How did our culture change through the 20th century?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smndtupidisaftr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Additionally I would add the effect of technology on commercial media… sex sells… is rather obvious. There seems to be no end to how far we will go with it. Not a big fan of censorship. I am a fan of peititions and boycotts. Let the market speak. It’s about supply and demand. Reduce the demand, reduce the supply. Again… rocket science…

Additional comments related to western sociology… regarding Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow which sounded great when I first heard it in grade school… but in practice, recent history suggests that rather than aspiring to the higher needs… self esteem, self actualization, agape love, transcendence… it seems we (a simple majority anyway) will stay on the lower end of the pyramid and gorge ourselves, literally and figuratively, to satisfy the lower needs only bigger… bigger houses, better cars, nicer clothes, more sex (sans love) and again… obviously… more and more food and drink (and other substances)… to the point of obesity. Sinful. (Pride, Sloth, Greed, Lust, Gluttony) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Sloth
And how could I forget… one of the biggest one of all… the pill… that was a game changer for western society… control shift… feminism… promiscuity…

So to summarize we had an dramatic increase in temptation (sex sells and the “risk” is minimized)… we had a dramatic increase in leisure time and we could fund it with a dramatic increase in disposable income…

Society takes time to adapt to rapid change. And the change continues to come more and more rapidly so we are behind and getting further behind. We need a fundamental shift or an awakening to catch up. It will happen… it has too… one way or another… either by design or not… It’s about maturity. We are, as a society, pretty immature. Of course I’m generalizing but the ratio between the mature and immature seems lopsided.

We need more of a sense of stewardship, ownership, responsibility… not entitled victims…
 
I’m not saying that things were perfect, far from it, but I would like some insight into how everyday life was different then versus now.
The conditions that black Americans lived in were just as “everyday” as those white Americans lived in. You can say that you’re actually only wanting to know about what life was like for white Americans, but realize that that is, in fact, what you’re saying.

Anyway, obviously there were many things that changed America during the 20th century. The changes that upset you are most directly a result of the sexual revolution and the move towards using contraception. The move towards using contraception began as early as the 1930’s, because people were afraid to have more children during the depression. That’s when most of the mainline Protestant denominations changed their stance on it. Then eventually in the 70’s you ended up with the sexual revolution and the shift towards rampant promiscuity you see today.

I’m simplifying, but there were so many changes between 1900 and 2000 that it would take a long time to discuss them all. The world wars and the wars in Korea and Vietnam played a part. The Civil Rights movement played a part. The increase in technology played a part. The shift towards college education played a part. History is rarely simple, and the shifts that occurred during the 20th century in America are no exception. I don’t know about what happened in Europe, but it has to be at least as complicated as what happened over here.

Although I wasn’t there, I’m more inclined to believe Coatimundi’s version of events. We live in a fallen world, after all. If life was significantly better, then it was probably only better for certain people- to get the rose-colored version of events that you want, you do have to exclude the experiences of, for example, black people. That’s not a very complete view of history.
 
Specifically I am talking about Western culture and the dramatic changes in morals, values, etc. I’m sure that you all know what exactly I have in mind even if I can’t express it very clearly. How did everything change? Were things much better in the past in terms of how people lived and interacted with each other? I’d like some perspective from those who know more about it.

Personally, there’s much that I can’t stand, and I feel disconnected from most people because of it. The standards or interaction seem so barbaric and depraved. Cordiality and genuineness are almost to be eschewed as a rule. Instead, coarseness of language is vulgarity of subject matter is to be expected. Thus, outside of close friends and family, I have trouble getting along with people and I’m mostly labeled as anti-social.

How does everyone else feel about it? How were things in the past, for instance what could you expect from meeting someone for the first time? And how do you deal with a culture that seems to hate everything that is beautiful?
Like 20 years ago , Mobile Phone was introduced in Belgium !!
Today , most of the people have one , but do we need one ??
(Mobile Phone seems to be invented around 1938)
Google & youtube: woman on mobile phone 1938

But ok , discovering new things or meeting people for the first time ,
and meeting them back later on , you never know what the future will bring ,
only time will tell !!
And how do you deal with a culture that seems to hate everything that is beautiful?
As long we can respect eachother , that would be fine , but sometimes …
I don’t like it when some people try to “finish” other people off
because they say that whatever they is wrong , just because of … !!
Remember: We all live on the same planet !!
 
The conditions that black Americans lived in were just as “everyday” as those white Americans lived in. You can say that you’re actually only wanting to know about what life was like for white Americans, but realize that that is, in fact, what you’re saying.

Anyway, obviously there were many things that changed America during the 20th century. The changes that upset you are most directly a result of the sexual revolution and the move towards using contraception. The move towards using contraception began as early as the 1930’s, because people were afraid to have more children during the depression. That’s when most of the mainline Protestant denominations changed their stance on it. Then eventually in the 70’s you ended up with the sexual revolution and the shift towards rampant promiscuity you see today.

I’m simplifying, but there were so many changes between 1900 and 2000 that it would take a long time to discuss them all. The world wars and the wars in Korea and Vietnam played a part. The Civil Rights movement played a part. The increase in technology played a part. The shift towards college education played a part. History is rarely simple, and the shifts that occurred during the 20th century in America are no exception. I don’t know about what happened in Europe, but it has to be at least as complicated as what happened over here.

Although I wasn’t there, I’m more inclined to believe Coatimundi’s version of events. We live in a fallen world, after all. If life was significantly better, then it was probably only better for certain people- to get the rose-colored version of events that you want, you do have to exclude the experiences of, for example, black people. That’s not a very complete view of history.
A very well-rounded and more complete picture of the “good ole’ days”. Thank you.

Throughout human history folks have lamented of the good ole’ days. THis is hman nature. “the grass is always greener.”
 
For those who say that sexual immorality is much more prevalent today, then listen to this (based on my personal observations AND from conversations with friends/acquaintences):

Sexual harrassment was very prevalent in the workplace, and often the pressure for female employees to have sex with a male superior, or suffer consequences, was very strong.

I was told that many female workers did succumb to these pressures just to keep their jobs so they could have a roof over their head.

BTW, I refused, and paid dearly, by having various false accusations brought against me for refusing to “sleep with the boss.”!
 
For those who say that sexual immorality is much more prevalent today, then listen to this (based on my personal observations AND from conversations with friends/acquaintences):

Sexual harrassment was very prevalent in the workplace, and often the pressure for female employees to have sex with a male superior, or suffer consequences, was very strong.

I was told that many female workers did succumb to these pressures just to keep their jobs so they could have a roof over their head.

BTW, I refused, and paid dearly, by having various false accusations brought against me for refusing to “sleep with the boss.”!
Understand… but that was nonconsensual… most of today’s sexual promiscuity consensual. Although there are still plenty of nonconsensual stuff going on too… A friend of mines15 year old son said he’s had 15 “hook-ups” his freshman year of high school. So sad. Irreparable damage is being done to these poor ignorant souls. He’s in military school now.

Either way… not good… The CCC and Humanae Vitae are excellent guides for what is and isn’t acceptable sexual behavior, or in the case of the Church, unitive love. And it all boils down to one man, one woman, married, open to life with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Anything else is problematic.

Not to say that women who are coerced are responsible. That’s a difficult position to be in. Many men are scoundrels. Very weak actually. It was cultural then too. Just a very different culture. People seem to confuse unconditional love with absolute power. What they want is unconditional love. What they get is the result of exploiting power and can not possibly be satisfying.
 
The cultural changes culminating today began over a century ago. Paul Ricoeur makes an excellent argument that the philosophies of Nietzche, Freud and Marx fundamentally changed the way people think and have in many ways functioned as inoculations against faith in Christianity.

It’s an argument that has a lot of merit. Philosophical change takes a lot of time to noticeably change a culture. Catholics should learn more about the way that the thinking of these men profoundly changed western civilization for the worse. If for no other reason than to be aware of how they’ve affected us so we can notice and fight back within our own minds.
 
Those who argue that the moral realm of today is actually better than previously aren’t looking at the philosophy of things, just the superficial metrics. Yes, it’s a MUCH better time today to be black or to be a woman. But have those achievements occurred because of the abandonment of an earlier underlying cultural ethic or did they occur because holding to that ethic finally addressed an incompatible cultural practice in conflict with that ethic.

To me, the fact that our culture has little problem rationalizing abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell experimentation says that we certainly have NOT achieved a new ethic more likely to recognize the innate dignity of man. On the contrary, we’ve begun to ignore the dignity of persons whom we USED to recognize. That’s backsliding, not ongoing progress. Women and black people shouldn’t take much comfort in the fact that they are perhaps the LAST of marginalized people who will be liberated by the philosophical worldview of Christianity in which all are recognized as created in the image and likeness of God. As we move further into utilitarian based ethics, don’t be surprised when more and more sorts of people are moved off the “valuable persons” list.
 
Those who argue that the moral realm of today is actually better than previously aren’t looking at the philosophy of things, just the superficial metrics. Yes, it’s a MUCH better time today to be black or to be a woman. But have those achievements occurred because of the abandonment of an earlier underlying cultural ethic or did they occur because holding to that ethic finally addressed an incompatible cultural practice in conflict with that ethic.

To me, the fact that our culture has little problem rationalizing abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell experimentation says that we certainly have NOT achieved a new ethic more likely to recognize the innate dignity of man. On the contrary, we’ve begun to ignore the dignity of persons whom we USED to recognize. That’s backsliding, not ongoing progress. Women and black people shouldn’t take much comfort in the fact that they are perhaps the LAST of marginalized people who will be liberated by the philosophical worldview of Christianity in which all are recognized as created in the image and likeness of God. As we move further into utilitarian based ethics, don’t be surprised when more and more sorts of people are moved off the “valuable persons” list.
OK, I can agree with some of this. But the fact is that the OP is talking about how people were treated on an “everyday” basis, not just the philosophical differences. He wanted to know about meeting someone for the first time, for example. Saying that a black person meeting a white person would have been given almost no respect in 1890 isn’t talking about “superficial metrics”. It’s answering the question accurately.

While the 19th century may have treated the unborn and the aged more kindly than the 21st, that doesn’t mean it was a better time overall. Society has never treated everyone equally, and we might as well admit that. It’s awful that we can’t seem to respect one group without hurting another marginalized group, but that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to trade abortion and euthanasia for slavery and women-as-property.
 
We’re talking about the 20th Century. Catholics, and people in general, trusted each other more. Like I wrote, we did not lock our doors at night. The OP wants answers? Here are some that convey what we need to hear, and do.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599

amazon.com/Noise-Media-saturated-Dominates-Dismantles-Families/dp/1932927948/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393367811&sr=1-1&keywords=noise+tomeo

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393367857&sr=1-1&keywords=extreme+makeover+tomeo

Deception and lies from outsiders who wanted it all to be their dysfunctional way. Look at how the media exploits and degrades people. And here’s what dissenters inside the Church were doing during the time period after Vatican II concluded:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

Making Vatican II the scapegoat is another lie.

Peace,
Ed
 
It’s awful that we can’t seem to respect one group without hurting another marginalized group, but that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to trade abortion and euthanasia for slavery and women-as-property.
I wouldn’t ask you to. It took appallingly long, but the reason that society eventually GOT to the point where slavery was abolished and women recognized as equal in dignity was because the earlier practices were long standing legacies of barbarism. It was the cognitive dissonance of a culture that SAID it believed in the God of Christianity who made all in His image, but acted inconsistently with that stated belief that eventually undermined those barbaric attitudes. It’s a mark of how grave Original Sin is that it took millennia to outgrow those societal flaws.

It’s my assertion that had society KEPT holding to that set of values, we’d have continued to make progress in eliminating unjust practices and attitudes. But we didn’t. Instead we abandoned the principle of the dignity of man rooted in being made in the image and likeness of God and instead adopted the dignity of man based on his measurable characteristics (various forms of utilitarianism). THAT’s why we’re backsliding and losing value for persons previously recognized as worthy of protection.

It’s not an either / or situation. On the course we’re on, we’ll eventually demean and devalue MORE human beings. The unborn and the elderly / infirm are just the beginning.

The natural comeback, of course, is to argue that it’s the Christians that are trying to demean and devalue gay people. They might even have a point. All too many Christians HAVE made the mistake of denigrating gay PEOPLE instead of merely the sinful behavior. That reality is one of the most effective arguments made by the gay rights activists. Ironically, they’re proceeding down the exact same path of denouncing the people who oppose their agenda rather than criticizing the reasoning behind it. The world is full of irony…
 
I wouldn’t ask you to. It took appallingly long, but the reason that society eventually GOT to the point where slavery was abolished and women recognized as equal in dignity was because the earlier practices were long standing legacies of barbarism. It was the cognitive dissonance of a culture that SAID it believed in the God of Christianity who made all in His image, but acted inconsistently with that stated belief that eventually undermined those barbaric attitudes. It’s a mark of how grave Original Sin is that it took millennia to outgrow those societal flaws.

It’s my assertion that had society KEPT holding to that set of values, we’d have continued to make progress in eliminating unjust practices and attitudes. But we didn’t. Instead we abandoned the principle of the dignity of man rooted in being made in the image and likeness of God and instead adopted the dignity of man based on his measurable characteristics (various forms of utilitarianism). THAT’s why we’re backsliding and losing value for persons previously recognized as worthy of protection.

It’s not an either / or situation. On the course we’re on, we’ll eventually demean and devalue MORE human beings. The unborn and the elderly / infirm are just the beginning.

The natural comeback, of course, is to argue that it’s the Christians that are trying to demean and devalue gay people. They might even have a point. All too many Christians HAVE made the mistake of denigrating gay PEOPLE instead of merely the sinful behavior. That reality is one of the most effective arguments made by the gay rights activists. Ironically, they’re proceeding down the exact same path of denouncing the people who oppose their agenda rather than criticizing the reasoning behind it. The world is full of irony…
I think your analysis is sensible. Maybe not what the OP had in mind, but a good analysis nonetheless.

So if we want the world to actually be even better than it was, what we need to do is focus on the inherent dignity that each and every human being has. It’s so simple, and so exactly what the church teaches- but unfortunately, it’s the very thing that both right and left so often seem to fail at. 😦
 
So if we want the world to actually be even better than it was, what we need to do is focus on the inherent dignity that each and every human being has. It’s so simple, and so exactly what the church teaches. 😦
TRUE…

But then we get into analysis to provide explanations… which become excuses… which become justifications…

The fact is, simple is hard.
 
Specifically I am talking about Western culture and the dramatic changes in morals, values, etc. I’m sure that you all know what exactly I have in mind even if I can’t express it very clearly. How did everything change? Were things much better in the past in terms of how people lived and interacted with each other? I’d like some perspective from those who know more about it.

Personally, there’s much that I can’t stand, and I feel disconnected from most people because of it. The standards or interaction seem so barbaric and depraved. Cordiality and genuineness are almost to be eschewed as a rule. Instead, coarseness of language is vulgarity of subject matter is to be expected. Thus, outside of close friends and family, I have trouble getting along with people and I’m mostly labeled as anti-social.

How does everyone else feel about it? How were things in the past, for instance what could you expect from meeting someone for the first time? And how do you deal with a culture that seems to hate everything that is beautiful?
Dear smndtupidisaftr,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for raising this important topic.

Whilst it is certainly true that we must exercise some caution as regards looking back to the past with rose-tinted spectacles (cf. Ecclesiastes 7: 10), it is equally true that we must not be blindly sanguine respecting the present age. In the last century we sadly witnessed unprecedented moral and cultural deterioration, following the permissive revolution of the Sixties. Sadly, however, owing to the destructive influence of moral relativism, many expend much energy minimizing this moral/cultural declension - including many who identify as Catholics. Many have been negatively influenced even unwittingly.

So great, dear friend, has been the impact of moral relativism that whenever a man appeals to more sober and God-fearing times he is accused of crying up the goodness of the past whilst choosing to close his eyes to its less desirable features. This is usually a straw man and seldom the case anyway, for most reasonable men would freely acknowledge that all ages have been imperfect in some respects. However, what one can say without fear of contradiction is that prior to the permissive revolution of the Sixties and the consequent diminuition of the Christian consciousness men generally did walk in the good way and did not transgress the boundaries of good taste and decency. Incontrovertably, there was not the deplorably bad coarsening of manners, the shameful decriminalization and acceptance of homosexual vice and the spurious egalitarianism that seeks to blur the God-given distinctions between the sexes. Moreover, whilst birth control certainly existed before the 1960’s, its use was accelerated with the advent of the pill, resulting in widespread fornication and unions outside of holy wedlock. Again, what used to be referred to as ‘gentlemanly behaviour’ has also gradually disappeared, such as, for example, opening a door for a woman or offering her your seat on a crowded bus or train, because she is the ‘weaker sex’ and thus deserving of such consideration. Film and television in the decades before the Sixties was, for the most part, wholesome fare and even reinforced the moral virtues. Today the entertainment industry is ever seeking to push the envelope so as to keep pace with the debased tastes of our times Thus it is hardly surprising that our present age and its morally degenerate culture despises “everything that is beautiful” and employs such terms as ‘corny’ and ‘cheesy’ to describe the wholesome films/tv programmes of times past. This only serves to show the level to which we have stooped; we prefer anti-hero’s to the so called ‘cardboard characters’ of the older films and television shows. Men prefer moral ambiguity to moral absolutes and an ungodly mindset where everybody is right and nobody is wrong. Moreover, what is so very sad is that men actually believe that we are more enlightened and grown up and no longer need the values and taboos of the older world!

Perhaps, dear friend, in light of our tragic moral and cultural deterioration we ought to covet the undoubted goodness of former times and lament its passing a great deal more than we are wont to do. It is fashionable to focus exclusively upon racial and female oppression when speaking of the past but this is leads to unbalanced discussion and eclipses the very many merits of former times. Within Catholic circles, especially amongst the youth, there is a morbid fear of being ‘overscrupulous’ as regards morality and standards and this can be a lame excuse for not having to live up to the arduous demands f our most holy religion. Moreover, there is a knee-jerk reaction against ‘Puritanism’ or Jansenism (its Catholic equivalent), which distorts thinking about all moral standards of the past. Again this has more to do with the sad fact that many of the faithful have succumbed to the secular drift and lowered standards of our age.

Finally, dear friend, let me say in closing that I greatly fear for our youth because the avante-garde generation of the Sixties have discarded the good traditions and morality that were informed by a healthy Christian consciousness. It admits of no serious no doubt that these wholesome traditions engendered a more God-fearing and civil society. How unfortunate that there is an assumption nowadays that if something is old then it must necessarily be suspect or worthless, which not only evinces a closed-mind but also is clear evidence that the past is seen as something to be feared as it plainly rebukes what men now find acceptable and normal.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos
 
Portrait,

:eek:, amazing response, thanks for your insight. 👍

And thanks to everyone else for the responses. It has been great so far.
 
OK, I can agree with some of this. But the fact is that the OP is talking about how people were treated on an “everyday” basis, not just the philosophical differences. He wanted to know about meeting someone for the first time, for example. Saying that a black person meeting a white person would have been given almost no respect in 1890 isn’t talking about “superficial metrics”. It’s answering the question accurately.

While the 19th century may have treated the unborn and the aged more kindly than the 21st, that doesn’t mean it was a better time overall. Society has never treated everyone equally, and we might as well admit that. It’s awful that we can’t seem to respect one group without hurting another marginalized group, but that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to trade abortion and euthanasia for slavery and women-as-property.
I have to take a few issues with this. First, you have blacks like Frederick Douglass, a former slave, who was treated with the utmost respect even before the Civil War! Sure, racism was rampant, but I’m not arguing that everything was perfect in the past either. And it’s not like we’re past racism even today. I can point to how bad racism is among minority groups, but it’s not PC to talk about.

Furthermore, women as property? Give me a break. That wasn’t true since around the days of the Roman Empire. That’s when women were treated as property. The life of a woman in the early 20th century was comparatively not bad at all. And are we going to argue that things are better for women today? It seems like women get lambasted for being feminine today, which is real bigotry.
 
I have to take a few issues with this. First, you have blacks like Frederick Douglass, a former slave, who was treated with the utmost respect even before the Civil War! Sure, racism was rampant, but I’m not arguing that everything was perfect in the past either. And it’s not like we’re past racism even today. I can point to how bad racism is among minority groups, but it’s not PC to talk about.

Furthermore, women as property? Give me a break. That wasn’t true since around the days of the Roman Empire. That’s when women were treated as property. The life of a woman in the early 20th century was comparatively not bad at all. And are we going to argue that things are better for women today? It seems like women get lambasted for being feminine today, which is real bigotry.
It took until 1993 for marital rape to be criminalized in all 50 states. So for 93% of the 20th century, there was at least one place in the States where you could rape your wife without criminal sanction. It wasn’t even banned in a single state until the 1970’s. We’re talking about rape here.

For about 19% of the 20th century, women could not vote in the United States.

64% of the century had gone by before employers were barred from discriminating against women in the U.S.

66% of the century had gone by before the U.S. government accepted its responsibility to provide equal educational and employment opportunities for women.

73% of the century had gone by before the first sexual harassment case was heard in the United States.
And are we going to argue that things are better for women today? It seems like women get lambasted for being feminine today, which is real bigotry
So, in the 20th century there’s the marital rape, employment discrimination, unequal educational opportunities, political disenfranchisement and sexual harassment. But then again in the 21st century, some women are criticized because they are “too feminine.”

Are we going to argue that things are better for women today? Gee golly, that is a tough call.
 
I have to take a few issues with this. First, you have blacks like Frederick Douglass, a former slave, who was treated with the utmost respect even before the Civil War! Sure, racism was rampant, but I’m not arguing that everything was perfect in the past either. And it’s not like we’re past racism even today. I can point to how bad racism is among minority groups, but it’s not PC to talk about.

Furthermore, women as property? Give me a break. That wasn’t true since around the days of the Roman Empire. That’s when women were treated as property. The life of a woman in the early 20th century was comparatively not bad at all. And are we going to argue that things are better for women today? It seems like women get lambasted for being feminine today, which is real bigotry.
If you think that because there was one black person who some people respected, that the average black person’s quality of life was even comparable to today, you are wrong. I certainly don’t think we’re past racism (mainly against PoC, mind you), but it’s much better now than it was a hundred years ago.

As far as the futures of women are concerned: I intend to become a microbiologist. I probably won’t marry anytime soon. I don’t have a father or even a mother who’s able to take care of me (and that’s purely due to medical difficulties that would have happened in the 20th century, too), so as soon as I finish college, I’ll probably be going it alone. Lucky for me, there’s government aid to help kids with no money or assets go to college.

If I’m living in 1910, my options are probably 1) get married, 2) join a convent, 3) work a very very low-paying job that I can barely live on, or 4) stick with my current caregivers. That may not technically be “women as property”, but I hope you can see how it very much limits my autonomy.

I have no illusions that the 21st century path is easy, but at least it exists. And hey, perks like being able to vote in the next election and having sexual assault be taken somewhat seriously are nice, too. Plus, just due to our increased knowledge of psychology, I and the rest of my family can get help for things like depression and anxiety, which can be life-changing. Meanwhile, I’ve only rarely been personally ridiculed for being too feminine or too masculine (although I would agree that the culture often ascribes less value to feminine qualities).

Is there a lot we can improve? Absolutely. Are there areas where we’ve gone backwards? Absolutely. But all in all, on a personal level, I think I’m better off in this time period than in almost any other. I do like the idea of time travel, but I can’t echo your sentiment that things were better last century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top