Paying the price for the breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
From an article by Amy Wax and Larry Alexander

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.
. . . .
All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment.

Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.

These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all.

Full article
 
JimG said:
From an article by Amy Wax and Larry Alexander

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.
. . . .
All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment.

Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.

These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all.

Full article
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach
Click to expand...
That’s because many in the upper-middle class and above don’t observe the script themselves, which is rooted primarily in Judeo-Christian values here in the West or at the very least they don’t want to. Failing to adhere to the script themselves, they’ll slip down. But many in the ‘enlightened’ upper-middle class want to ensure everyone else below them also go down with them so relatively they are still above the rest. Plus larger amounts of inherited wealth doesn’t hurt too in maintaining this.
JimG said:
Naturally, after this piece was published, half the faculty at Penn Law signed a letter denouncing their colleague Amy Wax for her recent op-ed column decrying the loss of bourgeois values like self-discipline and commitment to marriage. They didn’t offer a counter argument, just denounced her for wrong thinking.

theamericanconservative.com/dreher/jonathan-haidt-amy-wax-penn-law/
Click to expand...
By ‘equal opportunity’, what some really mean is a lowering of education standards because some don’t want to teach, some think feeling good is all that matters. Giving students a high quality education may form an electorate that will question the elite like these professors. We can’t have that.
The elite want to remain elite.
Let’s not forget why the family is important and why these professors seek to destroy it. As the journalist Peter Hitchens wrote in his book The Abolition of Britain:
The greatest fortress of human liberty, proof against all earthly powers, is the family. In its small private space, it can defy the will of authority and the might of wealth. It is without doubt the most effect means of passing lore, culture, manners and traditions down through the generations. Its loyalties are stronger than those of the state, more powerful than patriotism. All serious tyrannies have sought to undermine or infiltrate it, socialist tyrannies most of all.
Destroying the family makes it more difficult to be independent so people will have to be reliant on the State. It’s about power and control.
 
I think that it should be first stated that a lot of this article is simply romanticizing the past, so I’m not totally sure how much of it is of value.

The article ignores the fact that the “degeneration” of our modern culture arises from the development of 21st century capitalism, which thankfully is helping us work towards the total abolition of the norms and identities this article supports. Capitalism cannot allow the return to traditional sexual norms and values while the commodification of sex is so profitable, and it is capitalism that destroyed the traditional family by forcing women into the labour force and out of a solely domestic existence. Capitalism necessarily maintains and enforces these oppressive notions of gender and sexual identity, but as it develops it increasingly calls them into question, makes them harder to accept as universal and natural truths. In the 1920s very few people would have been able to question their masculine identity as anything but natural and biological, but now masculinity is in crisis. Similarly it is the own inner workings of capitalism that has called into question the value of work, as people in the first world are forced into superflouous and unfulfilling jobs that lack any security or regiment to them. The value of the nation-state, particularly through the process of globalization and imperialism, is also called into question.

The point shouldn’t be to try and reinforce these identities and norms, the point should be to break with them entirely by breaking with capitalism. Rather than return to a time when everybody existed as male and female in a traditional household, we can break with the identities of male and female and with the family altogether. Nobody need exist as male or female and have any gendered or sexual expectations thrust upon them. Nation-states do not have to exist, and instead humankind can exist cooperatively as a global society of individual producers associating freely. The workplace can be abolished, and labour can exist in only a voluntary and non-coercive form. I think all of these things are more achievable for humanity than they ever have been before, as the conditions for their realization are present in our current society, which is increasingly calling all of these things into question.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I think that it should be first stated that a lot of this article is simply romanticizing the past, so I’m not totally sure how much of it is of value.

The article ignores the fact that the “degeneration” of our modern culture arises from the development of 21st century capitalism, which thankfully is helping us work towards the total abolition of the norms and identities this article supports. Capitalism cannot allow the return to traditional sexual norms and values while the commodification of sex is so profitable, and it is capitalism that destroyed the traditional family by forcing women into the labour force and out of a solely domestic existence. Capitalism necessarily maintains and enforces these oppressive notions of gender and sexual identity, but as it develops it increasingly calls them into question, makes them harder to accept as universal and natural truths. In the 1920s very few people would have been able to question their masculine identity as anything but natural and biological, but now masculinity is in crisis. Similarly it is the own inner workings of capitalism that has called into question the value of work, as people in the first world are forced into superflouous and unfulfilling jobs that lack any security or regiment to them. The value of the nation-state, particularly through the process of globalization and imperialism, is also called into question.

The point shouldn’t be to try and reinforce these identities and norms, the point should be to break with them entirely by breaking with capitalism. Rather than return to a time when everybody existed as male and female in a traditional household, we can break with the identities of male and female and with the family altogether. Nobody need exist as male or female and have any gendered or sexual expectations thrust upon them. Nation-states do not have to exist, and instead humankind can exist cooperatively as a global society of individual producers associating freely. The workplace can be abolished, and labour can exist in only a voluntary and non-coercive form. I think all of these things are more achievable for humanity than they ever have been before, as the conditions for their realization are present in our current society, which is increasingly calling all of these things into question.
Click to expand...
You will find not a few RCs here who embrace a somewhat similar analysis of the situation, as described in your first para.
 
I do think that the article romanticizes the past - it also seems to play down the positive societal changes that have come about since the 1940s. IMO, there is no such thing as a golden age, there are just people who manage to live right regardless of the spirit of the age.

The main difference I can see between the 1940s and now is that the veil of decency which hid both what it should and what it shouldn’t in society, has now been rendered almost completely transparent - revealing everything: the good, the bad and the ugly. For example, society seems to be fixated on dissecting every manner of behavior in the public square, including matters what in my mind belong in people’s bedrooms. On the opposite side of the coin, we do now bring sexual abuse out in the open so that it can be addressed; and domestic abuse is no longer simply considered a family’s private business.Yes, there are more out-of-wedlock births. On the other hand there is less shaming and injustice done to unwed mothers in the name of preserving decency. It’s a two-edged sword, but I for one prefer the light, even as I agree that there is such a thing as too much openness - particularly on social media.

If the 1940s were so great, and society so decent then, what accounts for the great chasm between civil rights today and what passed for civil rights back then? I think the human mind does a lot of rationalizing to support conclusions which sometimes have little historical basis. One only has to study history to know that in every age, we have lived with our great achievements right alongside our monumental failures. God made us good, yet human nature is what it is. Therein lies the contradiction. Better to face up to the good and bad about ourselves as societies and individuals - that, and not sanitizing the past - is the way to improving ourselves.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I think that it should be first stated that a lot of this article is simply romanticizing the past, so I’m not totally sure how much of it is of value.

The article ignores the fact that the “degeneration” of our modern culture arises from the development of 21st century capitalism, which thankfully is helping us work towards the total abolition of the norms and identities this article supports. Capitalism cannot allow the return to traditional sexual norms and values while the commodification of sex is so profitable, and it is capitalism that destroyed the traditional family by forcing women into the labour force and out of a solely domestic existence. Capitalism necessarily maintains and enforces these oppressive notions of gender and sexual identity, but as it develops it increasingly calls them into question, makes them harder to accept as universal and natural truths. In the 1920s very few people would have been able to question their masculine identity as anything but natural and biological, but now masculinity is in crisis. Similarly it is the own inner workings of capitalism that has called into question the value of work, as people in the first world are forced into superflouous and unfulfilling jobs that lack any security or regiment to them. The value of the nation-state, particularly through the process of globalization and imperialism, is also called into question.

The point shouldn’t be to try and reinforce these identities and norms, the point should be to break with them entirely by breaking with capitalism. Rather than return to a time when everybody existed as male and female in a traditional household, we can break with the identities of male and female and with the family altogether. Nobody need exist as male or female and have any gendered or sexual expectations thrust upon them. Nation-states do not have to exist, and instead humankind can exist cooperatively as a global society of individual producers associating freely. The workplace can be abolished, and labour can exist in only a voluntary and non-coercive form. I think all of these things are more achievable for humanity than they ever have been before, as the conditions for their realization are present in our current society, which is increasingly calling all of these things into question.
Click to expand...
Just too much here to take the time to question. Regular, keep reading and refining! all the best, Godspeed!
 
The Amy Wax article simply argues that some culturally encouraged behaviors are better suited to lead persons and societies into prosperity than others.

A culture that encourages a work ethic, discourages sexual promiscuity, encourages marriage and employment, just works better than a culture that encourages idleness,single parenthood, divorce, and drug use.

This seems obvious and unsurprising, and uncontroversial.

Encouragement of what used to be called ‘family values’ has worked to bring about stability and prosperity. Destruction of family values and the family itself has led to chaotic conditions.

None of this is a judgment that there was a golden age or that an age which practiced particular virtues was without its own vices. It’s just an examination of what works.

Jonathan Haidt’s defense of Amy Wax can be found here.
 
JimG said:
The Amy Wax article simply argues that some culturally encouraged behaviors are better suited to lead persons and societies into prosperity than others.

A culture that encourages a work ethic, discourages sexual promiscuity, encourages marriage and employment, just works better than a culture that encourages idleness,single parenthood, divorce, and drug use.

This seems obvious and unsurprising, and uncontroversial.

Encouragement of what used to be called ‘family values’ has worked to bring about stability and prosperity. Destruction of family values and the family itself has led to chaotic conditions.

None of this is a judgment that there was a golden age or that an age which practiced particular virtues was without its own vices. It’s just an examination of what works.

Jonathan Haidt’s defense of Amy Wax can be found here.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
I remember reading, a long time ago, that “Victorian England” was only “Victorian” within the middle class. The mores of the rich and poor alike were abominable, and in pretty much the same ways. Whether heartfelt or not, “middle class values” are pretty much a requirement for being middle class. The acquired habits of mind and activity are what allows a person to progress financially. So maybe the more prosperous (through their labor or inventiveness) are hypocritical in ways and at times. But hypocrisy has a worse rap than I think it often deserves. Why not act like a decent human being even if sometimes you’re not?
 
People mostly speak English in America.

That’s a French word.

So… yeah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top