So like some others here, I've grappled with trying to understand the current (de)volution of popular American culture well enough to be able to accommodate to it personally, and to continue to participate in it, just as I always have throughout my lifetime.

I wish to emphasize that I accepted long ago that things will not be as I would prefer, but that I can find ways to live with this practical fact. This has always worked for me.

But since about 2014, and increasingly so since then, the changes both overtly demanded, and unmistakably implied, are beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone accommodate.

Like no other time within my memory, the default popular sensibility is to accept personal anecdotes at face value, and if conveyed by individuals of certain pre-identified groups, judged to have precedence over verifiable fact.

I repeat: in certain cases, narrative has ascendancy over fact.

So right there we have two situations that are foreign to the values I learned while becoming an adult, 50 years ago. In my own understanding of public values:

1) Objectively verifiable fact takes precedence over anecdotal explanation for the same incident. The entire legal system is based on this.

2) All individuals, regardless of group affiliation, are granted the same level of credibility until proven otherwise by verifiable fact. But now, certain individuals, based on membership in pre-identified groups, have unquestioned credibility. This happened and happens, but prior to the present, at no time within my lifespan was this ever accepted as desirable. It was always portrayed as a throwback to unenlightened times.

It was to be avoided as patently unfair.

The reversal of these two aspects are to me inconceivable in any free and open society governed by law. By extension, those who support these precepts do not support a free and open society governed by law.

Very scary stuff, eh?

But worse is still to come...

Those supporting this kind of thinking seem very ill-prepared to examine and analyze emerging situations, making them ready prey for demagogues, of which, like the proverbial poor, they will always be with us.

These demagogues--and one need not look very far to find them, and they come in both the petty and grand varieties, ranging from mentors to political leaders--seem to envision a complete, not partial, socio-economic reset. They portray that after the reset things will be equitable and will remain equitable, and that this will be the new normal. And that it would have been normal now, except for misdeeds done in the past.

I've read history in a sort of dilettantish way--but I'm a very interested dilettante, and I try hard to be objective. Reading history, I see no indication that a basic, rapid, radical reset ever results in a peaceful and equitable status quo. The opposite is true: there often tends to be bloodshed and mayhem--and here's the kicker--the same sort of system, a meritocracy of sorts--evolves from the ruins of the stable system that has been displaced so thoughtlessly.

So we now have a whole lot of people in the west--young, mostly--who want a radical reset without any informed idea of what the result will be.

So what does this sound like, friends and fellow Ed-ers? If you have had kids this resonates, and if not, I ask you to take my word for it, for now.

It is no different than when your 7 year old, in all seriousness and earnestness, claims to be capable of driving the family car.

Yep. That's it exactly.

That's what we're dealing with, and that's why it makes no sense when judged against adult behavior.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with much that you say, Sawfish. The problem is a corollary of the oft-reiterated notion that everyone's "voice needs to be heard." The claim involves justice, at least if you grant, as most people will, that in the past the "voices" of ethnic minority groups and women have not "been heard" as much as they should. But we're seeing more than a redress of a past injustice. There's the idea that the "voices" of white sexually normal males have been heard and now they must be silent & just listen. If the voices these white males are to listen to express anecdotes, such as you describe, or notions that have been proven again and again to fail (Marxism), etc., still the formerly privileged have to be quiet. This is no time for dialogue, and no time for an appeal to reason (="mansplaining")....

That showed sociological consciousness.

Something else that factors in here sometimes is emphasis on "current research." I sat on a committee once that was to review an academic program. The rule was that only recent research could be adduced. We were allowed, as I recall, to go back as far as ten years, but this was done reluctantly, as the committee chair thought just the past five years' research should be consulted. And the experience of a seasoned and accomplished teacher was disallowed, as this person was not admitted to the committee although the professor had a lot of experience and knowledge including the co-writing of a textbook that had been used in the courses involved. The restriction to recent research meant, of course, a bias in favor of current trends, frames of reference, etc.

Sociological consciousness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Jul 21 | 06:49PM by Dale Nelson.

Sawfish, I am looking at your first post. Where do you have the metaphor? Did you mean that the current cultural changes potentially could be portrayed in a work of imaginative fiction? As far as I know no such fiction has been written, mainly because all commercial publishing is subordinate under these changes.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, I am looking at your first post. Where do
> you have the metaphor? Did you mean that the
> current cultural changes potentially could be
> portrayed in a work of imaginative fiction? As far
> as I know no such fiction has been written, mainly
> because all commercial publishing is subordinate
> under these changes.


7 year olds being certain about driving the car.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That showed sociological consciousness.
>
> Something else that factors in here sometimes is
> emphasis on "current research." I sat on a
> committee once that was to review an academic
> program. The rule was that only recent research
> could be adduced. We were allowed, as I recall,
> to go back as far as ten years, but this was done
> reluctantly, as the committee chair thought just
> the past five years' research should be consulted.
> And the experience of a seasoned and accomplished
> teacher was disallowed, as this person was not
> admitted to the committee although the professor
> had a lot of experience and knowledge including
> the co-writing of a textbook that had been used in
> the courses involved. The restriction to recent
> research meant, of course, a bias in favor of
> current trends, frames of reference, etc.
>
> Sociological consciousness.

Dale, ever since you introduced the term "sociological consciousness", I have not been comfortable with it, intuitively feeling that as you used it, it was employing a very broad term, "sociology", in a very narrow sense.

I understand sociology to be concerned with the study of human interactions at all levels, and in this sense, political science is a subset, and sociology being itself a subset of anthropology.

In your usage, however, the closest easy comparison is "political correctness". I recognize that this is not a congruent fit, but it seems that when you use it, what you are describing is the ready application of moral code formed around the notion that all human social interactions (sociology) MUST conform to a list of ill-defined and ever-growing ideas of "right" and "wrong".

There has always been this tendency in human society to wish to force conformity to a group's moral code; when this moral code is also legally enforceable you have a sort of theocracy. The best example of this currently in operation, is sharia law. In this kind of system, moral beliefs and the enforceable law are almost congruent. Literally, the legal system reflects all of the moral precepts passed along in dogma.

There are no, or few, compromises, and I can still recall a TV debate, perhaps on public TV, back in the 80s, between an Iranian mullah and an Iranian homosexual, in which at one point the mullah wryly noted that "There is no debate in Sharia law over whether it is righteous to put homosexuals to death. The only debate is by what method."

In a secular society, which by implied definition is based around the idea of a fairly loose tolerance of differing moral codes, this is handled differently. There are various moral codes that are tolerated *legally*, and there is a subset of behavior governing human interactions that is prohibited as unlawful. This is a fine balance that satisfies none of the constituent groups entirely, but seeks to not mortally offend any groups.

The idea of negotiated compromise is at the heart of this system, and case law records the evolution of such compromises.

Given all this, I think that what we're talking about is not sociological consciousness, but technically speaking, a sort of dogmatic theocratic type of consciousness, ironically practiced by a large and ever-growing group of rabid adherents who are naive enough to fail to recognize that they're actually practicing a new religion every bit as aggressive and militant as early Islam.

In fact, they think of themselves as secular--and hence eminently fair and just--which is yet another example of the complete misuse of existing terminology, just as the term "marriage" has evolved from its long-standing and fairly narrow legal definition to a new usage never envisioned by the mass of humanity as little as 30 years ago.

In short, we are witnessing a major sociological transition unlike anything I've witnessed within my lifetime. It's anyone's guess how it will turn out, but based on my long experience of human observation, it appears certain that there is bound to be a period of socio-economic instability.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish, by the phrase "sociological consciousness" I mean to suggest the way people in our time and place tend, unconsciously as well as consciously, to experience themselves, others, even nature -- largely or entirely in terms of sociological categories, numbers, scientistic analysis, etc.

"Political correctness" would not be possible if we didn't do this. PC is a phenomenon of sociological consciousness but it's sociological consciousness that is deeper. Let's suppose that people in the democracies threw off "political correctness" as we know it now. Sociological consciousness would probably remain entrenched in our minds. We would continue to think and to imagine in largely sociological categories.

Sociological consciousness thinks in terms of groups, of structures of power and influence, etc. Knygatin, though he is opposed to political correctness, writes here often (not always) in terms of groups that exert visible and invisible power over others, mostly in ways not conducive to their wellbeing, i.e. these comments exhibit sociological consciousness. I often write critically of professional educators, that being the group I know best, but in so doing I often consider them sociologically. "Sociological consciousness" is not only a problem due to self-appointed or government-appointed commissars. It is your problem. And mine.

I'm trying, further, to say that this modern habit of thought is not the only form of consciousness human beings have experienced and though it's what prevails now, it's not in the best interests of us all to occupy ourselves with it.

It seems to me that even quite recently a more poetic consciousness was at work in ordinary human relationships, in literature and the fine arts, etc. It may be seen in writers as different as Joseph Conrad and Jane Austen. Poetic consciousness doesn't ignore "man in society" but does not restrict itself to sociological categorization.

I find it increasingly unappealing to read contemporary literature, with the exception of occasional crime novels/detective stories -- which by their nature deal with man in society. I don't find anything very profound in them but at least I can read them. (A recent historical novel, Punke's The Revenant, held my interest. So I can't write off all contemporary fiction. I would say that the late V. S. Naipaul's writing showed both "sociological consciousness" and poetic consciousness, e.g. A House for Mr Biswas or In a Free State.) But perhaps I miss a lot by ignoring so much; but what I see at sites such as the Times Literary Supplement and Black Gate and Locus Online suggests to me that current fantasy and science fiction are not for me.

Reading pre-contemporary literature and attending to reproductions of pre-contemporary art and recordings of pre-contemporary music help me to experience at least some detachment from sociological consciousness. Sociological consciousness is inherently reductive, ignoring or explaining away or minimizing the human mystery or mysteries. It may shed a little light while missing much. Poetic consciousness works differently.

“Only fools have clear conceptions of everything. The most cherished ideas of the human mind are found in the depths and in twilight: around these confused ideas which we cannot classify revolve clear thoughts, extending, developing, and becoming elevated. If this deeper mental plane were to be taken away, there would remain but geometricians and intelligent animals; even the exact sciences would lose their present grandeur, which depends upon a hidden correlation with eternal truths, of which we catch a glimpse only at rare moments. Mystery is the most precious possession of mankind. Not in vain did Plato teach that all below is but a weak image of the order reigning above. It may be, indeed, that the grandest function of the loveliness we see is the awakening of desire for a higher loveliness we see not; and that the enchantment of great poets springs less from the pictures they paint than from the distant echoes they awaken from the invisible world.”

(The source is a Russian statesman of the 19th century.)

You can get a better sense of poetic consciousness from C. S. Lewis's late book An Experiment in Criticism and Arthur Machen's Hieroglyphics. There is a thread on the Machen here at ED.

Sawfish Wrote:


> In your usage, however, the closest easy
> comparison is "political correctness".

Sociology is properly a tool whose real value is limited to certain types of applications.
Sociological consciousness is a worldview, the dominant one in the English-speaking world and the West.
Political correctness is a militant ideology, a Leftist manifestation of sociological consciousness that could prove temporary while sociological consciousness remained entrenched.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
>
>
> > In your usage, however, the closest easy
> > comparison is "political correctness".
>
> Sociology is properly a tool whose real value is
> limited to certain types of applications.
> Sociological consciousness is a worldview, the
> dominant one in the English-speaking world and the
> West.
> Political correctness is a militant ideology, a
> Leftist manifestation of sociological
> consciousness that could prove temporary while
> sociological consciousness remained entrenched.

Quote:

DN:
I'm trying, further, to say that this modern habit of thought is not the only form of consciousness human beings have experienced and though it's what prevails now, it's not in the best interests of us all to occupy ourselves with it.
It seems to me that even quite recently a more poetic consciousness was at work in ordinary human relationships, in literature and the fine arts, etc. It may be seen in writers as different as Joseph Conrad and Jane Austen. Poetic consciousness doesn't ignore "man in society" but does not restrict itself to sociological categorization.

I'd say that sociological consciousness is post-modernist in that it either denies, or de-emphasizes the spiritual non-material aspect of existence, focusing more on the individual experience as grounded in a materialistic conception of the cosmos, which is a valid way to view things, since were are bound irretrievably to the subjective experience. However, it is valid only for, and within, that individual, and is basically unsharable. It is a manifestation of the individual will. If this is true, portraying it as anything other than an expression of an individual's will is at best disingenuous.


If true, then poetic consciousness attempts to focus on those subjective experiences that are sometimes commonly shared--if not in the same instant in time, then at least when considered in retrospect. it is like recalling and sharing the experience of one's first sexual kiss. It will not be identical, but the over-arching experience will have points of commonality.

I take it that this example is poetic consciousness?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sawfish, I am looking at your first post. Where
> do
> > you have the metaphor? Did you mean that the
> > current cultural changes potentially could be
> > portrayed in a work of imaginative fiction? As
> far
> > as I know no such fiction has been written,
> mainly
> > because all commercial publishing is
> subordinate
> > under these changes.
>
>
> 7 year olds being certain about driving the car.

Aah, ... I guess that could be called a metaphor. It is also a parallel circumstance, with the difference that we do not allow children to do that, ... yet. But the ongoing madness is reaching there too! I honestly wouldn't be too surprised, if 7 year olds' say is eventually allowed to become equally authoritarian as grownups' decisions. Actually it already is, with "school brainwashed" children allowed genital surgery and taken away by authorities from their parents if these say 'no'. There is also the example of underage Greta, and there are political voices raised to let underage teenagers (and even children) vote in general elections. And pedophile networks in prominent society liberal circles actively sexualize children, and sneak out insidious media propaganda calling it "intolerance" not to allow pedophilia.

As metaphor I was thinking more or the Arts. The madness of the current cultural changes could be used very efficiently as a subject for horror fiction and cinema. And I expect that it will in the future, if we gradually manage to free ourselves from it, and it won't be a stigmatizing crime to mock it.

Quote:

K:
The madness of the current cultural changes could be used very efficiently as a subject for horror fiction and cinema.

Hah!

My wife and I were discussing this very thing a few minutes ago!

We were playing with the idea that today's popular views among younger folk were held as articles of faith, and that any contrary views, even supported by verifiable objective fact, are heretical.

Just like what happened to Galileo in the 15th C.

E.g., try discussing the possibility that all human individuals are not by birth equal. That physical/mental inequalities exist independent of socio-economic inequalities and that...GASP!...these physical/mental inequalities might be for a large part the cause of economic inequalities.

This would imply that inequality might not be caused by racial/gender animus--and heavens! we can't have that.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At least at this point in my thinking, Sawfish, I wouldn't be prepared to agree with you, in your 1:10 pm, since perhaps you're talking more about philosophies than about "consciousness."

While I do believe that, ultimately, poetic consciousness needs religious faith, I think it is possible for one to hold an atheistic or skeptical philosophy and still experience poetic consciousness. Take Joseph Conrad. My sense of Conrad is that he perceived existence as inscrutable and that he had no religious faith. But his is not a sociological consciousness. He retains a sense of the human mystery. Conrad's imagination and perception are a million miles away from the sociological consciousness we see everywhere today, including, or so it appears to me though I'm a Christian, many examples of organized religion. Since poetic consciousness is important to me, I feel closer to Conrad than to many of the prelates and pastors I see quoted these days.

I would say, then, that a person's philosophy often goes hand in hand with his "consciousness," but the "consciousness" is probably prior to, antecedent to, the philosophy.

Put another way: the more poetic your consciousness, the more likely it will be that you appreciate Plato; the more sociological your consciousness, the more likely you don't have much use for Plato; you will probably prefer Theory (e.g. Foucault). You won't be a seeker of truth so much as one who says "Let's play with that idea. How does it work? How does it serve the interests of the privileged?" and so on.

If you've sent a child to university and, when he visits, he spouts slogans and seems to think he "sees through" the happy and lovely things you used to share and value, that's what universities do these days, inculcate sociological consciousness. You may feel that a philosophy or an ideology now obstructs his former consciousness that used to refresh you when you took walks together and so on. His mind has been colonized and his soul is less robust than it was when he was a boy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Jul 21 | 02:49PM by Dale Nelson.

....I didn't quite complete the thought in the message sent this afternoon. I wanted to add that an education aligned with poetic consciousness might well return a child from college now enthusiastic about literature (e.g. the poems of Wordsworth) that connect with valuable experiences from younger days.

Poetic consciousness, I'd like to say, works with the growth of the person, brings out that experience C. S. Lewis referred to when he said that an experience is fully grown when it is remembered.

Sociological consciousness displaces such memories, replacing them with theory, with things like Marx's wretched paradigm of class rancor (now manifest in racial rancor), and so on.

The person deeply sunk in sociological consciousness has a clouded mind. It may be clouded by abstractions or it may be clouded by passions evoked by ideology. Listen to these people talk. They may be clever, but are they ever wise? Are they ever fresh, funny, good to be around, making you feel more awake to what life has to offer? Would you really want to take on board their ways of thinking, their notions of what matters? Perhaps so if you have had a typical education that, likely enough, estranged you from your best moments and memories.

The great poetic consciousness vs. sociological consciousness novel is Lewis's That Hideous Strength. Read it attuned to the contrast it presents between household and institution.

Where poetic consciousness prevails, institutions will take on some of the qualities of good households, and where sociological consciousness prevails, household will become more like institutions: rationalized, inorganic, with records maybe but not places where memories come to fruition.

Unfortunately our societal trajectory is towards sociological consciousness. When government wants to get into even pre-kindergarten at one end, and sponsored college at the other, run for the hills.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I do believe that, ultimately, poetic
> consciousness needs religious faith, I think it is
> possible for one to hold an atheistic or skeptical
> philosophy and still experience poetic
> consciousness. Take Joseph Conrad. My sense of
> Conrad is that he perceived existence as
> inscrutable and that he had no religious faith.
> But his is not a sociological consciousness. He
> retains a sense of the human mystery. Conrad's
> imagination and perception are a million miles
> away from the sociological consciousness we see
> everywhere today, including, or so it appears to
> me though I'm a Christian, many examples of
> organized religion. ...
>

Poetic consciousness was prevalent in Europe before the entrance of the Christian church. Christianity, and its humanitarian values, has been a most effective conqueror's tool to get Europe and later US under control, and into the multicultural state we see today, and turning the people's minds into sociological consciousness, through the fear of God, divine punishment, and imprinted guilt, with redemption under the rules of the Christian church offering the only deliverance. Over the last couple of centuries, and especially in the last few decades, Christian religion has gradually lost its foothold (with Consumption being the new global "religion"), people becoming more and more secularized; but the social consciousness remain imprinted on our minds. Christianity may have some sound values for how to treat friends and family. But Christianity is dismally detached from the biological laws of Nature; likewise with the other two Semitic desert-religions. They are all arrogant in the face of Nature, and presume humans detached from and above Nature. It is perverse. That is why their societies are so chaotic, dysfunctional, brutal, and non-aesthetic (or rather, their religions may stem form their degenerate genetics).

The old Germanic and Norse gods were based on the laws of Nature, and gain energy therefrom. Same with Celtic paganism. That is what we have lost with the enforced advent of Christianity, which is ultimately the cause for the madness of the current cultural changes being allowed to take place. But the old truths still sleep deep within us, and can be awakened.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The old Germanic and Norse gods were based on the
> laws of Nature, and gain energy therefrom. Same
> with Celtic paganism. ...

And of course, the Greek and Roman gods for southern Europeans. Those are the gods we should pray to as true Europeans, instead of turning to some Semitic desert-Savior that help us none!