Dr. Forbush Thinks

I have recently written about predicting the future based on the cycles of history.

This is based on a book written in 1990 by William Strauss and Neil Howe. It is called, “Generations: the history of America's future, 1584-2069”. The book has altered the way I think about history and why people do what they do. We easily acknowledge the fact that people are influenced by what the surrounding culture finds acceptable and unacceptable. If this wasn’t the case, then people wouldn’t try so hard to change how people look at the world. Religious leaders scream and yell at their congregations, telling them how they should change their ways, but when people go back out into the secular world they are drawn into the secular culture and they participate in the secular world ignoring the words of the preacher. This is why so many religious leaders have targeted “Hollywood” and “secularism” as evils that are a threat to our culture.

The reality of the situation is that these very same preachers are part of the larger woven culture of our society. As has been happening for at least the last four hundred years there is a cycle of ebb and flow in our society. Religion is part of that ebb and flow as is the secular world as well.

Man by his nature seeks to solve problems. The trouble is that there are a large number of problems and there are a large number of solutions to those problems. Man seeks to fix problems in broad terms as well as specific ways. And, on the broadest level of all we tend to choose between getting everyone to work together to solve the problems or do we get everyone to take responsibility and solve their problems on their own. A large number of problems can be solved with team work, and also a large number of problems can be solved by assigning ownership of a problem. The problem is that not all problems can be solved in the same way.

The cycle described by Strauss and Howe has two extremes in this respect. There is a time when society believes that teamwork can solve every problem and there is a time when society believes that ownership can solve every problem. Now, of course not every person in society looks at the world the same way. Some people align themselves with the popular majority and some people align themselves with the minority. So, when the majority believes in teamwork the minority is still echoing the positive nature of personal responsibility and vice versa. And, religion plays a major role in this cycle.

Since we are talking about a cycle here the current situation is always evolving. Children born today have parents with different experiences than their parents and so forth. So, let me describe this in our current history beginning with World War II. World War II was a crowning moment for the cooperation of our society. We worked together in a major effort where people sacrificed themselves for the society as a whole. This was possible because the Culture was primed to do this through the experiences of the past leading up to that moment. People learned by experience through the Great Depression that working together paid off as work was created through the efforts of society at large. So, it was a natural progression to realized that everyone needed to sacrifice themselves just a little bit more until their efforts paid off.

After the crisis was over this generation of people continued to believe that working together could solve even more problems, like medical discoveries, poverty, racism, and even landing a man on the Moon. The question became: “Just what couldn’t be done through cooperation?” Well, all of this cooperation requires a lot of discipline. And, discipline requires an effort that takes away from personal time and personal reflection. Religion becomes something that you do to get it done with so that you can get on with the important things. Memorized prayers and standard sermons filled the churches. There was a great emptiness in the American culture. And, when emptiness abounds those who feel empty invoke the ills of society as the problem. The natural thing for one to do is revolt against the societal order and then reflect on one’s personal relationship to the world. And as people across the country began to do this many discoveries about our society came to light. Some insight was good and some insight was bad. Efforts to change society erupted everywhere. This is known as an awakening. The majority in the society begins to believe that society is flawed on a basic level and changing one’s personal life will eventually filter to the society as a whole. However, when a multitude of individuals create a multitude of individual ways of doing things the organized order in society breaks down. The break down in order creates inefficiency and society doesn’t function as smoothly as it did when everyone knew their place and did as they had been taught. The lack of organization becomes the pole that begins to demand more order.

Since religion offers both an organized component and an individual reflection component it is the most likely place in society where this can be achieved. Man yearns to find meaning and purpose in the complex machinery of society. Man searches and explores for this meaning through alternative lifestyles and religious movements. Organized religion offers organized answers in an easy to digest way. As time goes on the easy answers become an easy way to deal with the complexity of a complex world. Religion teaches us how organization is a solution to religious problems and people eventually realize that working together solves secular problems as well. As problems arise teamwork pays off and problems are solved. And once again man has rediscovered cooperation solves larger problems.

This cycle has played out four times in the history of America, roughly 88 years in duration. And as far as we can tell it continues to play out even today.

The interesting thing is that with this new insight I begin to view history this way and even the books that I read. I am currently reading Alice McDermott’s “After This,” which is a book about a family that roughly follows the time I outlined above. She goes into some detail about each time period by telling some short stories that all fit together. For example, she tells the story of a date in the late 1940s and then she tells another story of a date in the early 1970s as to show the extreme changes in those 25 years. Alice shows us the contrast in our society by telling these stories, but now armed with this generational information I begin to understand a little bit more as to what these people might be thinking that make them decide to do the things they do.

I have also been thinking about this cycle in the terms of whether the cycle is “good” or “bad.” Of course there are “good” aspects and “bad” aspects of the cycle. Each time a group lives through the cycle they believe that they are inventing these things for the first time, but the truth is that people before them have explored many of these ideas and come to similar conclusions. And, as history continues chances are good that this will continue. The cycle can only be broken when the society as a whole realizes that the cycle exists. Or more specifically the society as a whole realizes that organized society and internal reflection are both important aspects for living a “good” life. For example, people need to explore alternative lifestyles, but they need to realize the value of established lifestyles. And, of course it is nearly impossible for a culture to embrace two polar ideas as being equally valid. But, until society comes to that conclusion we will continue to follow the cycle.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Weekend Reflections

I had two interesting experiences over the weekend that seem to be related.

First, I finally saw the movie “Saved!” This is a wonderful movie that every teen should see. The movie hits on most of the issues that are foremost in the minds of teens today. The movie is set in a “the best” Christian High School in town. Some of the students begin to discover the hypocrisy of this Christian School and a few others have already come to terms with the hypocrisy. But, the movie also deals with the classic high school click phenomena as well as teen pregnancy and homosexuality. It is quite amazing how all of these topics can be dealt with in 90 minutes.

There are several “great” lines or scenes in the movie that get one to think about the world we live in. At the beginning of the movie a “good” Christian girl Mary is at the top of the High School food chain. She is a member of the “in” senior click who have called themselves, “The Christian Jewels.” She has a boyfriend who secretly reveals to her that he thinks he may be gay. Mary conks her head and believes she sees a vision of Christ telling her to save her friend. In the convoluted way that teens sometimes think she comes to the conclusion that she needs to convince her gay boyfriend that girls are better by having sex with him. Obviously this does not change her boyfriend, and now Mary finds herself pregnant. I love this whole convoluted way of thinking this through. Even though it is a totally ridiculous idea, in the context of Christian thinking and lack of sex education classes it is a totally plausible conclusion based on the information available. It also serves as a good vehicle for discussion with your teen who will unsuspectingly watch the movie with you thinking that it’s really funny, but most likely ask some questions either during the movie or at the end.

Of course, the best line in the whole movie is: “There is only one reason a Christian girl goes to the Planned Parenthood Center.” “To drop off a pipe bomb?” “Well, maybe there are two reasons.”

Second, I heard an interesting interview with an author of a new book titled, “Freakonomics.” This book explores some of the reasons that things happen without the political bias. An example of something that happened is the drop in the crime rate in the 1990s. Politicians claim that they were responsible for the drop in crime, but none of their explanations seem to hold water. Republicans claim that they got tough on crime, but the statistics don’t bare that out. Democrats held the presidency and the Attorney general, but no new policies can be correlated to the drop in crime. The authors of this book put forward a theory that the increase in abortion rates in the 1970s lead to the fall in crime rates in the 1990s. Because women weren’t forced to take care of unwanted children the number of unwanted children went down. Unwanted children are more likely to act out and eventually find their way into crime because they are seeking someone to want them. The authors argue that this hypothesis doesn’t support the pro-life or pro-choice sides of the abortion debate. Anti-abortion groups can still claim that the death of 800,000 fetuses does not justify the saving of 1,000 lives by murder prevention. I would argue that it shows that we should work together to find ways to make sure that every child is wanted. If a mother finds herself pregnant and she knows that she can not take care of the child every effort must be made to find a caring home for that child so the child feels wanted. This analysis shows us a key issue that seems to be missed in the discussion – Children need to be wanted.

Art and Literature

I wrote a blog about Art and Science last week, and I thought I would continue from where I left off. In my blog I concluded that Art and Science are actually more alike than we actually realize. This is because Art and Science both observe the world and record those observations. Art includes emotion in both the observation and the communication. Science on the other hand attempts to exclude emotion in an effort to measure the world.

Based on this simplistic view we can move forward and ask the question – “What makes art ‘good’?” Most people have a personal idea of what makes art “good.” I have heard people express these opinions as long ago as I can remember. For example, one person may tell me that they saw some fantastic art, because the paintings were so realistic. Realism is one aspect of art, but does that mean that art that isn’t realistic is bad? Similarly, some people may say that like a particular style of music because they really enjoy the beat or the lyrics reminded them of a romance they once had. Does this mean that if music doesn’t have the catchy beat or lyrics that remind us of something out of our lives, then the music is bad? If the answer to these questions is no, then how do we know if art is ‘good’?

We should go back to understand the purpose of art. The artist observes the world and records those observations in a form, which communicates them to an audience. Paintings and drawings have an audience that trickles in and moves on over time. Live music and dance have an audience that witnesses the performance simultaneously, but only once. Literature, like paintings and drawings, have an audience that trickles in, but the audience must also have their interest held for a long period of time, or the reader may just put the book down and never pick it up again.

People know what they like when it comes to literature. Most people have strong opinions about what type of books that they prefer. Some people will wander through the mystery section looking for another mystery. Some people will peruse the science fiction section looking for another science fiction novel. People know what they like and they like what they know. So, how does one know if a book is a ‘good’ book?

We can go to an extreme example here. Everyone knows that sex sells. Include sex in your book, and you are bound to sell more books. This is because people like to read about what they know, and everyone knows about sex. Even a young teenager who hasn’t experienced sex is programmed by nature to desire something when it comes to sex. So, does including sex in a book make the book ‘good’? Most people would argue that including sex in a book only makes the book ‘cheap’, not ‘good’. Why is this? In our capitalistic society we are taught that creating demand for a product is the most important aspect of your product. Including sex in a book increases demand, therefore including sex in a book should make a book ‘good’.

Maybe the answer lies in the purpose of art. They purpose of art is to observe the world and to relate those observations back to the audience. By writing a book that includes sex in it we are relating the observed experience of sex back to the audience. But, if the book merely tells us what we already know the artist isn’t breaking new frontiers or relating new observations. The author is relying on telling us what we already know and telling us something that we know we like to hear again and again. It is like the pop musician that uses the I, IV, V chord progression over and over again. The musician knows that this is what the people are familiar with and he knows that people won’t complain. He is giving the people what they want, but he is not exploring new ways of communication with the audience. Lots of people will buy the music, but is it ‘good’ music. Is the musician a ‘good’ musician?

Obviously the answer lies somewhere in between. People want to hear the music that they are familiar with and the styles they are familiar with. But there must also be a place for musicians to explore new forms of music. Similarly artists need to create art in both traditional and new ways in an effort to understand the established styles and create more powerful new styles. Likewise literature will continue to rehash the old standards and also look at old observations in new ways.

To this end I’d like to alert people to the novel, “I am Charlotte Simmons.” by Tom Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe uses sex in this novel in a completely different way. It gives the reader a new view on an old observation. Of course if you are someone who believes that sex doesn’t belong in literature, then you won’t like this book. But, if you have an open mind you may be surprised at what Mr. Wolfe is saying and how he says it. Is it ‘good’ literature? Time will tell.