or from the middle out?
IN the thread about fixing America I mentioned this and was encouraged to start a thread.
That thread is filled with suggestions to change laws but IMHO laws change for the better when people make a determination to act morally, according to the best dictates of their conscience, and in line with certain values. That means for a society to progress people must have the will to progress morally and push for a change in values.
Consider civil rights as an example. From an idea of social justice concepts seeped into the consciousness of people over a period of generations until those ideas gained enough momentum to produce action and eventually change society.
If a change in society is brought about by a change in consciousness then does that change travel from the bottom up to leaders through the insistence and persistence of the idea among the masses, or does change travel from moral leaders bringing positive ideas to the the masses? Another possibility that just occurred to me is morals developing from the middle out. The working middle class that can communicate to both the poor and to leaders.
My own theory, subject to other information, is that morality and values travel from the middle out , but need some sort of leadership vehicle to coalesce.
The idea within our consciousness will seek and/or create leaders.
I would agree with you that they start in the middle with the middle class. The vast majority of “ordinary Americans” who are wealthy enough and comfortable enough to not have a “do whatever you have to in order to survive” mentality and yet not wealthy enough where they are disconnected and living in a world of their own creation.
Poor people are forced to place their own survival ahead of morals and values or they adopt the values and morals of the middle class in order to integrate with them. Or they are poor because they reject middle class values and find themselves unemployed or underemployed.
Wealthy people can afford to ignore much of middle class morality and values. They can go on three day sex and drug binges. They can act like jerks or get coked up and crash their car into a tree. Doesn’t matter because they have the money to deal with the consequences.
IOW, morals and values are created by the people who by necessity must interact with each other in a successful and productive manner.
The people with the loudest bullhorn are the people who get the mass moving for change, be it for good or for ill.
In 1950 that was the top, with their organized mass media. In 2010 they still exist but now there is the middle-out effect of bloggers, yuotube and such. Over the long haul, I can’t say for sure.
My guess, and this is just a guess, is that things go from the extremes to the middle. I tend to view situations like this in terms of interrelated systems. The top and bottom each share an important role. The bottom often starts some kind of change. After a while, the top sees this change and takes action. That action reinforces the bottom, which then leads to more change at the top. The most reasonable and palatable of the new ideas end up in the center.
Edit - the terms top and bottom do not refer to class. Rather, top are agents of change and bottom are those impacted by the change. Middle is then society overall.
You make some good points. I think the very poor do worry about survival although the “poor but honest” thing is true in many cases. It’s pften the poor that are attracted to moral causes.
I know wealthy people {very upper middle class wealthy} who also have a strong sense of morality. The wealthy can do a lot with their resources but I suppose the question is how much they do compared to the resources available.
I appreciate that last point. Morals changed by the necessity of interaction. Very interesting.