There are, in my view, two mistaken attitudes to social decline:
1) There is nothing new under the sun. People have been lamenting social and cultural decline since the dawn of man, but nothing ever really changes.
2) Everything is declining all the time. Almost every example of change can be held up as a sign of broader social and cultural decline.
My suggestion is this: there are real examples of social and cultural decline, but dragging everything into this narrative makes it impossible to talk about it seriously. If we fall into a pattern of reflexive curmudgeonliness, nobody need take anything we say about actual social and cultural decline seriously.
A few of my recent blog posts have been along this theme. For instance, in this blog post on language change, and in this blog post on criticisms of social media (including the common claim that attention spans are shortening). I'm playing the sceptic in those posts.
However, I definitely believe there are real examples of social and cultural decline. For instance (and this will surprise nobody who's ever read this blog), the decline of poetry.
When I talk about the decline of poetry, I'm often presented with the argument that music lyrics are the poetry of today. So the successors of Yeats and Tennyson are actually Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, and Eminem.
I don't think this argument works. I'm not denying that the lyrics of popular music can often attain the level of poetry. I think they can. But only in flashes, here and there.
On the whole, there's no comparison. There's nothing like the same level of depth, nuance, and seriousness involved. Nor is there the same level of coherence. A poem by any great classical poet flows from beginning to end. Even the best popular music lyrics tend to be simply a series of phrases strung together.
(I've noticed that many of the more well-read rock musicians were influenced by Dylan Thomas, a classical poet who did write in this montage style. Bob Dylan took his stage name from him. William Blake also tends to popular with rockers, partly for the same reason.)
Besides, there were always popular songs and people always quoted them, but they once lived alongside classical poetry.
But I don't want to go any further down that bunny trail.
Here's something I've noticed about laments of social decline. Liberals and progressives seem to indulge in them at least as much as conservatives. Very often it points to a contradiction in their own thought which they seem reluctant to face.
For instance, they'll (quite rightly) lament the sexualization of advertising or pop culture, but they won't relate this to the 1960's sexual revolution, or to the decline of Christian ethics. (Again, their panacea seems to be socialism; don't blame the sexual revolution, blame capitalism!)
But really, everybody seems to indulge in laments of social decline, all the time. Very often they have to do with everyday irritants like manners, customer service, etc.
Sometimes there are familiar laments that are entirely justified. For instance, inflation. The old codger nostalgically remembering everything he could do with a fiver, and still have change, has been a comic figure for decades. But he's been right all along. Inflation has continually skyrocketed for generations now.
Then there are other laments where I'm not so sure. For instance, the decline of small business in the face of big business. Chesterton was writing about this in the early twentieth century and it's seemed to be a constant refrain for decades. It's a perpetual theme in movies and TV. But small businesses haven't disappeared. Small shops haven't disappeared. It doesn't even seem to me like they've especially declined since my childhood.
And then there's the fact that people rarely seem to dwell on social and cultural improvements.
Here's an example. Many years ago, knowing my interest in movie posters, somebody bought me two books about them (and full of examples of them). One was about movie posters from the 1940s, the other was about movie posters from the 1980s. It took only a cursory flick through both of them to see that the movie posters from the eighties were clearly superior to the movie posters from the forties. The 1940s posters were all very boring, unimaginative compositions involving a few star faces and the title of the film. There was nothing like the famous image of ET passing over the moon on a bicycle. Or the little girl sitting beside a glowing screen, her arms outstretched, on the poster for Poltergeist.
Even when it comes to my biggest anxiety about social and cultural change-- the dread of cultural homogenization-- I'm not entirely sure it's really happening, considered as a whole. Is it simply the case that there have been recurrent waves of homogenization followed by fragmentation? Why do we have so many languages descended from Latin? How did La Téne culture become so widespread in an era long before modern communicatons? And what about counter-currents such as the recent revival of the Cornish language?
Now all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter: I think we should be slower and more tentative to make claims of social and cultural decline, without falling into the "nothing new under the sun" fallacy.
i think CS Lewis said it best: 'Good is always becoming better, Evil is always becoming worse'. this is what i see, applied at all levels, from the trivial everyday to the higher spiritual war of this world. the only caveat is, but this is not new under the sun, that there's more bad than good. this is just how things work and always have. good is rare. bad is common. so good is becoming rarer and bad becoming more common.
ReplyDeleteLaeth.
But is good rare, and is bad common? It seems to me that good is very abundant. Most people are good in the ordinary sense of the word. I mean, most people would want to avoid harming and hurting others, and would be happy to do them a good turn if it didn't cost them much. Good seems abundant also in the sense that most people (at least in the West) are fed, clothed, housed, and not in imminent danger of death, injury, theft, etc. I guess it's a question of the standard you apply.
DeleteOne ugly thing among some conservatives is that they seem to think that everyone being clothed, housed, fed and so on is something terrible and that we should all be on edge perennially, braced for war, and so on and on.
DeleteI think G.K. Chesterton's "History of Hudge and Gudge" is very relevant here!
Deletehttps://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/wrong-with-the-world/9/
And yet people do seem to go from genuine deprivation to vapid consumerism very quickly.
i definitely think some things are better. but i don't have such a cheery view of humans as you do, that's for sure. i think all of the things you listed are more or less a façade, and those do not make anyone 'good'. maybe i have just been unlucky in who i've met and what i've seen.
DeleteLaeth
Well, Jesus said only God is good, that's true. When it comes down to it, I do think original sin makes us all horribly flawed. But I could imagine things being much, much, much worse.
Deletethat is definitely not what i mean.
DeleteLaeth
For me, the problem with all the conservative grumblers (CG) is that they never quite say what they think humanity *should* be doing. Most people do work, raise families, have some belief in something and so on. But for the CG nothing is ever enough. It's always empty consumerism, cafeteria Catholicism (for example), mindless, brainless and so and on. Yet what do such grumblers do themselves that is so extraordinarily above and superior to the average Joe or Jane?
ReplyDeleteI see your point and I agree. But at the same time, I find "live and let live" to be equally depressing when it goes beyond tolerance to indifference.
DeleteIt may indeed be depressing, but it also may be the best we can get, as the alternative would require a group of some sort laying down the law who claim to have some privileged insight and I just cannot see how any individual or group can claim that.
DeleteBut it doesn't have to be compulsion. My own preference, for what it's worth, is for a society where there's lots of different philosophies competing and interacting. I do actually want other people to have ideas about what I should do.
DeleteYou’re in one!
DeleteThat's true, and I like it!
DeleteCultural change is a big topic. But I'll say two things:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the nothing new under the sun attitude is mistaken. The question is, how different do things have to be to count as different? For some people the answer is they never count as different.
Some say that wolves and dogs can be counted as biologically the same species. Nonetheless, that little difference makes a big difference.
As far as what counts as decline, I'd draw an analogy to disease. Someone can feel sick or even just not feel at his best. He may have to think some to articulate exactly why he doesn't feel well. Even after articulating it, he may not know exactly what is wrong with him, medically. Different doctors may have different opinions. Maybe none of them knows exactly how to diagnose what is going on. Maybe some doctors say he isn't sick at all. Maybe no doctor in the world knows how to cure him. Yet, he knows how he used to feel and knows how he feels now and knows that something is different.
That's very true and a social and cultural sense of malaise is not something to be dismissed. I suppose my criticism is more when people DO have specific symptoms of social decline, I think it's reasonable to ask: is it happening, or not?
DeleteFor instance, is there any more "fake news" today than there has ever been?