Note that some of those 1950s conservative social values being promoted involve marriage. But in the 1950s, some people were not able to get legal recognition for their marriages (only since 2013 has such legal recognition been available nationwide in the US). Yet many of those promoting these conservative social values want to prevent such people from getting married.
Re-read the opening excerpt, please. The author stated there was once consensus on marriage before having children, use of profanity in public, etc. You have assumed that was somehow wholesale nostalgia for a different decade. That’s not a valid assumption at all. I read the author as pointing out the obvious, that societies can run more smoothly when there are shared social values and norms to which members adhere. That used to be part of a functioning society.
Well, this conversation has veered off rapidly. I was hoping that it would be about freedom of academic speech but instead it has become at best a ritual condemnation of 1950’s America.
Perhaps an academic speech episode that might be more suited to modern times is that of Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis. She wrote an academic article that was published in the journal Hypatia. Entitled “In Defense of Transracialism”, the article might be found here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hypa.12327/full
She was roundly attacked in by other academics, with whole episode summarized by inside higher ed here:
and the New Yorker here:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html
Can we stay on topic please?
OK Let’s look at the offending “bourgeois” values and see who would actually endorse their contraries:
Don’t bother getting married before having children, if you have kids don’t think twice about splitting, don’t bother with an education for gainful employment, don’t work hard, be idle, give the bare minimum to your employer or client. Be unloving and disloyal to your country and avoid service to country. Be a bad neighbor, avoid civic duty, do not give your time or money to charities, curse as much as you want in public, sneer at authority. Embrace substance abuse and crime.
This is the alternative? Who would teach this to their children? Who would want to live in such a society?
@roycroftmom Sure – there were a lot of shotgun weddings in the 1950s. For example, there were nearly 100 births per 1,000 among 15-19 year olds in the late 1950s, compared to about 50 in 2000 (and less now, if I recall correctly).
People weren’t soberly sitting down and deciding to get married before having kids. They got knocked, up, and then got married, surprisingly often. Is that really a good thing?
Folks really need to read “The Way We Never Were” by Stephanie Koontz before pining for 1950’s America.
I don’t see anyone pining for 50s America. I do see a lot of people wishing for more social consensus, cohesion and civility which are sorely lacking in today’s culture.
Rather than asserting the values espoused are “50s values”, one might accurately describe them as values espoused by large majorities of the populations in southern and western Asia, including China. I happen to admire them; you may not, but the almost reflexive assertion that they must be racist, sexist, etc etc is both unwarranted and unworthy of educated people.
When the initial opinion was that of romanticizing an idealized 1950s US that may not have been the actual case, should you have expected anything other than criticism of such romanticizing?
Whose “social consensus”? Perhaps it should also be noted that many of those pining for conservative social values of the idealized 1950s are willing participants in promoting divisiveness and incivility these days.
Ucbalumnus, I’m ok with most social consensus. I think Sweden works well with many out of wedlock birth and Israel works well with very few. The point is that most people in those societies have agreed on the framework of social rules, whatever they are… And don’t pretend to excuse incivility in the name of diversity. The two are quite separate.
But is there a consensus on what the social consensus should be? Perhaps the least restrictive and most theoretically accepting social consensus is a libertarian one (do what you want, as long as you are not causing others to be harmed involuntarily – though the details can be a lot trickier than the general principles), but few people are actually libertarians.
Not sure if Israel should be considered a place where there is much social consensus on many social issues, given the diversity of opinions and parties in its Knesset.
Actually, much of the incivility these days comes from those who fear and oppose diversity.
There is plenty of incivility on all sides. See the opening post. When adults can’t have a reasonable exchange of ideas in an academic setting without resorting to name calling and threats, such as in this case, society has lost something important.
@“SC Anteater”
Koontz is one of my academic heroes.
Wax’s and Alexander’s opinion piece wrote that “These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s” (implied to be in the US, not China or other parts of Asia). They also wrote that “Instead of bashing the bourgeois culture, they should return to the 1950s posture of celebrating it.” Since we are discussion that opinion piece, do you think it is incorrect to describe it as espousing what the authors see as desirable 1950s values in the US, since China or other places in Asia are not mentioned?
Also, with respect to southern and western Asia, many people there may hold conservative social values (some of which would be considered quite sexist even among cultural conservatives in the US, and it is not like all of those places (or China) are racism-free either), but a religion that is the most common one in many of those countries is seen as an alien one that is widely feared and hated in the US, particularly among cultural conservatives.
Several years ago there was a sweet little book published called something like “everything I really needed to know I learned in kindergarten”. It was full of, at the time, basic precepts like be nice, take turns, don’t bite. I don’t think it would sell today. The parents of the biters would complain about being unfairly singled out. Taking turns would be criticized as reinforcing existing social hierarchies. And being nice would be subjective, in the opinion of any one child, and thus not subject to judgment or correction. There are some advantages when social consensus exists, and it can be achieved in diverse and polite societies.
One issue is the “social consensus” of the 1950’s was largely dictated by and enforced by the upper/upper-middle class White majority. None of the other groups’ concerns/issues were given serious consideration until there were a series of protests and acts of Civil Disobedience by MLK and the NAACP in the '50s.
It’s also ironic a few are bringing up “politeness”, “civility”, and “kindness” when during that same decade, it was considered just fine in the US mainstream to do things like openly express one’s bigotry against those who don’t fit the mainstream definition of White, discriminate against them in public accommodations, the entitlement that racial/ethnic minorities should give automatic due deference to a White person(i.e. Even elderly Black people were expected to step aside onto the street in deference to a young White person at the risk of potential violence from the local White majority in the Jim Crow era South), or even initiate lynchings or riots against racial/ethnic minorities who are “too uppity”(i.e. 1921 Tulsa Riots initiated by Whites who couldn’t stand the presence of what was once a well-to-do Black community so they rioted to the point that the community was effectively destroyed.).
Hate to break it to ya, but Leave It To Beaver wasn’t intended to be a documentary on '50s American family life in the same way the Mel Gibson movie “The Patriot” wasn’t intended to be a documentary on the American Revolution…
I think you’re missing something about the point of the criticism. Did people really have those values in the '50’s? How were they made manifest? When I first read that paragraph, I had the same response, but when you think about what the reality was, then it sounds a lot more tinny.
Also reminder that people didn’t stay married “for the kids.” People stayed married because it was largely ILLEGAL to get divorced. A judge decided whether your divorce reason was good enough. It was also legal to beat and rape your wife.
And if a judge didn’t grant the divorce? Men would often up and leave.
I say again: don’t glorify the past that never was.
Once again, how is the social consensus determined? It is not a true consensus unless everyone voluntarily agrees to it, as opposed to having it imposed on them.
Going back to Wax’s and Alexander’s idealized 1950s attributes of the “bourgeois culture” from the paragraph quoted in post #0:
“Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake.” – Would you favor the 1950s notion of marriage, where in many places you could not marry someone of a different race and there was no recognition of LGB marriages, or a more inclusive notion of marriage as recognized today? Would you favor shotgun weddings in the case of unintended pregnancy from unmarried people? What if at least one of them is already married?
“Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness.” – In the 1950s, some people in many areas were deliberately pushed into inferior public education for reasons that took a 1954 Supreme Court case to invalidate (and many schools dragged their feet on implementing the order). Even today, educational opportunities are highly dependent on your parent’s SES. Would you prefer to fully implement this as a social consensus, which would mean significant improvements in educational opportunities for kids of lower SES families, and other lingering problems?
“Go the extra mile for your employer or client.” – Nothing inherently wrong with that, but you should expect that people will reciprocate either good or bad treatment by employers or clients. Indeed, the 1950s was the peak of labor union membership as a percentage of employees in the US, indicating that it was not a time of blind devotion to employers who may not have always treated employees well on their own. Would you prefer a social consensus toward a greater level of labor union membership?
“Be a patriot, ready to serve the country.” – In the 1950s, military service opportunities were more limited for women, and disallowed for LGB individuals (not sure if T was on anyone’s radar). Would you prefer a social consensus of 1950s restrictions on military service, or a military willing to induct those who want to serve regardless of gender, orientation, or gender identity (though the latter is still being attempted to be excluded today)? Of course, there are plenty of other ways to serve the country besides military service (some of which may involve working against the government in court or in public opinion forums where its policies are bad for the country – remember that the patriots of 1776 opposed the government at the time).
“Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable.” – In the 1950s, there were many people who fled as soon as neighbors of a different race or ethnicity moved in. Continued neighborhood-level racial segregation in many areas indicates that some of those attitudes remain today. Would you prefer a social consensus where new neighbors of a different race or ethnicity moving in are welcomed, not feared?
“Avoid coarse language in public.” – Seems like this is a social consensus that has not changed, but it is not like it is universally practiced.
“Be respectful of authority.” – To make respect (as opposed to pretend-respect out of mere fear) of authority a reality, there must be a social consensus that authority must behave well and treat ordinary people with respect. Would you agree?
“Eschew substance abuse and crime.” – Seems like this is a social consensus that has not changed, but it is not like it is universally practiced, particularly with alcohol.
Nor, should we vilify the past that never was. Some men may have gone up and left, but most would have never tried to get divorced in the first place, and may have stayed around if they couldn’t get a divorce. For a multitude of reasons, most men in the 1950s wouldn’t have wanted to spend the rest of their lives single, and an inability to get a divorce would have prevented remarriage and complicated cohabitation or even dating any future girlfriends.
It shows a poor understanding of history to reduce complex behavior to a single cause. Yes the divorce laws were a factor, but the legal industry had started to work around those by the 1950s: http://time.com/4521314/divorce-history-sarah-jessica-parker/. Just as important was the cultural stigma against divorce and the financial realities.