I was wasting time today, looking up random items on the internet, when I discovered that Bruce Willis had married a much younger wife. At first glance it was nothing noteworthy, an aging celebrity whose fame is waning marrying an attractive, younger woman of lesser celebrity status. However, giving it a little more thought, I began to ask myself "Why do we assume those given free choice will always pick some young, pretty spouse?"

Now, I grant that beauty has always been considered of value, that is nothing novel, chasing after attractive individuals is nothing new. On the other hand, our assumption that the younger one is the more attractive is novel. Despite our belief that it is self-evident that 16 to 21 year old women are the most attractive represents a cultural standard and not something inherent in the definition of beauty. We need only look at art from the past to see that not only has the physical definition of beauty changed, but even the ages considered most beautiful have changed. So, despite our assumption that youth is always equated with beauty, it is a cultural norm, not an absolute rule.

Second, and much more significantly, the assumption that those with wealth and power, or even those with less of both but the freedom to pursue their desires, will always chase after  a young, pretty spouse, is also a cultural norm. As I said, men and women have always valued beauty, but there was not always the assumption that the pursuit of beauty would trump all other considerations. In fact, until recently, it was assumed only the young would be so frivolous as to pursue based solely on beauty, adults who did so were seen as childish and shallow. But in recent years this trend has been changing, and the criticism of those who chased trophy spouses has changed to quiet mockery and, eventually, into simple acceptance.

What makes this interesting to me is that it is yet another example of our cultural movement toward ever greater immaturity, as well as a good example of how it is self-reinforcing. Finally, it helps to point out the consequences of such actions.

I have discussed many times the tendency I see, starting with the Romantic movement, and gradually taking over our culture in the past 50 years of so, which inverts traditional paradigms, eliminating the pattern once common, where youth would rebel against their parents, and then, over time, would give up such rebellion, adopt the values of their parents, and return to the same norms, leaving their own children to repeat the same pattern, rebelling against the same standards. Now, however, we have one other factor, changing the entire process. Now, adults, rather than clinging to their values, pursue the values embraced by the young, and so our culture tends to follow the values embraced by rebelling youth. As a consequence, when the youth finally become adults, they do not need to change at all, their values have become the values of society. And, more significantly, the definition of what is acceptable has changed, leaving it for their children to rebel against an even more permissive society. As a result, we find ourselves more and more licentious, and wonder what has happened. ("Frightened for our Future", "The Adoration of Youth", "I Blame the Romantics", "Revisiting an Old Topic", "Changing Incentives", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Bad Economics Part 9", "How Fast Things Change", "Deadly Cynicism", "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity", "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events", "Hoist By Your Own Petard", "The Fascination with Change", "An Interesting Insight")

And our subject here helps show how such decisions can become self-reinforcing. In the past, marriage was intended for several purposes, and, at least in modern times, romantic love was part of it, but there were also thoughts of child rearing, financial and emotional support, and a host of other practical considerations on both sides. There also was an implicit assumption that it would last for a very long time, hopefully a lifetime. Marriage was not viewed as a temporary institution. Even in the 70's and 80's, while divorce grew more common, there as still a cultural belief that one entered into marriage for life, not as a passing folly.

However, with the pursuit of youth and beauty, the hunt for a "trophy spouse" being seen as acceptable, more and more come to emulate the shallow practices of celebrity, and enter into marriage solely with thoughts of self, imagining how one will be pleased by having such an attractive spouse. And thus, the immaturity of the celebrities, themselves imitating the immaturity of teens, enters into the cultural mainstream, reinforcing the worship of the values of youth.

And that is one of the main reason the institution of marriage has been in decline. With a childish society, with the values of youth charting our course, we see marriage as something akin to a lengthy "hook up", at most as an older version of hat was once called "going steady". It is a temporary institution, intended to last only until one is no longer happy with the other. And that is because, as I mentioned above, the sole purpose I have in marriage is to please oneself. Thoughts of support, companionship, and especially of children, never cross either mind. And, were marriage simply a tool for social interaction, that would be less harmful, perhaps even harmless. But as it plays a significant role in child rearing, and in providing shelter and stability for those same children, it is quite harmful, perhaps catastrophically so over time.

It is a point I have made over and over. Though conservatives denounce many cultural problems, somehow they seem to overlook the underlying cause of so many, our fascination with youth and our inversion of the traditional pattern of development from youth to adulthood. While they denounce specific consequences of this change, they seem to miss the basic cause, some even embracing it. I admit some conservatives do actually recognize the problem, but, unfortunately, most seem to be among the social conservatives ho are inclined to misuse government power in a different way, while those who recognize the proper function of government tend to eschew social questions, as they think addressing them will make it seem they want to use government power improperly.

That is a mistake, or rather both approaches are. The social conservatives are wrong to think government should be used to change social trends, while the libertarian conservatives are wrong to think social questions need be ignored as they are not within the scope of government. Yes, social questions are not amenable to government solutions, but that does not mean we should ignore them, e are still part of that society and have an interest in its success or failure. All we need to do is to make clear that when we discuss social trends, we are not calling for government action, but instead of the sort of pressure that individuals can bring upon cultural movements. In that way we can still address important social questions without falling into the error of the authoritarian social conservatives who wish to use the state to address what should be private matters.

I have gone on at too great a length already. The simple answer is that society has taken the wrong direction socially as well as politically, the two are related, and both reinforce one another. Unless we address both, we will have little success. But e need to address the two aspects of the problem in different ways. Just as doctors treat both influenza and broken legs, we need to address both political and cultural aspects of our society. But as a doctor would not use a vaccine for a broken bone or a splint for the flu, e need to avoid trying to use government to solve cultural issues, government is the tool for addressing very specific problems, and only those. We still need to address problems that fall outside that scope, we just need to do so without using the power of government.