This blog post examines Arnold J. Toynbee’s theory of civilization and discusses how his ‘Challenge and Response’ theory can be applied in modern society.
British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, in publishing ‘A Study of History’, established civilization—not the nation-state—as the fundamental unit of historical inquiry. He argued that even though Britain was geographically separated from the continent, it had developed in mutual influence with other European nations. Therefore, British history could not be properly understood in isolation but must be viewed within the framework of Western European civilization. He formulated several hypotheses to understand civilization-centered history and sought to verify these hypotheses using extensive historical sources, aiming to identify the factors behind the emergence, growth, and decline of civilizations.
The central axis of the hypotheses established by ‘Arnold J. Toynbee’ is the concepts of ‘challenge and response’ and ‘the creative minority and the imitative masses’. According to him, human groups that successfully respond to environmental challenges generate and grow civilizations. The crucial point here is that the environment presents adversity. Human creative action arises from the struggle to overcome such adversity.
Arnold J. Toynbee supplemented this hypothesis to prevent it from being interpreted simplistically—that the stronger the challenge, the greater the stimulus it provides, and the effectiveness of the response is proportional to this. He introduced the so-called ‘comparison of three interrelationships’ to refine it. Specifically, if the intensity of the challenge is excessively great, the response cannot be successful; conversely, if it is too small, no reaction appears at all. Only with an optimal challenge does a successful response emerge.
For the civilization that emerges through such a successful response to grow, it must subsequently solve the problems that continuously arise—namely, harmful challenges. According to ‘Arnold J. Toynbee’, solving these requires the creative individuals of that society to exert their capabilities. However, as they are a minority, successfully leading the response requires mobilizing the strength of the majority populace. Here, the populace fulfills its role through ‘imitation,’ a form of social training.
Of course, imitation is a common feature of all societies and can be found even in primitive societies that failed to generate civilization. Regarding this, ‘Arnold J. Toynbee’ explains that it is not the presence or absence of imitation that matters, but the direction in which imitation acts. In primitive societies that failed to develop civilization, imitation is directed toward ancestors and the older generation. The dead ancestors invisibly reinforce the authority of the living elders from behind. Consequently, this society becomes dominated by custom, and no progressive change occurs. Conversely, in societies where imitation is directed toward the creative minority, the authority of custom is not recognized, allowing civilization to grow continuously.
Furthermore, Arnold J. Toynbee attempted a profound analysis of the factors leading to civilization’s decline. He identified internal divisions and social tensions as one of the primary causes of a civilization’s decline. Even if a civilization successfully responds to external challenges, various problems can arise internally. These problems often manifest as social and economic inequality, political corruption, and cultural regression. If these internal problems remain unresolved, civilization will ultimately embark on a path of decline.
Arnold J. Toynbee also addressed the possibility of civilization’s regeneration. He believed that even if a civilization declines, it may not disappear entirely and could potentially revive through a new cycle of challenges and responses. He argued that this potential for regeneration primarily depends on the role of a creative minority and the introduction of new ideas.
In conclusion, Arnold J. Toynbee’s historical research was an attempt to understand human history more broadly and deeply through a civilization-centered perspective rather than a nation-state-centered one. His hypotheses and theories have significantly influenced modern historiography and provide crucial insights into understanding the development and decline of civilizations. Such research can offer important lessons on how we should respond to the challenges of the present and future.
