JohnFN, In response to your VDH post on the culture: Just followed the link and read the piece. I see two things; one, as VDH touched on, is VDH is aging.
The simplest analogy is “Oldies Stations.” There is a reason every town has a big enough audience to fund one radio station airing the hits from 3 decades prior; folks in their 40′s and 50′s tend to tune pop culture out. At some point most of us drop off the wheel of current culture and freeze our cultural tastes in amber.
But the second is more interesting, much more interesting. Like VDH, I too wonder how much of this apparent change is a true, cultural shift. Are NYT subscription rates plummeting because the paper sucks, or is an abundance of “new media” (internet, cable, twitter…) attracting eyeballs away from the NYT? I think it’s much more of the latter than the former. But, what really interests me about this is the correlation with industry.
Many of us long for a prior age. An age when families ate dinner together, at a table, and the meal was prepared in the home. An age where dads played catch with their sons and moms taught their daughters how to sew. An age where heroes were celebrated on the radio, TV and in movies. Heroes who were honest, quiet and got rid of the bad buy. And bad guys who were bad. An age where Professors wore white smocks over ties and enjoyed showing children how the natural world really works. And when new data came in that contradicts their theories they also taught that to our children. An age where the miracles of industry and continuous improvement were celebrated. An age where Engineers and CEOs weren’t greedy, heartless bastards, but wise men and women who make better, cheaper, safer products for us all. A lot of us, especially a lot of Conservatives, wax eloquently about the 50’s and 60’s, and believe America has to “get back” to the customs of that time.
Here’s where Rufus says something crazy…
I think the culture of life in the U.S. in the 50’s and 60’s were an anomaly. I think our current culture and society are much more like life in this country in the 30’s, 20’s, 1880’s, 1700’s… and, I think we’ll continue along this path. Not only will the nuclear family with Dad going off to work at Amalgamated Widgets, Inc. for 40 years not come back, there was only a brief period of human history where that ever was normal. Prior to the 1950’s about 50% of this country grew up on farms, many small, single family farms. Even households where a father had a day job as a doctor or lawyer often kept chickens for eggs and food and had small gardens. Kids had chores. Mothers worked hard, all day. Imagine growing up on a farm. Everyone works. There is no “housewife” or “father working outside the home.” The farm is the home is the job is the food is the family is life. When a kid is old enough to walk and obey simple commands that kid gets responsibilities. And, if a kid fails in his or her responsibilities a calf dies, or some crops are destroyed by weeds, or a coyote breaks through a fence and nabs some chickens. Mom, Dad, kids, pets; the whole family is engaged in a daily ballet of concerted activity to keep the family going.
Imagine growing up as a Native American in North America in the 1300s. Same thing. Dad didn’t go off to work making spear heads while mom stayed home and vacuumed the teepee. Everyone cleaned, everyone sewed, everyone gathered food, everyone protected, everyone talked, danced, sang, planted, sowed, reaped… This was the same for most of humanity for most of human history. There were variations based on the climate and natural resources where you lived, but there was never a nuclear family. So, the cradle to grave jobs of the last days of the Industrial Revolution were an anomaly and they are gone. Well, the same is true for our culture.
In the 50’s and 60’s there was a cultural/communication revolution going on that was also an anomaly. There were a few, huge radio programs that the entire country listened to, together. There were a few, huge television programs that the entire nation watched, together. There were a few, huge newspapers that the entire country read, together. Imagine growing up in the British colony of Delaware in 1750. There were newspapers, pamphlets, town-criers, preachers sermonizing, folks pontificating from soap boxes in the town square… A cacophony of information, right from the source, local, specific… And that’s how life was since Gutenberg unleashed his press on the world. Culture and information were local and diverse.
Then Samuel Morse came along with his telegraph and the railroads were built and suddenly, folks in San Francisco could hear the same news, AT THE SAME TIME, as folks in New York. Parisian fashions showed up in Seattle months later, rather than decades. Then came Marconi and his radio, Farnsworth and television and, finally, computers and the Internet. Now local does not mean a region, it means a group of people with common interests; which is always what it would have meant had the technology existed.
If you’re a member of a nomadic family on the Savannah and you prefer the rhythms of Chinese music better than the music of his nomadic group, tough luck. You won’t even hear Chinese music to know you have a preference. But, now we are all exposed to everything, so a kid from Seattle might learn he prefers Delta Blues to Northwest grunge, and “hang out” with a group of like-minded folks on the Web. And, what’s even better, if his political beliefs and sports allegiances don’t align with most Delta Blues fans he can find places on the Web to hang out with folks who share those tastes too.
Except for a very brief window during the Industrial Revolution (the late 40’s through early 70’s in the U.S.) folks have had very little security in their lives and things changed often. I think technology has finally evolved to a point that more closely mimics human nature, and we are living through the tumult of the resultant cultural shift. Just as there are no more “jobs for life” at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, there are no more “subscribers for life” at the New York Times information mill in Manhattan.
What’s old is new again.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I know from my own life I agree with VDH on many things because I reject whole heartedly the Woodstockian baby boomers.
Some truth there, but we’re also very different from pre-industrial cultures in significant ways. Instead of parents both being at home, as in most of history, today parents are both gone all day, and the kids are cared for by the State. That’s a big difference, and one with dangerous implications.
What state would that be Lars? Most kids I know go to public schools thats about it. And more than one is either homeschooled or goes to private schools. The state doesn’t have the control tyhe state thinks it has or wants.
In my opinion, Stephanie, public schools are state custody of kids. And you’ll note that the government wants to start school at an earlier age now.
Don’t forget that most schools, private or public, use the same (state approved) textbooks.
The homeschoolers have more leeway, in most states but not all.
That’s true, Lars, and that’s to my point also. The kids spend part of their day on the Web playing games against kids around the world. Kids text and e-mail friends and family from all over, all the time. Kids and adults have facebook where there conversations span time zones and national boundaries.
But have we changed, or has the technology merely allowed us to follow our true nature? If a kid growing up on a family farm in 1938 had a choice, would he play checkers with dad, or Halo III with kids his age from around the world?
I’m not sure what the answers are, or what’s “right,” but I do believe there is no going back. I also don’t think human nature is fundamentally changing. We are creatures of our environment, but every generation exploits the environment in whatever manner possible to meet their wants.
Think about credit. Old folks malign the attitudes young folks have about credit, and borrowing money. Well, old folks simply could not borrow money the way young folks can. My old man couldn’t buy a round for his buddies at the corner tavern with a credit card. Once his weekly pay ran out, no more rounds for the buddies. Would my dad have max’ed out a credit card drinking and gambling with his friends if he had one? Almost definitely. When my folks were shopping for their first home no bank would even consider giving them a mortgage without at least 25% down and a long history of steady work and bills paid. Would my folks have bought a bigger home? Bought a home sooner, if they could get a mortgage with only 10%, 1% down? Maybe. Have we changed, or have technology and industry finally caught up with who we are?
Kids who grew up in industrialized cities prior to electricity spent long hours running around with other kids. They weren’t at home, helping mom with the mending (except when they had to). Moms wanted them out of the house and kids wanted to be with their peers. I am sure there were bands of kids wandering the streets of Classical Rome, kicking stones and animal bladders and causing mischief and mayhem.
Culture is changing for a variety of reasons – many of which are technological and due to the dichotomy of the ever-changing American family, as you pointed out. But VDH’s point is many people, even some whole generations, are tuning out for reasons being the hubris of the out-of-touch zeitgeist. Hanson’s argument is about a cultural elite that exists purely for its own entertainment, not for the entertainment of its audience. You both have points.
The day of the major metro ruling a monopoly in its city of interest is over. It’s now back to the way it was, where hyper-partisan, smallish “criers” of sorts detailed their own news. This is the way news functioned before the 20th century, and even somewhat toward the 60s and 70s until the mass newspaper monopolization of the 80s and the death of the two-paper town. This is the new path of growth for media and cultural period. Instead of massive networks and corporations, entertainment and news will be spread through individuals, armed with Pro Tools, a Nikon digital-video and a blog. The downside – at least to me, maybe not to the rest of you – is a profession that paid crap to begin with will pay even less of it.
Technology, changes in modern life and the world around us may be the cause of death, but the Clooneys, Rathers and Lettermans are doing a good job of shoveling the dirt out of the grave.
I listen to oldies and I’m only 32 (well for a couple more days).
These are excellent points John but I also believe Lars’ point about the abscence of parents is a massive shaping force in our culture. Without parents to shape the morality and ethics of children they have looked to the next closest “role model” which is pop culture (ie; TV, music, celebrity gossip). This I think is a phenomenon that is unique to our period in history and it has significantly weakened the idea of family not to mention human interaction and relations as a whole.
Happy birthday!
Of course, the homeschooling movement has been browing at a rather nice clip for the last twenty-five or so years.
To ask sort of a follow up question to the impact of technology and the cultural evolution (or de-evolution depending on your perspective). Could we legitimately see; between the distractions of technology, the pressures of providing for our families, and the emerging dominance of government in our day to day lives, a true vanishing of the family structure as a basic element of society?
Could we legitimately see; between the distractions of technology, the pressures of providing for our families, and the emerging dominance of government in our day to day lives, a true vanishing of the family structure as a basic element of society?
No. Why? Because human societies cease to function without families. The family is not just the cornerstone of community, but the very wellspring of society, in a million and one ways we can’t list. You can’t invent a society where the family doesn’t exist in some form.
Totalitarian societies always attempt to destroy the family and those societies never fully succeed and fall apart from the inside. Those who try and bend the human race out of shape, never find a shape to bend it into and their efforts are generally washed away in violence and chaos.
There have been marginally successful efforts, but I agree with David’s premise, that it is doomed for failure. Religious groups are the most obvious example where this is often tried, and sometimes successful in small doses. There have been religious groups who exist communally and family lines are blurred and some function reasonably well.
However, to illustrate the reason it’s not viable I’ll use a parable:
When I travel to a foreign land on business I try to study up on the culture, history, language, etc., so I’m not a typical, rude American. I was scheduled to work in New Zealand so, on the flight over I read a history of the land. By the time the English set about colonizing New Zealand they had learned a bit from previous colonization failures. The folks who settled New Zealand made a conscious effort to not trample the Maori people, or their customs. Keep in mind this is mid-18th century England, so they’re idea of being sensitive to the natives is different than what we would appreciate, but they tried. At first things were pretty good. The English mostly treated the Maoris respectfully and usually honored land rights, treaties, etc. But, every so often there would be a drought, or floods, or fires, or famine… What happens then? It’s every man for him or herself; “I’m an Englishman and there is not enough food, I’m going to do what it takes to feed my family.”
We have a lot of similar examples in dealings with the native peoples in the U.S. Both sides often made honest efforts to co-exist respectfully, but when a real urgent matter came up treaties and promises went by the wayside. When civilization breaks down we tend to focus on those closest and dearest to us, and that tends to correlate to whose DNA is the most like our own.
All a long-winded way of saying that David’s point is valid. No matter what society sets up there will always be emergencies, and when that happens we will resort to protecting our spouses and children. Then more distant relations. Then community. Then larger society.
To follow up David, the answer is no, much to the chagrin of Hillary and all those villages full of communal idiots. It hasn’t been without their best efforts.
Here are the keys to success in life. Come from a stable two-parent household, learn basic education, graduate high school, avoid drugs and don’t have children out of wedlock. Do those, your chances of success (success being middle class livelihood with all the amenities there of) are virtually guaranteed in this country. Despite the best efforts of social scientists and government in general.
I actually wrote an article for the American Spectator, a while back, about the whole “It Takes a Village” thing. I said that yes, it does take a village, but a village isn’t what Hillary thinks it is. Villages are monocultural. They tend to have one religion, one set of values. Very often everybody’s related. There is virtually no privacy, and individuality is not highly valued. Everybody has an interest in all the kids, and everybody watches all the kids, all the time. This bears no resemblance to a government bureaucracy in any way.
Absolutely true, Lars. I was a public school kid and my kids go to Catholic schools. When I look at the local, public grade school and our Catholic school the public school is better funded, has better educated, better paid teachers, fewer students per class, better textbooks and resources and the kids in both schools live in the same socio-economic area. Yet, every year we kick the public school’s arse in test scores, hours of community service, sports teams… The only difference I have been able to come up with in the Catholic school’s favor is the “village” aspect you touch on. We go to church with our kids and the other parents know my kids and I know there’s. If a kid from the Catholic school starts to veer down a path of poor behavior it will be picked up immediately. We are all looking out for each other. And, we pay for school. I know my kids are sitting in a classroom with 30 something other kids whose parents are paying for them to be there. Those parents are almost always more engaged than the public school parents simply because we write a check for the privilege every month.
So yes, it is a village, but it’s a village that shares a system of education, religion and morals.
All excellent points (not that I would expect less) and one I would agree with. I do however see a dangerous erosion of the structure of the family the likes of which we have never seen and all of which seems geared toward forcing us into a mold viewed as “more acceptable” to some sort of vague global community.
Most of this started with the blurring of gender and the destruction of all things masculine; ie erasing and belittling the idea of a father, this led to the behavior of a father leaving his children not only being accepted but to an extent expected since men are such weak and foolish creatures. Various things have compounded this erosion of the family unit both parents being forced to work long hours and have little time to actually be parents, lazy parents expecting the government run schools to provide their children with any and all life skills and direction, and now obviously the constant noise and flashing lights provided by modern technology not only providing endless distractions but also again a ready made babysitter for lazy parents.
The unfortunate part is there is no easy fix to this since it really requires better parenting from our generation that prepares our daughters to be better mothers and our sons to be better fathers and both to be better people.
These are all good points but to get back to the larger issue, so what if the 50s/60s culture was an anomaly, it worked and worked well. There was a huge influx of technology, innovation and a massive increase in quality of life. So much so it actually raised quality of life in other parts of the world. To simply throw up your hands and say, ‘Well it is not coming back, this is the real us’ is not an attitude that should be fostered.
You could make the same argument about the United States itself. A Democratic Republic is an anomaly. If you look back across history, the rule of law backed with elected representatives is only the tiniest fraction of governments that ever existed. I think most here would find it offensive if someone said, ‘Well, the Republic is good and all but rule by tribal elders is the real us. So fuck it, let’s burn the Constitution.’ Yes, I am engaging in hyperbole.
Still I see no problem at yearning for a time and trying to recreate the conditions of a culture that was so successful. Even if we don’t retain it all, we can try to keep the best parts. That is the point of studying history and culture.
Mighty Skip,
The genie is out of the bottle. Do you believe, had housewives in the ’50′s had access to the Internet that some wouldn’t have left their husband for a man they meet in a chatroom? Do you believe, if one could get a home for 0% down folks wouldn’t have done that in the ’60′s? Do you believe if kids in the late ’40′s could sit in their bedrooms and play Halo with their friends they’d instead opt to play catch?
Look, human nature hasn’t changed. We’ve got lots more leisure and lots more goo-gads. This is what people do when that happens. When you’re occupied 18 hours a day with trying to get enough crops to grow to feed your children you don’t spend much time wondering if you’re really happy with your wife and if that nice gal shoveling manure in the next field might be your real soulmate. This is how humans behave when they live in a world with the accoutrements that ours has.
My wife and I talk about how to raise our children and we don’t allow a lot of video games, the young ones don’t get cellphones and the old ones don’t text when their elders are talking to them. We gave up over a half million dollars in income so my wife could be home with them in their formative years and we don’t have an abundance of material things. And there are tens of millions of other families like ours in this country, but I’m not so naive to ignore that tens of millions will give in to the temptations of modern life, just as folks have always given into temptation throughout human history.
More of us have more free time and more opportunity to be tempted into shirking our responsibilities and making selfish choices. It is the nature of modern life in a 1st world nation.
Many environmentalists long for a time before the Industrial revolution when humans didn’t pollute the air, water and land with their machinery making material goods that the greens turn up their noses at. That’s foolish. First, we can’t go back. Second, some of those machines make life saving drugs and diagnostic machines that have doubled our life expectancies. Third, pre-Industrial people were huge polluters. So, it’s a silly, childish fantasy.
Many conservatives do a similar thing, but they go back to the ’50′s when dad went off to work at Amalgamated Widget and mom put on a gingham dress and fixed the kids a home cooked meal before they walked to the local school. The future is here and another future will be here tomorrow. How does conservatism fit into this world, today? If we base a political party on wistful dreams of a lifestyle that existed briefly because of a once in human history convergence of technology and prosperity how can we be successful?
These are all good points but to get back to the larger issue, so what if the 50s/60s culture was an anomaly, it worked and worked well.
And there were parts that didn’t work so well. The 50s and 60s, hard as it is to believe, were a period of transition and even decay. We tend to remember that period fondly because we remember the best parts of it, but we also have to remember the rampant consumerism that lead to the shallowing of culture, the beginning of the self-involved self-esteem that created the Baby Boomers, the decay of honor, the abandonment of virtue, the disdain for a life of the mind, and so on. Those were the decades of a generation that had shed blood to defend the deep ancient things good, but stayed too long at ease, letting slip through their fingers.
What that time did illustrate was, however briefly, was what real progress was. It meant a feet planted on the mountain of eternal things and hands reaching into the clouds. It meant something adventurous and something homey.
Would I choose 1960? I would prefer something closer to 1860. Most of what we prize of the mid-20th century we owe to earlier ages, including intrepidity. But I’m not talking about so much regaining the accouterments of culture, but its spirit. Spirit begets flesh, flesh does not beget spirit. A nation’s institutions and traditions spring from its spirit and character. To try and regain forms and conditions is starting at the wrong end.
Do I called America an anomaly? No. I call it a rare and blessed consummation. There are many echoes of it in history, but rarely did they get half as far as our nation has.
40s to early 70s…produced transistors, lasers, mass produced computers, satellites, deep space exploration, photography of distant planets in spectacular fly bys, produced a comprehensive theory of matter (QED) that has yet to be replaced or significantly extended (string theory tries, but…); enabled mass movement on a grand scale through the interstate highways (ruined such wonderful roads as route 66, but…); produced novelists like JP Marquand, James Jones, Updike, Joseph Heller, Pynchon, Roth; literary and political theorists like Trilling, Kirk, Buckley, Sidney Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz…unfortunately art was dead by this time, as well as music unless you’re willing to include the last gasps of jazz and bluegrass…rock in its innocent first years…
These years were dominated by men (and some women) who had been tested in the fire of the world’s most vicious war and conflagration ever. They came home from Normandy and Tarawa and they just weren’t going to take too much crap from anyone.
Ike sent the troops to Little Rock to stop a petty governor from preventing black children from getting a decent education (and recall that Faubus was a sponsor of a certain southern governor of recent memory); Kennedy sent the Guard to push back on another little bully in Alabama…both Democrats.
I know because I was a child during these years and the son of someone who went ashore at Normandy. We were the Boomer children, and they spoiled us after the Depression and the War…who could really blame them for doing that? How could they know that we would turn around and spit on all that they fought for and produced? How could they know that we would start eating the seed corn of the Republic, that we would just start sucking at the marrow of the country?
How could they foresee that Hollywood Palace would become American Idol?
I don’t see that we’re putting anything into the country anymore, and further that it seems we’re just sucking the last life out of it.
I see VDH’s point because I find myself agreeing on most points. And I find myself isolated from the immediate popular culture. Which is not to say that I don’t know it, far from that, I know it pretty well, I just find it rather boring, childish and not at all uplifting or positive. It has no strength to it, nothing to commend it, and nothing to suggest anyone would be reading or watching the Colbert report in a thousand years. If your culture is composed of the ephemeral…do you really have a culture?
I agree with all you write, Kevin, and I agree we can do a better job of instilling a sense of “America” and patriotism in kids, even with all the background noise of our current society.
Interesting. There’s really two separate issues here: “Why is American Grafitti Popular?” and “Were the 50s/60s an anomaly?”
The first one’s easy: Nostalgia is always popular because Nostalgia is safe – it can’t bite you in the ass, or cop a feel, or surprise you in any way. (Unless you’re nostalgic specifically about copping your first feel or bemoaning your jaded inability for surprise, but that’s kind of a different thing). Insomuch as Nostalgia is tied to reminiscences of Youth culture, that’s also pretty easy: If you’re a guy, you’re considered a prime demographic between ages 18-39. Once you’re past that, experience has proved that you’re no longer dating (Generally) have a job and a lot of responsibilities, and hence you probably don’t buy the top 40 albums or hit the movies like you once did. Thus they simply don’t waste time marketing to you, and instead they market to your kids. So the ‘out of touch’ character is a combination of “I’ve got too much to do” and simply not being marketed to anymore. I mean, I actually *am* in to music, but I always end up listening to the 80s channel in my car – even though it bores me silly – simply because it’s known and safe to listen to – not a lot of profamity to hassle my kids.
I *WOULD* say that the late 40s/50s/60s/very early 70s period was anomalous, but probably not for the reasons you’re thinking of. The idea that everyone made arrowheads and everyone sewed clothes is a popular misconception, but it’s not true. I mean, even *dogs* specialize their labor somewhat, right? From what we know of primitive cultures, there was a lot of specialization going on – some people were good at hunting, some people were good with languages, some people were good with cooking, some people were good with raising the kids, some people were good at making arrowheads, but not hunting, some people were good at telling stories, but not much else, some people were good at making decisions, others couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag, same as now, everyone had different abilities.
All these were used together for the good of the tribe/clan/pack/band whatever. Some were more useful than others – better to have more hunters than storytellers – but ultimately you want to have as many different people with as many different skills as possible. Most anthropologists feel this goes back to even before caveman days.
Where I think the middle of the last century ends up being different is that you had a rapidly expanding economy, a rapidly expanding government, and a rapidly expanding population all at the same time, all still fairly focused on “We’re Americans, we can do any damn thing we want to!” The reasons people stayed in jobs for such a long time was because there was more demand than supply. Alas, the economic growth slowed down while the population continued to increase. and our focus wandered. Eventually some jackass forgot that a tiny bit of inflation is a good thing, and the idea of ZPG caught on, so now our population isn’t really increasing, and our economy is outsourced.
And just like that, we become English!
I *WOULD* say that the late 40s/50s/60s/very early 70s period was anomalous, but probably not for the reasons you’re thinking of.
Then you “WOULD” be wrong.
Of course people specialize, dodo-brain, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I’m talking about the “nuclear family;” Mom, Dad, Buddy and Sis. That existed for a brief window in time because of a convergence of prosperity and technology. There was a lot less certainty prior to that time, and a lot less certainy today. No reasonably sentient graduating Engineer or businesswoman can assume he or she will work at the first company that hires him or her through retirement, at age 63. In the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s that’s the way things were. Families move a lot more today. Men and women provide for their families in a variety of ways, and those methods often change as the family dynamics change.
My point is that people shouldn’t wistfully look back on the recent past as some sort of lost innocence. Prior to the late 40′s conditions were more like they are today.
No, conditions were not similar. Prior to the 40s, a much larger percentage of the country lived on self sustaining farms or supported the agrarian economy, which is no where near the case today.
However, rather than argue that point, I will argue that the singularity, the reason for the discontinuity between the early 70s and now is…Nixon. The worst Democratic Republican president we have ever had (Carter as terrible, but Nixon put the levers in place for Carter),
I blame Kennedy for obliterating the custom that men wear hats.
I understand what you are saying but still:
“If we base a political party on wistful dreams of a lifestyle that existed briefly because of a once in human history convergence of technology and prosperity how can we be successful?”
That is the point really. We want to achieve these things again, we want to dare I say, conserve those parts of what worked culturally (as David pointed out it wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops). Your sentiment is a progressive attitude really, its how progressives define themselves. You are right in that there is no way to go back fully, but that is not what we are talking about.
Much like the founders of the US took what they considered the best parts of Spartan society (checks and balances on government) they left behind the bad stuff (tossing newborns off cliffs, a command economy and manditory military service) we should be looking to do the same thing. The lifestyle, I would argue, is not a wistful dream because it actually existed. To attempt to strike that balance again is a goal to reach, not an anchor.
Can it be done exactly the same? Of course not for many reasons. Technological and cultural changes won’t allow it. You need to have something to builds towards, a reason to inject something more solid into culture. You might even accomplish something similar, or better.
And how, precisely, do you recommend we legislate a “lifestyle?”
We don’t. A group of like thinkers, such as conservatives, can influence culture in many ways. Politics are one of them but that doesn’t have to be through legislative action always. Writing, speaking, acting… think William Buckley or Ronald Regan. Developing a trustworthy cabal of conservative intellectuals or a grassroots organization is an absolutely legitimate way to influence society. The political structure will just develop naturally in a representative government.
@Rufus >>>Of course people specialize, dodo-brain, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.<<>>Imagine growing up as a Native American in North America in the 1300s. Same thing. Dad didn’t go off to work making spear heads while mom stayed home and vacuumed the teepee. Everyone cleaned, everyone sewed, everyone gathered food, everyone protected, everyone talked, danced, sang, planted, sowed, reaped… This was the same for most of humanity for most of human history. <<<
You’re taking me too literally. Native men going off in hunting parties while the women stayed back and gathered nuts and berries is not the same as Dad going off to Amalgamated Widget every morning with his lunchpail while Mom baked a raspberry cobbler for dinner. Let’s take it a bit later in civilization. The Egyptians needed chariots to keep their empire safe and that means they needed a lot of wheelwrights. Is it likely that certain families started specializing in being wheelwrights, and fathers passed the skill down to their sons? Sure. But Dad didn’t punch a clock everyday. The place the Wheelwrights worked was probably near, if not part of, where the Wheelwright families lived, and Mom and Sis helped out too. And when it was time for dinner whoever was around helped out. And when the kids were capable they started finding ways to stock the family’s larder or do some work to earn barter for food and clothes. It was very communal.
Gah. “Taking you too literally?” If you specifically say something, how am I to know if you mean exactly what you said, or if it’s a complex allegory for the history of the Republic of Ireland that, by your own admission, doesn’t bear close examination? I mean, we don’t really know each other, we don’t have the benefit of years of hanging out to learn each other’s foibles…
Anyway, the bottom line is that I agree with you that the “Golden Age” in the middle boring bit of the 20th century was anomalous, but somehow you’ve managed to take umbrage at my agreeing with you. I don’t know what to make of that.
Just be glad you’re not my wife.
Damn…how could I have forgotten Kennedy and the hats. It was one of those small events that have enormous consequences (and no, I’m not being sarcastic…I think).
I can think of no other event in my lifetime that so abruptly, inexorably and negatively shaped future, human behavior. No wonder Jackie left him for Aristotle.
well…to be fair, he was dead when she left him…