Toynbee at UCLA

January 24 2015

Example of the dozens of speeches and scores of articles about the necessity of World Unity in the Atomic Age given or written after his retirement from Chatham House in 1955.

The Balance Sheet of History, with young audience at UCLA. April 1 1963, while visiting professor at Grinnell College, Iowa for the second time. Unidentified first introducer hands over to Vice Chancellor, Foster H Sherwood, who introduces Toynbee.

The range of allusion one gets in his books is absent. There is nothing that he doesn’t say in other places. The tendency to repeat himself disappointed some of the US institutions which paid to have him as their guest. So did his habit (as, apparently, here) of making side trips in order to give further identical talks to other institutions.

Still, there’s a shape and theme to this. These productions came from a lifelong reaction against the nationalism which had produced the First World War, and were at the same time a response to the Cold War.

What he has to say seems quaint to a generation that has forgotten that it lives in the shadow of the Bomb, and is in the power of new currents which are bringing societies together anyway – and tearing them apart.

He blurs homo sapiens and hominids (a confusion not evident in Mankind and Mother Earth). He says that more than half of the world’s population in 2000 will be citizens of China. His Malthusianism is simplistic. The opening-up of the grasslands of the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia had postponed the food crisis (for the West, so how were others coping?), but the reckoning was now imminent. He shows no awareness of the Green Revolution.

World government would be needed to regulate the supply and distribution of food.

Population growth can be curtailed only by a revolution in human behaviour, not by administrative action. Yet it was controlled by administrative action in China in the one-child policy initiated in 1979.

Religion belongs to a deeper level of human life than politics. There’s a confused passage about different religions appealing to the different psychological types which can be found in every population. In future, he hopes that people will choose their religions, rather than being born into them.

But the identities, iconographies, traditions of religions were developed in geographically-defined communities. So how did they appeal to distinct psychological types? And what is their soil in a cosmopolitan world?

Local loyalties and larger ones. Federal systems. Paul’s loyalty to Tarsus and to the Empire. He makes some comparatively kind remarks about the Pax Romana, but returns to his basic idea about Rome.

The real life of the Roman Empire was in the growth of, and competition between, new religions.

The eastern end of the Old World has tended to be more unified than the western end.

There have been periodic breakdowns of the unity of [China]. The latest of them began in 1911 when the Manchu regime crumbled in China, and lasted till about 1929, when the Kuomintang reunited China. Since 1929, first under the Kuomintang regime and later under the Communist regime, China has been united, which is its normal condition through the ages, a very great contrast to the western end of the Old World, which has never succeeded in uniting itself since the Roman Empire went to pieces there in the 5th century of the Christian Era.

World government will be needed for the regulation of nuclear weapons. Even if nuclear energy is exploited only for peaceful purposes, a world authority will have to deal with atomic waste.

In a unified world, he wants ethical unity, but cultural variety.

Human beings’ relations with their fellow human beings are

the slum area of human life.

He believes in human interaction as the basis for world peace. He sees the value of students travelling, of tourism, of professional conferences, of the Peace Corps (established by Kennedy in 1961), of networks of personal friendships. But he never visited a Communist country unless you count a crossing of Russia on the Trans-Siberian Railway in 1930. He could presumably have visited the USSR under Krushchev. Old post.

He mentions Ashoka.

The reference at 17:21 to Professor Pegram may be to GB Pegram, a physicist involved in the Manhattan Project.

The first introducer thanks, summarises the Toynbees’ schedule in LA, and wraps up.

The points in this summary don’t necessarily follow the order in the talk.

Via UCLA Department of Communication Studies archive.

Links to other posts containing film or audio of Toynbee are here.

4 Responses to “Toynbee at UCLA”

  1. davidderrick Says:

    I suppose he became rather addicted to the limelight, like Mother Teresa and Stephen Hawking.

    I’m not sure about the Dalai Lama.

  2. davidderrick Says:

    Was war only invented when Man had ceased to depend on hunting?

  3. davidderrick Says:

    If you take some of the fuzziness here and apply it to a subject in which Toynbee was most certainly not a specialist – for example, China – you may have a worrying result. But, then, he had his wife to act as editor and fact-checker when it came to books.


  4. […] Toynbee is rather convincing. He never said that those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it. He had a sharper political mind when he was young than when he was old. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s