User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Then I look at the summary of proposed causes and see:
To me, this is not really explanatory, but merely shifting blame. I read it and see "generational behavioral change caused by generational cultural change." It doesn't really explain much for me. It's like saying smaller soda cans cause less soda to be contained within. Sure, but what's making the soda cans smaller?
So, I have to wonder, what's causing the "more individualistic and cynical" baby boom and gen x/y kids?
Could it be - let's see - TV and sprawl?
The embrace of which has mostly been caused by, I think, the wider political and cultural shifts in America over the past 60 years, what with McCarthy, the cold war, Goldwaterism, etc.
That "greatest generation" messed up and gave their children a paranoid, militaristic, suburb-worshiping nation, which their children have rejected and felt alienated from, choosing to avoid it at all costs, hence the drop in civic participation and social capital. We retreated into mass culture.
Yeah, that's simplifying a bit, but I think it's rather fair. So basically, I blame the generation that gave us the Cold War and suburbs-as-ideal for eroding the American social fabric.
I think there are signs of change afoot, though. See blogs, DailyKos activity (and related, YearlyKos), and meetups, etc. It'll take time, though, and only time will tell.
There may be a cumulative effect too - take for instance someone who meets all the right criteria (lives in a small town, doesn't watch much TV, enjoys participating in group activities) - if there are few people for that person to have a meeting with, they are an island of participation aspiration that goes unfulfilled.
Sometimes children just don't want to be like their parents - which is why I agree, we are starting to see a turn for the better with some of the electronic meet-up political sites. But there is a long way to go before we create a true national culture of participation.
Either way, the point is to reverse the trend. I'm thinking about joining a bowling league myself! I had a 183 average in High School!
In any case, enough with the blame, I have to say to myself. I'll focus on positive shifts in my own life. Your list is a good place to start, especially #1 which seems the toughest, since it's a number of different things that all require overcoming habits...
Well, of course not, that was just my own value-laden label for a broad swath of choices made by millions of individuals. I take back the whole "blame" thing - it's neither correct nor productive.
And it's not as if all suburbs are bad; just as there can be poor city design, there can be good suburb design... or maybe I'm just thinking of actual small towns which aren't really suburbs but are what the suburbs were trying to imitate?
So, yeah, they made choices based on cultural assumptions of what would bring them good neighborhoods and a good life, and every generation makes the same assumption-based choices.
Like they say, "culture happens."
I wonder if practices and habits that build social capital could be protected in society in some way? Guess I should go pick up the book!
"So, yeah, they made choices based on cultural assumptions of what would bring them good neighborhoods and a good life, and every generation makes the same assumption-based choices."
You just did a great job of summing up a key part of the theory of periodic American culture change proposed by Professor Jack Lessinger in the book "Schizomania".
He labels our shared vision of the good life a 'mania'. (We usually call it the American Dream.) He shows how this shared vision alternates over time in a sequence of overlapping waves. During the time when a new rising wave (a new American Dream) starts to become as powerful as a fading falling wave (a fading American Dream) the shared vision becomes split - and another word for split is schizo. So "Schizomania" refers to a time period when our shared vision of a good life is split and in flux.
He discovered this pattern when studying the historical mass migrations of Americans from region to region and then from countryside to city to suburbs.
According to him we have already begun our fifth mass migration, though you do have to know what you are looking for to see it. The evidence is compelling...
He has nicknamed the mania that was born back around 1900 the 'Little King'. The Little King vision is centered around the individual rather than the community (like the trends detailed in Bowling Alone), it is focused on the short-term (Buy now - Pay later!), is driven by consumerism and considers it's castle to be the suburban home. (Of course this is all simplifying some complex concepts into a small message, so it may sound like stereotyping)
Here's the fascinating part: Each mania runs about 120 years with the the replacement mania being born at the height of the preceding one, and it is born to counter the excesses of it's parent mania by being an opposite vision.
So the individualistic Little King was born in 1900, reached it's zenith around 1960 (look at the peaks of those charts from Bowling Alone again...) and if the theory holds will fade into history around 2020. At the Little King's zenith was born the next mania - called the "Responsible Villager".
The Responsible Villager is driven to counter the excesses of it's parent - it is community focused rather than individualistic, it looks to the long term rather than the short, it loathes the suburbs and consumerism (though like every 'teen' still living in their parent's home they are still tied to situations and habits and infrastructure they wish to escape).
According to theory, the rising Responsible Villagers have reached a level of strength enough in balance with the declining Little Kings for each to frustrate the heck out the other (seem familiar?) and we are in the schizo-mania period right now. Around 2020 the Responsible Villagers will be the ruling mania and will be at their zenith...
It fits in interesting ways with some of the predictions for post Peak Oil culture doesn't it?
The book Schizomania can be found at:
http://www.predicting2020.com/books.html
More info on the theory can be found at:
http://www.predicting2020.com/index.html
(look for the little "NEXT" icons at the bottom of each page - IMO the book does a much better job of presenting the theory than the summary on the website, but it's a decent intro.)
Greg in MO
I disagree -- what they were after was something different -- something we are still striving for. The goal of the post-WW2 generation was Star Trek. It was total automation through technology in a sterile environment. Have you ever seen stairs on Star Trek? Does Spock ever go on walk down a quiet street after a few beers?
Similarities between suburbs/post-WW2 and Startrek:
I'm being somewhat facetious here, but my point is real. How often do we think of Star Trek has being dystopian and bad? But really, the goals of the surburbs are the same goals as Star Trek -- and they are largely REALIZED goals.
Open space? Unless unreasonably sized yards is open space, you don't see that in the burbs? Affordable housing and good schools? Debatable. The real goal of suburbia is total automation of the human experience.
BTW: holodeck, Picard, Riker, Earl Grey
Sure... But it's not just a question of how many hours a week you watch TV - it's about what you watch. There's a big difference between the likes of"I Love Lucy" and "Little House on the Prairie" and the modern fare of "CSI" and "24". The interesting question is why has the general tone of TV programming changed so much... Personnally, I suspect that paranoia-inducing programming makes for a much better advertising vehicle.