Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:21:48 PM
I have written before, many times, about how our acceptance of juvenile values as our standard of behavior tends to cause an ever increasing loosening of societal standards. ("
The Sky Is Falling! Again! Really! We Mean It This Time!", "
In Defense of Standards", "
Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"") As I said once, in the past children would eventually adopt the values of their parents, and their own children would rebel against the same standards, while now, by allowing the young to set the standards, we end up with each generation pushing against an ever larger envelope.
This particularly struck me when I was watching the original UK "Life on Mars". For those unfamiliar with the plot, a policeman from 2006 suffers an accident and wakes up in 1973. At some point he confided in a policewoman colleague that he believed he was from 2006. Later in the plot she asked him if he was serious, or if he was just playing at being mad to pick her up.
What was interesting was his response and her reaction. He asked "You mean 'I'm from the future, will you shag me?" To which she responded "No need to be rude."
And that reminded me of how much our culture has changed in just the simple aspect of accepting obscenities. What was casually acceptable in Britain in 2006 was considered unacceptable in 1973, and that brought home to me memories of how much our own culture changed, and how quickly.
For example, even the word "a s s" was not allowed on television until the 1980's. For that matter, I recall when "b i t c h" was first used on television during an episode of "Dynasty". And now, less than two decades later, we have a serious debate whether "f*ck" is acceptable or unacceptable if used as an adjective.
It may seem trivial, whether or not we accept obscenities, but it is a symptom.The speed with which we went from, what was basically the embodiment of decades of tradition, even centuries, and in two to three decades completely eliminated them should tell us what the future holds. After all, it has really only been two or three generations in which we have fully embraced the Romantic doctrine, at the earliest we started accpeting these views in the 1950's, with the early beat movement. And from that early start as an outsider movement, the "youth culture" was fully embraced in the 1960's, took over popular culture in the 1970's, and by the 1980's began to rapidly transform our culture, and continues to do so.
I don't want to exaggerate the significance of this phenomenon. It is unlikely this alone will destroy our civilization. Our veneration of the not so venerable definitely will make it easier for damaging philosophies to gain a hold in our minds, and it will certainly coarsen our behavior, lower our standards, and generally degrade our cultural norms, as I have described elsewhere. And, as it serves to erode respect for traditions, it will also result in the loss of much hard won wisdom. But, while it will will not be fatal, it will certainly be harmful.
And that is why I continue to mention this topic. If we can see such rapid change in something which had such a long and relatively static history, as rules concerning what is and is not acceptable language for use in public, how much more rapidly will things change now that the basic norms have been eroded? What will come next?
It is a topic which will likely reward more examination, but, for the moment, I simply want to raise the topic, to bring it to the attention of others. Hopefully by so doing I may make others more aware of the way in which we view age, tradition and the like, and the topic may begin to get some of the attention it deserves.
POSTSCRIPT
For those curious about my other writing on this topic, I recommend reading "
Frightened for our Future", "
The Adoration of Youth", "
I Blame the Romantics", "
Revisiting an Old Topic", "
The Sky Is Falling! Again! Really! We Mean It This Time!", "
Tired and Annoying Theme", "
IMDB Makes My Case", "
A Thought On the Watchmen", "
Graphic Novels, Comic Books and Cultural Barometers", "
An Interesting Article", "
In Defense of Standards", "
Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "
Shame and Behavior", "
Our Rude Behavior" and "
Social Controls".
POSTSCRIPT II
Oddly, TH has filters more stringent than the FCC, at least in some regards. Then again, their filters are a bit peculiar, as I have pointed out several times in the past. (See the
postscripts to "
Are We Really That Stupid?" and "
Protectionism" and the footnote to "
Bad Economics Part 7".) But that does explain why some words above are spelled with spaces, TH would not allow me to post them with a single letter replaced by an asterisk, but would allow me to publish them with extra spaces. Go figure!