A correspondent writes about the effect of the economy on North Carolina’s citizenry:
People see the nation going to hell in a hand basket. They then (mistakenly) blame gay marriage, liberals, scientists, blacks, poor people, marijuana, Democrats, immigrants, atheists, the “elite”, Hollywood, etc. while missing some the real, biggest causes: corporate capture of government, ignorance, income disparity, polarized politics, cultural ghettos.
I think there are a couple of points to make here.
First, I don’t even think it takes “hell in a handbasket” – I think just change is enough. Whether it’s gay marriage or electric cars, as the environment transforms from their formative environments, people often take it as as a step down. For example, from my youth I recall the importance of a high fidelity stereo setup. These days, that high fidelity is not as important as mobile access – of having those ear buds in and listening to something, no matter how bad the quality.
If I think about it, it makes sense to have instant access anywhere – but it’s a little disconcerting to realize the kids really don’t seem to care about quality, only about access.
But let’s take this thought a little further – let’s add in the idea, the concept, of people who do not try to approach morality from a rational point of view, but from a static, “revealed” point of view. To such a person, where morality is the Word of God, completely perfect, what does it mean when the world around them changes in some meaningful way? When they lack an intellectual approach to morality?
If you can’t evaluate change in a meaningful way, you can either panic or condemn, to be overly blunt about it. The idea that a moral system is imperfect is the first step to evolving that moral system so that it doesn’t permit obvious unjust situations. A “revealed” moral system, as its source is God, is difficult to evaluate since there will be many who take joy in the emotional proclamation of its existence. And logic is easy: if it’s from God, it’s perfect, so don’t mess with it..
And, yes, that’s overly blunt: We no longer burn witches, stone adulterers, or whatever it is we’re supposed to do – if you’re in the Christian tradition. People do think, often against their will, but eventually the received word is modified to a form less likely to leave society riven with tragedy and mutual hatred. But it is a painfully slow and murky process.
(And let me say right here that “rational morality” is simply my code phrase for people behaving in a thinking and reasonable manner. While someday I intend to explore the ramifications of rational morality, it’s not happening here.)
Secondly, let’s consider what I loosely term tribalism, the tendency to congregate and put the group ahead of the individual. I’ve been meditating on this since I read this Daily Kos piece on sexual abuse in a fundamentalist family.
As I had described in a previous post, my stepfather, who was popular and handsome, insisted that we function as a “Christian” family. He was also a violent pedophile living a double life, one as a child abuser, and the other as the male head of a church going Christian family. …
At some point the pastor spoke to my parents. He encouraged my mother that she was fulfilling the will of God by staying married to a pedophile who molested all three of her kids because God hates divorce. My stepfather broke down and cried when confronted saying he was sorry for what he did. He claimed to repent (only when he was caught and confronted) and the pastor felt that the chapter was closed. I was firmly told that my stepfather had repented and that he was forgiven and transformed by God, and I should forgive him too. It seemed that Jesus would not forgive me for my sins unless I forgave others for theirs. I was directed to receive pastoral counseling from another area pastor. My stepfather wasn’t expected to get any counseling at all. The pastor I received Christian counseling from also believed in the transformative power of Christ which it seemed would be the key to my healing.
The social dynamics are fascinating once we toss in thoughts about revealed morality vs rational morality. The group, as it offers a moral system, becomes paramount as morality is perceived as the primary mechanism through which a peaceful and successful society is to be achieved; more importantly, as the group and its moral system is definitionally good, if something of a non-good nature should occur within the group, then this is a threat to the moral system, which should only have good outcomes. Those who’ve put their trust in the group, who’ve made it a fundamental part of what they are, will not willingly accept that their morality has led to a bad outcome. In the above, the stepfather insists on a Christian family, thus he must be Christian; his activities that are not-good, then, are a product of the “revealed” moral system.
So there are a few logical paths: you can proclaim abusing your children as good; you can proclaim that the victims brought it upon themselves; or, as in the above, you can repress the evidence, because it’s a danger to this moral system which, having been dispensed by God, is good and is the mechanism through which the group is held together.
Add in a few leaders that have become addicted to power – a common human fallibility – and the victims are enmeshed in a web that reinforces itself so long as the leaders are more or less human. The group is paramount – which, it could be argued, is a survival mechanism – and when the morality is static, the group becomes static and then twisted as the inability to allow for flaws in morality, to transform it into something better, is not available.
