Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
 
more semi-related thoughts about conceptions of  'the other shoe'

 

    ...The two world wars, unstable booms, and the abysmal depression of our time have profoundly shaken national confidence in the future.  During the boom of the twenties it was commonly taken for granted that the happy days could run on into an indefinite future; today there are few who do not assume just as surely the coming of another slump.  If the future seems dark, the past by contrast looks rosier than ever; but it is used far less to locate and guide the present than to give reassurance.  American history, presenting itself as a rich and rewarding spectacle, a succession of well-fulfilled promises, induces a desire to observe and enjoy, not to analyze and act.  The most common vision of national life, in its fondness for  the panoramic backward gaze, has been that of the observation-car platform."...

    ..." Above and beyond temporary and local conflicts there has been a common ground, a unity of cultural and political tradition, upon which American civilization has stood.  That culture has been intensely nationalistic and for the most part isolationist; it has been fiercely individualistic and capitalistic.  In a corporate and consolidated society demanding international responsibility, cohesion, centralization, and planning, the traditional ground is shifting under our feet." ...    -- Richard Hofstadter, writing in the introduction to The American Political Tradition, January, 1948

    "Cracking at the seams" ?

    A broadly-shared idea of some common ideas within a sense of identity among Americans used to produce at least the impression that such an identity, whatever it was, whatever it meant, was real and something people could take for granted.  Since that time, the unifying sense of identity has suffered under the intense strains of bewildering technological change which took no account of it and often undermined it.  Today, a national identity not only seems to have vanished, it has become a challenge just to imagine what it must have been like when it existed.

    Today, Americans are deeply divided in their self-images and their beliefs about who they are (that is, their senses of identity), and who they should be and become; bound up in all that are the deep divisions over practical courses of action in dealing with the various pressing social and political problems of the day.  The markers which once served to provide generations of Americans with a shared idea of their place, their direction and their rate of progress (or regress) have largely disappeared and now little remains of a very generally valid and unifying experience of childhood and the passage from it to adulthood.  Looking around themselves today, Americans have little idea of how much and in what aspect their own experiences are known and understood and shared by their fellow citizens.  In its place has grown up a marked tendency to treat others as having a suspect claim on being real Americans.  It's difficult to say which was the larger influence on a growing and self-reinforcing development of these trends, the political, which fed into social habits, or, conversely, social habits which in turn brought on political trends which in their turn completed a self-reinforcing "loop" of cause-and-effect.  Whatever the case, a parting of the ways seems as well established within the social realm as in the political and these then tend to blur into one, making it difficult to see where social ills end and political ills begin.

    Part of what has seemed to crack under the strain for one side of the divided American identity is the abiding acceptance of what historian Richard Hofstadter described in the citation above, a culture which "has been intensely nationalistic and for the most part isolationist; it has been fiercely individualistic and capitalistic," is now no longer so uniformly so.    What's badly lacking, I believe, is a working sense of identity--supple enough to embrace a people who now are more diverse in origin, experience and self-conception than has been true of the society which lived up through the end of the first World War.  An old fashioned nationalistic identity, fierce and xenophobic in character and held rather defiantly against "the rest of the world" beyond the borders of the U.S. has been reduced to the property of only roughly half ---and the most politically reactionary and conservative half, at that--of the American public.  For the rest, there is deep doubt and unanswered questions about how to define their identity and about how to understand what that identity consists of specifically.  This reigning confusion has brought voids into relief and made room for people who always thought of themselves as thoroughly progressive and staunch defenders of civil liberties to openly hesitate over a former categorical opposition to violations of those rights, as for example, when they begin to think that there may be circumstances in which torture must be considered and perhaps even countenanced.  

    Somehow, some new and practically-useful sense of American identity which would foster and encourage freedom and openness, rather than the growing National Security State, which is a kind of short-hand for its opposite, must be fashioned and made effective.  But our social institutions are ill-equipped for this task and much about them---such as the atomized television and internet culture of mass media---work more against the formation of such a new and unifying identity than in favour of it.  In any case, whatever it is, it must come about "organically" rather than by some "canned" and forced process which resembles a Madison Avenue advertising campaign.  It cannot be imposed, it has to be felt sincerely.   Thus, what's needed has to come about through a truly free and consensual set social processes.  We can describe what we lack and what we need but we can't consciously engineer it in more than an indirect manner which proposes ideas which are found to be seductive in their appeal.


"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 at 10:51:31 AM EST
But our social institutions are ill-equipped for this task and much about them---such as the atomized television and internet culture of mass media---work more against the formation of such a new and unifying identity than in favour of it.  In any case, whatever it is, it must come about "organically" rather than by some "canned" and forced process which resembles a Madison Avenue advertising campaign.  It cannot be imposed, it has to be felt sincerely.   Thus, what's needed has to come about through a truly free and consensual set social processes.

If first causes are the aim-- a "felt sincerely"-- we're gonna have to wait a long time.
I've asked at least ten people here in France to help me understand the process whereby it became self-evident that health care is a human right, and the vast majority have only a sketchy notion. So it's almost inchoate.
Melancthon came closest with his excellent references, but the process whereby such consensus arises is tied deeply to a historical context, an educational process that is capable of producing readers who are also problem solvers, deep roots in a social history that not only allows protest and revolutionary behavior, but rationalizes the dialectic between mutuality-ccoperation, and individual analysis. We don't do that in North America.
My landlady once said the nemesis of France was a plague of meetings. What set her off was the building syndicate- the group of apartment owners who met several times a year to decide how to deal with mutual needs vis. thebuilding. Yet, the building was centuries old, and in prime shape.
We compete. We don't plan to stop. End of story.  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 at 02:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 "I've asked at least ten people here in France to help me understand the process whereby it became self-evident that health care is a human right, and the vast majority have only a sketchy notion."

  That's a fascinating comment.  

  I think that there must surely be a very thorough body of academic work on the process of creating and transmitting phenomena that we're talking about here, social identities, national identities.  This surely involves much myth-making in it.  But the myths have to be sturdy enough to actually "do work", "carry a load" in a conceptual and imaginational sense.  When they no longer do that, when they fail, something quite vital is lost and that entails a real period of danger, of risk.  But these processes have been repeated over history.  The British weren't always British, the "Romans" weren't always an imperial power.  When they "became" these, they had to in some way fashion a sense of identity as being such, just as, before, during and after the American revolution, the colonists had to fashion one for a "people" (who before were "Virginians", or "Pennsylvanians," or "New Yorkers" but not "Americans of the United States of America" until later;  then, later, with Rome, when Rome fell, an identity had also to fall and be replaced by something else.  This will happen as a result of "facts on the ground."  But, I wonder if people who see that a former myth-set is no longer effective and a former identity-set no longer serves the social needs these mental constructions have to serve can in some way help the creation of a new conception.

  "We compete. We don't plan to stop. End of story."

  Nature and limits she carries inherently shall "stop us" "one way or another".  As the saying goes, "Things that can't go on forever don't."  So, "our plans" won't make a bit of difference to nature---and never did.  If we can't learn that lesson peacefully, it will be forced on us violently.  Of course, you know all that already, I'm just sayin'.

    Also, I'm more and more convinced that the perculiarly American version of the "Protestant Ethic", as well as B. Franklin's philosophy of thriftiness, so fiercely transmitted as a secular American religion throughout the social ranks---down, even, to today!, are, together, at or near the top of the worst social elements of American society, poisoning and infecting everything about the society as only the worst kind of cancer could do.  

  Our myths are exhausted, our identities no longer "work" and we are now as a society bewildered, trying to guess at what troubles beset us and coming up with little in constructive understanding.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 at 03:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
proximity1:
Our myths are exhausted, our identities no longer "work" and we are now as a society bewildered, trying to guess at what troubles beset us and coming up with little in constructive understanding.

To me that is a major opportunity: a vacuum to fill.

Our challenge is to create a new myth/narrative.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 at 04:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely!

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 at 05:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

  yes, it is an opportunity--- or certainly could be seen as such.  But, if it's not recognized, not seized, then it's an opportunity missed.

 

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 at 09:21:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  "If first causes are the aim-- a "felt sincerely"-- we're gonna have to wait a long time."

  I don't think that's necessarily true.  Conceptions of identity might usually, often, develop over a period of years and decades but I don't think that this is necessarily the case.  Actual events which are momentous enough to alter broad publics' ideas of themselves can occur and produce influences in much shorter stretches of time.

  E.g.:  A war is lost or won, a currency collapses, a heroic breakthrough in a long-standing problem of domestic or international affairs, the restoration of an institution--one formerly thought definitively lost, the restoration of rights and freedoms which had either been suppressed or rendered de facto "dead letter", these can, with relative alacrity, alter notions of group identity by infusing or inspiring renewed faith, self-esteem, mutual good regard among differing groups previously disaffected, etc.

    An important part of what's been so badly degraded in society are these very aspects of faith, self-esteem, mutual good regard among differing groups previously disaffected.  When the political institutions whose respectable and dependable  operation underpins a people's belief in their political system's integrity are degraded, the consequences can be serious loss of faith, etc.  Conversely, the restoration of these same can contribute to a renewed or improved belief in one's political system and, by extension, a greater optimism, sense of self-esteem and improvements in things related to these.

   So, rather than exhorting people to "feel more optimistic," or to "have courage", "keep faith/hope alive", the practical course is to take effective actions which, when seen, broadly inspire these feelings without having to call for them.

   For these reasons, I believe it was a very serious and profound mistake for Obama to have, as he seems to have done, decided to "turn the page" on the Bush/Cheney years and the work of holding those in it responsible for their many and gross illegal acts, acts which dealt severe blows to the nation, to the public's sense of identity as a free, fair and just people, to the credibility of the conception of the United States as a democratic society.  It is not one, in fact.  But the Bush/Cheney tenure brutally made this fact manifest to many who had previously been able to sustain a belief in the myth of their society's democratic character.  To maintain such a faith today requires more than most people (other than the most die-hard conservatives) can muster in suspension of doubt or disbelief.

   If our identities and our myths have been made ineffective, that is large part because in the real waking world of daily life, actual events have revealed them to be, to have been for some time, even, empty of substance--and these revelations have come in ways that have been brutally shaking.

   When the WTC towers collapsed, the event in itself was not so much the world-changing event that many claimed.  Rather, it was a marker. For certain ways of belief, many held so unselfconsciously that they were hardly noted, the towers' collapse made the falsity of those beliefs suddenly and dramatically manifest and if they didn't fall with the towers, they fell in the hours, days, weeks and months which followed their collapse.  In fact, though, the processes long predate the events of that single day.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 at 09:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series