What many in the counterculture did, I believe, was to look at themselves --in their "liberated" state--and imagine that they saw human nature in its pristine state. But in reality, most of the middle class youth --brought up in the 1940s and 1950s-- who comprised the counterculture had already internalized a great many of the disciplines --moral and otherwise-- of traditional American culture.
That's why they could engage in the cultural revolution of liberation, and then go on to become effective middle class professionals, and the kind of liberals with well-ordered lives that I meet when I speak to Unitarian groups.
The loosening of the moral structures of American society did not, indeed, greatly disturb the lives of most of us middle class American youths of the counterculture, because the necessary structures were already inside us. Our endo-skeletons made the social enforcement of norms and standards and morals unnecessary.
For us, that is. Meanwhile, the rest of society was not identical to us endo-skeletons. And there, the costs of the cultural loosening have been more visible.
For one thing, there are elements of American society in which the disciplines of moral order were less firmly established than in the white middle class. And for them, the loosening of the moral fabric of the overall cultural system led to disastrous results, such as a steep increase in the rate of illegitimate births and a general deterioration of family structure.
(This picture is painted plausibly in Myron Magnet's THE DREAM AND THE NIGHTMARE: THE SIXTIES' LEGACY TO THE UNDERCLASS. I continue to believe that there was much that was valid and right in the counterculture, whereas Magnet is basically a conservative counter-revolutionary; but I nonetheless think it is important to recognize the truth of valid critiques even --sometimes especially-- from people who are in many ways adversaries.)
In addition to the effects of the loosening of our culture's moral structures on the underclass, there is also the impact that the dissipation of our culture's moral capital has had on our heirs, the young.
The youth coming up did not form their characters in the tighter environments of the 1940s and 1950s, but in the culturally looser decades since. And one has been hearing from veteran teachers for a long time now that each successive wave of students shows signs of a loosening of discipline of various kinds. The culture has grown trashier, the demands of society have become less stringent, the culture of indulgence has grown deeper-- and all this has led to a visible cultural decline. Many of the children of those who carried with them the older structures have managed to raise children whose lives are also fairly well-ordered. But even there it is a diminishing cultural capital that we are living off of. And I expect that the necessary forms of moral structure (and other disciplines) will attenuate in time-- in the absence of some kind of cultural renewal.
But it is on the other side of the cultural divide --in the realm of the endo-skeletons-- that the loosening of the moral order has proved most dangerous.
It is not only that the cultural right, more dependent on the external restraints, becomes more likely to succumb to forbidden impulses""like sailors come to port.
More dangerous for the society is that the particular nature of the right's moral vision -its relative harshness and its punitiveness""transforms the impulses of the human animal into something darker.
Fragile orders tend also to be harsher-- tyranny as the surest means to avoid anarchy. And, accordingly, a moral order that is less internalized, being more fragile, tends also toward harshness.
Thus the morality of the exo-skeletons tends to denigrate the human nature it seeks to control. This morality also tends to be more punitive in its approach to control-- glad to invest big sums in a brutal prison system (whether or not such punishments actually serve society best, as with drug offenders), passionately committed to the death penalty, and building its worldview around a highly punitive figure as Lord of the Universe.
(Think here of that major cultural phenomenon of recent years-- the controversy over Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.)
And the harsher the morality --the more the interaction between cultural demand and human nature is conducted in the form of of war-- the darker become the feelings inside the human creature socialized in that morality-- the more the feelings inside the human creature turn toward rage (at the wounds inflicted), toward a desire for power (to counteract the powerlessness of being small in a world that has declared war on you), and toward a lust for vengeance (for all the punishment and rejection inflicted).
The harsh morality of the cultural right thus engenders within the human spirit a kind of wolf . It is a wolf such as Shakespeare described in Troilus and Cressida:
That's why they could engage in the cultural revolution of liberation, and then go on to become effective middle class professionals, and the kind of liberals with well-ordered lives that I meet when I speak to Unitarian groups.
The loosening of the moral structures of American society did not, indeed, greatly disturb the lives of most of us middle class American youths of the counterculture, because the necessary structures were already inside us. Our endo-skeletons made the social enforcement of norms and standards and morals unnecessary.
For us, that is. Meanwhile, the rest of society was not identical to us endo-skeletons. And there, the costs of the cultural loosening have been more visible.
(This picture is painted plausibly in Myron Magnet's THE DREAM AND THE NIGHTMARE: THE SIXTIES' LEGACY TO THE UNDERCLASS. I continue to believe that there was much that was valid and right in the counterculture, whereas Magnet is basically a conservative counter-revolutionary; but I nonetheless think it is important to recognize the truth of valid critiques even --sometimes especially-- from people who are in many ways adversaries.)
In addition to the effects of the loosening of our culture's moral structures on the underclass, there is also the impact that the dissipation of our culture's moral capital has had on our heirs, the young.
The youth coming up did not form their characters in the tighter environments of the 1940s and 1950s, but in the culturally looser decades since. And one has been hearing from veteran teachers for a long time now that each successive wave of students shows signs of a loosening of discipline of various kinds. The culture has grown trashier, the demands of society have become less stringent, the culture of indulgence has grown deeper-- and all this has led to a visible cultural decline. Many of the children of those who carried with them the older structures have managed to raise children whose lives are also fairly well-ordered. But even there it is a diminishing cultural capital that we are living off of. And I expect that the necessary forms of moral structure (and other disciplines) will attenuate in time-- in the absence of some kind of cultural renewal.
But it is on the other side of the cultural divide --in the realm of the endo-skeletons-- that the loosening of the moral order has proved most dangerous.
It is not only that the cultural right, more dependent on the external restraints, becomes more likely to succumb to forbidden impulses""like sailors come to port.
More dangerous for the society is that the particular nature of the right's moral vision -its relative harshness and its punitiveness""transforms the impulses of the human animal into something darker.
Fragile orders tend also to be harsher-- tyranny as the surest means to avoid anarchy. And, accordingly, a moral order that is less internalized, being more fragile, tends also toward harshness.
Thus the morality of the exo-skeletons tends to denigrate the human nature it seeks to control. This morality also tends to be more punitive in its approach to control-- glad to invest big sums in a brutal prison system (whether or not such punishments actually serve society best, as with drug offenders), passionately committed to the death penalty, and building its worldview around a highly punitive figure as Lord of the Universe.
(Think here of that major cultural phenomenon of recent years-- the controversy over Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.)
And the harsher the morality --the more the interaction between cultural demand and human nature is conducted in the form of of war-- the darker become the feelings inside the human creature socialized in that morality-- the more the feelings inside the human creature turn toward rage (at the wounds inflicted), toward a desire for power (to counteract the powerlessness of being small in a world that has declared war on you), and toward a lust for vengeance (for all the punishment and rejection inflicted).
The harsh morality of the cultural right thus engenders within the human spirit a kind of wolf . It is a wolf such as Shakespeare described in Troilus and Cressida:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
