# contemporary western social norms



## science

I'm curious not about how you or I think people ought to live, but how (we think) our culture thinks people ought to live. 

What qualities or habits or traits or whatever are most admired, most respected, most esteemed? 

Or, what is most scorned? 

For example, obviously, most people obviously respect someone who has made a lot of money. 

What might be less obvious - what should be their taste in cuisine, literature, music, movies? How much television is a person supposed to watch? How are people supposed to dress? etc. 

Part of the interest in this topic would be figuring out what everyone agrees about, but part of it will be finding stuff that some of us think is highly respected, and others think is not. 

I know one example of that already - classical music. IMO, in western cultures, broadly speaking, there is no more prestigious sort of music for a person to like, and the classiest person is the one with the broadest taste within the tradition, especially appreciating the most avant-garde music. If I say that I like classical music, someone might even think I'm faking it for the prestige. But in the past people here have disagreed with me about that, arguing that popular music is the most prestigious, that people who like classical music are regarded negatively, as freaks. We could explore this one a bit if it interests us - I suspect a big part of the difference is social context: what is "cool" in the Manhattan Club (at one extreme) is not the same thing as what is "cool" at a frat party (at the other extreme). 

But there must be many others. What books is one supposed to have read? What drinks is one supposed to enjoy? What topics is one supposed to be knowledgeable about? What places is one supposed to have traveled to? Etc.


----------



## science

One thing that has occurred to me lately is that, unless one has a good excuse, one is supposed to be a Christian (aligned with one of the big traditions, nominally at least 150 years old, but individually not too religious), to celebrate Christmas with food, and to decorate one's house for Christmas.

Also, the inspiration for the thread was the book _The Cambridge Companion to Dostoyevsky_. I was wondering, who is supposed to read this? Of course a larger number people would be supposed to buy it. But even so, who is supposed to buy it?


----------



## starthrower

As far as respecting someone who has made a lot of money is concerned, some factors have to be considered. Does the person have integrity? Was their monetary success a byproduct of some other worthy accomplishments? Or is that person nothing but a clever opportunist and ladder climber?

Seems as though married people with the two kids and white picket fence get more respect than single/alternative lifestyle persons. How many gay/cross dressing transvestites are popular in the political arena?

Same goes for agnostics/atheists. You wouldn't think this would be such a stumbling block in the 21st century, but it obviously is.

As far as taste in music, cuisine, literature (what percentage of the population even reads literature anymore?) is concerned, it's not as important. Most people watch sports on TV, read the newspaper, and eat steak, hamburgers, chicken, etc.


----------



## brianvds

I couldn't possibly care less how other people live (it's none of my business) or how they think I should live (it's none of their business.) So there!


----------



## starthrower

There you have it! Right from the mouth of Johann Sebastian Schwarzenegger.


----------



## tdc

I think it is hard to speak for society at large as everyone is biased by their own opinions, and have their own distinct views on things. There is a certain normalcy that is promoted by mainstream media that certainly tries to subtly define values and what is normal and what should be valued and then there are counter-cultures which can be found within these same cultures in various places. I have respect for individuals that have found their own niche and/or their purpose whatever that may be, and it has nothing to do with their fashions, musical tastes, what books they have read, and most definitely not on how much money they make.

I think contemporary western social norms are currently in a state of flux and of redefining themselves. You still have a strong push by the corporate sector to maintain the status quo and to reinforce materialistic values but I think more and more people are rejecting that and looking for more substantial values and win/win solutions for the planet.


----------



## ahammel

science said:


> I know one example of that already - classical music. IMO, in western cultures, broadly speaking, there is no more prestigious sort of music for a person to like, and the classiest person is the one with the broadest taste within the tradition, especially appreciating the most avant-garde music.


This is so alien to my experience living in western culture that I wonder if you have not confused it with the culture of the planet Barzeebo.


----------



## Ingélou

I can't identify with the OP at all. Is this an American 'take' on today's world?

I was brought up in a socialist freethinking household - my father had a very deprived background in the slums of Dundee and in a 'wee free' sect. I was brought up to 'not-respect' people with money and to dislike people who thought in terms of status. I was one of six children who got a good education under the grammar school system. We were not a classical-music family, but classical music was all over the air waves. We did probably think that classical music lovers were a bit posh, but we didn't think they pretended to like it to achieve status. 

Society has changed, and I have changed. I have become a Catholic - joined the opposite tribe to my father's.  
I still most respect intelligent & cultured people, but I now don't have the ridiculous inverted snobbery that I grew up with and can like people with money or who come from the upper classes if they are nice friendly people. I do think that 'celebrity' has become a focus of our society in a way that it wasn't - and owning things now has a cachet that it didn't. Where did the concept of 'designer jeans' come from - it still seems daft to me. 

I also think that in Britain you don't have to pretend to be a Christian to pass muster any more. Au contraire, you have to be fairly brave to own up to going against current social mores on abortion, gender and sexuality politics, euthanasia etc; there's far more cachet in saying you don't believe in 'organised religion' and mocking those who do have faith. 

There are all sorts of values that are admired now that are the complete opposite of those I grew up with: being 'aggressive' and a poor loser in sport; jeering at conventional people; 'edgy' comedy that involves offending such people; applauding those who 'survive' or prosper through sharp practice; being physically honed and despising flabby folk; valuing sex over love, and being ashamed of chastity; parading one's lust; using the worst swear words in daily speech in order to be 'cool', and so on.

I am not ranting, merely observing. On the plus side, people are far less racist than they were when I was young. My grandparents were dreadfully prejudiced, and people on trains etc often launched into racist harangues and expected you to agree with them. There is more sympathy for the poor and for disabled people too. 

But the OP sounds much more like something out of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. I have no idea what are the smart drinks to drink, books to read, or topics to discuss. I just try to live honestly, as do most of the people that I know.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I can't easily relate to what the OP proposes either. In terms of religion, I celebrate festivals according to their pagan origins and the modernisation of pre-Christian rituals which has become the norm, such as giving gifts and decorating trees at Christmas time, but also because half my family come from Macedonia I also celebrate Christmas in early January according to the secular aspects of Christmas in Macedonia. I rarely expect people to be religious, and I've not come across many who aren't atheists. According to demographics I have read recenrly, about a third of my area is Christian, but I don't think I've met most of them yet! :lol:

I've been brought up to not give a damn about how much money anyone earns, but instead to talk to people and to respect them for things like their personality, values and heritage, being fully aware that no one is purely evil. My own group of friends is made up of people across the classes and heritages from the wealthy to the recently arrived in the country, but these factors are absolutely no part of my befriending of them. 

In terms of things like what books I'm supposed to have read, well I know I'm supposed to read what's on my summer's reading list for school each year, but as a teenager I suppose many of my kind have spoken highly of the hunger games and other books of that sort. I used to read books like that when I was 9-12 but found that I simply just preferred other writing styles and other subjects since I began my secondary education, and many of the books I read now are things which I find in my own which look interesting to me. My own interest in movies is pretty much the same as books. In that regard. 

As for cuisine, my exposure to a broad range of cultures and equally easy access to fish and chips, laksa, paella, pizza, sushi, vindaloo, falafel, pho, cuisines of Greece, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Mexico, China, Korea, Italy, Turkey and so on has spurred a desire to try as many different things as possible. I find that my favourite foods tend to be Asian/SE Asian, just as quite a large proportion of people I know also do, but I am completely clueless as to the "norms" of this. I just love the flavours. 

As far as I know, the topics people are supposed to be knowledgable about are influenced highly by their past, especially choices made in secondary/tertiary education regarding both profession and hobbies, but also life experience has a huge impact. My girlfriend was born in and grew up in Mexico for the first 13 years of her life so I expect her and many people who have emigrated out of countries due to violent conflict affecting their life would be knowledgable of things associated with living in that condition (the politics of it and corruptiom, what discrimination may occur, the police force etc.). For someone who has lived with a lot of pets, I would expect them to know things about looking after animals. For someone who is studying engineering at university, I would expect them to have a lot of mathematical knowledge. Basically what I'm saying is, I wouldn't know what to expect people to know unless I know something about them. 

Knowing things about individual people and being able to find things to respect in anyone and anything, no matter what culture or how common/popular it is, is more important to me than doing things because it's an "expectedly normal" thing to do, or expecting anyone to be "expectedly normal."


----------



## ptr

brianvds said:


> I couldn't possibly care less how other people live (it's none of my business) or how they think I should live (it's none of their business.) So there!


I very general terms I agree with Brian's statement completely! Concerning wealth, I'd say that how much and/or how you earned it, is pointless and does not earn You any merit at all. The only thing that matters is what You do with that "wealth", in my world, people only earn respect and/or recognition for their actual actions!

As for religion, I'm a devout Dawkinian, who like him believe that the us humans need to free ourself from the heresies of religion! It, "Religion", was only crated as to maintain patriarchal supremacy and the fact that the modern human has developed a tool, its "brain", that has the capability to disclose religion for the hoax it is. (Religion should be relegated to the same "curiosity cabinet" as beliefs in Trolls, Goblins, Ghosts (sorry MG), Poltergeists et al!)

As for Classical Music being the ultimate in Culture, being an intellectual elitist I can quite agree on that, even if I really don't believe that it is... 

/ptr


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ptr said:


> I very general terms I agree with Brian's statement completely! Concerning wealth, I'd say that how much and/or how you earned it, is pointless and does not earn You any merit at all. The only thing that matters is what You do with that "wealth", in my world, people only earn respect and/or recognition for their actual actions!
> 
> As for religion, I'm a devout Dawkinian, who like him believe that the us humans need to free ourself from the heresies of religion! It, "Religion", was only crated as to maintain patriarchal supremacy and the fact that the modern human has developed a tool, its "brain", that has the capability to disclose religion for the hoax it is. (Religion should be relegated to the same "curiosity cabinet" as beliefs in Trolls, Goblins, Ghosts (sorry MG), Poltergeists et al!)
> 
> As for Classical Music being the ultimate in Culture, being an intellectual elitist I can quite agree on that, even if I really don't believe that it is...
> 
> /ptr


Don't forget that in dictatorships such as Stalin's USSR and Mao Zedong's China they were effectively acting as equivalent replacements of a "God" after they attempted eradication of all the existing religions in their countries! So it's not so much religion, in my opinion, but blind faith with no acceptance of any alternatives which causes more problems than ever! I do certainly agree with you in terms of your point about patriarchal supremacy, it's arguably humanity's greatest flaw.


----------



## ptr

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Don't forget that in dictatorships such as Stalin's USSR and Mao Zedong's China they were effectively acting as equivalent replacements of a "God" after they attempted eradication of all the existing religions in their countries! So it's not so much religion, in my opinion, but blind faith with no acceptance of any alternatives which causes more problems than ever! I do certainly agree with you in terms of your point about patriarchal supremacy, it's arguably humanity's greatest flaw.


You are absolutely correct in saying that personality cult's like these are very much like religions!

/ptr


----------



## starthrower

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> So it's not so much religion, in my opinion, but blind faith with no acceptance of any alternatives which causes more problems than ever! .


The Christian fundamentalist movement in the United States is an perfect example. And these folks will tell you they're not religious, but they are "born again" with a personal relationship with God almighty. And one of your fine citizens, Ken Ham, has come here to open his Creation Museum. And of course, he went straight to the bible belt in Kentucky. I wonder why he didn't try to launch this project in NYC, or in one of the European capitals? I find this guy insufferable, and I feel sorry for the kids of simpleminded parents who are exposing them to this dogma, an archaic world view. And the republican party in this country had been sucking up to these politically active zealots for the past 35 years.


----------



## Jos

That is a very broad topic, you've come up with Science. An interesting one. 
In a very distant past I dabbled somewhat in sociology and literature, and the first thing that sprung to mind after reading your OP was the name of Bourdieu. Not saying that he has a ready answer to your questions (sociologists seldom have ) but he has written interesting observations on class, sociological strata. 
These days (at least in the western society) setting a norm on how to live will be difficult, but there are lots of hidden codes, habits, ways of behavior one has to live up to, if one wants to belong to a certain group.
I believe this subject has also been brushed by Sid James recently. Norms and values are also used to exclude people.

Anyways, an interesting topic, I have it tagged.
I've set the norm for our Christmasdiner pretty high, so I've got to get back to my cooking 

A merry Christmas to you all.

Jos


----------



## Jos

Ingélou said:


> I am not ranting, merely observing.


Nothing wrong with a good rant every now and then, Ingelou


----------



## Morimur

Don't kill people.
Don't steal.
Don't covet.
Be clean.

If we at least managed to adhere to these four rules, we'd be in good shape. Social norms? We are all human, we are all flawed and insignificant regardless of wealth and physical appearance -- we are all equal. If one believes otherwise, disease and death do not discriminate and will always prove one wrong.


----------



## Ingélou

Jos said:


> Nothing wrong with a good rant every now and then, Ingelou


:cheers: I save 'rants' for dancing -


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> Don't kill people.
> Don't steal.
> Don't covet.
> Be clean.
> 
> If we at least managed to adhere to these four rules, we'd be in good shape. Social norms? We are all human, we are all flawed and insignificant regardless of wealth and physical appearance -- we are all equal. If one believes otherwise, disease and death do not discriminate and will always prove one wrong.


Unfortunately, rules of conduct have never solved the woes of the human condition. I don't remember my parents ever telling me not to steal or be dishonest. Or making a list of rules. They led by example.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> Unfortunately, rules of conduct have never solved the woes of the human condition. I don't remember my parents ever telling me not to steal or be dishonest. Or making a list of rules. They led by example.


My point is that we, as a whole, CANNOT even manage to follow those rules. You, yourself may have turned out ok, but it's clear that many in this world live as animals do: kill or be killed -- do what thou wilt. Even leading by example doesn't work with human beings; we are irreparably corrupt.


----------



## Jos

Morimur said:


> but it's clear that many in this world live as animals do: kill or be killed -- do what thou wilt. Even leading by example doesn't work with human beings; we are irreparably corrupt.


Sounds like you've already thrown in the towel......


----------



## Varick

starthrower said:


> Unfortunately, rules of conduct have never solved the woes of the human condition. I don't remember my parents ever telling me not to steal or be dishonest. Or making a list of rules. They led by example.


They have not "solved" the woes of the human condition and nothing can "solve" those woes, otherwise we would no longer be human without our flaws, our emotions, and we would be robots.

However, these rules have helped tremendously to elevate the human condition especially those who have chosen to work on themselves and taken certain moral and ethical rules to heart.

I would never use the word "kill" when listing things not to do, but rather "murder." There *is* such thing as moral killing, but murder is the worst crime you can do against humanity.

V


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> My point is that we, as a whole, CANNOT even manage to follow those rules. You, yourself may have turned out ok, but it's clear that many in this world live as animals do: kill or be killed -- do what thou wilt. Even leading by example doesn't work with human beings; we are irreparably corrupt.


Your generalized statements, oversimplifications, and observations don't really shed much light on things. I don't buy the irreparably corrupt thing, whatever that means.


----------



## Varick

Morimur said:


> My point is that we, as a whole, CANNOT even manage to follow those rules. You, yourself may have turned out ok, but it's clear that many in this world live as animals do: kill or be killed -- do what thou wilt. Even leading by example doesn't work with human beings; we are irreparably corrupt.





Jos said:


> Sounds like you've already thrown in the towel......


I wouldn't consider that throwing in the towel. I think it's an very accurate summation of humanity. I loath humanity, but I love individuals and there are many individuals who are outstanding.

It's so easy for those who live in the Western world and democratic free societies to think highly of humanity because their point of reference doesn't take in the overall history of mankind, nor do many living in these areas realize, understand, or know the absolute horror, depravity, fear, squalor and oppression the majority of humanity lives in right now as I type this. Our wealthy high-standard-of-living Western world where the vast majority lives VERY comfortably is practically brand new in context of the way almost all of humanity has always lived since the beginning of humanity.

But if you take an honest and historical look at all of humanity, there is little there to say, "Wow, humanity is awesome!" The awesome parts in the history of man are the exceptions. Western culture is one of those exceptions, which is why I have a hard time not feeling disdain for those who live in it, yet criticize it wholesale. They are ingrates, and they have no idea how lucky they are to be living in it, both geographically, and historically, and ingratitude is one of the most loathsome human traits.

V


----------



## starthrower

Varick said:


> It's so easy for those who live in the Western world and democratic free societies to think highly of humanity because their point of reference doesn't take in the overall history of mankind, nor do many living in these areas realize, understand, or know the absolute horror, depravity, fear, squalor and oppression the majority of humanity lives in right now as I type this. Our wealthy high-standard-of-living Western world where the vast majority lives VERY comfortably is practically brand new in context of the way almost all of humanity has always lived since the beginning of humanity.
> 
> But if you take an honest and historical look at all of humanity, there is little there to say, "Wow, humanity is awesome!" The awesome parts in the history of man are the exceptions. Western culture is one of those exceptions, which is why I have a hard time not feeling disdain for those who live in it, yet criticize it wholesale. They are ingrates, and they have no idea how lucky they are to be living in it, both geographically, and historically, and ingratitude is one of the most loathsome human traits.


The unfortunate lot of so many others in this world that you describe is something I think about everyday. And if we in the West are going to be honest, we have to admit that our own wealth and high standard of living is benefited by the exploitation of others. Our governments pick and choose which dictators will be useful to our own ends, and they demonize the less useful ones. We condemn the tyrannical regimes in North Korea and Iran, but not in China or Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> The unfortunate lot of so many others in this world that you describe is something I think about everyday. And if we in the West are going to be honest, we have to admit that our own wealth and high standard of living is benefited by the exploitation of others. Our governments pick and choose which dictators will be useful to our own ends, and they demonize the less useful ones. We condemn the tyrannical regimes in North Korea and Iran, but not in China or Saudi Arabia.


...Speaking of corruption.

You're under the assumption that society can solve all its flaws through 'leading by example' (talk about generalizations). Do you not see ample proof in history and in our own time, that these selfless examples of humanity do not exist? Those who wield worldly power would never tolerate anyone or anything that threatened their rule (and cashflow). If humanity could in fact accomplish what you suggest, it would have done it long ago. Take note: Societies are not capable of fixing themselves. Human beings are inherently corrupt and broken; we lack the 'goodness' nescessary to construct a positive, peaceful world. Unless we are led by something outside of ourselves, we will continue on our destructive, suicidal path.


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> ...Speaking of corruption.
> 
> You're under the assumption that society can solve all its flaws through 'leading by example' (talk about generalizations). Do you not see ample proof in history and in our own time, that these selfless examples of humanity do not exist? Those who wield worldly power would never tolerate anyone or anything that threatened their rule (and cashflow). If humanity could in fact accomplish what you suggest, it would have done it long ago. Take note: Societies are not capable of fixing themselves. Human beings are inherently corrupt and broken; we lack the 'goodness' nescessary to construct a positive, peaceful world. Unless we are led by something outside of ourselves, we will continue on our destructive, suicidal path.


First of all, I never said any of those things. I'm under no such assumption. I spoke of my own personal upbringing and my parents leading by example. Humanity has been looking outside of itself for centuries praying to gods, and it hasn't made any difference. We have no other choice but to take responsibility for ourselves. Human constructs such as governments, corporations, organized religion, and large bureaucracies take on a life of their own and wield tremendous power. But that's all we've got for now, unless we are going back to the caves.

This something outside ourselves that you speak of. Would that be god? And how will surrendering to this mysterious power/force solve all the world's ills?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

starthrower said:


> The unfortunate lot of so many others in this world that you describe is something I think about everyday. And if we in the West are going to be honest, we have to admit that our own wealth and high standard of living is benefited by the exploitation of others. Our governments pick and choose which dictators will be useful to our own ends, and they demonize the less useful ones. We condemn the tyrannical regimes in North Korea and Iran, but not in China or Saudi Arabia.


Also, governments have, in the past (and especially during the Cold War) picked and chosen things like the anti-war messages in Bernstein's Mass to keep him under close watch by the FBI, condemnation of democratically elected people in standard left wing parties like Salvador Allende in favour of the right-wing dictatorship that followed in Chile after his forced dismissal. One could go further and say that certain streams of thought, certain values and even certain artworks are condemned, despite of their harmlessness, as a way of conditioning the way people think and react. Governments can control people this way.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> First of all, I never said any of those things. I'm under no such assumption. I spoke of my own personal upbringing and my parents leading by example. Humanity has been looking outside of itself for centuries praying to gods, and it hasn't made any difference. We have no other choice but to take responsibility for ourselves. Human constructs such as governments, corporations, organized religion, and large bureaucracies take on a life of their own and wield tremendous power. But that's all we've got for now, unless we are going back to the caves.
> 
> This something outside ourselves that you speak of. Would that be god? And how will surrendering to this mysterious power/force solve all the world's ills?


If God is mysterious to us, it's because we have not surrendered enough. We were created to operate with God at the helm because without his leadership, we end up with our world in its present and ever worsening state.


----------



## starthrower

By getting rid of populist leaders like Allende, who might have raised taxes a bit on American corporations doing business there, and elevated his own citizens standard of living, helped to ensure cheaper goods for us comfortable white people!

Same thing in Iran in the 50s when they (USA & Britain) got rid of Mosaddegh.


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> If God is mysterious to us, it's because we have not surrendered enough. We were created to operate with God at the helm because without his leadership, we end up with our world, in its present and ever worsening state.


Well, if some god created us with our fears and anxieties, and empty stomachs, he left us on our own to sink or swim. And we've managed to stay afloat by seeking knowledge to help us understand how the world works. The very thing that supposedly got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> Well, if some god created us with our fears and anxieties, and empty stomachs, he left us on our own to sink or swim. And we've managed to stay afloat by seeking knowledge to help us understand how the world works. The very thing that supposedly got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.


.

Yeah . . . and clearly, we've done a great job.


----------



## starthrower

I think we have, but it's an ongoing process. In fact we've done such a good job with science, medicine and agriculture that we now have nearly 7 billion people on the planet. The alternative would be to go back to the 14th century and have a third of Europe dying in agony from the Black Death.

Of course there have been some huge negatives like the two world wars, but they were started by a handful of foolish people. And hopefully this dreaded Armageddon that Christian people talk of will not happen.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

starthrower said:


> Well, if some god created us with our fears and anxieties, and empty stomachs, he left us on our own to sink or swim. And we've managed to stay afloat by seeking knowledge to help us understand how the world works. The very thing that supposedly got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.


LOL! That garden of Eden story has always made me wonder if this God was meant to be some sort of antagonist in the long run? We kinda blew his/her expectations, or maybe this god had a flaw in the creation of humans which resulted in that action which got us kicked out of his/her yard. :lol:

If we were actually lifeless Lego blocks and Lego people, it would be easier to understand this god business as a creator and manipulator of the world.


----------



## Morimur

starthrower said:


> I think we have, but it's an ongoing process. In fact we've done such a good job with science, medicine and agriculture that we now have nearly 7 billion people on the planet. The alternative would be to go back to the 14th century and have a third of Europe dying in agony from the Black Death.
> 
> Of course there have been some huge negatives like the two world wars, but they were started by a handful of foolish people. And hopefully this dreaded Armageddon that Christian people talk of will not happen.


You can be certain that humanity will run its course, one way or another.


----------



## starthrower

I don't understand how any intelligent person can accept the Garden Of Eden story. It flies in the face of man's inquisitiveness and natural curiosity. As the Kansas song says, Carry On Wayward Son. 

The Tree Of Knowledge in the center of the garden could be compared to a cookie jar on the kitchen counter. Mom & Dad (God) tell little Johnny & Jill(Adam & Eve) that they can eat whatever they want out of the fridge, but don't touch the cookie jar. Well, you know what's going to happen when God isn't looking.


----------



## science

Ingélou said:


> I can't identify with the OP at all. Is this an American 'take' on today's world?
> 
> I was brought up in a socialist freethinking household - my father had a very deprived background in the slums of Dundee and in a 'wee free' sect. I was brought up to 'not-respect' people with money and to dislike people who thought in terms of status. I was one of six children who got a good education under the grammar school system. We were not a classical-music family, but classical music was all over the air waves. We did probably think that classical music lovers were a bit posh, but we didn't think they pretended to like it to achieve status.
> 
> Society has changed, and I have changed. I have become a Catholic - joined the opposite tribe to my father's.
> I still most respect intelligent & cultured people, but I now don't have the ridiculous inverted snobbery that I grew up with and can like people with money or who come from the upper classes if they are nice friendly people. I do think that 'celebrity' has become a focus of our society in a way that it wasn't - and owning things now has a cachet that it didn't. Where did the concept of 'designer jeans' come from - it still seems daft to me.
> 
> I also think that in Britain you don't have to pretend to be a Christian to pass muster any more. Au contraire, you have to be fairly brave to own up to going against current social mores on abortion, gender and sexuality politics, euthanasia etc; there's far more cachet in saying you don't believe in 'organised religion' and mocking those who do have faith.
> 
> There are all sorts of values that are admired now that are the complete opposite of those I grew up with: being 'aggressive' and a poor loser in sport; jeering at conventional people; 'edgy' comedy that involves offending such people; applauding those who 'survive' or prosper through sharp practice; being physically honed and despising flabby folk; valuing sex over love, and being ashamed of chastity; parading one's lust; using the worst swear words in daily speech in order to be 'cool', and so on.
> 
> I am not ranting, merely observing. On the plus side, people are far less racist than they were when I was young. My grandparents were dreadfully prejudiced, and people on trains etc often launched into racist harangues and expected you to agree with them. There is more sympathy for the poor and for disabled people too.
> 
> But the OP sounds much more like something out of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. I have no idea what are the smart drinks to drink, books to read, or topics to discuss. I just try to live honestly, as do most of the people that I know.


This is definitely a totally different perspective!

I wonder whether some of the things you mention are less "widely admired" than "widely tolerated." For example, I can't imagine a politician showing off his facility with the bad words, or mocking people of faith (though I admit that may be more common in Europe generally than in the USA).

Racism has definitely gone into the closet for now, which is interesting. But it'd probably been a while since that was a widely admired trait. Even the segregationist politicians of the American South were in their private lives much less racist than the poorer "white trash" whose votes they sought with that rhetoric; what I mean to illustrate by this is that even in the old South overt racism was "common" (in the bad sense) rather than admired.


----------



## science

Trying to bring the thread back on topic, one of the things that I think is expected of modern people who want to be "elite" is to have global interests and concerns. It seems to me that this was true during the "new imperialism" era before WWI as well. "Eurocentric" has become a criticism, almost even when the topic itself is Europe. But if I judge rightly, one is still supposed to perhaps a third or even half of one's knowledge and interest to western Europe and the USA, with the rest of the world getting the rest. 

For example, our interest in places like Africa are supposed to center on their relation to western culture and politics - we are supposed to have more interest in 20th century African novels or in the influence African music has had on European composers than in traditional African culture itself (in the sense that the former sorts of knowledge are more likely to be admired than the latter). If you know only about African art itself, you've got a niche interest, which is ok of course; but if you know a lot about African art influencing European artists, that's more interesting to most people.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> I don't understand how any intelligent person can accept the Garden Of Eden story. It flies in the face of man's inquisitiveness and natural curiosity. As the Kansas song says, Carry On Wayward Son.
> 
> The Tree Of Knowledge in the center of the garden could be compared to a cookie jar on the kitchen counter. Mom & Dad (God) tell little Johnny & Jill(Adam & Eve) that they can eat whatever they want out of the fridge, but don't touch the cookie jar. Well, you know what's going to happen when God isn't looking.


When I get a chance, I'll post a thread with my idea about the story of the Fall in the religion discussion group, and I'll PM you because I'd be interested in your take on it.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> When I get a chance, I'll post a thread with my idea about the story of the Fall in the religion discussion group, and I'll PM you because I'd be interested in your take on it.


Thanks! I'll look forward to your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Trying to bring the thread back on topic, one of the things that I think is expected of modern people who want to be "elite" is to have global interests and concerns. It seems to me that this was true during the "new imperialism" era before WWI as well. "Eurocentric" has become a criticism, almost even when the topic itself is Europe. But if I judge rightly, one is still supposed to perhaps a third or even half of one's knowledge and interest to western Europe and the USA, with the rest of the world getting the rest.
> 
> For example, our interest in places like Africa are supposed to center on their relation to western culture and politics - we are supposed to have more interest in 20th century African novels or in the influence African music has had on European composers than in traditional African culture itself (in the sense that the former sorts of knowledge are more likely to be admired than the latter). If you know only about African art itself, you've got a niche interest, which is ok of course; but if you know a lot about African art influencing European artists, that's more interesting to most people.


According to this site, almost nobody in the U.S. had any interest or knowledge of African literature, including the Modern Library Board. http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa100BestBooks.htm


----------



## Ukko

Jeez science, you may have lived in Korea too long.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ukko said:


> Jeez science, you may have lived in Korea too long.


North or South? I wonder if wearing vinylon is a social norm for science!


----------



## brotagonist

science said:


> [M]ost people obviously respect someone who has made a lot of money.


Do they? Envy, certainly, but respect? I think it is more typical for "most people" to be critical of those who have made a lot of money. How did most of these people make their money? Would most people want to do the same? I rather doubt it.



science said:


> _n western cultures, broadly speaking, there is no more prestigious sort of music for a person to like, and the classiest person is the one with the broadest taste within the tradition, especially appreciating the most avant-garde music._


_

Do you really believe this?  I think that "most people" could either not care less or even look down on you for being so conseravtive or old-fashioned... and avant-garde music? That is so far off the radar for "most people" that I doubt many have any opinion on it at all, except perhaps that it's too weird... and anyone who likes it must be strange and out of touch 



science said:



[W]hat should be their taste in cuisine, literature, music, movies? How much television is a person supposed to watch? How are people supposed to dress? etc. What books is one supposed to have read? What drinks is one supposed to enjoy? What topics is one supposed to be knowledgeable about? What places is one supposed to have traveled to? Etc.

Click to expand...

These are difficult to generalize. I think "most people" likely don't read a lot, at least, not a lot of what is termed literature or non-fiction, but do consume a lot of pop music, movies and television. "Most people" are also supposed to enjoy alcohol, I would think... and coffee, but not tea. They probably mostly wear hoodies and t-shirts and jeans with running shoes... and prefer burgers and pizza and steak :lol: And they are likely supposed to be knowledgeable about consumer products and trends: cars, electronics, the latest Hollywood movies, pop music, what's currently viral, etc. Knowing much about anything else and not knowing much about these marks the outsider. I think one is supposed to have travelled to New York or London England or California or Sydney Australia, perhaps-it should be English-speaking and sort of give an at home feeling for Americans._


----------



## science

Ukko said:


> Jeez science, you may have lived in Korea too long.


Actually, I think this is just a way of looking at our culture that we're not accustomed to.

I am reflecting on what the most valuable forms of cultural capital are.

There is obviously something to it: we talk about "guilty pleasure" reading and listening, contrasting it to the kind of reading and listening that we are supposed to do. I think most of us here have quite a bit of cultural capital, as indicated by our enjoyment of classical music. Probably not many of us have pink plastic flamingos decorating our lawns, not many of us get excited about reality television, not many of us care about hip hop dance, and not many of us take pride in knowing the ins and outs of McDonalds menus.

Of course there is a "where are you from" element to it, because rural Mississippi and the Place de Vendôme are not the same places culturally: what is valued in the former may not be valued in the latter, and vice-versa. BUT it's hard to argue that rural Mississippi's values have the cultural power that Paris's values have.

What I am wondering is, what is valued at Davos? At the Bilderberg Group? At the Manhattan Club? What are you supposed to know about in a casual conversation at Off the Record (in the Hay-Adams)? What are the social and cultural norms of the elite of our contemporary society?


----------



## science

brotagonist said:


> Do they? Envy, certainly, but respect? I think it is more typical for "most people" to be critical of those who have made a lot of money. How did most of these people make their money? Would most people want to do the same? I rather doubt it.
> 
> Do you really believe this?  I think that "most people" could either not care less or even look down on you for being so conseravtive or old-fashioned... and avant-garde music? That is so far off the radar for "most people" that I doubt many have any opinion on it at all, except perhaps that it's too weird... and anyone who likes it must be strange and out of touch
> 
> These are difficult to generalize. I think "most people" likely don't read a lot, at least, not a lot of what is termed literature or non-fiction, but do consume a lot of pop music, movies and television. "Most people" are also supposed to enjoy alcohol, I would think... and coffee, but not tea. They probably mostly wear hoodies and t-shirts and jeans with running shoes... and prefer burgers and pizza and steak :lol: And they are likely supposed to be knowledgeable about consumer products and trends: cars, electronics, the latest Hollywood movies, pop music, what's currently viral, etc. Knowing much about anything else and not knowing much about these marks the outsider. I think one is supposed to have travelled to New York or London England or California or Sydney Australia, perhaps-it should be English-speaking and sort of give an _at home_ feeling for Americans.


You're telling me about people we look down on. Tell me about the people we look up to.


----------



## brotagonist

science said:


> You're telling me about people we look down on.


We might be inclined to devalue those who fit the stereotype 100%, but these describe parts of us all.



science said:


> Tell me about the people we look up to.


I'm too cynical to look up to anyone  I don't think such people really exist. As above, some have admirable qualities, but also undesirable ones  Society at large tends to look up to the rich and famous as long as we don't know the truth about them. The fact is, that really leaves nobody to look up to :devil:


----------



## science

brotagonist said:


> We might be inclined to devalue those who fit the stereotype 100%, but these describe parts of us all.
> 
> I'm too cynical to look up to anyone  I don't think such people really exist. As above, some have admirable qualities, but also undesirable ones  Society at large tends to look up to the rich and famous as long as we don't know the truth about them. The fact is, that really leaves nobody to look up to :devil:


Then I suppose the question is, on whom do we look down the least?

Also, your personal opinion isn't necessarily what I'm after. You mentioned hoodies. Now in my opinion a hoodie is a great item of clothing. I wear one almost every day. But I won't show up for an important job interview in a hoodie; not so long ago, the murder of a young man was practically justified by a popular commentator by the fact that the victim wore a hoodie - that argument wouldn't have been made if he'd been wearing a business suit from Jermyn Street. So this thing with the hoodie (and Jermyn Street) is bigger than my opinion or yours!


----------



## Varick

starthrower said:


> The unfortunate lot of so many others in this world that you describe is something I think about everyday.* And if we in the West are going to be honest, we have to admit that our own wealth and high standard of living is benefited by the exploitation of others.* Our governments pick and choose which dictators will be useful to our own ends, and they demonize the less useful ones. We condemn the tyrannical regimes in North Korea and Iran, but not in China or Saudi Arabia.


I do not agree at all of what I emboldened. This is one of the fallacies of the west and of capitalism: One can only gain wealth by exploitation. Wealth, and wealth that has longevity benefits everyone it touches, and it touches many hands from the rich to the poor.

Wealth can be created and it has been created by value. Yes, there have been those who have gained riches and wealth through exploitation, but just because some have done that does not mean that everyone who has obtained wealth and riches HAS done that. Even those who have gained it through exploitation have often directly and indirectly benefited those who were "oppressed."

But mostly, it has been the greatest system ever created. Everyone from the rich to the poor has benefited by a free market, capitalistic, western economic system more so than any other system by a long shot. It's not perfect and no system can be. And everyone who has tried to make a perfect system has only created hell on Earth. They destroy the "good with flaws" by trying to make the "perfect/utopia" (See communism). It has never worked, and never will because of this little thing that always gets in the way: Human Nature.

V


----------



## starthrower

Varick said:


> Wealth, and wealth that has longevity benefits everyone it touches, and it touches many hands from the rich to the poor.


Except for the poor saps who got worked to death in the sweat shops. And right here in America.


----------



## Guest

Cultures are so different I don't think one can really generalise. This is true within a country, nevermind between countries, even supposedly similar ones. I'm a Brit and to me America seems like another planet.


----------



## Guest

It is a difficult OP, at least for me, because we all view the world through our own (unique) eyes. I suspect my values are not those of my cultural group; I don' t fit with, aspire to or relate to many of what are apparently my society's norms.


----------



## Figleaf

Varick said:


> I do not agree at all of what I emboldened. This is one of the fallacies of the west and of capitalism: One can only gain wealth by exploitation. Wealth, and wealth that has longevity benefits everyone it touches, and it touches many hands from the rich to the poor.
> 
> Wealth can be created and it has been created by value. Yes, there have been those who have gained riches and wealth through exploitation, but just because some have done that does not mean that everyone who has obtained wealth and riches HAS done that. Even those who have gained it through exploitation have often directly and indirectly benefited those who were "oppressed."
> 
> But mostly, it has been the greatest system ever created. Everyone from the rich to the poor has benefited by a free market, capitalistic, western economic system more so than any other system by a long shot. It's not perfect and no system can be. And everyone who has tried to make a perfect system has only created hell on Earth. They destroy the "good with flaws" by trying to make the "perfect/utopia" (See communism). It has never worked, and never will because of this little thing that always gets in the way: Human Nature.
> 
> V


We've all benefited, have we- tell that to the World Cup construction workers in Qatar who have died at an average rate of one every other day.

If wealth can't be created in a capitalist system, only value, then what do we make of the central banks (and private banks) who print money and use it to push up asset prices? 'Creating value' would be a pretty perverse description of that scam.


----------



## science

I think the debate about capitalism and how money works should be continued here: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/political-junkies.html

And I hope it will be! I promise to contribute there if it is. But we'd better not have it on this thread or the thread will be locked.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Varick said:


> I do not agree at all of what I emboldened. This is one of the fallacies of the west and of capitalism: One can only gain wealth by exploitation. Wealth, and wealth that has longevity benefits everyone it touches, and it touches many hands from the rich to the poor.
> 
> Wealth can be created and it has been created by value. Yes, there have been those who have gained riches and wealth through exploitation, but just because some have done that does not mean that everyone who has obtained wealth and riches HAS done that. Even those who have gained it through exploitation have often directly and indirectly benefited those who were "oppressed."
> 
> But mostly, it has been the greatest system ever created. Everyone from the rich to the poor has benefited by a free market, capitalistic, western economic system more so than any other system by a long shot. It's not perfect and no system can be. And everyone who has tried to make a perfect system has only created hell on Earth. They destroy the "good with flaws" by trying to make the "perfect/utopia" (See communism). It has never worked, and never will because of this little thing that always gets in the way: Human Nature.
> 
> V


I think that your view is more hopeful than based on reality. Communism wasn't created in a vacuum, it was the result of the economic exploitation of the working class people during the 19th century. Those factory workers were not better off because of industrialization, that is not an opinion btw that is a fact. Their life expectancy plummeted by 25 years(!!!!!) in some places. The position of workers in Europe only improved after governments got scared of armed uprising(like the 1848 revolutions).

I still think that capitalism is a good system but that it needs to be regulated to compensate for its flaws and the irrationality of human nature. A good system is based on what works and not ideology and it doesn't matter if that ideology is communism or free market capitalism because they both are fundamentally flawed. Pragmatism is often regarded as a weakness in politics and that is a very sad thing.


----------



## science

I've just copied Varick's post and a couple of responses including Piwikiwi's to this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/political-junkies-d322-capitalism.html

The discussion is allowed there and will flourish, but if we have it here this thread will be locked.


----------



## Figleaf

science said:


> I think the debate about capitalism and how money works should be continued here: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/political-junkies.html
> 
> And I hope it will be! I promise to contribute there if it is. But we'd better not have it on this thread or the thread will be locked.


Sorry Science. I think that's the trouble with the Community Forum: you can talk about the off topic stuff except for religion and politics, but outside the realm of pure art (and sometimes inside it as well) everything is political. And I didn't even get started on the situation in the UK!


----------



## science

Figleaf said:


> Sorry Science. I think that's the trouble with the Community Forum: you can talk about the off topic stuff except for religion and politics, but outside the realm of pure art (and sometimes inside it as well) everything is political. And I didn't even get started on the situation in the UK!


Everything is political, isn't it? Well, now that the politics group has "likes," perhaps the discussions there will take off....


----------



## Figleaf

science said:


> Everything is political, isn't it? Well, now that the politics group has "likes," perhaps the discussions there will take off....


I had glanced at that group and considered it too focused on US domestic politics to be of wider interest, but on the other hand, it looks like you could use some support over there


----------



## Piwikiwi

Figleaf said:


> I had glanced at that group and considered it too focused on US domestic politics to be of wider interest, but on the other hand, it looks like you could use some support over there


That was also my impression.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Figleaf said:


> I had glanced at that group and considered it too focused on US domestic politics to be of wider interest, but on the other hand, it looks like you could use some support over there


Should there be perhaps another group as well? Mostly, yes, I've not been able to follow most conversations due to them based mainly around US issues.......

It may be more interesting to have a broader social group called "For Things That Aren't Allowed in the Community Forum" or something like that :lol:


----------



## Guest

The politics group focuses mainly on American politics because those are the only people who seem to bother with it. Were there more participation from others from other countries, then you would see more non-American politics. But there is nothing that says it can only be about American politics. 

I don't post as much in there anymore, because it tends to be only science and I who post, and I suspect he has me on his ignore list, because he posts, and then never responds to my comments. I see no point in one-sided conversations. Were more people to participate, it might be more interesting.


----------



## Figleaf

DrMike said:


> The politics group focuses mainly on American politics because those are the only people who seem to bother with it. Were there more participation from others from other countries, then you would see more non-American politics. But there is nothing that says it can only be about American politics.
> 
> I don't post as much in there anymore, because it tends to be only science and I who post, and I suspect he has me on his ignore list, because he posts, and then never responds to my comments. I see no point in one-sided conversations. Were more people to participate, it might be more interesting.


Thank you, Dr. Mike. I wouldn't mind joining that group if the rest of the group is happy to have UK and European viewpoints and wouldn't regard non-US discussion as irrelevant to the group. The principles are the same, although there is a greater danger of misunderstanding one another when different cultural perspectives are involved. I'm prepared to risk it if you are


----------



## Guest

Figleaf said:


> Thank you, Dr. Mike. I wouldn't mind joining that group if the rest of the group is happy to have UK and European viewpoints and wouldn't regard non-US discussion as irrelevant to the group. The principles are the same, although there is a greater danger of misunderstanding one another when different cultural perspectives are involved. I'm prepared to risk it if you are


I'm game for any worthwhile discussion. I don't know as much of non-American politics, but the underlying theory of political systems is universal, and with science never responding on there, it would be nice to feel like I am not talking to myself.


----------



## Figleaf

DrMike said:


> I'm game for any worthwhile discussion. I don't know as much of non-American politics, but the underlying theory of political systems is universal, and with science never responding on there, it would be nice to feel like I am not talking to myself.


If I'm on there, you may feel like you are talking to a less articulate version of Science! :lol:


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> (Responding to Brotagonist)You're telling me about people we look down on. Tell me about the people we look up to.


This looking down and up is part of my wondering if you've lived in Korea too long. There must be a large segment of "western" TC members who perceive people with a level 'glance'. I know it worked for me everywhere in the world I went 'on the job'. Hmm... that includes Korea; maybe I just don't understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Ukko

Jos said:


> Nothing wrong with a good rant every now and then, Ingelou


There have been some in the thread already, mostly about Religion, from 'antis'. I'm not sure why it is, but antis (in general, not just religion) come across as much absolutist as the stump preachers.

I think absolutists - again, in general - have constructed databases that are both too small and too filtered.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

One of the major social values in the West seems to be individualism: do it your way, create your own reality, become self-sufficient, do what feels good to you, every man is an island, private space is inviolable etc. If you are interested in my value judgement, I think there is a good and a bad side to this. The good side is freedom of thinking, and the bad side is an increasing atomization of society, where pretty much nobody cares about anybody else, unless they fit into the picture of one's worldview and where people don't know their neighbors' names.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Well, if some god created us with our fears and anxieties, and empty stomachs, he left us on our own to sink or swim. And we've managed to stay afloat by seeking knowledge to help us understand how the world works. The very thing that supposedly got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.


Given that Being's omniscience and omnipotence, I don't understand why anyone would think that The Eviction was not both planned and a good thing.


----------



## Ukko

SiegendesLicht said:


> One of the major social values in the West seems to be individualism: do it your way, create your own reality, become self-sufficient, do what feels good to you, every man is an island, private space is inviolable etc. If you are interested in my value judgement, I think there is a good and a bad side to this. The good side is freedom of thinking, and the bad side is an increasing atomization of society, where pretty much nobody cares about anybody else, unless they fit into the picture of one's worldview and where people don't know their neighbors' names.


The degree of individualism you describe is the realm of the sociopath - 'you could look it up'.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

starthrower said:


> Well, if some god created us with our fears and anxieties, and empty stomachs, he left us on our own to sink or swim. And we've managed to stay afloat by seeking knowledge to help us understand how the world works. The very thing that supposedly got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.


That is why I think I like Odin the best of all gods. He sacrificed his eye in exchange for a drink from the well of wisdom, and he hung on a tree pierced by his own spear for nine days to obtain the knowledge of the runes and to share them with mankind. This god seems to be all about enlightenment.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

SiegendesLicht said:


> One of the major social values in the West seems to be individualism: do it your way, create your own reality, become self-sufficient, do what feels good to you, every man is an island, private space is inviolable etc. If you are interested in my value judgement, I think there is a good and a bad side to this. The good side is freedom of thinking, and the bad side is an increasing atomization of society, where pretty much nobody cares about anybody else, unless they fit into the picture of one's worldview and where people don't know their neighbors' names.


You are more intelligent than Ayn Rand!


----------



## TxllxT

Contemporary western social norms:



























Sorry, perhaps I'm the only one, but 'western' sounds so weird & awkward & outdated to my ears!


----------



## ahammel

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You are more intelligent than Ayn Rand!


Talk about damning with faint praise.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

ahammel said:


> Talk about damning with faint praise.


Oh, but I have never read Ayn Rand, so if it was intended as an insult, it flew right past me


----------



## science

SiegendesLicht said:


> One of the major social values in the West seems to be individualism: do it your way, create your own reality, become self-sufficient, do what feels good to you, every man is an island, private space is inviolable etc. If you are interested in my value judgement, I think there is a good and a bad side to this. The good side is freedom of thinking, and the bad side is an increasing atomization of society, where pretty much nobody cares about anybody else, unless they fit into the picture of one's worldview and where people don't know their neighbors' names.


That is a good point. I think the individualism of the west or of modernity is overstated: we remain herd animals in most ways, although we allow marketers to flatter us that our purchasing patterns distinguish us.

However, the individualistic ideal does nurture a bit of genuinely independent thought in the intellectual, cultural, and business worlds, and that is one reason our societies have prospered so well lately (i.e. in the past 200 or so years).

As for the alienation that you lament in this post, I think most of it is a product of urbanization rather than of western culture. People in small-town America (and I'd imagine everywhere else) have a sense of community that simply does not exist in Seoul, and Koreans are even less concerned for strangers than western people are.

My favorite thing about your post is that it raises an interesting aspect of the question I was asking: what kind of social lives are we expected to have? What kind of relationships are we supposed to have?

I'd guess a person beyond the age of 30 or so is supposed to be married to someone of approximately their own social class, to have children, and to send them to the best schools.


----------



## science

Ukko said:


> This looking down and up is part of my wondering if you've lived in Korea too long. There must be a large segment of "western" TC members who perceive people with a level 'glance'. I know it worked for me everywhere in the world I went 'on the job'. Hmm... that includes Korea; maybe I just don't understand what you are talking about.


At best we just perceive the world differently. As I see it, people are constantly sizing each other up, sizing themselves up. The competition and judgment is constant, though it happens that one way of serving the ideal of democracy tries to make us dishonest about it: "We're all equal here," says the spider to the flies.


----------



## Varick

Piwikiwi said:


> I think that your view is more hopeful than based on reality. Communism wasn't created in a vacuum, it was the result of the economic exploitation of the working class people during the 19th century. Those factory workers were not better off because of industrialization, that is not an opinion btw that is a fact. Their life expectancy plummeted by 25 years(!!!!!) in some places. The position of workers in Europe only improved after governments got scared of armed uprising(like the 1848 revolutions).
> 
> I still think that capitalism is a good system but that it needs to be regulated to compensate for its flaws and the irrationality of human nature. A good system is based on what works and not ideology and it doesn't matter if that ideology is communism or free market capitalism because they both are fundamentally flawed. Pragmatism is often regarded as a weakness in politics and that is a very sad thing.





Varick said:


> * Yes, there have been those who have gained riches and wealth through exploitation, but just because some have done that does not mean that everyone who has obtained wealth and riches HAS done that.*





DrMike said:


> The politics group focuses mainly on American politics because those are the only people who seem to bother with it. Were there more participation from others from other countries, then you would see more non-American politics. But there is nothing that says it can only be about American politics.





Figleaf said:


> Thank you, Dr. Mike. I wouldn't mind joining that group if the rest of the group is happy to have UK and European viewpoints and wouldn't regard non-US discussion as irrelevant to the group. The principles are the same, although there is a greater danger of misunderstanding one another when different cultural perspectives are involved. I'm prepared to risk it if you are


I for one would welcome an influx of International discussions of Int'l politics and economics. It would get me back in there.



SiegendesLicht said:


> One of the major social values in the West seems to be individualism: do it your way, create your own reality, become self-sufficient, do what feels good to you, every man is an island, private space is inviolable etc. If you are interested in my value judgement, I think there is a good and a bad side to this. The good side is freedom of thinking, and the bad side is an increasing atomization of society, where pretty much nobody cares about anybody else, unless they fit into the picture of one's worldview and where people don't know their neighbors' names.


Great post SL! Like everything, it (individualism) can be taken too far. I've always said life should be taken and lived in two different ways. The micro and the macro. Individualism should be encouraged in the macro. IE: Laws and society giving people the liberty and freedom to pursue their own dreams, their own industry, their own happiness, their own choice in where and how they live and what profession the pursue, etc. Compassion and love of your fellow man should be encouraged in the micro. IE: Individuals Giving to the less fortunate, charity, taking care of one's neighbor, helping those who need help.

When these roles are reversed, everyone suffers.



SiegendesLicht said:


> Oh, but I have never read Ayn Rand, so if it was intended as an insult, it flew right past me


Ayn Rand makes some great points and has many strengths in her philosophy and she should be read. However, as Piwikiwi pointed out above, her version of "pure" capitalism will not work either because of that little thing I mentioned above as well: Human Nature. However, overall, it does work much better than any other system created. There needs to be regulation (limited), there needs to be taxation (limited), and as long as the laws on the books do not inhibit creativity in business and industry (which so many laws in Europe do and increasingly so here in the US), there will be a very healthy society.

V


----------



## science

Varick said:


> I for one would welcome an influx of International discussions of Int'l politics and economics. It would get me back in there.
> 
> Great post SL! Like everything, it (individualism) can be taken too far. I've always said life should be taken and lived in two different ways. The micro and the macro. Individualism should be encouraged in the macro. IE: Laws and society giving people the liberty and freedom to pursue their own dreams, their own industry, their own happiness, their own choice in where and how they live and what profession the pursue, etc. Compassion and love of your fellow man should be encouraged in the micro. IE: Individuals Giving to the less fortunate, charity, taking care of one's neighbor, helping those who need help.
> 
> When these roles are reversed, everyone suffers.
> 
> Ayn Rand makes some great points and has many strengths in her philosophy and she should be read. However, as Piwikiwi pointed out above, her version of "pure" capitalism will not work either because of that little thing I mentioned above as well: Human Nature. However, overall, it does work much better than any other system created. There needs to be regulation (limited), there needs to be taxation (limited), and as long as the laws on the books do not inhibit creativity in business and industry (which so many laws in Europe do and increasingly so here in the US), there will be a very healthy society.
> 
> V


Many of these things are currently being discussed in the "capitalism" thread in the politically speaking group.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> IMO, in western cultures, broadly speaking, there is no more prestigious sort of music for a person to like, and the classiest person is the one with the broadest taste within the tradition, especially appreciating the most avant-garde music. If I say that I like classical music, someone might even think I'm faking it for the prestige.





ahammel said:


> This is so alien to my experience living in western culture that I wonder if you have not confused it with the culture of the planet Barzeebo.


I have to agree with ahammel here, i.e. this is really alien to just about all my experience, growing up solid middle class, private schooled, yet also brought up without a more usual insulated experience and instead, all through my early and later life, knowing and meeting people 'from all social stations' in the U.S. As demonstrated by a number of previous posts (over time) from you on this specific topic, I think this is a personal bugbear for you; though others are not without the same bugbear, I think those others are very few.

American culture highly suspects and rejects most that smacks of anything remotely "intellectual." _Earned and acquired wealth further successfully manipulated to even greater wealth is admired, often without too much of a tinge of how that was earned unless it was from clearly criminal actions -- and one of the most admired things in America is _*entrepreneurialism*_, i.e. the successful (financially successful first and foremost in rank and file here) self-invented and self-made man or woman.

High culture, i.e. a taste for any of the fine arts, literature included, is as equally suspect as is intellectualism, evidently held as synonymous with 'intellectual.'_ Our nation was founded by those who were either most concerned with being the (near mercenary / merciless) entrepreneur, and / or Puritans -- sometimes the two combined in one person -- who had no truck with frivolous fine arts, thinking them "devil's entertainment." _Between those two, there is little or no room for the fine arts, other than ridiculing them as wholly non-utilitarian or in any way pragmatic (i.e. not profitable and practical as a utilitarian commercial product), ergo: the fine arts are either downright devilish, or 'entertainment for decadent intellectual aristos' -- or some degree of those two combined.

President Lyndon Johnson had a heavy native Texan accent which he had trained himself out of in his early years, yet that _down home / everyman / folksy_ accent is what he pulled out of the drawer whenever he presented himself in public. _President George Bush (senior) spoke French so well that was the language spoken in his private meetings with Mitterand (who complimented Bush Sr. on his _superb_ French), yet when campaigning for his first presidency, his PR team advised Bush to not let it be known he spoke French, because that is _too intellectual_ and 'not folksy.'

So along with all the other most highly valued things, a "folksiness" in presenting yourself -- a folksiness of a type not associated with higher education, urbanity or 'sophistication' of any sort _(go figure!)_ -- is also highly valued, as much as it is one of the most false-front movie set sorts of fake personae Americans are fed on a daily basis, whether it is our network television news presenters or charismatic fundamentalist preachers, it is the face most presented and the most trusted. _The American public, a large percentage of it, are then being condescended toward on a massive scale, duped, and are still happiest and most comfortable with this ongoing culturally in-place ruse


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

^ and that's one of the many reasons everybody hates 'murica.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> At best we just perceive the world differently. As I see it, people are constantly sizing each other up, sizing themselves up. The competition and judgment is constant, though it happens that one way of serving the ideal of democracy tries to make us dishonest about it: "We're all equal here," says the spider to the flies.


Hah! So I am "at best" untruthful about my attitude. Maybe you haven't lived in Korea long enough.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

This is the most interesting thread we have had in the community forum ever since KH and the gang banned the creation of discussions about politics and religion! I hope none of us get any warnings for what we're talking about! :lol:


----------



## science

Ukko said:


> Hah! So I am "at best" untruthful about my attitude. Maybe you haven't lived in Korea long enough.


No, as I wrote and as you read, at best we just see it differently.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> I have to agree with ahammel here, i.e. this is really alien to just about all my experience, growing up solid middle class, private schooled, yet also brought up without a more usual insulated experience and instead, all through my early and later life, knowing and meeting people 'from all social stations' in the U.S. As demonstrated by a number of previous posts (over time) from you on this specific topic, I think this is a personal bugbear for you; though others are not without the same bugbear, I think those others are very few.
> 
> American culture highly suspects and rejects most who smack of anything remotely "intellectual," Earned and acquired wealth further successfully manipulated to even greater wealth is admired, often without too much of a tinge of how that was earned unless it was from clearly criminal actions -- and one of the most admired things in America is _*entrepreneurialism*_, i.e. the successful (financially successful first in rank here) self-invented and self-made man or woman.
> 
> High culture, i.e a taste for any of the fine arts, literature included, is as equally suspect as is intellectualism, evidently held as synonymous with 'intellectual.' Our nation was founded by those who were either most concerned with being the (near mercenary / merciless) entrepreneur, and / or Puritans -- sometimes the two combined in one person -- who had no truck with frivolous fine arts, thinking them "devil's entertainment." Between those two, there is little or no room for the fine arts, other than ridiculing them as wholly non-utilitarian or in any way pragmatic (i.e. profitable and practical as a utilitarian commercial product), ergo: the fine arts are either downright devilish, or 'entertainment for decadent intellectual aristos' -- or some degree of those two combined.
> 
> President Lyndon Johnson had a heavy native Texan accent which he had trained himself out of in his early years, yet that _down home / everyman / folksy_ accent is what he pulled out of the drawer whenever he presented himself in public. President George Bush (senior) spoke French so well that was the language spoken in his private meetings with Mitterand (who complimented Bush Sr. on his _superb_ French), yet when campaigning for his first presidency, his PR team advised Bush to not let it be known he spoke French, because that is _too intellectual_ and 'not folksy.'
> 
> So along with all the other most highly valued things, a "folksiness" in presenting yourself -- a folksiness of a type not associated with higher education, urbanity or 'sophistication' of any sort _(go figure!)_ -- is also highly valued, as much as it is one of the most false-front movie set sorts of fake personae Americans are fed on a daily basis, whether it is our network television news presenters or charismatic fundamentalist preachers, it is the face most presented and the most trusted. The American public, a large percentage of it, are then being condescended toward on a massive scale, duped, and are still happiest and most comfortable with this ongoing culturally in-place ruse


As I wrote to another poster, I think you're talking about people that are looked down on ("hates" as Richannes Wrahms put it), if not by you or me then by most people ("everybody" as Richannes Wrahms put it) like us.

I'm more interested in the people we look up to (or at least look down on least), the people whose attitudes and habits and knowledge and lifestyle we respect and admire.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> No, as I wrote and as you read, at best we just see it differently.


You are being absolutely genuine, but I have to say this outlook on culture = social status as a battleground of social prestige / esteem is very much something you seem (to me) to carry with you at all times, and I would only say consider that this is the lens through which you view more than a little when it comes to classical music, its consumers, or matters 'fine arts cultural.'

For you, it is all quite legitimate and real (_but I think a matter of a very personal and less than average / commonly found context_), and I still maintain it is a tiny minority who carry the same notion within them so constantly.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> As I wrote to another poster, I think you're talking about people that are looked down on ("hates" as Richannes Wrahms put it), if not by you or me then by most people ("everybody" as Richannes Wrahms put it) like us.
> 
> I'm more interested in the people we look up to (or at least look down on least), the people whose attitudes and habits and knowledge and lifestyle we respect and admire.


But in my case that 'people' numbers only a few, because I don't know many people well enough to make those judgements - and you wouldn't have even heard of most of that few. Um, unless that 'people' you refer to is a specific, ah, group or 'class'? In which case I will bow out of the discussion, with apologies.


----------



## Giordano

Contemporary Western Social Norms

Look cool.
Be popular.
Be successful.
Make a lot of money.

You are a victim
You need therapy.

Be unique.
Be normal.

Identify strongly with your special heritage, gender, body type, hair color, etc.
Don't tell anyone, but you are actually more special than anyone else.

You are entitled to what you believe "life has to offer" you.
When you don't get it, you may blame others and demand justice.

You may believe in the supremacy of your worldview.
Know that other worldviews are wrong, but smile and nod;
they will eventually come around to yours when they see the light.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> You are being absolutely genuine, but I have to say this outlook on culture = social status as a battleground of social prestige / esteem is very much something you seem (to me) to carry with you at all times, and I would only say consider that this is the lens through which you view more than a little when it comes to classical music, its consumers, or matters 'fine arts cultural.'
> 
> For you, it is all quite legitimate and real (_but I think a matter of a very personal and less than average / commonly found context_), and I still maintain it is a tiny minority who carry the same notion within them so constantly.


It could be subconscious most of the time and still active.

One of the key things that I want to make sure people are realizing is: I am not asking about how anyone here judges other people. Just now I'm not actually very interested in your, Ukko's, or COAG's, or even my own ideas about what is cool or respectable or whatever. I'm interested in what (we think) the norms are for the elite in our societies - the rules/norms/ideals that they themselves carry around consciously or (even more interestingly) semiconsciously or (most interestingly perhaps) subconsciously about how they ought to act (think/read/eat/drink/travel/whatever) in order to "play the part" or legitimize or increase their status (even when they're not consciously interested in their status).

I don't think I'm existentially more or less interested in this stuff in my own life than most people. I wear cheap and old clothes. I drink girly cocktails. I think of myself as doing whatever I want, regardless of what other people think about - and that includes listening to music that I like, including that of which I know you and many others disapprove. My interest in this is more intellectual than existential or whatever. In fact, let's get meta: I think I may be a little more comfortable with this sort of topic than many people (not only here but anywhere in the world) because I'm _less_ concerned about impressing people who tend to be impressed by the sort of thing that I enjoy! But meta-meta: Maybe that itself is even a strategy! At this point we might as well relax.... And think about what our society thinks instead of worrying about our individual selves.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> It could be subconscious most of the time and still active.
> 
> One of the key things that I want to make sure people are realizing is: I am not asking about how anyone here judges other people. Just now I'm not actually very interested in your, Ukko's, or COAG's, or even my own ideas about what is cool or respectable or whatever. I'm interested in what (we think) the norms are for the elite in our societies - the rules/norms/ideals that they themselves carry around consciously or (even more interestingly) semiconsciously or (most interestingly perhaps) subconsciously about how they ought to act (think/read/eat/drink/travel/whatever) in order to "play the part" or legitimize or increase their status (even when they're not consciously interested in their status).
> 
> I don't think I'm existentially more or less interested in this stuff in my own life than most people. I wear cheap and old clothes. I drink girly cocktails. I think of myself as doing whatever I want, regardless of what other people think about - and that includes listening to music that I like, including that of which I know you and many others disapprove. My interest in this is more intellectual than existential or whatever. In fact, let's get meta: I think I may be a little more comfortable with this sort of topic than many people (not only here but anywhere in the world) because I'm _less_ concerned about impressing people who tend to be impressed by the sort of thing that I enjoy! But meta-meta: Maybe that itself is even a strategy! At this point we might as well relax.... And think about what our society thinks instead of worrying about our individual selves.


My friend, the 'norms' should not, ideally, be just for the elite -- de facto, a subset and not the main body of the population.

Other than that, well, I tried, and with some given effort and running to length, and found I was skirting around a fundamental feeling more in the area of spitting sharp nails at all I do not care for in what is valued in the States, so I'll leave it, or it would become some sort of negative rave 'n' rant.

I do have one question though, if the values here are good ones, what then impelled you to leave the country, settle down and live elsewhere? (It is not at all a reasonable or fair question -- there are millions of circumstances which lead there -- and I don't expect you to respond to any bit of it, but I do wonder, so had to say it


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> My friend, the 'norms' should not, ideally, be just for the elite -- de facto, a subset and not the main body of the population.
> 
> Other than that, well, I tried, and with some effort and length, and found I was skirting around a fundamental feeling more in the area of spitting sharp nails at all I do not care for in what is valued in the States, so I'll leave it, or it would become some sort of negative rave 'n' rant.
> 
> I do have one question though, if the values here are good ones, what then impelled you to leave the country, settle down and live elsewhere? (It is not at all a reasonable or fair question -- there are millions of circumstances which lead there -- and I don't expect you to respond to any bit of it, but I do wonder, so had to say it


I love traveling, but I didn't have money for it, so having graduated I looked for jobs abroad, and someone in Korea hired me, so here I am. A combination of financial opportunity and marriage has kept me here for over a decade, but my rovings are scheduled to resume soon.

I guess that there are people that you regard as your equals intellectually and culturally and socially. I don't mean "equal" in some politically correct "everyone is equal because that is the law" way, but I mean actually equal, in that you respect their views as much as you respect your own, and I mean real respect, not "respect" like "toleration" but like actual respect. People who you consider your peers (intellectually and culturally and socially). Or there may even be people who you actually admire, whose admiration would flatter you.

What are their values? How do they think a person should live? If you wanted to win their acceptance and admiration, what would your life need to look like?


----------



## starthrower

I have some great, life long friends that have very different views on a number of subjects. One of them I feel is woefully uninformed and wrongheaded, but we share a love for music, history, and science. And he's a good, sincere person, even if I don't respect some of his views. Hell, I can't even tolerate some of them, but there's not much I can do about it. 

I have another friend that I butt heads with on a number of issues, and unlike the friend I mentioned in the last paragraph, this one has a huge amount of education, with a master's degree in Astrophysics. I would say he outpaces me by many miles intellectually, but I still feel like can't respect some wrongheaded and out of touch viewpoints of his.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> I love traveling, but I didn't have money for it, so having graduated I looked for jobs abroad, and someone in Korea hired me, so here I am. A combination of financial opportunity and marriage has kept me here for over a decade, but my rovings are scheduled to resume soon.
> 
> I guess that there are people that you regard as your equals intellectually and culturally and socially. I don't mean "equal" in some politically correct "everyone is equal because that is the law" way, but I mean actually equal, in that you respect their views as much as you respect your own, and I mean real respect, not "respect" like "toleration" but like actual respect. People who you consider your peers (intellectually and culturally and socially). Or there may even be people who you actually admire, whose admiration would flatter you.
> 
> What are their values? How do they think a person should live? If you wanted to win their acceptance and admiration, what would your life need to look like?


OK, I think I understand the program now. Still have no way to connect with it though. I am the product of my formative years, modified by adult experience (but not much). I just don't interface with the world in a way that includes your parameters. Hey, that kind of social non-connection could be worth a thread. Not one I could moderate though; not flexible enough.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> I have some great, life long friends that have very different views on a number of subjects. One of them I feel is woefully uninformed and wrongheaded, but we share a love for music, history, and science. And he's a good, sincere person, even if I don't respect some of his views. Hell, I can't even tolerate some of them, but there's not much I can do about it.
> 
> I have another friend that I butt heads with on a number of issues, and unlike the friend I mentioned in the last paragraph, this one has a huge amount of education, with a master's degree in Astrophysics. I would say he outpaces me by many miles intellectually, but I still feel like can't respect some wrongheaded and out of touch viewpoints of his.


Hah. You and I share that love for music, history and science - and disagree on a lot of stuff discussed in the Community forum. "That is Life". (Can't spell the French.)

[*C'est la vie*] There, looked it up.


----------



## Cheyenne

science said:


> Also, the inspiration for the thread was the book _The Cambridge Companion to Dostoyevsky_. I was wondering, who is supposed to read this? Of course a larger number people would be supposed to buy it. But even so, who is supposed to buy it?


I've read the Cambridge Companions to Coleridge (for an essay about his talking, "Coleridge the Talker", as that subject fascinates me) and Goethe. Not very fond of them, to be honest: annoyingly academic essays with frequently tiresome topics (feminism, as always; possibly offensive political ideas, &c...).


----------



## starthrower

Ukko said:


> Hah. You and I share that love for music, history and science - and disagree on a lot of stuff discussed in the Community forum. "That is Life". (Can't spell the French.)
> 
> [*C'est la vie*] There, looked it up.


Of course! But sometimes I'm baffled at how out of touch some really smart people are concerning a number of social/economic issues. For instance, my scientist friend is always waving the flag and going on and on about America, the great land of boundless opportunity.The best place in the world to live. And then he goes on Facebook asking for ideas on how to buy enough food to eat on his meager fixed income.


----------

