There are many dragons for Americans to slay nowadays. Evils and ills arise all around us in economic, political, military, ecological, and moral manifestations. But a breakdown this systematic, this intractable, this predictable must surely stem from one primary fount. And so it is. I'm going to try not to channel anything that could be attributed to Pat Robertson, but America's downfall is due to America's collapse of traditional values.
There's nothing controversial about the above statement until we get to the sticky business of defining "values". I'll state it as succinctly as possible: American society used to revolve around a presumption of trust. It no longer is.
The 1950's are often bandied about by racists and chauvinists as a golden era. But there is a grain of truth in everything, and in 50's worship, there is much more than a grain. The 1950's was a time when sexual promiscuity, adultery, and divorce were frowned upon by virtually every segment of American society.
Is the death of trust really about the sexual revolution? Well, yes. That was its source. Sex is second only to immediate survival for any life form, conscious or not. Any living thing worthy of its name wakes up with two priorities. Number one: eat. Number two: procreate. And, since humans are animals, it is folly to pretend that sex is not somewhat central to the human blueprint.
But, as Christ and Jefferson and Common Sense tell us, humans are more than animals. And the entirety of what we call "civilization" is based upon a critical mass of people deciding that certain things are more important that their individual temporal urges. Civilization could not erase lust or greed from the hearts of men, but it could temper them.
When a society scorns divorce and adultery, that does not mean that humanity itself has been changed. People will always commit adultery. But we delude ourselves if we think that we cannot shape our society's perceptions about what such action entails.
Our culture, our movies, our music, our art, our television, our advertisements, the only things that all Americans share, all of it treats sex as an emotionless, consequence-less function of the moment, like sneezing or invading Iraq.
Think about every American movie you've ever seen. Think about every act of sex you've seen depicted or implied on screen. How many of those "lovers" were married? To each other?
When sex, the most intimate and consequential act short of murder, is bandied about as a commodity product, why would one be shocked that 13 year old girls are mothers rather than daughters? Do we really think that the explosion of teenage motherhood, single motherhood, and fucked-up fatherhood is totally incidental to the embrace of public and unattached sexuality?
Here is a great trust exercise: You have diamonds. A jeweler has money. He tells you to leave the diamonds at one spot while he leaves the money at another. You then both drive to each other's spot and claim your prize.
What do you do? Do you trust that the jeweler will leave the money? What if he doesn't? If he doesn't, and you leave the diamonds, you lose both. If he does, and you leave the diamonds, you both win. If he does, and you don't leave the diamonds, you get both. What do you do?
The only way society lasts is if you trust the other person. You have to leave your diamonds and trust that he will leave the money. Does anyone really think that most Americans are that trusting of each other today?
When people stop trusting each other, which begins with the most sacred institutions, such as monogamy, being systematically undermined, then nobody has any security, which is the cornerstone of civilization.
Honestly, when was the last time you just left money on the counter and walked out of the store? On that note, when's the last time you walked out of a store without an alarm on the door?
We kid ourselves if we think that we can make it on our own, without every needing to trust anyone else. English is in many ways a rather narrow language, and the closest English word to "love" that I can come up with is "trust". When we lose trust, we lose love, and when we lose love, we lose ourselves.
There's nothing controversial about the above statement until we get to the sticky business of defining "values". I'll state it as succinctly as possible: American society used to revolve around a presumption of trust. It no longer is.
The 1950's are often bandied about by racists and chauvinists as a golden era. But there is a grain of truth in everything, and in 50's worship, there is much more than a grain. The 1950's was a time when sexual promiscuity, adultery, and divorce were frowned upon by virtually every segment of American society.
Is the death of trust really about the sexual revolution? Well, yes. That was its source. Sex is second only to immediate survival for any life form, conscious or not. Any living thing worthy of its name wakes up with two priorities. Number one: eat. Number two: procreate. And, since humans are animals, it is folly to pretend that sex is not somewhat central to the human blueprint.
But, as Christ and Jefferson and Common Sense tell us, humans are more than animals. And the entirety of what we call "civilization" is based upon a critical mass of people deciding that certain things are more important that their individual temporal urges. Civilization could not erase lust or greed from the hearts of men, but it could temper them.
When a society scorns divorce and adultery, that does not mean that humanity itself has been changed. People will always commit adultery. But we delude ourselves if we think that we cannot shape our society's perceptions about what such action entails.
Our culture, our movies, our music, our art, our television, our advertisements, the only things that all Americans share, all of it treats sex as an emotionless, consequence-less function of the moment, like sneezing or invading Iraq.
Think about every American movie you've ever seen. Think about every act of sex you've seen depicted or implied on screen. How many of those "lovers" were married? To each other?
When sex, the most intimate and consequential act short of murder, is bandied about as a commodity product, why would one be shocked that 13 year old girls are mothers rather than daughters? Do we really think that the explosion of teenage motherhood, single motherhood, and fucked-up fatherhood is totally incidental to the embrace of public and unattached sexuality?
Here is a great trust exercise: You have diamonds. A jeweler has money. He tells you to leave the diamonds at one spot while he leaves the money at another. You then both drive to each other's spot and claim your prize.
What do you do? Do you trust that the jeweler will leave the money? What if he doesn't? If he doesn't, and you leave the diamonds, you lose both. If he does, and you leave the diamonds, you both win. If he does, and you don't leave the diamonds, you get both. What do you do?
The only way society lasts is if you trust the other person. You have to leave your diamonds and trust that he will leave the money. Does anyone really think that most Americans are that trusting of each other today?
When people stop trusting each other, which begins with the most sacred institutions, such as monogamy, being systematically undermined, then nobody has any security, which is the cornerstone of civilization.
Honestly, when was the last time you just left money on the counter and walked out of the store? On that note, when's the last time you walked out of a store without an alarm on the door?
We kid ourselves if we think that we can make it on our own, without every needing to trust anyone else. English is in many ways a rather narrow language, and the closest English word to "love" that I can come up with is "trust". When we lose trust, we lose love, and when we lose love, we lose ourselves.
1 comment:
"When sex ... is bandied about as a commodity product, why would one be shocked that 13 year old girls are mothers rather than daughters? Do we really think that the explosion of teenage motherhood, single motherhood, and fucked-up fatherhood is totally incidental to the embrace of public and unattached sexuality?"
Although I agree with your concern over the utter lack of emotional (and physiological) depth and importance with which sex is portrayed in the popular media, I believe this statement is a bit historically niave. This may be incorrect as my extraplotation of your statement here is that you believe that prior to the 'sexual revolution' rampant sexuality was held in check for the most part by inherit respect and trust in monogamy, marriage, and the family unit.
My contention is that it was held in check very poorly, if at all most times, by a dramatically lower population and the agrarian necessity for families to work together to survive. If you are a boy of 13 out breaking your back in the field to make a living, you're not out fucking your neighbor's 13 year old daughter, who happens to live 5 miles away; without a phone; or a car. And if you did manage to impregnate her at the grange hall dance, you sure as hell were probably going to be forced into marriage. What else were you going to do? Run away? Perhaps, but I think unlikely. And alot of this relative isolation and the necessity of marriage probably also didn't stem the tide of sexual abuse and/or child abuse to boot. After all this child is the reason you're stuck where you are.
I contend that given the rise of the american middle class and the move away from farm-life, these sexual proclivities were manifest after the 'blip' that was the 50s, where the hold on traditional values for traditions sake (NOT values sake necessarily) was what held the tide back. By 'traditions sake' I mean, the fact that upon entering a new era, a new culture, a new town even, you tend to hold on to what you know best, even if it doesn't work perfectly (if at all even).
Let me know if I taken too many liberties with your statement;).
Peace
Post a Comment