The American Dream—A Stale Metaphor

Today’s employment/unemployment numbers have set off a round of critical commentary and more cries that the American Dream is dead.  The numbers were bad, see here.  Macro level analysis about the ongoing class warfare in America, the wealthy versus the not wealthy, is painted as The Betrayal of the American Dream, a discussion about a new book by that name.

These reports got me to thinking about the phrase “American Dream” or, more precisely, the complex metaphor that it is.

First, here is what Wikipedia has to say (here):

“The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States; a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work.”

The idea is more than a focus on materialism, however.  It also means a person can pursue their inner betterment without artificial constraints, such as religious, artistic and moral freedom.

I generally believe that knowing the origin and popular duration of phrases helps to understand their meaning.   In this case, James Truslow Adams coined the phrase in 1931:

“…the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position” (here).

Obviously, it is a Modernist phrase, conceived in modernist terms, such as “achievement” and “social order.”  However, it does contain many older American ideas, so the phrase may be older.  If it is older, then it was never widely used as chart 1 shows.

While Adams used the phrase in 1931, it was 30 years later that it became popular and part of the American collective vocabulary, as shown in chart 2.

My point here is that while many of the ideas bundled together in the phrase are old in American culture, the metaphor “American Dream” is a product of the mid 20^th century.  It is a metaphor that came into being as the American High was transforming into the Fourth Awakening, the climax of Modernism.  It represents the greatness of America at the height of its own achievements.

The popularity of the metaphor has been in decline since 1975.  For young Americans, under age 45, it is an idea from their parent’s, grandparent’s, and great grandparent’s generations.  For them the American Dream is like eating stale bread.

Thus, it is a legacy metaphor.  And, in our new Romanticism, it may not be a useful metaphor or one that has deep meaning, one that provides sustenance to our culture going forward.

The above charts clearly demonstrate that “American Dream” began in popularity about 1960.  It was in that year that Life Magazine began a series of essays on “Our National Purpose” (here).  It’s very hard to imagine today our nation having such a conversation in print or multimedia.  But we need one.

To me, the American Dream is not just about personal success, freedom, or the chance to better myself.  It is about our nation’s role in the world, our purpose as a collective entity about which we can all share a sense of pride and loyalty.  We need a new metaphor that combines the best of the American Dream, Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism.

I don’t know what the new phrase, metaphor, would be.  I do know that worrying about “losing the American Dream” is a wasted effort, a fake controversy, because our spirit is still intact.  The oligarchy does not own that.

Reflexivity, Reciprocity & Causality

One of the big differences between Apollonian and Dionysian intellectual patterns is the emphasis each gives to certain types of relationships between variables.

Apollonians, due to their need for simplicity and linear constructs, focus on causality, the time relationship that states “A causes B”.  In the twentieth century Modernists considered cause and effect to be the most important thing in the world.  All other types of relations were ignored as much as possible.  In Modernist science, studying anything other than cause and effect relations was taboo.

The phrase “correlation is not causation” was widely used after 1960 as the early new Romanticism began creeping into various research agendas.   The Romantics began by pointing out relationships that were not causative (i.e. reciprocal and/or reflexive) but were certainly interesting enough to be studied.  The Modernist backlash against such a radical view was to say “correlation is not causation” and thus attempting to shut down expanding intellectual thought.  The certainty that A causes B was sacred to most Modernists.

Dionysian new Romantics understand causality but it just isn’t interesting.  Thus, Romantic (aka Post Modernist) science emphasizes reflexive and reciprocal relations, or a combination of all three.  Dionysian thought is always more holistic than Apollonian.

Reciprocity is the synchronic relation that A and B are related, and that, diachronically, A and B change each other.   A married couple can grow closer together, or apart.  The relationship can be between equals, between dominant and subservient, between primary and secondary, etc.   Also, over time, these patterns can change.   If the husband kills the wife then to an Apollonian that event is a simple case of cause and effect.  One can further ask what was the motive, and maybe some other recent event is viewed as a triggering event (she cheated on him).  The Dionysian wants to know the whole marital history because the killing event is viewed as the conclusion of long reflexive and reciprocal processes.  And, the story is not over for many more years as the husband and both extended families resolve the emotions of the event.  The recent cable series on the Hatfield and McCoy feud showed this very well.  It is always important to tell the audience what happened to the people later in life.

Reflexive thought is self aware and sometimes critical.  A evaluates A, and change may occur due to the evaluation (if they can do it then I/we can do it).  Additionally, reflexive knowledge usually needs to be aggregated to come up with bigger answers.  You all know the old story about ten blindfolded people touching and describing a portion of an elephant.  Each observation is different but the object of study is the same for each.  This tells us that by aggregating unique observations we can get a more complete story.  It also points out that reflexivity, A evaluates A, is a social cultural matrix and not some autonomous relation in a vacuum.

Reflexivity is the glue that keeps causality and reciprocity together.   All science and history should create research projects that address these three perspectives.  Causality is the least important of the three.  

Social Networks and the New Romanticism

Now that Facebook has done its initial public offering it is time to discuss the idea of “living socially,” a common phrase here in the Northwest.  (See livingsocial.com.)

If you are employed you probably have heard the comment Our people are our best resource, which is often used as a team building statement.  I suspect that in the old Modernist days such comments focused more on collective meritocracy, such as we are all well credentialed, and have xyz years of education and experience.  Today’s Romanticism emphasizes social life, virtual and visceral, over the abstract and intellectual one.  To Anthropologists, the emphasis on social life is called Hight Context culture, and it is filled with high frequency communications.

Social networks have always existed, and cronyism too, but the different ways in which they are thought about give the distinction.  Modernists thought about society and social living in the abstract; it's just business, not personal, was a favorite Godfather phrase.  Romantics focus on feeling it, experiencing it, and emotionalizing it—everything is personal.

Our new Romanticism uses words that stress the social:  engaged, connected, collaborate. Zuckerberg of Facebook has always talked about his website as being about connections.  Engaged is also interesting; it's an old word that used to mean engage in war, engaged to be married, engage the clutch, but now it pushes social activity.  Collaboration has replaced partnership.  The nuance here is that collaborative relations are between equals while partnerships need not be; collaboration de-emphasizes hierarchy and is more democratic.

While I think most understand the rawness and experientialism that comes with Romantic’s interest in the visceral life, the virtual stuff needs elaboration.  We have to understand that in Modernist terms technology was a utility outside of nature.  Computers, cars, machines were just tools.  Modernists sometimes even personified their cars or linked one’s personality to a car.  I drive a mustang means I am a wild horse.  However, that was as far as it would go.

In addition, Modernists used emphatic expressions; they preferred to convey information with a sense of confidence and accuracy.  Romantics use phatic expressions, also known as small talk and grooming conversations, to stress relationships.  Facebook, Twitter, texting are dominated by phatic conversations.

In our new Romanticism, technology is our natural world and we are one with nature.   The internet is an environment of connectedness--a matrix of hardware, software, complex metaphors, and grand illusions. Our young adults can’t live without their cell phones and other social networking technologies.  To be alive is to be connected, and virtual communication means that we are all wired together.  The virtual world is as real as any other place. 

Below, the phrase social network is clearly a product of our new Romantic era.

Fairness Doctrine as Modernism

One of my main interests on this blog is describing the transition from an Apollonian culture to a Dionysian one that started in the 1960s and was generally complete by 1990.  In other terms, this is the transition from Modernism to romantic Post Modernism.

There are, of course, many minor patterns of Modernism that persist simply because some are hard to change due to laws or they are bundled up with other patterns that are Dionysian.  Additionally, there are still many older people active in the public sphere who cling to older thoughts and values.   In the political economic sphere, those who still adhere to the “Neoliberal” agenda, and that includes the more radical neocons, are part of this older tradition.   In more political terms, those whom Lakoff called “neoliberal” and some of the moderate conservatives fall into this group (the extreme conservatives, are by definition, Dionysian) .

One Modernist idea recently closed out is the Fairness Doctrine.  From wikipediA :

“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine… The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented… The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.

In the mid-1980s, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, stating in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In June 2011, the Chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the Fairness Doctrine and other "outdated" regulations from the FCC's rulebook.

On August 22, 2011, the FCC formally voted to repeal the language that implemented the Fairness Doctrine, along with removal of more than eighty other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following a White House executive order directing a "government-wide review of regulations already on the books", to eliminate unnecessary regulations.^”

News items are found here,

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391570,00.asp

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61851.html

The Fairness Doctrine is a fine example of Modernism.  The whole intent is to allow the assessment of ideas and concepts in a public format.  And, Modernists were all about ideas and their merits.  The Doctrine also supported the sense of objectivity that was expected in journalistic venues.

In a Dionysian culture, the emphasis is on power and control.  The merits of ideas are less relevant.  Objectivity, or the farce of it, is now a tool for manipulating people into voting blocks.  Journalism now has a preacher style instead of an inquisitive intellectual one.

The best example of the Doctrine is found in the old Firing Line series hosted by William F Buckley, although many other shows had it too (Dick Cavett, Point/Counterpoint).  Today, the PBS News Hour seems to be the last real attempt at implementing the Doctrine.

Here is a video of Buckley in action with Huey Newton, circa 1970, as they discuss the idea of revolution:

The inquisitive nature of Modernism also  influenced other forms of public culture. Here is a link to a 1950s You Bet Your Life show; watch the inter play between a scientist and Groucho Marx

http://www.pdcomedy.com/ClassicTV/GrouchoMarx/YouBetYourLife/Episode1/Part1.htm

Groucho even says at one point “do you want my job?”

Under Modernism Fair Doctrine conversations were exposés in questioning.  Today, the goal is to be dogmatic and convey a position.

Waves of Intellectualism: We are at a Low

Many people consider anti intellectualism an aspect of Post Modernism (aka our new Dionysian Romanticism).  I suspect the reason for this is that the rise of anti intellectualism in the 1980s is coeval with the more obvious push of Post Modernism in those years.  However, let’s not forget that much of Post Modernism has been pushed by people who would normally be viewed as intellectuals.  And, the Dionysian basis of Post Modernism was well entrenched by the mid 1960s.

Intellectuals and anti intellectuals are found in any era.  During the age of scientism (ca. 1890-1985) many disliked arrogant professors or they made fun of mad professors.  During the romanticism of the 19^th century should we call the Transcendentalists anti intellectuals?  Doers versus thinkers is not Dionysian versus Apollonian.

Our current wave of anti intellectualism began in the early 1980s under Reagan and it likely peaked under Bush Jr.  This wave has been a concerted attack on rigorous thinking and research, and the whole system of Modernist meritocracy built around good thinking and research.  Anti intellectualism has been a tool by the materialists of our society to subvert hindrances to corporate profit.  The recent wave likely was started by the tobacco industry (Allan Brandt) and then used by the oligarchy to subvert the conservative right (here) which prior to Reagan was quite intellectual.

The spread of anti intellectualism in America has been intentional; the goal has been to make consumers and voters stupid so that higher profits could be made, and regulations reduced.  Anti intellectualism is not a Dionysian impulse in of itself; using it to gain power and money is a Dionysian impulse.

Into this mix we have the problems of academia and the corporatization of our universities.  The demise of good science and history is a result of anti intellectualism impulsion through society.  Here is an example.

Historian David Kaiser (wiki, blog) recently wrote a nice piece about how the history profession has changed over the last three decades, here.  He describes what history used to be like and what it has become.  He views himself as being a product of the modernist era and wishes that it was still active.  Here are some of his descriptions.

To Kaiser, Modernist historians were…

trained to address, research, and study great questions of war and peace...They took their own and others’ opinions on those questions very seriously, and they enjoyed discussing these questions in a frank, if generally friendly spirit…Most importantly of all, perhaps, the historians and political scientists…did not feel bound to confine their comments to their research specialties.  We had been taught that historians have opinions on every major question, and we expressed them…[H]istorians used the fullest possible documentary record to make the best judgments they could about what actually happened.

He argues that…

Now a new view [has taken] hold [Post Modernism]:  that arguments about knowledge…were about the interests of groups, not the opinions of individuals, and that everyone was free to reshape the past based in large part on identity politics…A new view of history has triumphed, one which indeed denies the existence of any single truth…Everyone, it seems, is entitled to his or her own small plot of intellectual land, within which he or she can develop a particular variety of history.  A general non-aggression pact among the practitioners prevails.  The idea that certain books are superior in research, argument, or scholarship to others has become most unfashionable…Another feature of the current historical profession:  historians (and political scientists) are afraid to take a stand…[S]erious archival work involving exhaustive research has fallen out of fashion…[T]hat the changes in the academy have benefited the political right far more than the political left.  Because the historical profession is no longer interested in the doings of the rich and powerful, but only in the lives of the marginalized…

Certainly, under Modernism people generally believed in absolute truths--and history and (general systems theory) science benefited from this.  However, the Post Modern switch to relativistic perspectives can also lead to good science and history.  Creating relativistic and situational understandings of life is a good goal for both, and many are pursuing it (e.g. here).  

Actually, I think Kaiser is complaining more about the rise of “bad history” or “pseudo history,” the fact that many do not take their work seriously, so they don’t need to take a stand about anything.  Modernist intellectuals tend to view themselves as being serious and they want to be “taken” seriously.  The intellectual has authority when they are taken seriously.  The demise of authority in this country is due to the spread of egalitarianism that is a part of the Dionysian trend.

An educated mob has taken over academia and they will play out the processes of Dionysian hierarchy building (power and money dominate) as they please; and any older Apollonian advocate of modernist meritocracy will need to step aside.  Good luck David.

Intellectualism in America comes in waves and there are peaks and valleys.  There are periods when the whole culture is caught up in good thinking or bad thinking.  I think America’s intellectual high points are the Awakenings, leaving of course, the low points to be the secular crises.

The demise of history is not due to post modernism; it is a micro reflection of a culture that went from Awakening to unraveling to crisis.  There will be a new high and a new Awakening.  I fully expect our New Romanticism to have a powerful intellectual and ecstatic climax similar to the Progressive Awakening (1890-1920), which to my mind still stands as the greatest era of creativity in the history of Western Civilization.

Update #1

I was pinged that I have contradicted myself.   Remember the matrix metaphor, multi-scalar discussions are the norm here.

Level  One:   the recent transition from Apollonian to Dionysian occurred in the Fourth Awakening 1960-1990.  American culture is predominately Dionysian; some sectors of society are still in transition.

Level Two :  The transition from the Rationalist/linear/Modernism to the Intuitive/nonlinear/Post Modernism patterns.

Level three:  changes in Institutions within our culture reflect levels one and two.

Level Four:  there will be great diversity among Individuals.

My comment The demise of good science and history is a result of anti intellectualism impulsion through society is a Level Three statement.

My comment The demise of history is not due to post modernism; it is a micro reflection of a culture that went from Awakening to unraveling to crisis is a Level Two statement.

Objectivity as Modernism

When I was in college and graduate school in the 1970s and 80s I learned the scientific method.  There was a lot of focus on being objective.  While I never questioned the concept I do remember that I preferred other words similar to it, such as impartial or disinterested.  In the 80s and 90s, objectivity came under great pressure from critics who rightly pointed out that one cannot suppress their feelings or emotions or biases while doing research.  Today, the basic idea is to understand these biases and mitigate against them if possible.  Or, maybe we just live with the lack of impartial arguments.

Objectivity is a modernist idea.  It wasn’t part of the Enlightenment agenda; usage of the word gets its peak around 1970, noting that the last swing to a higher peak after 1980 is likely the post modern counter attack. [click on image for better view; use the back button to return]

Prior to this, the word Impartial was the main idea during the Enlightenment

 In the early 19^th century the word Disinterested was fairly common.

As scientism faded in the later part of the twentieth century so does objectivity.  Subjectivity and Conflict of Interest get more usage as post modern discussions get going.  With Subjectivity being the flip of Objectivity it too is falling into disuse.

The real concern in our new romantic era is conflict of interest and the partiality of many observers and commentators.

Note:  All Ngrams are done for the period 1700-2008 with a smoothing of 3 for English.

Pajamas and Pancakes: Anytime & Anywhere

At Wal-Mart the other day, I saw people wearing pajamas while shopping.  Just search “shopping in pajamas” to see commentary and videos about it.  I wondered:  when did it become okay for such casualness?  Also, why do I think it is casual?  After all, some people think it is just normal.

As a kid, I grew up in a world where the social rules of conduct were based in Modernism, a world of order and hierarchy.  Everything in its place and a place for everything was a common phrase.  That meant that there were acceptable clothing styles for different parts of the day, for working or leisure, and for being in public or in private.  Various activities all had their clothing selections and were defined as formal or casual.   Golf shoes were for golf and not hiking; tennis shoes were for tennis not basketball.  Pajamas were worn while sleeping and maybe having breakfast with the kids--not shopping.

There used to be all kinds of rules for formality and being in public.  Restaurants had dress codes.  The more formal or upscale the place the more strict the rules.  Dinner jackets and ties for men; dresses and nylons for women.  Many places had No Shirts No Shoes No Service signs by the entry.

Clothing reflected social status.  Family restaurants were casual and noisy with children.  Formal dining was quiet, reserved, and full of ties and dresses.

Under Modernism there were three meals a day and each had its separate items.  Breakfast was eggs and pancakes or cereal.  Lunch was sandwiches and/or soup; dinner was a main dish and maybe a dessert.  Restaurants had different menus for each meal.   

In the 1980s and 90s this all changed due to the spread of our new Romanticism.  Casualness spread everywhere because formality declined everywhere. Public and private blended, as did work and leisure. Modernism was steeped in its domestications and hierarchies of cultural class.  All of it was defined by what you did, what you wore, what you read.  Paul Fussell (here) described very well America’s classes as they were at the end of Modernism.   He takes the three old classes of early Modernism (High Brow, Middle Brow, and Low Brow) and breaks them down into several subclasses of each. 

Under Modernism, the upper crust abhorred egalitarianism.  Under Romanticism, egalitarianism is the dominant theme.  Modernist social class (based on education, occupation, & money) has collapsed into Romanticism’s two groups, the Haves and the Have Nots (money and power divides everything); the Alpha personalities against everyone else.

Today, we have few outlets for formality.  You still see it in weddings and some ceremonies.  Graduations tend to maintain the old sense of order but the number of people wearing spoofy outfits (or nothing) under their gowns has turned these events into opportunities for satire.

In terms of clothing, there has been some backlash to the casualness.  Mild dress codes are still in force or are being reinstalled with different levels of acceptability.  However, meal categories are now useless.  Restaurants now have breakfast all day ads or their menus are a blend of separate meal categories and items served all day (see here for the Jack in the Box menu). 

Some have yet to figure this out.  McDonalds--Does it really matter what time of day I buy a Big Mac or an Egg Mac Muffin? 

You won’t see me in pajamas at Wal-Mart (because I don’t wear them).  However, if I want pancakes for dinner, I will have them.

Spock as Modernism

When I was in graduate school in the early 1980s important questions that guided Anthropology seminars were “what is human” and “what distinguishes humans from other animals.”  Of course, in those days, the answer often turned to the word “culture” as so many believed that it distinguishes humans from other animals.  Culture was also tied to the use of tools and having language.

I guess these questions are always relevant.  However, I think the answers change with the changing cultural seasons.

Soft modernist Kenneth Burke wrote in 1966:  "Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection".

Modernists liked to focus on ‘exclusive’ ideas, ones that separate and distinguish humans from other animals and from nature.  They also suppressed and ignored studying human emotionalism because it is too animal-like.  Early modernists wanted to put emotional people into psycho wards along with the insane.  Inability to control ones emotions was thought to be abnormal.

Post modernists tend to be eclectic and they
a) are holistic were they recognize both inclusive and exclusive views, or
b) ignore the humanness issue, or
c) focus on naturalism, as in “it’s part of human nature for some to believe they are separate from nature.”

Post modernists now believe that studying emotions is important to understanding human cognition.

The shift from Modernism to Post Modernism occurred during the Fourth Awakening (ca. 1960-1990).  In those years the definition of what is human changed from ideas like Burke’s to those such as a, b, and c above. (My graduate school was conservative at the time).

One of the means of making this shift was by representing humanness in new ways during those Awakening years.  Star Trek was one of the popular series that made it all happen.  The original series ran 1966-1969 and it then became a major franchise of new series and spin offs that continue to today.  The original series focused on Capt Kirk and Mr. Spock with Kirk showing the range of feeling and characteristics of humans and Spock as the Vulcan alien who suppresses emotions and pursues logic--the ultimate modernist. Throughout the Star Trek franchise the contrast of Vulcan as the pinnacle of Apollonian pursuit versus “human” is a major theme.  See this video montage of Mr Spock the Logic Man

What these clips reveal is that pure logic and rationalism were challenged during and after the Awakening as being exceptional human traits; they are, in fact, deemed too cold, too clinical, often flawed. Modernism is flawed humanity.

Over the whole Star Trek franchise there grows a fairly well defined sense of what is human and what is beyond it.  Vulcans are eventually softened into having feelings and their cousins the Romulans are shown to be pure Dionysian.  The Klingons start out as enemies but become allies; they are a warrior culture similar to samurai Japanese and Plains Indians (Dionysian).

By surrounding humans with species with extreme traits then humanness get defined as the balanced center, a typical awakening posture.

Now that the Awakening is far behind us, has American culture changed from the modernist scientism of Spock to the eye bedazzling sneaky Romulan? or are we more like the honorable Klingons?

Spock photo here; Romulan photo here.

Haute Couture: Then and now

Fashion is generally thought of as glamorous. But it is also very time sensitive as it reveals the ethos of the times. Below are two videos demonstrating Modernism and our new Romanticism.  

The first is from 1955 and shows what passed as elegance in those Modernist days.  Note the male narrator (the interpretation of the gown is given to you; you are passively taking in the concepts), the orchestra giving an air of canned elevator music, the slow camera movements, the comments about "telescope" lines (linear imagery), and the imagery of having a "dinner to theater" evening event. The gowns tend to suggest Vs, triangles, and symmetry; bows are generally small.  Ladies hair is pulled back and controlled. The emphasis is on elegance and sophistication.  It is high culture in control of nature.



Here is a 2007 video.  There is no narrator (the interpretation of the gown is your own; you are an active interpreter), the music is pop culture, camera shots are fast and jerky, hair is scraggly and allowed to bounce, and the gowns are mixed, symmetrical and asymmetrical; bows are generally large.  The emphasis is on sassy and bold with more skin shown--raw opulence with a touch of wildness.

There are similarities of course--the stick figure models is the most obvious. And, not every dress is 100% Apollonian or Dionysian.  The 1950s had their bright colors and detailed designs; not every gown was simple and minimalist.  Likewise, our contemporary romantic fashion can play off the older styles. Not every dress was elaborate and flashy.  The difference is one of degree. In each era the dominant ethos is about 70%.

Carling Malouf: Anthropologist with a Sociology Problem

Over on the Neuroanthropology blog  Shama zaidi asked this question in a comment :

“if an indian scholar [from India] were to try and do a study of the mating customs of middle america what would that be called?” 

I assume the middle class of America is the target here.   The answer is that in today’s climate the research could be called either Sociology or Anthropology.  Neither is currently distinguished all that well.  In today’s American social sciences the big difference is qualitative vs quantitative research, not Anthropology vs Sociology.  

There was a time when Anthropology and Sociology were clearly distinguished, as Shama states:  Anthropology studied the “undeveloped unwashed millions of the third world”  and similar “studies of people in the civilized developed world was called Sociology.” 

However, in America I suspect that that hard separation only lasted for a few years, circa 1945-1965.  Before WW2 there were a few Anthropological studies done on American culture.  The classic one is Mead’s And Keep Your Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at America (1942).  That book was, of course, a war effort.

Over on Savage Minds Rex posted an Alfred Kroeber lecture from 1958 that discussed Anthropology and Sociology; the last paragraph was:

Now, maturity has stolen upon us… The times, and utilitarianism, have caught up with us, and we find ourselves classified and assigned to the social sciences. It is a dimmer atmosphere, with the smog of Jargon sometimes hanging heavy. Generalizations no longer suffice; we are taught to worship Abstraction; sharp sensory outlines have melted into vagueness.  As our daily bread, we invent hypotheses in order to test them, as we are told is the constant practice of the high tribe of physicists. If at times some of you, like myself, feel ill at ease in the house of social science, do not wonder; we are changelings therein; our true paternity lies elsewhere

Basically, Kroeber’s complaint was that Anthropology, to him a romantic natural history endeavor, was being forced into the pigeon hole of 20^th century modernist hard line social science, and all the hard and fast categories associated with it.  Being one of the last 19^th century romantics, of course he wouldn’t like it.

Into this mid century mind set change came Carling Malouf (1916-2006), an energetic researcher.  Malouf had gotten an MA in Anthropology from the U Utah around 1941.  He then went into the Army and worked in various military camps in the western US as an induction officer.  Near Turlock CA he was a “camp sociologist” studying the characteristics of soldiers who did not fit into the confines of military life.  Basically, the army had a concentration camp of misfits who did not conform to military life (see Santos here).  Malouf’s job was to study soldiers from a social science perspective; there was a psychologist doing research too.

After the war, maybe 1948, Malouf wrote a two volume report on American soldiers, based on his war experience and data, and submitted it to Columbia U for a PhD Dissertation in Anthropology.  The work was rejected, apparently by Mead, because it was Sociology, not Anthropology.  Malouf had to go back and do an archaeological study to get his PhD (which took several more years.)

Poor Malouf had stumbled into the heart of modernism where most everything was black and white.  Grey was not allowed, except by special permission.  To do Anthropology you had to study the Others; to do Sociology you had to study US or Europe.  Horace Minor’s satirical essay on the Nacerima (American spelled back words) was allowed only because it was satire. (At the time few took it seriously; it became the most popular essay ever published in American Anthropologist).

The hard and fast separation between Anthropology and Sociology only lasted in those weird  years, 1945-1965, when American culture was at its cultural “high” point, and also at its most culturally intolerant point.  If Malouf had submitted his work just a few years earlier, say 1939, or waited until the late 1960s, it likely would have been accepted as Anthropology.  Categories are not constant; they wax and wane in hardness or softness or bluriness.  Today, we live in a world of blured categories, and it will get stablized here for a few more years as Romanticism climaxes.  

Malouf was one of the last Boasians.  He used to say that he had published in all four fields of Anthropology.  No one can say that today.  Below you’ll see that he did, including a physical anthro study based on his WWII work. 

Malouf was an American Anthropologist.

Selected essays of Carling Malouf

Gosiute Peyotism , American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1942), pp. 93-103.

Thoughts on Utah Archaeology , American Antiquity, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jan., 1944), pp. 319-328.

Observations on the participation of Arizona's racial and cultural groups in World War II, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 5, Issue 4, pages 491–496, December 1947.

Kutenai Calendar Records: A Study of Indian Record Keeping, by Carling Malouf &Thain White, The Montana Magazine of History, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring, 1953), pp. 34-39.

The cultural connections between the prehistoric inhabitants of the Upper Missouri and Columbia River systems. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, Columbia university, 1956.

The Modern Period as Cultural Takeoff

 It seems that I am constantly revisiting my own past.  For this essay I am digging out an old paper from 1995 called “Studying the Modern Period” [1].  To understand postmodernism, or as I prefer to call it, 21^st century romanticism, it is important to place it into a larger cultural context.  And that context is the Modern Period (MP).   Within the MP twentieth century modernism (ca 1890-1990) gets followed by postmodernism (ca 1960-present) with the overlap being the Awakening.

And yes, in broad terms, there is a fractal relation between the MP and its sub phases.  The MP is generally Apollonian, although some of the sub phases can be strongly Dionysian.

Inside the MP there are three important cultural cycles operating.  These are:

    1. The cycle of Apollonian, Awakening, and Dionysian phases.

    2. The cultural seasons cycle—Awakening, cultural high, culture wars/unraveling, and secular crisis. 

    3. The generations cycle—prophets, nomads, heroes, artists.

These are the rhythms of American culture.  I have previously discussed 1 and 2.  The generational model is still to come; it is based on Strauss and Howe.

I use the term period in the archaeological fashion.  It is a box bounded in time and space.  The time covered is roughly the mid 15^th century to the present.  The space starts out being Europe, including Russia, and then rapidly spreads globally.  Today the influence of Western Civilization is found everywhere.  I’m not saying it is dominant everywhere but the influence is there.

This is not a Eurocentric perspective (culture warriors bite your tongue).  I am looking at cultural changes on a large scale and one cannot ignore the 800 pound gorilla during the period in question.  In North American archaeology there have been several cultural expansions that have been studied.  In the west there is the expansion of Uto-Aztecan speaking peoples out of Mexico into the US desert west and inter-mountain region, leading to a Numic Spread, concluding in the Shoshonean migration onto the plains, the last wave being the Comanche.  There are similar studies done on all the major Native American language families. 

Similarly, Alaska has long been a cross roads for expanding cultures.  In the late 1800s Americans from the lower continent went north into the gold fields and turned the land into an American territory.  Prior to that Russians had moved across Eurasia into N America in their pursuit of furs.  Prior to that Aleuts had come across from Asia. Prior to that Eskimos had come across and they got all the way to Iceland where they fought the Norse.  Prior to that Athabascans had come across and some moved south all the way to deep Texas to become the Lipan Apache.  And, of course, archaeologists debate the number of and timing of prior migrations.  The important idea is that these migrations changed the cultural landscape significantly.  They were transformative processes affecting certain regions.

Not all explorations or cultural encounters are transformative.  The Norse briefly had an outpost in Newfoundland (here) and the Polynesians appear to have hit the California coast and left a small bit of cultural “diffusion” upon the Chumash and Gabrielino (here & here).  But no one will claim these events to be transformative processes.  

The European expansions during the MP have been transformative in that wherever Europeans went they significantly changed the cultures that they encountered.  On some continents they completely overtook the native populations (N and S America, Australia) while in other areas they spread their influence but could not completely dominate (Afghanistan, China, Japan).   European languages (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, German, and Russian) were spread all across the globe, and all that comes with it, religion, material culture, politics, etc.

The European expansion was a global process, not one confined to certain regions. There is no evidence that Neanderthals made it to N America or that the Mongols rode their ponies here.   Only the European expansion touches all corners of the world. Thus, it has to be viewed as the largest expansion in human history.

Moreover, the expansion was fueled by and still carries with it incredible cultural change.  From the perspective of cultural evolution, the transformation of the world in the last 500 years is equal to or greater than the domestication of plants and animals during the 4000 years of the Neolithic Revolution.  As I wrote in 1995:

The Modern Period is characterized by rapid cultural change.  In evolutionary terms the last five hundred years can be described as a period of "cultural takeoff” [2].   No other period in the human time line has the pace, scale and intensity of cultural development than does the Modern Period.  The world changed from consisting of fragmented local and regional economic, political, and social networks to being interconnected via international ones.  During this change, many new ideas and ways of life were created, to include:  progress, science, specialization, industrialization, humanism, professionalism, capitalism, communism, development, underdevelopment, advanced technology, the nation state, individualism, democracy, rationality, and modern medicine; just to name a few [pp. 119-120].

Rapid cultural change is the defining element of the MP, not capitalism, not science, not technology—those are fuel for the flame.   Within postmodernism there are those who call hyper-modernism progress thinking that they are continuing the tradition of modernity.  Others see it as being on a roller coaster ride that is impossible to exit.  The endless ups and downs stress the psyche and soul--it is a distortion of compressed time and that life  is no longer experienced at a human scale.  Not everyone enjoys it. 

At the macro level the postmodernism critic is like the break-man leaning hard on the break to slow down the express train, hoping to avoid a train wreck of humanity.  Arthur Versluis defines anti-modernism in this way:  It is…

the awareness of decline.  If the essence of “modernism” is progress, a belief that technological development means socio-economic improvement, the heart of antimodernism is a realization that “progress” has an underbelly—that technological industrial development has destructive consequences in three primary and intertwined areas:  nature, culture, and religion

The warnings of the antimodernists are often dire, but the best among them also affirm a vision of a better society—a more ethical way of life—and remind us of our spiritual purposes and responsibility.  Antimodernists, far from representing a purely negative or pessimistic current, advance a critique of the society in which we live in order to call us toward a better one. Our future quality of life, perhaps even our survival, may depend upon whether we begin to heed their warnings [3].

Those are fine words.  However, 21^st century romanticism has been a trickster.  Instead of giving us a break it has rushed us further into hyper-modernism and excessive greed.  It's Apollo on steroids. Western Civ is insolvent (here) and those who pay attention get only lies.  Instead of being wise and ethical Dionysus is on a rampage under the illusion of Rational Man. 

And yet, I’m hoping that the “best among them” shows up soon, in force, because we could sure use some ethics in today’s corrupt world.

Notes

1.  L. Moore, Studying the Modern Period: Expanding the Perspective of Historical Archaeology, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 11 (1995): 119-124.

2.  The term is generally attributed to Marvin Harris who uses it in many publications and in several ways.

3.  Arthur Verslius, Antimodernism, Telos 137 (2006): 96-130.  Quotes on pp. 98 and 130.