In the comment thread for my last post, Byker Bob and nck made some interesting comments about the ongoing back and forth over cultural issues in the United States. We're talking about issues like abortion, affirmative action, immigration, gay marriage and transgender rights. Of course, clashes over these issues have occupied center stage in America for more than fifty years now. Over that time, most of us have become accustomed to viewing these issues as a clash between those who support a traditional/conservative approach and those who support a progressive/liberal approach.
In that thread, Byker Bob observed: "Based on what we've seen over the past several months, it is beginning to appear that we will have one set of laws during Democratic presidencies, and another set during Republican presidencies." Michael Kazin made a similar observation in an article that appeared in The New York Times this summer entitled America's Never-Ending Culture War (Read the entire piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opinion/sunday/chicago-protests-1968-culture-war.html) He wrote: "Liberals and leftists still battle with conservatives over most of the other big issues that roiled the nation back then <1968>: affirmative action, the right to abortion, freedom for gays and lesbians, curbs on corporate power, environmental protection, the politics of academia — and rulings by the Supreme Court that cheer one camp and infuriate the other." He went on to conclude: "As a New Leftist in 1968, I did not worry that Americans were fighting one another on the streets of Chicago and around the nation. I only wanted to figure out how my side could come out on top. Now, as a professor, I teach the virtues of empathizing with one’s adversaries, of understanding why those with whom you vehemently disagree think what they think and do what they do. But as a historian, I also know that civil wars, even cultural ones, seldom end with settlements that please both sides. Until the left or the right wins a lasting victory, America will remain a society rent in two."
In response to Byker Bob's comment, nck observed: "It seems things are going a bit too fast for some. People are hearking back to 'the good old times'." He went on to conclude: "If a society is not ready to change then change should be implemented through discussion, debate and compromise. I mean if a society is not ready to have gay marriages. Why not give couples 100 percent equal rights but not call it a marriage."
These astute observations about America's "Culture War" point to the reasons why we may have another fifty years of this back and forth, or why we may eventually have another civil war! The discussion over these issues has deteriorated into a screaming match between the opposing sides, and compromise is now considered an abandonment of principle and a dirty word. If abortion is murder, then how can we allow for any circumstances where it could be practiced legally? If marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, then how can we ever permit two men to be married? If women have a fundamental right to privacy and making their own decisions about reproduction, then how can they accept any infringements on/limitations of those rights? If the state really does have an interest in regulating/promoting the institution of marriage, how can it deny the benefits of participating in that institution to any of its citizens?
The fact is that all of these issues reflect very different perspectives on race, gender and sexual orientation. Our views on these subjects very much depend on how we view our collective past. When you look at our story/history, do you see paternalism, misogyny, injustice, oppression and prejudice? OR Do you see the "good old days," when America was God-fearing and everybody did what they were supposed to do? Taken to the extremes: For some, any change (whether slow or fast) is too much. For others, immediate destruction of any remaining barriers to the full enjoyment of personal rights is warranted.
It seems to me that our culture wars boil down to a few fundamental questions: Are there eternal values? If so, what are they? and How do they apply to today's society? Is change inevitable? If so, what is the best way to manage that change? Is it possible to honor the views of both sides by allowing everyone to reach their own decisions/conclusions about these issues? Does my exercise of some supposed right somehow infringe on your exercise of your supposed right? If so, how might we ameliorate that infringement without taking away the rights of either one of us? Do we have a moral obligation to correct or mitigate the negative consequences of past injustices? Does God give us permission to ridicule or hate anyone? Does God give us permission to hurt/harm/destroy people who differ with or oppose us? What do you think?
In that thread, Byker Bob observed: "Based on what we've seen over the past several months, it is beginning to appear that we will have one set of laws during Democratic presidencies, and another set during Republican presidencies." Michael Kazin made a similar observation in an article that appeared in The New York Times this summer entitled America's Never-Ending Culture War (Read the entire piece here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opinion/sunday/chicago-protests-1968-culture-war.html) He wrote: "Liberals and leftists still battle with conservatives over most of the other big issues that roiled the nation back then <1968>: affirmative action, the right to abortion, freedom for gays and lesbians, curbs on corporate power, environmental protection, the politics of academia — and rulings by the Supreme Court that cheer one camp and infuriate the other." He went on to conclude: "As a New Leftist in 1968, I did not worry that Americans were fighting one another on the streets of Chicago and around the nation. I only wanted to figure out how my side could come out on top. Now, as a professor, I teach the virtues of empathizing with one’s adversaries, of understanding why those with whom you vehemently disagree think what they think and do what they do. But as a historian, I also know that civil wars, even cultural ones, seldom end with settlements that please both sides. Until the left or the right wins a lasting victory, America will remain a society rent in two."
In response to Byker Bob's comment, nck observed: "It seems things are going a bit too fast for some. People are hearking back to 'the good old times'." He went on to conclude: "If a society is not ready to change then change should be implemented through discussion, debate and compromise. I mean if a society is not ready to have gay marriages. Why not give couples 100 percent equal rights but not call it a marriage."
These astute observations about America's "Culture War" point to the reasons why we may have another fifty years of this back and forth, or why we may eventually have another civil war! The discussion over these issues has deteriorated into a screaming match between the opposing sides, and compromise is now considered an abandonment of principle and a dirty word. If abortion is murder, then how can we allow for any circumstances where it could be practiced legally? If marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, then how can we ever permit two men to be married? If women have a fundamental right to privacy and making their own decisions about reproduction, then how can they accept any infringements on/limitations of those rights? If the state really does have an interest in regulating/promoting the institution of marriage, how can it deny the benefits of participating in that institution to any of its citizens?
The fact is that all of these issues reflect very different perspectives on race, gender and sexual orientation. Our views on these subjects very much depend on how we view our collective past. When you look at our story/history, do you see paternalism, misogyny, injustice, oppression and prejudice? OR Do you see the "good old days," when America was God-fearing and everybody did what they were supposed to do? Taken to the extremes: For some, any change (whether slow or fast) is too much. For others, immediate destruction of any remaining barriers to the full enjoyment of personal rights is warranted.
It seems to me that our culture wars boil down to a few fundamental questions: Are there eternal values? If so, what are they? and How do they apply to today's society? Is change inevitable? If so, what is the best way to manage that change? Is it possible to honor the views of both sides by allowing everyone to reach their own decisions/conclusions about these issues? Does my exercise of some supposed right somehow infringe on your exercise of your supposed right? If so, how might we ameliorate that infringement without taking away the rights of either one of us? Do we have a moral obligation to correct or mitigate the negative consequences of past injustices? Does God give us permission to ridicule or hate anyone? Does God give us permission to hurt/harm/destroy people who differ with or oppose us? What do you think?
What would the Japanese sons do to move forward and solve problems?
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
To get to the root cause of people's belief, convictions, problem assesment, we should learn to ask questions. The "Why?" question at least 5 times in different sequence. Only then can we reach the level where solutions can be found.
Perhaps the root cause of "pending civil war" is not the various belief systems or level of knowledge about medical, physical or psychological varieties in the patchwork of man.
It could be that the "citizens" have failed to educate themselves on what it means to be participating citizens in society of various patchwork, how to deal with differing patches from your own and study the workings of the existing mechanism that makes coexisting possible. That mechanism is democracy.
A failure to educate will always correct itself, through war, disease, limiting belief systems and famine. Unfortunately man has a short memory span after such correction having erected edifices like the UN, or the creation of acts and laws limiting the banking system, preventing the next correction of man.
People should heed the prize/cost to be payed by not adhering to tested democratic procedures and standards of communicating with each other.
We won’t take time to vote. We won’t take time to get to know our neighbor – the one who lives right next door. We won’t go to church anymore, even if we self-identify as Christians. We don’t return a neighbor’s horse or cow to his pasture when the gate somehow blew open.
We accept eating poison fishes, hormone-ized meats and poultry, gene-altered breakfast cereal, and lethal water because we refuse to make the sacrifice to use the power we have – to commercially boycott, to assemble and speak, to force legislators to do their jobs, to become one ourselves, etcetera. It’s like we must tell our grown kids, in one form or another, you either carry some of the weight on your shoulders while living here at home, or all the weight somewhere else, it’s your choice.
Who carries the weight in a nation state when its individuals have stopped learning, stopped studying, stopped growing, stopped serving? Conquerors, that’s who. Enemies of the state, internal and external.
nck
Nck, you've just described disenfranchisement. The culture war seems to have caused a 50-50 split, with occasional swing votes. When the opposing side obtains some points, the other side becomes frustrated that the system no longer works for them, and divests itself from the process. Then, the "Rhino Method" kicks in, as the losing side commissions its various Einsteins to find a way around or through the latest obstacle to its agenda. There are other tools invoked, such as demonstrations, trial by press or social media, the judicial system when the ballot box doesn't work, with extremists from both positions getting in everyones' faces. I'm told that some politicians can't even enjoy a quiet meal with their families these days without swarms of shamers confronting them. But, alas, back in the '80s, pro-life activists were known to evade security to present key pro-choice politicians with aborted fetuses during high profile events.
ReplyDeleteIn sales, which is actually more of a courting and seduction process these days rather than a one time presentation, we used to speak of educating a prospect out of a mindset. Today, we are awash in information. The problem is that political bias prevents people from properly considering and evaluating the often valid information which would tend to support the other side. As a hotrodder, I once hated and denied environmentalism because of the many fronts on which it was attacking my hobby. Once I began getting past the cliches that were commonly parrotted, and examining actual scientific fact, I realized that we've got a tremendous problem on planet earth. We continue to destroy the air, the land, and the oceans, to alter and pervert foods, and to seek ever more harmful levels of destructive processes to the planet upon which our children and grandchildren must live. So, I went from illegally adding tetraethyl lead to my hot rods' gas tanks, and dumping refuse oil down manhole covers to actively working to reduce my carbon footprint. Had I taken a partisan approach to these things, I'd still be seeking out the old R-22 freon for a leaky vintage AC system, rather than converting to R-134a.
Increasing numbers of people have embraced civil disobedience as a vehicle for social protest. This I can understand. But again, this is at its best when it is rooted in fact as opposed to partisanship. I was once an anti-seat belt activist, until the survival statistics in accident conditions became glaringly obvious. Being pro-freedom in some areas can serve as its own punishment in the end.
Until the human race learns to live by the most important facet of the Hippocratic Oath ("first, do no harm"), and to perhaps ratchet down the volume of rhetoric, and to relearn the old Henry Clay paradigm of compromise, I fear that we are going to continue to endure turbulence. Flexibility is oft cited as a survival skill. Why can't some be flexible in the face of new trends, technologies and emerging facts? Increasingly, everyone is going everywhere. Therefore, multiculturalism is irreversible, and a permanent fixture in our existence. We either learn to live together as a human race, or become hostile and paranoid separatists. Individualism must be tempered by the greater goal of the common good. People don't like that.
BB
"educating a prospect out of a mindset"
ReplyDeleteI like that very much. I will post an article that takes into consideration both, the timespan it takes to get "educated" and my "little by little", compromise, small victories aproach that goes unnoticed as an undercurrent in a clash of cultures.
To wet your appetite:
"People forget the injunction of the historian and philosopher Arnold Toynbee: Ideas, not technology, have driven the biggest historical changes. Mobile technology, for example, did not augur the “death of distance,” but actually strengthened the power of urbanism. The washing machine freed women from labor, and, as the social psychologists Nina Hansen and Tom Postmes note, could have sparked a revolution in gender roles and relations. But, “instead of fueling feminism,” they write, “technology adoption (at least in the first instance) enabled the emergence of the new role of housewife: middle-class women did not take advantage of the freed-up time ... to rebel against structures or even to capitalize on their independence.” Instead, the authors argue, the women simply assumed the jobs once held by their servants.
http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-sight/why-futurism-has-a-cultural-blindspot-rp
nck