Today, on a site I frequent, I’ve participated in a discussion about the “degradation of our society.” I disagree with the position that things were better in the past (the 1950’s being touted as the ideal to which we might once again aspire) and I stated my reasons for believing that the past was no more moral or admirable than the present.
If you know anything about history, you know that human beings have always had a tendency to idealize the past, to think that younger generations are screwing things up or that morals have declined. Hell, I’ve read translations of ancient Roman letters bitching about this very thing, and I’m sure cavemen grumbled that the younger generation of cavemen were losing respect for the ways of their elders. I just don’t buy it. People in the past were as morally corrupt and venal as we are today, and societal standards and laws were usually much more unjust than those we enjoy today. But when we face issues or challenges that we find painful, we tend to seek refuge in times we view as having been safer, purer… we look back with blinders on and see only those aspects of the past that comfort us or elevate us, and ignore the uncomfortable truths about what life was really like.
I don’t wish to post the words of anyone else involved in that discussion on the other site, because I won’t infringe on their privacy in that way. But the following is what I wrote, over the course of the two response I’ve made thus far.
————————————————————————————————
I don’t know if I’d say he’s in the minority. Since I disagree with some of his stated beliefs, it may be that I’m the one in the minority. <g> When he makes the argument that we are experiencing the degradation of society and backs it up by lauding the 1950’s as portrayed by the tv show Happy Days, I have to ask myself what on earth he’s thinking. He seems to think that it was a good thing that back then a girl who had sex before marriage was properly “punished” by getting a bad reputation (which always bugged the heck out of me, because that certainly wasn’t the case for the guys who had sex, was it?) I’m not an advocate of “all sex all the time and darn the consequences” by any means, and I hate to see kids entering into sexual relationships before they have the emotional maturity to deal with it and are in a committed relationship. But the double standard of the ’50’s was not a healthier place for women than the current era.
He also ignores the mighty fine morality of the ’50’s in which blacks and other minorities were routinely treated as less than human, and were often killed for being brave enough to stand up for their rights. The civil rights movement and the feminist movement both fought for the rights and freedoms of members of our society who were being oppressed, and even if we see more sexuality and strong language on tv now than in the days of Leave it to Beaver, I think we as a society are better off with the inequities and injustices addressed that we ignored during those “happy days” of the ’50’s he admires so much.
I think it’s very common to look back with nostalgia to the past and only see the good things, overlooking the unpleasant truths about those eras. There are rotten things and admirable things about any period of history, and it’s so tempting to see the past through rose-tinted glasses, because we’re in no danger of actually living in that period again. Even if technology begins to fail and our energy reserves are depleted, and our financial situation world-wide goes kerplooey, we won’t re-enter the past. We may need to return to the old concepts of doing with less, we may live more like our grandparents, but I doubt (hope) we won’t return to the days when black people are treated like they are worthless, or when women are second class citizens and don’t have the same freedoms as men. These are changes that we’ve made in our society for the better, and I don’t think it’s likely we’ll lose those strides forward.
Ack. I’m afraid Ive ranted, and I didn’t really mean to. I did find his blog interesting, even though I disagree with some of his conclusions. But then, I always get a kick out of reading or listening to what other people think, even if I disagree. It’s so invigorating to see people freely expressing their opinions; it’s one of the reasons why I love the internet. Sharing opinions and ideas leads to the stimulation of our minds and allows us to grow, don’t you think? Thanks for sharing the link, I enjoyed having a chance to find a new site to peek at once in a while!
(and the next post)
I may not be following you. The Frankfurt School certainly post-dates the fight against racial inequality in the US (since there were public figures even in the colonial era who spoke out for equal rights for blacks) and it also post-dates the fight for women’s equality, which dates back as long. I haven’t read the book you mentioned, although I’ll see if it’s available at the local library. But since it seems there is somewhat of an emphasis on Marxist theory, I don’t really understand the relevance to civil rights for minorities and women. Unless Martin Jay was equating the fight for those rights with Marxism? Since I haven’t read his book, I guess I just don’t know. But if that was his argument, can you fill me in a little on how he saw them as being similar? I don’t think trying to secure the right to vote or the right to be paid the same as a white male for doing the same job is Marxist…
I do know what you mean about parents of the ’50’s not having to tell their kids about some of the issues facing kids today. I was born in 1960, and I lived a sheltered life in many ways compared to my son, who is 22. On the other hand, I’m sure parents of black kids in those days had to spend considerable time teaching their kids how to not say or do anything that might get them lynched, for example, so not all parents or kids of that time had the luxury of avoiding unpleasant topics or discussions. And I can well remember my mom, who had four kids to support on her wages, coming home furious and crying because her boss told her that he “had” to pay the new guy almost twcie what Mom was making even though she’d been doing the same job for 10 years before the guy was hired because after all, he was a man with a family to support. What this boss thought her four kids were if not a family is anybody’s guess. Maybe he thought she should just find a new man to support us, whether she wanted a new husband or not? At any rate, I’d rather have to have serious discussions with my son about the pressure he might face to have sex before he is ready, or about drugs, or whatever, than to have to return to a time when I’d have to discuss why whole groups of American citizens are somehow less worthy of respect and rights than others.
