I've said my share about social and political problems in the country. I have not said anything about what I feel is the reason, nor anything about what I feel might improve our situation. First, why? Why is our society as it is?
It is fashionable, and facile, to 'blame the '60s. Not uncommonly linked with that is a notion that tolerance, tolerance of blacks, homosexuals, anyone not 'like us' (pick the relevant us) is the reason for loss of societal standards. I feel such an explanation is incomplete.
Many societal standards were flexed, at the very least, during the '60s and '70s. During this time the civil rights laws were passed, and barriers to blacks and other minorities participating in society were lowered. Perhaps I am only a child of the '60s (at least I lived through it), but much of those changes I think are good. The process is incomplete, however.
In 'The Lords of Discipline', the protagonist complains to one of his teachers at a military college that he wishes he could destroy the entire school and its campus. The teacher replies rather hotly 'and with what institution of equal value would you replace it?' This is what I feel is the root of our societal difficulties.
The '60s saw an end to a near complete association of childbirth with marriage, intercourse with marriage, expectations of a certain dress and politeness in public, a degradation of churchgoing and belief, an acceptance of blacks and others in voting booths, hospitals, workplaces and relationships. Crime rates and births to single mothers soared during this time, extending from the mid '60s to the mid '80s, and we associate the change in beliefs with the change in outcomes. This leads to an inappropriate condemnation of social justice and change. It is not the toleration of those who are 'different' that is harming us.
Instead, I feel the professor's quote is the issue. We, as a society, tore down our institutions and expectations of public behavior, but we never replaced them. It is a good thing to recognize the humanity of those of different color and sexual preference, it is a good thing to recognize the reality that lots of sex takes place outside of marriage, it is a good thing to accept those who are born outside of a marriage. But it is a bad thing to have no standards of social behavior, a bad thing to confuse toleration with celebration (there is nothing to celebrate about a single mom, as I pointed out yesterday), a bad thing to assert that everyone's behavior and choices are OK simply because society heretofore had excluded people for inappropriate reasons. In short, we tore down our society's standards, but have found nothing with which to replace them.
Most people once felt a respect for, and a restraint by, certain institutions. These included, for various people, the government, church, the approval of others in public. Ask most people at a gas station or a grocery store today if they feel their behavior constrained by any of these things, and they will almost certainly laugh. Government delegitimized itself with McCarthy persecutions and Watergate, the church has no authority because it is only a matter of relativity if you believe in one god or another, or none, and what other people think is irrelevant compared with one's own self-realization and fulfillment.
The result is a society where there is no restraint of individual desire. The only measure anyone universally recognizes is the appearance of wealth. How it is gotten or used it completely irrelevant. An idle, useless individual who makes a public spectacle of herself (Paris Hilton) ora ball player covered in expensive, garish jewelry are more admired and get more 'face time' in front of our society through the media than quieter, more responsible and productive people who are less flamboyant with their wealth, or simply have less. There is no thought for whether it is a right or good thing to display wealth, publicly flaunt one's body and sexuality. To say it is wrong sounds prudish.
Our society is in its adolescence. Like adolescents, we have rebelled against authority, asserting we know better. Our society is narcissistic, casually cruel while being sentimentally over-emotional, obsessed with sexuality, foolishly awed by someone's possessions and not their values. Like the student in 'The Lords of Discipline', we have torn down our institutions, but have not replaced them effectively.
If we do not respect government, church or public opinion, what are we going to set up as a control over the social expression of the only universal motivators- lust fear and greed? We did away with fear based in religion, government and societal opinion, but lust and greed are in full swing.
I am quite aware of the line from Proverbs 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. Because it is couched in religious idiom, it sounds like a religious statement, with the immediate response of 'what if I don't believe in that god, or any god?' Indeed, as a society we do not believe in any god, in any ruler, in any control or limitation on our fleshly desires. I feel that is a terrible mistake.
We, as a society, must find a governor we respect. Having rejected the rule of overt fear, we have not found anything to respect or rule us. My personal source is the Bible, but that is a religious choice as much as a philosophical one, that will not apply to all. What do we find then? If we are not a Christian nation, how do we control ourselves without 'the fear of the Lord'?
Here there is a distinct difference between tolerance and anarchy, between religiously based morality and condemnation, between majority rule and oppression. Despite changes in our society, we remain a nation primarily of Christians. How I feel that should be expressed is for tomorrow.
Ted
It is fashionable, and facile, to 'blame the '60s. Not uncommonly linked with that is a notion that tolerance, tolerance of blacks, homosexuals, anyone not 'like us' (pick the relevant us) is the reason for loss of societal standards. I feel such an explanation is incomplete.
Many societal standards were flexed, at the very least, during the '60s and '70s. During this time the civil rights laws were passed, and barriers to blacks and other minorities participating in society were lowered. Perhaps I am only a child of the '60s (at least I lived through it), but much of those changes I think are good. The process is incomplete, however.
In 'The Lords of Discipline', the protagonist complains to one of his teachers at a military college that he wishes he could destroy the entire school and its campus. The teacher replies rather hotly 'and with what institution of equal value would you replace it?' This is what I feel is the root of our societal difficulties.
The '60s saw an end to a near complete association of childbirth with marriage, intercourse with marriage, expectations of a certain dress and politeness in public, a degradation of churchgoing and belief, an acceptance of blacks and others in voting booths, hospitals, workplaces and relationships. Crime rates and births to single mothers soared during this time, extending from the mid '60s to the mid '80s, and we associate the change in beliefs with the change in outcomes. This leads to an inappropriate condemnation of social justice and change. It is not the toleration of those who are 'different' that is harming us.
Instead, I feel the professor's quote is the issue. We, as a society, tore down our institutions and expectations of public behavior, but we never replaced them. It is a good thing to recognize the humanity of those of different color and sexual preference, it is a good thing to recognize the reality that lots of sex takes place outside of marriage, it is a good thing to accept those who are born outside of a marriage. But it is a bad thing to have no standards of social behavior, a bad thing to confuse toleration with celebration (there is nothing to celebrate about a single mom, as I pointed out yesterday), a bad thing to assert that everyone's behavior and choices are OK simply because society heretofore had excluded people for inappropriate reasons. In short, we tore down our society's standards, but have found nothing with which to replace them.
Most people once felt a respect for, and a restraint by, certain institutions. These included, for various people, the government, church, the approval of others in public. Ask most people at a gas station or a grocery store today if they feel their behavior constrained by any of these things, and they will almost certainly laugh. Government delegitimized itself with McCarthy persecutions and Watergate, the church has no authority because it is only a matter of relativity if you believe in one god or another, or none, and what other people think is irrelevant compared with one's own self-realization and fulfillment.
The result is a society where there is no restraint of individual desire. The only measure anyone universally recognizes is the appearance of wealth. How it is gotten or used it completely irrelevant. An idle, useless individual who makes a public spectacle of herself (Paris Hilton) ora ball player covered in expensive, garish jewelry are more admired and get more 'face time' in front of our society through the media than quieter, more responsible and productive people who are less flamboyant with their wealth, or simply have less. There is no thought for whether it is a right or good thing to display wealth, publicly flaunt one's body and sexuality. To say it is wrong sounds prudish.
Our society is in its adolescence. Like adolescents, we have rebelled against authority, asserting we know better. Our society is narcissistic, casually cruel while being sentimentally over-emotional, obsessed with sexuality, foolishly awed by someone's possessions and not their values. Like the student in 'The Lords of Discipline', we have torn down our institutions, but have not replaced them effectively.
If we do not respect government, church or public opinion, what are we going to set up as a control over the social expression of the only universal motivators- lust fear and greed? We did away with fear based in religion, government and societal opinion, but lust and greed are in full swing.
I am quite aware of the line from Proverbs 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. Because it is couched in religious idiom, it sounds like a religious statement, with the immediate response of 'what if I don't believe in that god, or any god?' Indeed, as a society we do not believe in any god, in any ruler, in any control or limitation on our fleshly desires. I feel that is a terrible mistake.
We, as a society, must find a governor we respect. Having rejected the rule of overt fear, we have not found anything to respect or rule us. My personal source is the Bible, but that is a religious choice as much as a philosophical one, that will not apply to all. What do we find then? If we are not a Christian nation, how do we control ourselves without 'the fear of the Lord'?
Here there is a distinct difference between tolerance and anarchy, between religiously based morality and condemnation, between majority rule and oppression. Despite changes in our society, we remain a nation primarily of Christians. How I feel that should be expressed is for tomorrow.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment