**
Pope Hubbard would be so proud.
I would not say that American culture has become more irrational, I would say that American culture has never been rational to begin with. The bulk people (say 80% for grins) from all societies, cultures, and countries, from the dawn of time to any Galactic Empire of the future, tend to disdain rationality and embrace emotionalism. This means that culture brims with fools, blithering idiots and dapper idiots, flakes and floozies, religious cranks and philosophical clowns, right-wing dunderheads and left-wing dunderheads and all other dunderheads in-between; they don’t want to think for themselves but they are happy to think for you: their opinions, so they will tell you ad infinitum, are good enough for you. Some will blast car stereos for your musical erudition, others will cheer at professional sports, some will talk about their UFO abduction, others will become dedicated followers of fashion, some think tattoos and lip rings and blue hair are cool, others want sex sex sex sex and more sex, and none will willingly use their reason to escape their delusions of adequacy. They will lie to themselves about themselves, then lie to you and believe their own lies.
The problem with modern culture is not the increase of irrationality, but the increase of visibility, comminations, and literacy. Television, movies, books, and all other media only give what people are willing to pay for; and people overwhelmingly choose to pay for irrational dribble: whither it is the hot new flick staring Bonehead Toothy-Gin or Blondie Skinny-Butt, next year’s Stuperbowl, or the latest song form a rant-and-rut band. Tastes have not change much since the Romans gave the plebeians bread and circuses, only the form is different. Then there is the irrationality of the holier-than-thou sects who chant about deviltry and sin…. You can’t escape the irrationality of culture because it assaults your from every TV, all the newspapers and magazines, and billboards on the highways.
What’s a rational person supposed to do then? Living like a hermit is one answer, I suppose, but I like electricity and indoor plumbing too much for that at this point in my life. Turning off the boob tube and keeping it off helps. But most of all, I would say, is simply learning ignore the irrationality of cultural junk, laughing at all that is trendy and foolish, and seeking the small inklings of talent, truth, and quality that can be found.
?
I’m not sure how this is “on the other hand” in respect to my post. Dr. Graham’s dietary philosophy included many elements that we consider intelligent today- avoiding too much red meat, getting plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, avoiding white bread in favor of wheat, etc. (There’s a Cecil column about him in the archives.) But at the time most people considered his philosophy just plain wacky. Likewise, the “Free Love” movement of the 19th century was combating a much more strict morality in regards to sex and marriage than the one of the 20th century.
As for ‘increased polarization’: I think the abortion debate- possibly one of the most polarized- is incredibly civil when compared to the slavery debate of the mid 19th century. Haven’t seen any canings in the Senate over the issue. No politician has been bodily grabbed from his podium and pulled to a tree for a lynching*. Heck, even the deaths of abortion-providing doctors pales when compared to Bloody Kansas and John Brown’s attempted slave uprising.
I will agree with Izzy, though, that increased population is a factor; I’ll also build upon that by saying that increased population density is a factor. Used to be that the crazies would gather themselves together and go off into the wilderness to start their own town/commune/Utah**. That’s not nearly as possible these days (though it still seems to happen occasionally in Idaho and Montana) with so much population spread; therefore, the crazies live among us, and we have to deal with them more often than earlier Americans did.
*Andrew Johnson, making a speaking tour through Virginia in 1860, was grabbed from the train platform he was speaking at and nearly lynched; the only thing that stopped him from being swung from an apple tree was that some crowd member pointed out that the ‘honor’ of lynching him should be left to his native state of Tennessee. The crowd agreed, and Johnson was spared.
** I’m sorry; that was a cheap joke. It was just too easy to make given the conversation. Rest assured that I do not consider Mormons any crazier than I consider the adherents of any other religion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Corrado *
**
It’s “on the other hand” in respect to the paragraph that preceded it, which was a counterpoint to your post.
Right. Sorry.
Let me reinterpret my confusion, then.
Which doesn’t dispute my thesis at all; my examples of Graham and Free Lovers are people who wouldn’t be considered that far off base today (Graham’s food proposals would be seen as nothing special; his polemics about masturbation would be seen as pretty repressed, but we’re a pretty repressed culture when it comes to masturbation), but were considered way wacky for their time.
By that same token, Fred Phelps would be considered pretty normal for the 19th Century, but seems way wacky today.
This quote brought to mind David Goodman Croly’s and George Wakeman’s Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the White Man and the Negro.
Printing a pamphlet calling for large scale interratial breeding to raise anger against the abolitionist movement and then denouncing it in their paper, the New York World, was a diabolical ploy. Journalistic ethics seem to have progressed a lot since 1863.
Far from American culture being irrational, I’d say the root of the problem is that we’ve become steeped in rationality–as the term is used in political science, anyway, to mean “acting in concordance with one’s own self-interest.” The kicker, though, is that this rationality is invariably short-term–more and more, we make choices which we hope will result in our immediate (and usually material) benefit, with little regard for larger consequences. To this end, freedom of product choice–one of the simplest of rational acts–has been elevated out of all proportion, and “consumer” has become synonymous with, and superior to, “citizen.” One effect of this has been the deterioration of community; another, a societal disposition towards money as an end rather than a means. Has anyone here read Juliet Schor? Speaking of the evolution of American government, Lewis Lapham says this:
It’s equally applicable when referring to culture, rather than politics.
John: Once again, I find myself in agreement with your posts. At a conference last year, I presented a paper entitled Politics as Usual, which made many of the same points (albeit focused more narrowly, on the contentions of a particular book regarding partisan combat and electoral politics). Basically, the thrust was that things are a lot more like they used to be than most people realize. One of the comments I make is that “any sense of the unique ascribed to contemporary politics, especially with regard to partisan conflict, must be considered minimal in the face of two centuries of headlines whose substance–institutional combat, accusations of scandal, recriminatory wars–is not readily distinguishable from that today.” In short, people better know their history before they start talking about how badly things have gone downhill. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Maeglin *
**
I simplified for the sake of brevity, and I wasn’t including the Empire after the split. If it hadn’t gone ‘pear-shaped’ by then, then I’m a cabbage
And, if I’m honest, I was trying to paint a particularly doom-and-gloom picture of American decline. Seemed like the obvious choice…
Um… who’s Fred Phelps, anyway?
astorian: He runs http://www.godhatesfags.com, and protests at the funerals of AIDS victims and gay-bashings, among other things.