“Cultural Collapse”

Tablet recently had an interesting essay on the theme of “why did Trump win?”

The material-grievances theory and the cultural-resentments theory can fit together because, in both cases, they tell us that people voted for Trump out of a perceived self-interest, which was to improve their faltering economic and material conditions, or else to affirm their cultural standing vis-à-vis the non-whites and the bicoastal elites. Their votes were, from this standpoint, rationally cast. … which ultimately would suggest that 2016’s election was at least a semi-normal event, even if Trump has his oddities. But here is my reservation.

I do not think the election was normal. I think it was the strangest election in American history in at least one major particular, which has to do with the qualifications and demeanor of the winning candidate. American presidents over the centuries have always cultivated, after all, a style, which has been pretty much the style of George Washington, sartorially updated. … Now, it is possible that, over the centuries, appearances and reality have, on occasion, parted ways, and one or another president, in the privacy of his personal quarters, or in whispered instructions to his henchmen, has been, in fact, a lout, a demagogue, a thug, and a stinking cesspool of corruption. And yet, until just now, nobody running for the presidency, none of the serious candidates, would have wanted to look like that, and this was for a simple reason. The American project requires a rigorously republican culture, without which a democratic society cannot exist—a culture of honesty, logic, science, and open-minded debate, which requires, in turn, tolerance and mutual respect. Democracy demands decorum. And since the president is supposed to be democracy’s leader, the candidates for the office have always done their best to, at least, put on a good act.

The author (Paul Berman) then proposes Theory III: Broad Cultural Collapse:

 A Theory 3 ought to emphasize still another non-economic and non-industrial factor, apart from marriage, family structure, theology, bad doctors, evil pharmaceutical companies, and racist ideology. This is a broad cultural collapse. It is a collapse, at minimum, of civic knowledge—a collapse in the ability to identify political reality, a collapse in the ability to recall the nature of democracy and the American ideal. An intellectual collapse, ultimately. And the sign of this collapse is an inability to recognize that Donald Trump has the look of a foreign object within the American presidential tradition.

Berman is insightful until he blames cultural collapse on the educational system (those dastardly teachers just decided not to teach about George Washington, I guess.)

We can’t blame education. Very few people had many years of formal education of any sort back in 1776 or 1810–even in 1900, far fewer people completed highschool than do today. The idea that highschool civics class was more effectively teaching future voters what to look for in a president in 1815 than today therefore seems unlikely.

If anything, in my (admittedly limited, parental) interactions with the local schools, education seem to lag national sentiment. For example, the local schools still cover Columbus Day in a pro-Columbus manner (and I don’t even live in a particularly conservative area) and have special Veterans’ Day events. School curricula are, I think, fairly influenced by the desires of the Texas schools, because Texas is a big state that buys a lot of textbooks.

I know plenty of Boomers who voted for Trump, so if we’re looking at a change in school curricula, we’re looking at a shift that happened half a century ago (or more,) but only recently manifested.

That said, I definitely feel something coursing through society that I could call “Cultural Collapse.” I just don’t think the schools are to blame.

Yesterday I happened across children’s book about famous musicians from the 1920s. Interwoven with the biographies of Beethoven and Mozart were political comments about kings and queens, European social structure and how these musicians of course saw through all of this royalty business and wanted to make music for the common people. It was an articulated ideology of democracy.

Sure, people today still think democracy is important, but the framing (and phrasing) is different. The book we recently read of mathematicians’ biographies didn’t stop to tell us how highly the mathematicians thought of the idea of common people voting (rather, when it bothered with ideology, it focused on increasing representation of women in mathematics and emphasizing the historical obstacles they faced.)

Meanwhile, as the NY Times reports, the percent of Americans who think living in a Democracy is important is declining:

According to the Mounk-Foa early-warning system, signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.

Across numerous countries, including Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States, the percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a democracy has plummeted, and it is especially low among younger generations. …

Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.

That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.

Note, though, that this is not a local phenomenon–any explanation that explains why support for democracy is down in the US needs to also explain why it’s down in Sweden, Australia, Britain, and the Netherlands (and maybe why it wasn’t so popular there in the first place.)

Here are a few different theories besides failing schools:

  1. Less common culture, due to integration and immigration
  2. More international culture, due to the internet, TV, and similar technologies
  3. Disney

Put yourself in your grandfather or great-grandfather’s shoes, growing up in the 1910s or 20s. Cars were not yet common; chances were if he wanted to go somewhere, he walked or rode a horse. Telephones and radios were still rare. TV barely existed.

If you wanted to talk to someone, you walked over to them and talked. If you wanted to talk to someone from another town, either you or they had to travel, often by horse or wagon. For long-distance news, you had newspapers and a few telegraph wires.

News traveled slowly. People traveled slowly (most people didn’t ride trains regularly.) Most of the people you talked to were folks who lived nearby, in your own community. Everyone not from your community was some kind of outsider.

There’s a story from Albion’s Seed:

During World War II, for example, three German submariners escaped from Camp Crossville, Tennessee. Their flight took them to an Appalachian cabin, where they stopped for a drink of water. The mountain granny told them to git.” When they ignored her, she promptly shot them dead. The sheriff came, and scolded her for shooting helpless prisoners. Granny burst into tears, and said that she wold not have done it if she had known the were Germans. The exasperated sheriff asked her what in “tarnation” she thought she was shooting at. “Why,” she replied, “I thought they was Yankees!”

And then your grandfather got shipped out to get shot at somewhere in Europe or the Pacific.

Today, technology has completely transformed our lives. When we want to talk to someone or hear their opinion, we can just pick up the phone, visit facebook, or flip on the TV. We have daily commutes that would have taken our ancestors a week to walk. People expect to travel thousands of miles for college and jobs.

The effect is a curious inversion: In a world where you can talk to anyone, why talk to your neighbors? Personally, I spend more time talking to people in Britain than the folks next door, (and I like my neighbors.)

Now, this blog was practically founded on the idea that this technological shift in the way ideas (memes) are transmitted has a profound effect on the kinds of ideas that are transmitted. When ideas must be propagated between relatives and neighbors, these ideas are likely to promote your own material well-being (as you must survive well enough to continue propagating the idea for it to go on existing,) whereas when ideas can be easily transmitted between strangers who don’t even live near each other, the ideas need not promote personal survival–they just need to sound good. (I went into more detail on this idea back in Viruses Want you to Spread Them, Mitochondrial Memes, and The Progressive Virus.)

How do these technological shifts affect how we form communities?

From Bowling Alone:

In a groundbreaking book based on vast data, Putnam shows how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures– and how we may reconnect.

Putnam warns that our stock of social capital – the very fabric of our connections with each other, has plummeted, impoverishing our lives and communities.

Putnam draws on evidence including nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century to show that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We’re even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. Putnam shows how changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women’s roles and other factors have contributed to this decline.

to data on how many people don’t have any friends:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) reported in its General Social Survey (GSS) that unprecedented numbers of Americans are lonely. Published in the American Sociological Review (ASR) and authored by Miller McPhearson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew Brashears, sociologists at Duke and the University of Arizona, the study featured 1,500 face-to-face interviews where more than a quarter of the respondents — one in four — said that they have no one with whom they can talk about their personal troubles or triumphs. If family members are not counted, the number doubles to more than half of Americans who have no one outside their immediate family with whom they can share confidences. Sadly, the researchers noted increases in “social isolation” and “a very significant decrease in social connection to close friends and family.”

Rarely has news from an academic paper struck such a responsive nerve with the general public. These dramatic statistics from ASR parallel similar trends reported by the Beverly LaHaye Institute — that over the 40 years from 1960 to 2000 the Census Bureau had expanded its analysis of what had been a minor category.  The Census Bureau categorizes the term “unrelated individuals” to designate someone who does not live in a “family group.” Sadly, we’ve seen the percentage of persons living as “unrelated individuals” almost triple, increasing from 6 to 16 percent of all people during the last 40 years. A huge majority of those classified as “unrelated individuals” (about 70 percent) lived alone.

it seems that interpersonal trust is deteriorating:

Long-run data from the US, where the General Social Survey (GSS) has been gathering information about trust attitudes since 1972, suggests that people trust each other less today than 40 years ago. This decline in interpersonal trust in the US has been coupled with a long-run reduction in public trust in government – according to estimates compiled by the Pew Research Center since 1958, today trust in the government in the US is at historically low levels.

Interestingly:

Interpersonal trust attitudes correlate strongly with religious affiliation and upbringing. Some studies have shown that this strong positive relationship remains after controlling for several survey-respondent characteristics.1 This, in turn, has led researchers to use religion as a proxy for trust, in order to estimate the extent to which economic outcomes depend on trust attitudes. Estimates from these and other studies using an instrumental-variable approach, suggest that trust has a causal impact on economic outcomes.2 This suggests that the remarkable cross-country heterogeneity in trust that we observe today, can explain a significant part of the historical differences in cross-country income levels.

Also:

Measures of trust from attitudinal survey questions remain the most common source of data on trust. Yet academic studies have shown that these measures of trust are generally weak predictors of actual trusting behaviour. Interestingly, however, questions about trusting attitudes do seem to predict trustworthiness. In other words, people who say they trust other people tend to be trustworthy themselves.3

Just look at that horrible trend of migrants being kept out of Europe

Our technological shifts haven’t just affected ideas and conversations–with people able to travel thousands of miles in an afternoon, they’ve also affected the composition of communities. The US in 1920 was almost 90% white and 10% black, (with that black population concentrated in the segregated South). All other races together totaled only a couple percent. Today, the US is <65% white, 13% black, 16% Hispanic, 6% Asian and Native American, and 9% “other” or multi-racial.

Similar changes have happened in Europe, both with the creation of the Free Movement Zone and the discovery that the Mediterranean isn’t that hard to cross, though the composition of the newcomers obviously differs.

Diversity may have its benefits, but one of the things it isn’t is a common culture.

With all of these changes, do I really feel that there is anything particularly special about my local community and its norms over those of my British friends?

What about Disney?

Well, Disney’s most profitable product hasn’t exactly been pro-democracy, though I doubt a few princess movies can actually budge people’s political compasses or vote for Trump (or Hillary.) But what about the general content of children’s stories? It sure seems like there are a lot fewer stories focused on characters from American history than in the days when Davy Crockett was the biggest thing on TV.

Of course this loops back into technological changes, as American TV and movies are enjoyed by an increasingly non-American audience and media content is driven by advertisers’ desire to reach specific audiences (eg, the “rural purge” in TV programming, when popular TV shows aimed at more rural or older audiences were cancelled in favor of programs featuring urban characters, which advertisers believed would appeal to younger viewers with more cash to spend.)

If cultural collapse is happening, it’s not because we lack for civics classes, but because civics classes alone cannot create a civic culture where there is none.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on ““Cultural Collapse”

  1. Your myopic dismissal of anything not “formal” education is both laughably naive and, sadly, all-too-expected from a “well-educated” intellectual such as you are.

    Yes, Americans in the 19th century were, on the whole, far more knowledgeable about civics and civic history than they are today. This is painfully obvious: you can simply look at what people were reading, either in schools or what was “pop culture” literature of the age. Consider the vocabulary and sophisticated grammatical structure of things written at that time for ordinary citizens. Or children! And compare it to the equivalent today (difficult since for the most part ordinary citizens no longer read.)

    I don’t really care about your opinions expressed in the rest of the post one way or the other (I read this blog for the science). However you are dead wrong about history. Any vaguely competent study of the subject indicates people did very much used to be better educated.

    Then, society at large was better educated about such matters. What do you think people talked about before moving pictures? Even farmers can only talk about weather for a minute or two.

    Like

    • Yeah, we homeschooling families are really big into formal education. That’s us all over.

      I never said that Americans in the 1800s were ignorant of civics nor that formal education was the only way to learn it.

      I said that the civics they HAD didn’t come from highschool civics classes, for the obvious reason that fewer people back then attended formal highschool of any sort. Therefore Berman’s conclusion that things changed because highschools aren’t teaching enough civics is barking up the wrong tree. Culture doesn’t come from a classroom.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Even the NYT article doesn’t bother to define democracy, much less liberal democracy.

    Most U.S. citizens think we live in a democracy but we don’t. We have a constitutional republic, even though our politicians (and citizens) widely ignore the constitution.

    So I don’t put much stock in surveys of people who don’t know what they’re opining on.

    -Steve

    Like

  3. Interesting article. I think that much of the decline in the the perception of the value of Western liberal democracy is alluded to near the beginning of the article – “bicoastal elites”. Trump’s rallying cries about “elites” and “drain the swamp” are reflective of a growing perception that democracy equates a kleptocracy of the wealthy and privileged.
    The stark and growing inequality in wealth distribution in western society has led many people to the conclusion that democracy no longer equals equality in any meaningful sense. Economic disenfranchisement leads people to believe that the entire political and economic structure of democracy is a “stinking cesspool of corruption”, particularly when mass media lionizes “elites” and their lifestyle.
    The common people will not be satisfied for long if the solution is to simply “Let them eat cake”.

    Like

  4. I believe Putnam also published a paper about how diversity and multiculturalism degrade trust in societies. I know it’s impossible to find the one root cause of sociological change, but I believe that the mass importation of people with different values and morals (not wrong, generally, just very different) makes us exponentially more unlikely to form these communal bonds that we seem to be missing lately. And the forced acceptance of these cultures devalues our own. There are still communities where people know their neighbors, strike up conversations on the street, and help each other carry groceries inside, but they are, by and large, homogeneous.

    I think, at base, the forced integration of foreign ideals has degraded our trust in each other so much that we’ve lost sight of what it is to BE American, and America.

    Like

    • “…I know it’s impossible to find the one root cause of sociological change…”

      Uhhh, no it’s not. It’s the Jews who want to dilute the power of Whites and the wealthy that want cheap labor. That’s 90% or better of the problem right there. Others may support this but they don’t have the money or organization to make it happen.

      Like

  5. Citing dictionary definitions misses the point. The Founding Fathers were well aware of what a democracy is, and they sought to constrain democratic sympathies. Among the overtly anti-democratic parts of the Constitution are: the Bill of Rights, the Electoral College (Thank God for that!), the original Senate, and the Supreme Court. All the original States had very restrictive rules for voter eligibility, and only a minority could vote, generally White adult males who owned property.

    What Putnam and other SJW’s fail to realize is that it is their own preferences that lead to social collapse. They have relentlessly pursued identitarian politics and policies since at least the election of 1972. And they have succeeded big time. Now even many Whites think and vote racially, and we are only a small distance from an overt White Nationalism to go along with the long-existing Black, Hispanic and Jewish nationalisms.

    Identitarian politics are the death knell of any sort of democracy. We are, in fact, a multi-racial, multi-cultural empire, and those are held together by brute force. Think of Tsarist Russia or Husseins’ Iraq. That is the only possible outcome of Progressive politics and policies. And right now, today, Progressives are leading the attack on the Bill of Rights, all of it.

    Like

  6. I’ve noticed with a lot of people my age they don’t believe in democracy not because of the military but because of meritocracy. It’s actually ironic, most of the people I know don’t believe in the media, politicians, the military, corporations or scientists unconditionally. It’s routinely talked about how meritocracy and equality does not exist. It’s become more apparent as I’ve gotten older that it’s not entirely a world of hard work and handshakes but often times nepotism and social skills rather than competent trade skills. I’m hesitant to call things studies, but I’ve seen in the news mentioning that jobs are given to people who know the interviewer or have a person in the organization to vouch for them in a vast majority of cases.

    Also there’s a lot of gloom about upward mobility among other things. I think the middle class was a strange aberration that occurred in the last hundred years. To my knowledge, never before has there been such a loose hierarchy in such large societies. As technology progresses, crackdowns on speech, verification on social networks continue as well as decreased upward mobility, the informal caste systems of the west will become more clear. Formality was mostly boilerplate and people are becoming more impatient and deceptive.

    They simultaneously seek and have faith in authority while also mistrusting authority and resenting it because of their perceived inability to succeed. If violence is an expression and not just for resources, the cultural collapse of politeness and formality is the least of our issues. I think the coming century will be the deadliest in history, and it wont be due to vulgarity in our leaders.

    Like

  7. A bit of a point of irony on the Disney aspect of things: if you visit Disneyland Paris, there’s a Wild West show with old style cowboys and Indians type drama. Of course, my observation for a long time has been that most interest in cowboys and Indians anymore is in Germany (and to a lesser extent France, etc.)… Not sure what conclusion to draw.

    Like

  8. “When I hear the word ‘culture’, I reach for my gun!” was a popular applause line in Nazi speeches. When I hear “American culture” or “Western culture”, I imagine a vast river of toxic waste containing trace amounts of water, and the percentage of Americans who share this sentiment is no doubt increasing.

    I think Jews are to blame in both cases. A nation’s culture is its immune system, and a nation with a strong culture is more likely to give Jews the boot. But if Jews undermine and destroy that culture with pornography, femi-Marxist propaganda, and counterfeit money, the resulting vacuum will be filled by something more genocidal toward Jews, like Nazism or radical Islam.

    A strong culture requires a social hierarchy where rank is mostly hereditary. If rank is determined by virtue instead, the culture collapses in a spiral of ever more ridiculous competitive virtue-signaling. Smashing the hierarchy benefits no one in the long run. A hundred years ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews weren’t white enough to attend Ivy League schools; now they’re excluded for being too white.

    The system that discriminated against lesser whites also allowed them to discriminate against lower life forms. The Irish wouldn’t have been so eager for equality if they’d known it would mean Africans moving into their neighborhoods and faggots marching in their parades!

    Like

    • The first Jew, Isaac Isaacs, graduated Yale in 1750; the first Catholic, a Brazilian, Carlos Ribeiro, in 1838; the first Irish, William Robinson, in 1841. (For the next 50 years, Irish Catholics preferred to attend Yale Law over Yale College.) First Chinese, Yung Wing: 1854; First African American, Edward Bouchet: BA, 1874, PhD, 1876 (physics; first African American PhD in the US.) First women: 1869. http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/YHO/Piersons/breedOfStudent.html

      I don’t know when the first Italians were admitted to Yale, but there were some high-class Italians living in New Haven in the early 1700s.

      Caleb Cheeshahteaumuck was the first Native American to graduate from Harvard, way back in 1665. I’m not going to run through Harvard’s full list of firsts; just take him as representative.

      The idea that the Ivy League was some kind of Anglos-only club until 1950 (or whenever) is a myth. These universities were founded to spread Puritanism, and they have been happy to spread it to members of other races or ethnicities.

      Like

    • When I wrote that, I was thinking of this (quoted from Wikipedia):

      In 1939, Richard Feynman received a bachelor’s degree, and was named a Putnam Fellow. He attained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in physics—an unprecedented feat—and an outstanding score in mathematics, but did poorly on the history and English portions. The head of the physics department there, Henry D. Smyth, had another concern, writing to Philip M. Morse to ask: “Is Feynman Jewish? We have no definite rule against Jews but like to keep their proportion in our department reasonably small”. Morse conceded that Feynman was indeed Jewish, but reassured Smyth that Feynman’s “physiognomy and manner, however, show no trace of this characteristic”.

      Like

  9. If you take a little notice there’s a big attack on Democracy and they push you towards the only idea that can succeed is some sort of King, military rule or some other authoritarian rule. There’s a perfectly sensible way to have sensible rule and that’s to only let people vote who are qualified in some small way towards holding together what’s left of the civilization. Some qualifications might be marriage, property holder, high school education. I personally believe that the qualifications should be broad. Such that at least 50% or close to that of the populace will qualify. I believe this would maintain legitimacy while also making qualifications attainable for most. I also believe that if it took some work to get in the running for voting people would think of it as more important and would be more likely to keep up with the affairs of the nation.

    The King pushers always ignore when I comment on this. I think it likely they have a different agenda than that of making the society better. Needless to say the main ones jumping up and down about how we need Kings are Jews and we all know the Jews are forever looking after our best interest.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s