No, it's not what you think - I do not want to get involved in the polemics of popular culture, at least not at the popular level. There are plenty of sites for that, with all the vitriol that they bring. No, rather, it is that the essay I posted yesterday, and a comment by Cal, has made me think: what is it? What is it that changes popular opinion and makes it part of a new norm? And in this, can we find something that will encourage us in more important changes?
In Dream Weaver, I began right off with that speculation - what made people of my generation shift so violently away from the views of their parents? True, it was an uneven change, taking place more rapidly in some areas of the country than others, but it became profound and broad-reaching in a matter of a decade. How?
At the time, I felt it was "in the air" and I speculated in my book that it was a cosmic shift, perhaps radiating from a divine source. The reasons for change now seem obvious: at the time, we were involved in one war after another, the materialistic culture was ruining the environment, and there seemed no worthy goal in sight for the young. Remember Benjamin in "The Graduate" when a tipsy elder suggested he go into "plastics, my boy, that's the future!" This was not for Benjamin, but even so, the movie ends with him sitting in the back of a bus with his stolen bride, wondering what he would do now. He had fought the establishment and won, but where was he going now?
In the past decades, that seems to have been resolved by many advocates: diversity, fairness, an extinction of Euro-Male supremacy. Like it or not, we are now being handed cultural changes that many would have thought impossible 40 years earlier: legal pot, a non-majority nation (in whatever category you might choose) and gay marriage. It is as if a tide is hauling everything with it towards an unknown destination with which most of us have little or no control. Not even the activists really know where we are going. After gay marriage, what? After a fully diverse nation, what? What is pulling us alone, and to where? This could, and should, be a book, so I will keep to a single, simple issue, gay marriage, to try to understand both the source of the tide and its direction.
Way, way back in 1970 I recall having conversations about gay activity with some of my friends, due to a slight stirring of the infant gay lobby and the presence in our high school of an openly gay kid. For me, it seemed obvious: despite traditional exhortations, my libertarian side convinced me that what two consenting adults did in private was none of my - or the government's - business. Let God be the judge, but as long as "they" did not interfere with other people's business, what business was it of mine? My friends were more or less in amazement - none were violent or wanted to do anyone any harm, but to them, "it" was simply wrong, and what was wrong WAS the business of government. They had never thought of it in any other way.
Where my opinions came from could be easily traced - my parents were liberal, somewhat bookish East Coasters. But now, it is I who stands outside the movement in amazement. "Gay" and "Marriage" to me are incompatible terms, like "dog" and "cat." With no judgement on right or wrong, to me it is a case of cultural definition. A word or custom that is defined by the collective over thousands of years IS the definition, for there is no external force (that we can see, anyway) to do it for us. In this, Man is the measure of all things. But now, my high school aged son and all of his friends and acquaintances merely shrug at old fogies like me. Gay marriage? Why the heck not? It's only fair. They equate it with civil rights, as if these were denied to anyone through standard cultural definition. I mean, is a nudist denied his civil rights when he wishes to be naked in a public space? Even to this, some say "yes" as they did until very recently in San Francisco.
In a nutshell, here is what I think is going on, both for the marriage issue and the matter of the beginnings of vast cultural change in the 60's: it is not so much that a certain man-made agenda, one to which we seem driven, is right (or wrong) or inevitable; it is rather that the status quo has already become unacceptable by the very traditions it purports to uphold. The Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the Industrial Revolution, all the changes stemming from the disaster of the plague and the corruption in the western Church, had been movements to replace a system which was deemed no longer capable of upholding its ideals. It was not, I think, that the age of science was inevitable, but rather that a change had to occur and this aspect, quickly evolving into an enemy of the Church, was what took its place. In hindsight, it seems logical, but I don't think that this was the only, necessary path. The Church could have brought real reform earlier,for instance, and saved the best part of the medieval period (believe it or not, there were good parts) and the fundamentals of the culture as well. But an antagonistic element took hold instead, trying to fill a vacuum which it did not create but it did exacerbate. Thus, in the 60's, the feeling was that we had to "get back to our roots," get back to the farm, live a life on the land in a strong, spiritual community - that is, go back to the ideals of the medieval period. We did not think of it that way, but the initial hippy movement was an atavistic one, one that tried to reclaim the culture's roots by going against the prevailing trend (scientific materialism), which ran definitely in another direction.
That movement was quickly co-opted and transformed into the "progressive" politics we see today. The point being, it was the dissatisfaction of the people towards a culture that did not deliver its ideals that supplied the energy for massive change, even if the changes did not bring the desired results.
Back to gay marriage. I think, in the same vein, that this is now seen as acceptable because the ideals of traditional marriage have been so badly abused; that is, that the corruption of marriage has made it susceptible to radical change. It is not so much that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, but that traditional marriage is already down for the count. Now, it is all about romantic love - a superficial aspect of traditional marriage, and I believe the wrong tact to take, but it resonates with the young, just as hedonism resonated with the young in the 60's. It did not make the world better all around then, and neither will gay marriage make marriage, or society, stronger. But the crack in the facade was already there, and a replacement was ready and waiting to take advantage.
It can happen so suddenly, this change of perception, not because the basic epistemology - that is, the basis of cultural reasoning - has vanished, but that the means for its fulfillment have not been met (note: the leaders of communistic leaders have well understood this. That is why they attempt to wipe out all the remnants of the old ways - including millions of people who the deem "counterrevolutionary"). We have argued here that perhaps the down-drag of certain forces will inevitably co-opt the best intentions, and that may be so; but it might not be so. All we know for certain is that the cultures of the world are in dire straights, being supplanted by an unsatisfactory world culture based on production and consumption at an alarming rate. And we also know that startling changes can occur in times such as these, so startling that they seem unbelievable to many of the rank and file.
And so we have our opportunity. The world is open for good ideas - not new ones, in the sense of fundamental change, but ideas that will reestablish the highest of the old ideals. The forces of co-option are powerful, but so is the deep desire of people to re-find meaning in their lives - the real thing, not shallow baubles. I believe I am reiterating the conclusion we have reached here before - that the current era of turmoil must end, but that it does not have to end with either a bang or a whimper. It can just change overnight. We have already seen this happen many times over in our lives. FK
In Dream Weaver, I began right off with that speculation - what made people of my generation shift so violently away from the views of their parents? True, it was an uneven change, taking place more rapidly in some areas of the country than others, but it became profound and broad-reaching in a matter of a decade. How?
At the time, I felt it was "in the air" and I speculated in my book that it was a cosmic shift, perhaps radiating from a divine source. The reasons for change now seem obvious: at the time, we were involved in one war after another, the materialistic culture was ruining the environment, and there seemed no worthy goal in sight for the young. Remember Benjamin in "The Graduate" when a tipsy elder suggested he go into "plastics, my boy, that's the future!" This was not for Benjamin, but even so, the movie ends with him sitting in the back of a bus with his stolen bride, wondering what he would do now. He had fought the establishment and won, but where was he going now?
In the past decades, that seems to have been resolved by many advocates: diversity, fairness, an extinction of Euro-Male supremacy. Like it or not, we are now being handed cultural changes that many would have thought impossible 40 years earlier: legal pot, a non-majority nation (in whatever category you might choose) and gay marriage. It is as if a tide is hauling everything with it towards an unknown destination with which most of us have little or no control. Not even the activists really know where we are going. After gay marriage, what? After a fully diverse nation, what? What is pulling us alone, and to where? This could, and should, be a book, so I will keep to a single, simple issue, gay marriage, to try to understand both the source of the tide and its direction.
Way, way back in 1970 I recall having conversations about gay activity with some of my friends, due to a slight stirring of the infant gay lobby and the presence in our high school of an openly gay kid. For me, it seemed obvious: despite traditional exhortations, my libertarian side convinced me that what two consenting adults did in private was none of my - or the government's - business. Let God be the judge, but as long as "they" did not interfere with other people's business, what business was it of mine? My friends were more or less in amazement - none were violent or wanted to do anyone any harm, but to them, "it" was simply wrong, and what was wrong WAS the business of government. They had never thought of it in any other way.
Where my opinions came from could be easily traced - my parents were liberal, somewhat bookish East Coasters. But now, it is I who stands outside the movement in amazement. "Gay" and "Marriage" to me are incompatible terms, like "dog" and "cat." With no judgement on right or wrong, to me it is a case of cultural definition. A word or custom that is defined by the collective over thousands of years IS the definition, for there is no external force (that we can see, anyway) to do it for us. In this, Man is the measure of all things. But now, my high school aged son and all of his friends and acquaintances merely shrug at old fogies like me. Gay marriage? Why the heck not? It's only fair. They equate it with civil rights, as if these were denied to anyone through standard cultural definition. I mean, is a nudist denied his civil rights when he wishes to be naked in a public space? Even to this, some say "yes" as they did until very recently in San Francisco.
In a nutshell, here is what I think is going on, both for the marriage issue and the matter of the beginnings of vast cultural change in the 60's: it is not so much that a certain man-made agenda, one to which we seem driven, is right (or wrong) or inevitable; it is rather that the status quo has already become unacceptable by the very traditions it purports to uphold. The Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the Industrial Revolution, all the changes stemming from the disaster of the plague and the corruption in the western Church, had been movements to replace a system which was deemed no longer capable of upholding its ideals. It was not, I think, that the age of science was inevitable, but rather that a change had to occur and this aspect, quickly evolving into an enemy of the Church, was what took its place. In hindsight, it seems logical, but I don't think that this was the only, necessary path. The Church could have brought real reform earlier,for instance, and saved the best part of the medieval period (believe it or not, there were good parts) and the fundamentals of the culture as well. But an antagonistic element took hold instead, trying to fill a vacuum which it did not create but it did exacerbate. Thus, in the 60's, the feeling was that we had to "get back to our roots," get back to the farm, live a life on the land in a strong, spiritual community - that is, go back to the ideals of the medieval period. We did not think of it that way, but the initial hippy movement was an atavistic one, one that tried to reclaim the culture's roots by going against the prevailing trend (scientific materialism), which ran definitely in another direction.
That movement was quickly co-opted and transformed into the "progressive" politics we see today. The point being, it was the dissatisfaction of the people towards a culture that did not deliver its ideals that supplied the energy for massive change, even if the changes did not bring the desired results.
Back to gay marriage. I think, in the same vein, that this is now seen as acceptable because the ideals of traditional marriage have been so badly abused; that is, that the corruption of marriage has made it susceptible to radical change. It is not so much that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, but that traditional marriage is already down for the count. Now, it is all about romantic love - a superficial aspect of traditional marriage, and I believe the wrong tact to take, but it resonates with the young, just as hedonism resonated with the young in the 60's. It did not make the world better all around then, and neither will gay marriage make marriage, or society, stronger. But the crack in the facade was already there, and a replacement was ready and waiting to take advantage.
It can happen so suddenly, this change of perception, not because the basic epistemology - that is, the basis of cultural reasoning - has vanished, but that the means for its fulfillment have not been met (note: the leaders of communistic leaders have well understood this. That is why they attempt to wipe out all the remnants of the old ways - including millions of people who the deem "counterrevolutionary"). We have argued here that perhaps the down-drag of certain forces will inevitably co-opt the best intentions, and that may be so; but it might not be so. All we know for certain is that the cultures of the world are in dire straights, being supplanted by an unsatisfactory world culture based on production and consumption at an alarming rate. And we also know that startling changes can occur in times such as these, so startling that they seem unbelievable to many of the rank and file.
And so we have our opportunity. The world is open for good ideas - not new ones, in the sense of fundamental change, but ideas that will reestablish the highest of the old ideals. The forces of co-option are powerful, but so is the deep desire of people to re-find meaning in their lives - the real thing, not shallow baubles. I believe I am reiterating the conclusion we have reached here before - that the current era of turmoil must end, but that it does not have to end with either a bang or a whimper. It can just change overnight. We have already seen this happen many times over in our lives. FK
RSS Feed