I want to blend two previous threads here.
First, it is a hallmark of Millennialist discourse to redefine words in the middle, then use them in their new definitions, often as an ironic commentary on previous ideas in the discourse.
Second, the widespread public endorsement of homosexuality will continue to be a goal both fought for and fought over.
The two threads come together in the current reaction to California's passage of Proposition 8 which limits the definition of marriage to dual gender relationships only.
There is a cry among the proponents of same-gender marriage that the passage of Proposition 8 has removed the rights or affected the civil rights of homosexuals in California. This reasoning is based at least partly on the idea that, since the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that the right of marriage must be expanded to include same gender couples, there is a civil right to marriage that is being removed from same gender couples.
"Civil right" is usually defined as a right granted by the 13-15 amendments to the US Constitution. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and the 15th prohibits limitations on the voting rights of adult males. The only right possibly claimed to have been abridged by Proposition 8 would be those defined in the following clause from the 14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The way the argument in favor of same-gender marriage is usually framed implies that the right to marry has been taken away from homosexuals.
This is not true.
If there were laws that sifted homosexuals out of the equation before they were allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender, then there would be a civil rights issue. If, for example, a homosexual man and a lesbian woman chose to marry, and they were asked about their sexual orientation before the ceremony, then were forbidden to marry after confessing their homosexuality, then their civil rights will have been violated.
Marriage has always been defined as a dual-gender relationship, and only recently have modifiers begun to alter the meaning of the word (ie, "gay marriage"). Marriage has never been taken away from homosexuals; same-gender sexual relationships with the same sanction of marriage have only recently been considered and redefined to use the word "marriage."
The entire argument, therefore, is based on redefinition ("marriage," "civil right"), and not on a previously understood definition of either idea.
Related to redefinition are grammatical implications. "It is not a choice," is often say about "being gay." "Being" and "gay" are both redefined in this construct, but "it" is used as a pronoun without a specific antecedent. An argument then becomes impossible. How can the question of choice be debated when what "it" is is not clear?
The same tactic is used in discourse over abortion. The expression, "right to choose," is frequently used in public discourse of abortion, but "choose" is used as an intransitive verb, when the intention of both sides is that it is transitive--in other words, it requires the direct object "abortion" (also in its verbal form "to abort"). Do I believe in the "right to choose"? Of course, in the abstract who in the United States objects to the right of choice. Do I believe in the right to choose abortion, or the right to choose to abort a baby? There, the debate may become more productive.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Millenialist, Mormonism, and Prop 8
It's about time that I identify myself as a practicing, orthodox member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It was not my intention, at the beginning, to allow for the obvious confusion that would arise from a Latter-day Saint writing about Millennialism. I never intended for the trends that I choose to call "Millennialism" to be identified with the Mormon idea of the Millennium, or thousand-year reign of Christ. In fact, it would be better to draw a contrast.
I originally wanted to speak quietly, bridging as well as possible the gap between academic and popular writing, and point out motions that I have seen in American culture in the past thirty years. My academic background is in culture, the arts, and languages, and I believe that I am more than qualified to say, "I've noticed something interesting or different . . ." I expected that only a few of my friends will read this blog, but I confess that I'd hoped that, eventually, it might be heard by others. It's a fantasy, but it's one I share with many, I'm sure.
What has happened to make me explicitly insert my religion into personal academic and cultural meditations?
Proposition 8, the California Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
What is intersecting here is my feeling that it is very likely that a majority of Americans will accept same-gender marriage as normative within a generation, my sincere religious hope that it doesn't happen, and my sincere religious fear that--if it happens--it will be devastating to American life in less than a century.
The wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality is being nurtured through the schools. School children, especially in large urban areas, are carefully groomed by the schools to believe that homosexuality is not unnatural, and that, if two people truly love each other, they should be allowed to marry--or do anything that they deem essential to their sexual happiness. It is very unlikely that, given current movements in the schools, traditional marriage will be able to hold out on a national level. That coupled with the genuine appearance that same-gender marriage causes no (immediate) damage to a culture, will erode the resistance to it.
This, I think, will become one of the hallmarks of Millennialism. Traditional marriage will cease to exist as a cultural phenomenon in America.
I don't think it will go down without a fight, however, and I can easily see a second Civil War on this very issue. Constitutional crises, proposed national amendments, conventions, and political disorder could foreseeably come about in the near future.
Furthermore, within a hundred years if the traditional family continues to erode, or if it ceases to exist, it will very likely become necessary to legislate reproduction, much as is currently happening in China and Italy. Un-reproductive promiscuity will abound.
If there is no Civil War.
As a religionist, however, I am hopeful of many things. I am hopeful, for example, that Millennialism will end at the beginning of the true Millennium. I am hopeful that persecutions will galvanize support for traditional marriage (it is already happening), and that will delay the worst--perhaps indefinitely. I am hopeful that people will see reason in the current arguments, and can agree to disagree--even with love and acceptance of each other as individuals and human beings. I believe in miracles.
It was not my intention, at the beginning, to allow for the obvious confusion that would arise from a Latter-day Saint writing about Millennialism. I never intended for the trends that I choose to call "Millennialism" to be identified with the Mormon idea of the Millennium, or thousand-year reign of Christ. In fact, it would be better to draw a contrast.
I originally wanted to speak quietly, bridging as well as possible the gap between academic and popular writing, and point out motions that I have seen in American culture in the past thirty years. My academic background is in culture, the arts, and languages, and I believe that I am more than qualified to say, "I've noticed something interesting or different . . ." I expected that only a few of my friends will read this blog, but I confess that I'd hoped that, eventually, it might be heard by others. It's a fantasy, but it's one I share with many, I'm sure.
What has happened to make me explicitly insert my religion into personal academic and cultural meditations?
Proposition 8, the California Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
What is intersecting here is my feeling that it is very likely that a majority of Americans will accept same-gender marriage as normative within a generation, my sincere religious hope that it doesn't happen, and my sincere religious fear that--if it happens--it will be devastating to American life in less than a century.
The wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality is being nurtured through the schools. School children, especially in large urban areas, are carefully groomed by the schools to believe that homosexuality is not unnatural, and that, if two people truly love each other, they should be allowed to marry--or do anything that they deem essential to their sexual happiness. It is very unlikely that, given current movements in the schools, traditional marriage will be able to hold out on a national level. That coupled with the genuine appearance that same-gender marriage causes no (immediate) damage to a culture, will erode the resistance to it.
This, I think, will become one of the hallmarks of Millennialism. Traditional marriage will cease to exist as a cultural phenomenon in America.
I don't think it will go down without a fight, however, and I can easily see a second Civil War on this very issue. Constitutional crises, proposed national amendments, conventions, and political disorder could foreseeably come about in the near future.
Furthermore, within a hundred years if the traditional family continues to erode, or if it ceases to exist, it will very likely become necessary to legislate reproduction, much as is currently happening in China and Italy. Un-reproductive promiscuity will abound.
If there is no Civil War.
As a religionist, however, I am hopeful of many things. I am hopeful, for example, that Millennialism will end at the beginning of the true Millennium. I am hopeful that persecutions will galvanize support for traditional marriage (it is already happening), and that will delay the worst--perhaps indefinitely. I am hopeful that people will see reason in the current arguments, and can agree to disagree--even with love and acceptance of each other as individuals and human beings. I believe in miracles.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Debate in the new millennium, part 1
From at least the 1960s, post-modernists began a protracted battle to change the nature of debate so as to ensure outcomes.
It has come to be called "shouting down."
It began with the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s in which peaceful, non-violent means were used to move the question of civil rights for Americans of African descent in the United States. (There is a good argument that it began with Gandhi in the fight for Indian independence from Great Britain, and its seeds were sown in the American and French Revolutions and the writings of the American Transcendentalists, but I'm looking only to contrast current movement with post-modernism.)
"Shouting down," as a form of argument, is just what it says it is. If someone disagrees with you, you shout until they give up, then you declare yourself the winner. As often as not, you can make it appear as if you are correct, though no actual debate was held.
It has come to be called "shouting down."
It began with the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s in which peaceful, non-violent means were used to move the question of civil rights for Americans of African descent in the United States. (There is a good argument that it began with Gandhi in the fight for Indian independence from Great Britain, and its seeds were sown in the American and French Revolutions and the writings of the American Transcendentalists, but I'm looking only to contrast current movement with post-modernism.)
"Shouting down," as a form of argument, is just what it says it is. If someone disagrees with you, you shout until they give up, then you declare yourself the winner. As often as not, you can make it appear as if you are correct, though no actual debate was held.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Marriage in the new millennium (Marriage and California Proposition 8)
Marriage between a man and a woman (or between a man and women) has been the norm for every culture in human history that has lasted more than a brief time. Even cultures that freely accepted bisexuality, such as the ancient Greeks and Romans, reserved marriage for heterosexual relationships only.
Why?
First, because no culture can escape the hard biological fact that the human race must continue, and it cannot continue without heterosexual coupling. Male on male and female on female sexuality will never produce children.
It's true that scientific intervention may produce children without coitus, but even scientific intervention requires heterosexual cooperation. And without constant scientific intervention or proselytizing, a homosexual society will die out in one generation.
Second, because what we know from research, and what the ancients knew from experience, is that children do best when they are raised by both genders.
Children do not normally die or become serial killers, and most do not even become homosexual, when they are raised by same-gender couples. Still, all else being equal, it is best for human development that children be raised by two people of different genders. The evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, is overwhelmingly in favor of children’s need for bi-gender parents.
Finally, societal support of heterosexual marriage is necessary at least because heterosexual relationships are so difficult, especially when conception, pregnancy, and child-rearing are part of the mix.
For this reason, most cultures have created a variety of benefits (including ritual benefits, such as weddings, and biological benefits such as granting the right for sexual expression) to encourage and sustain heterosexual marriages.
Why not just support everyone's right to marry whomever they want?
First, because the philosophy of doing so is unsustainable. There must be a limit to the philosophy, and whenever the limit is invoked, the philosophy self-destructs.
In the Proposition 8 debate, one idea is that all consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want of whichever gender they want. That idea, however, includes limitations based on consent and age, while lifting only the limitation on gender; this, however, immediately limits the idea that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want.
If the only criterion for marriage is that people marry whom they want, the first, most logical step after same-gender marriage would be to allow polygamy, including same-gender polygamy. While heterosexual polygyny has its supporters (it, at least, produces children and has been practiced by respected individuals such as Abraham and Israel), hetero- or homosexual polyandry, or homosexual polygyny certainly could not be denied.
Given the philosophy that we should marry whomever we want, then why should incestuous marriage be forbidden among consenting adults? (The Romans allowed it.)
Clearly the philosophy doesn’t work past the immediate application; therefore, it annihilates itself.
Second, because marriage is not just between two people, it is a contract with all of humanity, including those as yet unborn.
In many cultures, the long-term consequences of marriage are so valued that the short-term needs of young couples are completely subjugated in favor of the community’s overall needs. In America, we have elevated love to an essential in marriage, but in many cultures it’s only something you may hope to grow into.
Ideally, marriage is born of mutual respect, affection, love, and interests; but lacking the ideal, marriage is still the best way to further the species. To reduce marriage to the mere wish-fulfillment of two people in love is to focus inward only, and to ignore the consequences on both society and posterity.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Redefinition and Proposition 8
First, I must openly state that I support California's Proposition 8 which will restore traditional marriage by defining it in the California Constitution as the union between a man and a woman.
What has precipitated the current debate over same-gender marriage in California is the California Supreme Court's overtly stated ruling that marriage must be redefined. The Supreme Court even suggests that the legislature may want to seek definitions that would allow domestic partnerships to be called marriages while still allowing religious groups to use a word that would distinguish their marriages from the more general type to be allowed by the state.
Since redefinition of a word to mean something vastly different from its original meaning is at the core of the debate over Proposition 8, I think that it would be useful to illuminate, at least, the shifting meanings of some key words associated with it, then explain how I plan to frame my own discourse.
Gay
"Gay" has long ceased to mean "happy or joyful." It almost always means "homosexual" as both a noun and an adjective. It usually means male homosexual, but it may include females, especially when it is used in a political context. The expression, "That's so gay," is considered hate speech because it usually implies the idea that something is bad, and it conveys that badness by associating it with homosexuality.
"Gay marriage" has come to mean same gender marriage. Because of its political connotations, I avoid its use. I prefer the more specific "same-gender marriage."
Homosexual, bisexual, homophobic
"Homosexual" as a noun ought to mean a person that has sexual relations exclusively with someone of the same gender. It is often used to refer to someone who has only desires for sexual relations with the same gender. I believe this latter definition is incorrect; homosexuality ought to refer to the actions not the desires of people.
Because "homosexual" frequently becomes a label for someone who desires sexual relations with the same gender, or who has physical characteristics that are stereotypically associated with homosexuals, the label is difficult. I am certain that it has the danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Homosexual" is often mistakenly used to mean "bisexual." "Homosexual" is exclusive same-gender sexuality; "bisexual" is non-exclusive; for political reasons, many bisexuals are called "gay" or "homosexual" when they have actually practiced bisexuality. People who marry the opposite gender and successfully conceive children should more properly be termed bisexual.
Bisexuality creates problems for those who would argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Bisexuality means choice, and those who suggest that people may choose their sexuality are usually shouted down. Furthermore, pederasts are frequently bisexuals, though homosexual apologists prefer to characterize them as heterosexuals.
"Homophobia" originally meant "unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." As long ago as 1992, a large US school district defined it as "intolerance of homosexuality." There is a vast difference between the two definitions, but the difference is rarely clarified.
Resolution
I think it's important to be specific when discussing the issue, and to avoid vague, multi-definitional words. I use "same-gender marriage" to refer to the proposed redefinition of marriage. I use "bi-gender marriage" to describe the historical marriage between man and woman. I prefer "same-gender attraction" when I refer to the condition that causes homosexuality.
If someone asks me if I'm homophobic, I ask them to define the word. Am I afraid, rationally or not, of homosexuals and homosexuality? No. Am I intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. I am intolerant of anything that is destructive of individuals or humanity, and homosexuality is destructive of both.
In the heat of rhetoric, it is important make sure what you agree to or disagree with is properly defined and very specific.
Frankly, it would be easier if meanings of such simple words as "marriage" would not change.
What has precipitated the current debate over same-gender marriage in California is the California Supreme Court's overtly stated ruling that marriage must be redefined. The Supreme Court even suggests that the legislature may want to seek definitions that would allow domestic partnerships to be called marriages while still allowing religious groups to use a word that would distinguish their marriages from the more general type to be allowed by the state.
Since redefinition of a word to mean something vastly different from its original meaning is at the core of the debate over Proposition 8, I think that it would be useful to illuminate, at least, the shifting meanings of some key words associated with it, then explain how I plan to frame my own discourse.
Gay
"Gay" has long ceased to mean "happy or joyful." It almost always means "homosexual" as both a noun and an adjective. It usually means male homosexual, but it may include females, especially when it is used in a political context. The expression, "That's so gay," is considered hate speech because it usually implies the idea that something is bad, and it conveys that badness by associating it with homosexuality.
"Gay marriage" has come to mean same gender marriage. Because of its political connotations, I avoid its use. I prefer the more specific "same-gender marriage."
Homosexual, bisexual, homophobic
"Homosexual" as a noun ought to mean a person that has sexual relations exclusively with someone of the same gender. It is often used to refer to someone who has only desires for sexual relations with the same gender. I believe this latter definition is incorrect; homosexuality ought to refer to the actions not the desires of people.
Because "homosexual" frequently becomes a label for someone who desires sexual relations with the same gender, or who has physical characteristics that are stereotypically associated with homosexuals, the label is difficult. I am certain that it has the danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Homosexual" is often mistakenly used to mean "bisexual." "Homosexual" is exclusive same-gender sexuality; "bisexual" is non-exclusive; for political reasons, many bisexuals are called "gay" or "homosexual" when they have actually practiced bisexuality. People who marry the opposite gender and successfully conceive children should more properly be termed bisexual.
Bisexuality creates problems for those who would argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Bisexuality means choice, and those who suggest that people may choose their sexuality are usually shouted down. Furthermore, pederasts are frequently bisexuals, though homosexual apologists prefer to characterize them as heterosexuals.
"Homophobia" originally meant "unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." As long ago as 1992, a large US school district defined it as "intolerance of homosexuality." There is a vast difference between the two definitions, but the difference is rarely clarified.
Resolution
I think it's important to be specific when discussing the issue, and to avoid vague, multi-definitional words. I use "same-gender marriage" to refer to the proposed redefinition of marriage. I use "bi-gender marriage" to describe the historical marriage between man and woman. I prefer "same-gender attraction" when I refer to the condition that causes homosexuality.
If someone asks me if I'm homophobic, I ask them to define the word. Am I afraid, rationally or not, of homosexuals and homosexuality? No. Am I intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. I am intolerant of anything that is destructive of individuals or humanity, and homosexuality is destructive of both.
In the heat of rhetoric, it is important make sure what you agree to or disagree with is properly defined and very specific.
Frankly, it would be easier if meanings of such simple words as "marriage" would not change.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Neo-Rococo in Art
I cite the following from Denis Howe’s Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing as a definition of the word “rococo,” when used as computer slang:
“Baroque in the extreme. Used to imply that a program has become so encrusted with the software equivalent of gold leaf and curlicues that they have completely swamped the underlying design. Called after the later and more extreme forms of Baroque architecture and decoration prevalent during the mid-1700s in Europe. Alan Perlis said: ‘Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble.’”
While I use “rococo” to refer to new trends in art, it is because of computers that art is able to be as complex as it is, so Howe’s definition is appropriate in both ways.
Think of watching a film in a digital format. Whereas formerly films were on film stock and could be viewed once in special viewings, or they were transferred to video where they could be viewed multiple times with poor resolution, now films may be viewed multiple times in high resolution with a variety of features intended to enhance the movie-watching experience or increase the salability of the disc.
Far more attention is paid to small details than ever before because filmmakers know that viewers are able to stop frames and clearly see and analyze backgrounds. Commentators add information to the film so that multiple viewings are intended to include knowledge gained from the commentary. Often, there are multiple levels of commentary from different people. Films may be viewed with portions edited out or previously deleted scenes reinserted. All of this creates a level of complexity--”gold leaf and curlicues”--that has either been undesirable or unattainable since the 1920s in architecture, and the 1700s in painting. Never before in film.
My wife owns a landscape, done by an Idaho artist on computer. At first glance, it looks like a high resolution photograph, but it is really a painting, and it is far more high resolution than a photograph could ever be. Leaves on trees in the far distance are perfectly executed; nothing is out of focus; and variations of the painting may be purchased with fewer or more elements, such as wildlife. The detail is overwhelming.
I may take a piece of music, digitally record it, transfer it to an editable format, use my computer to add portions that would be impossible to play live, and render the music with almost invisible seams. In the case of the music, the “performance” may actually be rococo, but I mean to suggest that the possibility of working in the music at the smallest, most delicate levels, not executed in real time, but heard in real time, makes the experience itself rococo. It has almost unlimited complexity.
Certainly this is likely in rebellion against the starkness of modernism or minimalism. It represents a decisive step away from post-modernism.
“Baroque in the extreme. Used to imply that a program has become so encrusted with the software equivalent of gold leaf and curlicues that they have completely swamped the underlying design. Called after the later and more extreme forms of Baroque architecture and decoration prevalent during the mid-1700s in Europe. Alan Perlis said: ‘Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble.’”
While I use “rococo” to refer to new trends in art, it is because of computers that art is able to be as complex as it is, so Howe’s definition is appropriate in both ways.
Think of watching a film in a digital format. Whereas formerly films were on film stock and could be viewed once in special viewings, or they were transferred to video where they could be viewed multiple times with poor resolution, now films may be viewed multiple times in high resolution with a variety of features intended to enhance the movie-watching experience or increase the salability of the disc.
Far more attention is paid to small details than ever before because filmmakers know that viewers are able to stop frames and clearly see and analyze backgrounds. Commentators add information to the film so that multiple viewings are intended to include knowledge gained from the commentary. Often, there are multiple levels of commentary from different people. Films may be viewed with portions edited out or previously deleted scenes reinserted. All of this creates a level of complexity--”gold leaf and curlicues”--that has either been undesirable or unattainable since the 1920s in architecture, and the 1700s in painting. Never before in film.
My wife owns a landscape, done by an Idaho artist on computer. At first glance, it looks like a high resolution photograph, but it is really a painting, and it is far more high resolution than a photograph could ever be. Leaves on trees in the far distance are perfectly executed; nothing is out of focus; and variations of the painting may be purchased with fewer or more elements, such as wildlife. The detail is overwhelming.
I may take a piece of music, digitally record it, transfer it to an editable format, use my computer to add portions that would be impossible to play live, and render the music with almost invisible seams. In the case of the music, the “performance” may actually be rococo, but I mean to suggest that the possibility of working in the music at the smallest, most delicate levels, not executed in real time, but heard in real time, makes the experience itself rococo. It has almost unlimited complexity.
Certainly this is likely in rebellion against the starkness of modernism or minimalism. It represents a decisive step away from post-modernism.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tribalism in the new millennium
I suggest that ad hoc tribalism is a distinctive feature of Millennialism. I would like to make a few observations and some explanation of what I mean.
Tribes are family groups in the largest sense. By 1968, the musical Hair had confirmed the idea of a tribe as an ideological family rather than a large biological one. The Tribe in Hair, a very post-modern group, unites against the Vietnam War and uses the live theatrical event in an attempt to motivate others to join. Joining then required groups to be formed in a variety of geographical locations.
Today tribal formations are also formed around a single idea, but they are comprised of widely scattered individuals, and proximity is not at all essential. Further, there appears to be no requirement for loyalty to the group outside the primary focus that brought the group together. Players in on-line games, for example, require no conformity to a single political viewpoint, only a loyalty to the game. Interest in author Stephenie Meyer’s website neither requires nor precludes an interest in Anne Rice, Brigham Young University, or vampires outside Meyer‘s own books, but a community has formed that may rapidly become a tribe. Orson Scott Card’s website allows users to collaborate in his writing.
Both in and outside the internet, groups form powerful ties around such things as trivial as an emerging musical group or things as profound as the upheaval over marriage.
In large issues, such as the question of whether or not to legalize same-gender marriage, groups coalesce from among widely divergent backgrounds. While these sorts of coalitions have been a part of the political landscape since the beginning of politics, they currently form in bonds that allow for the coalition to focus itself exclusively on the single issue without unnecessary distractions made by peripheral issues. Proponents of traditional marriage, for example, may rapidly create a coalition formed of Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and even some atheists, without ever having the varied groups confront each other in any self-identifying way. All intra-coalition communication may be done electronically, allowing the varied groups to bypass issues that may have broken such coalitions in the past. Diplomacy is unnecessary.
There is both convenience and danger in our current ability to form rapid connections. There are a number of issues, for example, around which a variety of coalitions have formed, that are so powerful that there can be no compromise on, and around which is formed a coalition so large that majority rule cannot gain sway. For the United States, abortion, homosexuality, and the forced secularization of society come to mind immediately. All three issues have engaged large constituencies, and coalitions of like-minded individuals and groups have joined together to the point of polarization in American elections.
I should note that there have always been factions in American politics. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton anticipated that and hoped for checks and balances to keep them from destroying the country. The difference now is that the factions and coalitions can form and reform so rapidly that there are no real checks and balances to stop them except other powerful coalitions which must form as quickly.
The changing face of the political scene can rapidly cause a reassembly on other lines, thus fracturing things further. Groups that band together against same-gender marriage may disintegrate on US/Israel policy, creationism in the schools, or whether or not Joseph Lieberman or Mitt Romney might have been viable candidates for president.
What is the best solution to a potentially explosive problem? The post-modern approach was to preach tolerance, but the tolerance of post-modernism was intolerance of tradition, and that has caused a retrenchment by a variety of traditionalists , many of whom are happy to have seen the demise of legislated racism and sexism, but oppose the encroachment of promiscuity and genderless culture. To believe that all human beings can be friends is not to believe that we should all be “friends with privileges.”
No solution can be found by using the post-modern tactics of winning debates by shouting down opponents or protesting them into submission. There must be a return to carefully reasoned discourse, which strongly implies that our current trend toward a post-literate society must be reversed. Carefully reasoned discourse has the capacity to reveal truth, and truth has the unique ability to save us from ourselves.
Tribes are family groups in the largest sense. By 1968, the musical Hair had confirmed the idea of a tribe as an ideological family rather than a large biological one. The Tribe in Hair, a very post-modern group, unites against the Vietnam War and uses the live theatrical event in an attempt to motivate others to join. Joining then required groups to be formed in a variety of geographical locations.
Today tribal formations are also formed around a single idea, but they are comprised of widely scattered individuals, and proximity is not at all essential. Further, there appears to be no requirement for loyalty to the group outside the primary focus that brought the group together. Players in on-line games, for example, require no conformity to a single political viewpoint, only a loyalty to the game. Interest in author Stephenie Meyer’s website neither requires nor precludes an interest in Anne Rice, Brigham Young University, or vampires outside Meyer‘s own books, but a community has formed that may rapidly become a tribe. Orson Scott Card’s website allows users to collaborate in his writing.
Both in and outside the internet, groups form powerful ties around such things as trivial as an emerging musical group or things as profound as the upheaval over marriage.
In large issues, such as the question of whether or not to legalize same-gender marriage, groups coalesce from among widely divergent backgrounds. While these sorts of coalitions have been a part of the political landscape since the beginning of politics, they currently form in bonds that allow for the coalition to focus itself exclusively on the single issue without unnecessary distractions made by peripheral issues. Proponents of traditional marriage, for example, may rapidly create a coalition formed of Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and even some atheists, without ever having the varied groups confront each other in any self-identifying way. All intra-coalition communication may be done electronically, allowing the varied groups to bypass issues that may have broken such coalitions in the past. Diplomacy is unnecessary.
There is both convenience and danger in our current ability to form rapid connections. There are a number of issues, for example, around which a variety of coalitions have formed, that are so powerful that there can be no compromise on, and around which is formed a coalition so large that majority rule cannot gain sway. For the United States, abortion, homosexuality, and the forced secularization of society come to mind immediately. All three issues have engaged large constituencies, and coalitions of like-minded individuals and groups have joined together to the point of polarization in American elections.
I should note that there have always been factions in American politics. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton anticipated that and hoped for checks and balances to keep them from destroying the country. The difference now is that the factions and coalitions can form and reform so rapidly that there are no real checks and balances to stop them except other powerful coalitions which must form as quickly.
The changing face of the political scene can rapidly cause a reassembly on other lines, thus fracturing things further. Groups that band together against same-gender marriage may disintegrate on US/Israel policy, creationism in the schools, or whether or not Joseph Lieberman or Mitt Romney might have been viable candidates for president.
What is the best solution to a potentially explosive problem? The post-modern approach was to preach tolerance, but the tolerance of post-modernism was intolerance of tradition, and that has caused a retrenchment by a variety of traditionalists , many of whom are happy to have seen the demise of legislated racism and sexism, but oppose the encroachment of promiscuity and genderless culture. To believe that all human beings can be friends is not to believe that we should all be “friends with privileges.”
No solution can be found by using the post-modern tactics of winning debates by shouting down opponents or protesting them into submission. There must be a return to carefully reasoned discourse, which strongly implies that our current trend toward a post-literate society must be reversed. Carefully reasoned discourse has the capacity to reveal truth, and truth has the unique ability to save us from ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)