Feliks Koneczny’s Theory Of Civilizations

Tomasz Raburski, Ph.D.

Institute of Philosophy
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Feliks Koneczny (1862-1949) was a Polish conservative historian and philosopher of

history of the first half of the XXth century, who developed an original theory of civilizations. His
writings are based on a local, Central European historical experience and Polish intellectual
tradition, but with a claim to universality. He offered a diagnosis of a crisis of European culture,
and proposed a program of cultural revival. In the interwar period, Koneczny’s theory gained
some recognition among Polish nationalist conservatives. Under the communist rule it was
consigned to oblivion. For the last two decades there has been a growing interest in Koneczny’s
work, both academic and political (Bukowska 2007; Gawor 2002; Pucek 1990). Koneczny’s theory
is becoming widely known, but remains highly controversial, esp. for its anti-Semitic elements
and critique of multiculturalism.
Koneczny was a prolific writer. During his life he wrote 26 books (some of them published
posthumously) and more than a 300 articles and occasional papers (Skrzydlewski 2002). He
started his career as an academic historian, interested in the history of Central and Eastern
Europe (esp. Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, Silesia). Starting from 1921 his interests moved
to the philosophy of history. Over the thirty years, he wrote numerous publications on his
political philosophy and theory of civilizations. His main book is translated into English with the
title of „On the Plurality of Civilizations” (Koneczny 1962). Although it was acclaimed by Arnold
Toynbee, who wrote the preface, it remained unnoticed. The only notable non-Polish follower of
Koneczny’s ideas was a German folklorists and philosopher Anton Hilckman (Hilckman 2011).
Koneczny developed a pluralistic theory of civilizations, which was intended as a general
framework for the understanding of the human history. Like the other pluralistic theories of
civilizations, it is based on an assumption that there exist many civilizations, which are complex
forms of social organization. These civilizations are the basic structures of the history. All other
forms of social organization (e.g. cultures, nations, institutions, social movements) are derivative
or secondary. One cannot understand the history or societies, without referring to the concept of
civilization. Koneczny denied the unity of the humankind and believed that conflict between the
civilizations is inevitable. Each civilization has its own value system and distinct form of
institutions (Koneczny 1962). Koneczny’s theory is complex and significantly different from the
other theories of civilizations (Gawor 2002; Skoczyński 2003). It is deeply rooted in the anti-
positivist turn of the early XXth century, Christian philosophy (esp. Augustinianism, Thomism,
personalism), Polish conservatism and messianism and the popular idea of the European
declinism.
The beginning of the 20th century was rich in attempts to conceptualize the relations
between different cultures. The development of social sciences (esp. cultural anthropology)
brought the end to the unilinear evolutionary approaches. The cultural differences turned out to
be stronger and more enduring. The growing impression of the decline of European culture, led
many intellectuals to the conclusion that Western culture is not universal and does not represent
the highest standard of humanity (Gawor & Zdybel 1995).
One of the most influential theories was developed by Oswald Spengler (1880-1936). In
his The Decline of the West (Spengler 1918) he marked out the path for the whole genre.
Spengler’s theory was pluralistic and comparative. He described 8 great cultures, which were
monadic in nature, but shared structural similarities. He argued that all great cultures after the
period of growth, fall into stagnation and slow decay, and finally dies. Spengler’s theory was
pessimistic and he claimed to be a prophet of twilight of the West. Spengler’s approach found
many followers, among them Arnold J. Toynbee, author of the monumental A Study of History,
Shmuel Eisenstadt, and Samuel Huntington (Toynbee 1934-1961; Eisenstadt 1987; Huntington
1996). Initially, the category of civilization was used by the conservative scholars, but in time it
became widely used, also by the researchers with leftist sympathies (e.g. Wallerstein 1984). In
this intellectual tradition, Koneczny is considered an early pioneer.
Koneczny knew Spengler’s works, but his theory developed independently and has many
distinct features. He criticized Spengler for pessimism, determinism, naturalism, and finally for
the glorification of the Prussianism (Koneczny 1935). His own theory was based on a Christian
tradition and on the Polish historical experience (Raburski 2014). It was an intellectual project
that aimed at building the Augustinian City of God. The project, in which Poland had an important
role to play (Dworaczyk 2006).
According to Koneczny, civilization is a method of social organization. Civilizations differ in
their value hierarchies and in the forms of their institutions. Koneczny’s theory is idealistic since
he denies the importance of the material culture. Its focus is on ethics and legal and political
institutions, not on material artifacts.
Koneczny mentioned 22 civilizations, but described only 7: Latin (based on western
Christianity, Greek philosophy and Roman political institutions), Jewish, Turanian (militaristic
civilization of Russia, Ukraine and Ottoman Empire), Byzantine (bureaucratic civilization
attributed to Germany, post-revolutionary France, and Protestantism), Brahminian, Chinese and
Arabian. Four of them coexist in contemporary Europe: Latin, Byzantine, Jewish and Turanian.
Unlike Spengler, Koneczny did not see the civilizations as a development of a single idea
or soul. According to the Polish philosopher, there are five fundamental values or categories of
being: beauty, welfare, health, good and truth. Koneczny called these five categories Quincunx of
civilizations and considered them to be the grounds of culture. Different civilizations differently
understand these basic categories and differently order them.
There are also other features, making civilizations distinct:
- the concept of time,
- the place and form of religion,
- the place of the individual,
- sources of law,
- the existence of national identity,
- the form of so-called „triple law” (family law, property law, and law of succession)
- the relation between public and private law.
There is no single factor in determining the features of a given civilization. In contrast to
other theories of civilizations, it is not religion, although it plays an important role. Koneczny
argued that also ethnicity, race, language or material conditions of living do not determine the
autonomy of civilizations. In consequence, the societies, religious and ethnic groups are cut
across by the civilizational divisions. People are not bound to them by birth, but can choose their
civilizational form.
However, there is an important limitation. As Koneczny said: „One cannot be civilized in
two ways” (Koneczny 1962). Civilizations are complex, closed structures. One cannot choose
which institutions or values are worth supporting, and which are not. One must take all of them
as a whole. Elements of particular civilizations cannot be mixed together. Civilizational syntheses
are destined to fall. The purity as an ideal and a necessity of avoiding the civilizational mixtures
are common ideas among the theorists of civilizations (e.g. Spengler or Huntington) (Raburski
2006). According to Koneczny, there is no single „European” or „Western” civilization but under
the surface of the culture and public life, four civilizations compete for our souls. Thus, the
contemporary crisis is not, as Spengler claimed, „the decline of the West”, but a symptom of
coexistence of four civilizations. This is the real source of contemporary crisis and ethical and
political chaos.
Koneczny tried not only to understand the historical process, but also to set a political
agenda. His theory is a project for a moral revival in Europe. As well as most conservatives, he
idealized the past. However, he did not claim that there was ever a golden age. The ideal political
system is yet to be built. Europeans should abandon the dreams of multiculturalism, get rid of
non-Latin institutions and return to their ethical origins. Thus Koneczny’s theory predated Samuel
Huntington’s idea of the clash of civilizations (Gawor 2002).
There are many parallels between these two theories, but there are also significant
differences. First of all, there is Augustinian spirit in Koneczny’s theory. The rivalry between the
civilizations is continuously present within the societies and within the minds and hearts of the
peoples. While Huntington created only a theory of international relations, The works of
Koneczny include also a full-fledged ethical theory.
Secondly, Poland has a special status in Koneczny’s theory. He was a continuator of Polish
messianism and the idea of Poland as a bulwark of western civilization and Christianity
(Dworaczyk 2006). According to him Polish culture was born within the Latin civilization, but in
the historical process, it was contaminated by the alien influences (e.g. the influence of Turanian
civilization was the cause of Polish Sarmatism). In spite of these influences, Polish nation
remained a repository of Latin values and possible savior of Latin Europe.
Thirdly, Koneczny described Europe from Central European (in particular Polish)
perspective. At the core of all the theories of civilizations, there lies a basic opposition, which
serves as a framework for the theory (Raburski 2014)s. The structure of theory is a consequence
of the initial assumptions, such as what the analytical units are and what are the most important
factors and variables. Spengler built his theory contrasting ancient and western civilizations.
Huntington focused on comparing western, Islamic and Chinese civilizations. Koneczny compared
Poland, Germany and Russia. He looked for the differences between them and attributed them
to separate civilizations. Latin Poland is placed between East and West: between Byzantine
Germany, and Turanian Russia. It is a foremost line of defense of European Latinism, and its fate
is a European fate. Czechs and Hungarians are other boundary countries between Latinism and
German-Byzanthinism. Hungarian origins were in Turanian civilization, but in the middle ages
they became utterly Latinized. All Koneczny’s writings were focused on this part of Europe and
were built on local historical examples.
Since Koneczny’s theory was a normative project, he did not refrain from grading the
civilizations. Civilizations are not equal in the ethical sense. Latin civilization holds the highest
value, which means it harmonizes all the quincunx categories to the highest degree and it is the
best for the fulfillment of an individual. Other civilizations are also harmonious and stable
structures and they may be even more successful in the material sense. That is because the
ethical excellence is not paired with power. Quite contrary: lower ethical standards prevail in the
political institutions. Thus, according to Koneczny, the purity is a matter of survival for Latin
civilization.
Koneczny’s theory was a significant contribution to Polish conservative thought. He
helped to modernize conservatism and to transform it into a modern ideology, not limited to
certain social classes. His thought has little influence on liberals and the left, because of the
explicit anti-Semitism, nationalism and anti-modernism. Koneczny’s concepts are used by some
contemporary conservative parties (most notably by the League of Polish Families or Marek
Jurek’s Right of the Republic), by some officials of the Polish catholic church or by the neo-
Thomists (e.g. Mieczysław Krąpiec). The most prominent supporters of his theory are the
members of Giertych family: Jędrzej Giertych (interwar politician), Maciej Giertych (former
member of the European Parliament) and Roman Giertych (former deputy prime minister of
Poland)(e.g. Giertych 2007).
Koneczny’s thought became more popular, than it was before the war. At that time it was
overshadowed by the ideas of the leader of the nationalists: Roman Dmowski. Nowadays,
however, it seems that Koneczny’s theory better responds to the needs of Polish conservatives
facing the problems of social pluralism and cultural wars (e.g. Kossecki 2003). The contemporary
followers of Koneczny describe themselves as defenders of a Latin substance of the Polish nation.
Non-traditional ideas and forms of life should not be tolerated. Multiculturalism poses a threat to
society and European Union is described as a Byzantine, bureaucratic project, alien to the Latin
values and institutions.

Selected Works by Feliks Koneczny

- (1962). On the Plurality of Civilisations. London, Polonica Publications.
- (1897). Dzieje Śląska. Kraków, Gebethner. (expanded edition: 1931. Bytom).
- (1917-1984). Dzieje Rosji, (vol. I-III), Warszawa – London.
- (1924). Dzieje administracji w Polsce. Szkoła Policji, Wilno,
- (1921). Polskie Logos i Ethos. Poznań, Ks. św. Wojciecha, Poznań.
- (1935). O wielości cywilizacji, Gebethner & Wolf, Kraków.
- (1938). Rozwój moralności. Towarzystwo Wiedzy, Lublin.
- (1973). Cywilizacja bizantyńska. Towarzystwo im. Romana Dmowskiego, London.
- (1974). Cywilizacja żydowska. Towarzystwo im. Romana Dmowskiego, London.
- (1981). Państwo w cywilizacji łacińskiej. Towarzystwo im. Romana Dmowskiego, London.
- (1982). Prawa dziejowe. Towarzystwo im. Romana Dmowskiego, London.
- (1977). O ład w historii. Towarzystwo im. Romana Dmowskiego, London.
- (1928). Kościół w Polsce wobec cywilizacji. Ateneum Kapłańskie, Włocławek.
- (1933). Zawisłość ekonomii od etyki. Życie Gospodarcze, Lwów.
- (1938). Kościół jako polityczny wychowawca narodów. Akcja Katolicka, Warszawa.
Bibliography
 Dworaczyk, A. (2006). Wielość cywilizacji a cel Polski. Wokół konserwatywnej historiozofii
Feliksa Konecznego. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (unpublished PhD Thesis).
 Eisenstadt, S. (1987). European Civilization in a Comparative Perspective. Norwegian
University Press, Oslo.
 Gawor, L. and Zdybel. L. (1995). Idea kryzysu kultury europejskiej w polskiej filozofii
społecznej. Analiza wybranych koncepcji pierwszej połowy XX wieku.Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
 Gawor, L. (2002). O wielości cywilizacji. Filozofia społeczna Feliksa Konecznego.
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
 Giertych, M. (2007). Civilisations at War in Europe. Bruxells.
 Hilckman, A. (2011). Gesammelte Werke. Schriften zur Kulturwissenschaft. Teil 1: Die
Wissenschaft von den Kulturen. PeterLang, Frankfurt am Main.
 Huntingtom, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon
& Schuster, New York.
 Kossecki, J. (2003). Podstawy nowoczesnej nauki porównawczej o cywilizacjach. Socjologia
porównawcza cywilizacji. Śląsk, Katowice, Śląsk.
 Raburski, T. (2006). “O niektórych osobliwościach rosyjskiej myśli cywilizacyjnej.” Zeszyty
Filozoficzne, 12-13.
 Raburski, T. (2014). Struktura podstawowa teorii cywilizacji. In: Cywilizacje w
perspektywie socjologicznej, Wrocław (forthcoming).
 Skoczyński, J. (2003). Koneczny. Teoria cywilizacji. Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN, Warszawa.
 Skrzydlewski, P. (2002). Koneczny Feliks Karol. Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii. A.
Maryniarczyk. Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu, Lublin.
 Spengler, O. (1918-1922). Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Umrisse einer Morphologie
der Weltgeschichte. Braumüller - C. H. Beck, Wien - München.
 Toynbee, A.J. (1934-1961). A Study of History (vol. I-XII). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 Wallerstein, I. (1984). The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements and
the Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.