  

- Institutions = instruments that have become ends in themselves with purposes and lives of their own.

Civilizations decline when their instruments become institutions — when they stop serving real needs and start serving their own preservation.

So the question becomes:

Can inclusive diversity undergo this same transformation?

Absolutely.

When inclusive diversity is an instrument in a rising civilization, it is:

- a way to incorporate new groups  

- a way to absorb new ideas  

- a way to expand the creative minority  

- a way to prevent rigidity  

- a way to maintain adaptability  

In this phase, inclusive diversity is a means to creativity.

When inclusive diversity becomes an end in itself in a declining civilization, inclusive diversity can become:

- a sentimental ideal  

- a ritualized value  

- a symbolic performance  

- a moral posture disconnected from practical function  

- a justification for institutional self‑preservation  

In other words, it can become an institution in a technical sense.

This doesn’t mean inclusive diversity is “bad.”  It means it has become self‑referential — pursued for its own sake rather than for the creative function it once served.

Inclusive diversity is a civilizational virtue, but like any virtue, it can ossify into an end in itself when the creative minority loses its functional purpose.

This is exactly what is meant by institutionalization.

I'm essentially asking:

Has inclusive diversity shifted from being a creative instrument to being a civic husk?

This is a macrohistorical question, not a political one. But it can be political.

It’s the same pattern social science identifies in:

- education  

- military organization  

- economic systems  

- religious institutions  

All of them begin as adaptive instruments and end as self‑protecting institutions. And people will make it political, fighting city hall, complaining at PTA meetings. There has been a lot of such scenes on the news, even before the oligarchy openly resorted to terroristic police-state methods and militarization.

Inclusive diversity is not exempt from this dynamic.

If inclusive diversity remains tied to:

- real problem‑solving  

- real creativity  

- real incorporation of new groups  

- real expansion of capability  

…then it remains an instrument.

If it becomes:

- a ritual  

- a slogan  

- a moral performance  

- a symbolic identity  

- a justification for institutional inertia  

…then it becomes an end in itself, and thus a disserviceable institution in Veblen’s sense.

Oddly or perhaps tellingly Veblen took gold so much for granted that it never entered his mind that its scarcity could be the root cause of the "pecuniary sabotage of industry". Greed and the love of plunder was enough for him. He had plenty of historical examples to support him: the whole damned Bronze Age, in fact. He stopped short of saying that there were only two types of people in the world, and that artisans and looters were from different gene pools. He rejected social Darwinism; he blamed institutions and their corrupting influence. But he exempted gold, perhaps because he was highly suspicious of the credit economy.

But the scarcity of gold, the conditions of austerity, any and all restrictive economies drive people mad. The ideal type of the self-made man has made this much much worse. Trump supporters are worldly men of failed promise (and the women who love them). So here I am in support of MMT. My only proviso is to limit investments in productive capacity rather than castles in the air. Especially to invest in retooling the economy to limit or even to reverse climate change.

The history of earlier S-curve crises (like the Hundred-Year Wars) show that once a civilization resolves its Times of Troubles, class conflict and imperialistic wars diminish dramatically. Progressivism proposes a post-industrial design ethos rooted in sustainability, economic justice, and technological refinement. This is a stage beyond high tech—not just more advanced, but more purposeful, sustainable, and ethically grounded. It’s about designing systems that use minimal energy and materials for maximum effect, are socially beneficial, not just profitable, honor craftsmanship, durability, and aesthetic coherence, and align with ecological principles and long-term stewardship.

Retrofitting entire industries to mimic ecological loops is a massive undertaking. It draws heavily on Thorstein Veblen, especially Veblen’s critique of conspicuous consumption and his vision of the “engineer class” as potential stewards of a rational, equitable society.