Our American Winter

This is an update on my thoughts about our current secular crisis.  The basic idea is that our culture cycles through four cultural eras, labeled the high, the awakening, the unraveling, and the secular crisis.  These four eras are equated with the four seasons: spring, summer, autumn, and winter.  And, we are in winter.  The idea comes from the work of Neil Howe and William Strauss, especially a book called The Fourth Turning (here).  I have described American eras previously (here).

The most important idea to take away about the secular crisis era is that it is a cultural identity crisis.  It may have powerful economic and/or political issues to resolve but ultimately it is about who we are as a people that is the core of the problem.  I summarized much of this previously (here).

To reiterate I think our current crisis is about the question: is America, the US, still Number One?

We have had horrific events, such as the World Trade Center attack, the War on Terrorism, the Great Recession, the FED stupidly owning everything, and we can expect an episode of genocidal warfare.

We can also expect a status quo change, such as: perhaps the US Dollar being replaced by something else; perhaps the US will see a decline in international economic and political influence; perhaps some wealthy people will be torn down from their gilded balconies.

The final resolution will be such that America becomes a more powerful Superpower, or a fallen and shattered one, or just a less influential player shunned by most others.  The fall (a full-blown collapse or just a big trip) can come quickly, as evidenced by the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1999. Alternatively, we might take over another large portion of the world.

My previous statements on this crisis had it begin with 9/11 because after that event our government became much larger (a usual sign of a crisis era).  The Big Brother effects of that event are still playing out, especially with the attention to NSA lately.  Homeland security is the mantra as they take away our constitutional freedoms. A focus on this issue means that the core question is:  are we a free people? I think the issue is bigger than this.

Many other people proclaim that the crisis era began with the credit crisis of 2007 and the Great Recession that followed.  We have been in a mild depression since 2007 and I think it eventually gets worse before the economic troubles are resolved.  There is no doubt that fear and anxiety in America (another important indicator of the crisis era) ratcheted up significantly after the market crash of 2008.  A focus on economic issues is one way to view the crisis.  Again, I see it as bigger than that.

Folks in the blogosphere who discuss these things ask us to take sides, our “crisis began in 2001 or 2007”. Choose one.

I am not certain that we can make such proclamations, especially as they would be used to suggest when the crisis ends.

The crisis ends when it does.

If we expect the era to last 20-25 years then it spans 2001-2021 or  to 2026.

On the other hand, it spans 2007-2027 or to 2032.

Either way we have a long way to go.

The difficulty in determining when it began has more to do with our Dionysian age rather than micro analyzing each weird event that has happened. 

In Apollonian ages, events will appear to be linear.  It is easier to identify when a crisis begins and ends.  Our American Revolution and the Great Depression-WWII are two crises that played out under Apollonian values.

During Dionysian ages, reflexive and reciprocal relations are more active. Thus, events are not going to line up in obvious linear sequences. When did the Glorious Revolution start and end? Or, how about the slavery dispute-Civil War-reconstruction? Those crises did not have clear-cut start/end dates, and neither does the current crisis.

It is best to just say, “It began in the early part of the 21^st century”.

Thirty years from now, we will have a good idea of about when it ended.

Chance Favors the Connected Mind

Today’s title comes from the last statement of the following video Where Good Ideas Come From.

The video is a summary of Steven Johnson’s book by the same name.

I highlight Johnson’s work because he offers a positive perspective on American culture.  He believes we are still progressing and changing in positive ways.  His newest book is Future Perfect.  There he outlines a world of connected people striving to solve problems collaboratively.  A 3 hour discussion is here. 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/308085-1

Johnson is a breath of fresh air compared to Chris Hedges or Morris Berman.  Those two continue to tell a tale of American decline and collapse.  Our culture is dying--run and hide, or become a “prepper.” These guys provide good critiques of our culture; I don't think their forecasts follow from their data.

American culture is going to survive.  It will be reborn as something stronger and more powerful than it currently is.  To get there, the death of a status quo has to occur.  And, I think it is the oligarchs of finance who will take the brunt of this change, precisely because it was they who created this secular crisis.  Thus, it will be “those people” who eventually will be sacrificed to solve the problem.  It won’t be easy or pretty, maybe involving WW3. 

There will be a new America when it is over. The centralized banking structure will collapse.  It will be replaced by a decentralized one based on similar principles as discussed by Johnson in Future Perfect.

Our American Empire versus Morris Berman

This weekend I have watched several videos about Morris Berman (hat tip to Jesse’s Café for reminding me of Berman) who is a student of American culture and, some would say, one of its harsher critics.  For more about him see here and here.  Berman’s work is important because he summarizes much of the basic underlying narrative of American culture.  Unfortunately, he chooses to believe that the crass side of it is always dominant.  Thus, his description and forecast is a negative one.  I am in agreement with 90 percent of his analysis except I believe we a have a chance of a positive outcome.  We can have a better America and it doesn't have to be excessively crass and stupid.

Here are two versions of his recent lecture that he seems to be giving frequently called The Way We Live Today but is typically referred to as Why America Failed, the title of his most recent book.

Berman’s message is a dark one.  He sees America as a failed culture filled with hustlers; his recent book of that title is a “postmortem” on the culture.  The end is here.  When asked if it can be corrected he basically says no, that the process has to play out.  It is a fatalist view.  For individuals, you can leave, as he did by moving to Mexico, or you can live a “monastic” life by finding solace and community locally, live small and tough it out.  Another option, which he thinks is unlikely, is that the culture will be turned upside down and will improve.

Berman has taken a narrow view of the American character.  I think we are more than simple hustlers.  This hustler idea comes from historian McDougall, Freedom Just Around the Corner.  However, in that same book, McDougall also described the “betterment ethic” that is so deeply embedded in the American, and Western, psyche.  And, that ethic is not tied solely to crass materialism but also to spiritualism and empathy.

Berman decries the decline of empathy in America, and argues that more cruelty is coming.  He may be correct but that does not mean that empathy will never rebound.  To me, Berman is manifesting those qualities and ideas that mark the crisis era and that develop out of the unraveling era.  In the four part cycle of cultural high, awakening, unraveling, and crisis, ideas about the end of the world (end of culture) seem to be present.  In fact, as each part of the cycle turns there are often anticipations of the end of something.  In 1987 the band REM released a song called It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) that enjoyed much success.  The song was a manifestation of the end of the Fourth Awakening (1960-1990), a recognition that a phase of American culture was over, and a new one had begun.

Now, to be clear here, I do believe that our crisis gets much darker before it ends and I have written of this previously, here and here.  And when this crisis is over, there will be a new America.  I for one, think it will be a much stronger entity and much larger.  Our current “decline” is a step back before a leap forward.

One of the things I haven’t seen from the various Berman videos is any discussion about the life cycle of empires, the rise and fall of empires.  Certainly, Jared Diamond has gotten much attention along that line but when one argues that the US has failed I think that the empire discussion is relevant.  Berman is against American empire.

My understanding of empires comes from a little known political sciencist from UC Irvine, Rein Taagepera.  I met him when I was a student there, and sat through some of his lectures.  His main essays on empires are:

(1968), Growth curves of empires, General Systems 13, 171-175.

(1978), Size and duration of empires: Systematics of size, Social Science Research 7,108-127.

 (1978), Size and duration of empires: Growth-decline curves, 3000 to 600 BC, Social Science Research 7, 180-196.

(1979), Size and duration of empires: Growth-decline curves, 600 BC to 600 AD, Social Science History 3, 115-139.

All of which I read in the late 1970s - early 1980s but continue to use because of the strong cyclical empahisis.  I accept America as an empire and assume there will be a strong public desire to continue it.  The gist of Taagepera's argument is that successful empires that have long durations tend to develop slowly and expand geographically.  Empires that expand too fast will decline quickly (Nazi Germany, Alexander the Great).  Empires that grow slowly can continue for many centuries (Rome, Great Britain).

The American empire has been developing slowly since the 17^th century, first as a child of Britain, then on its own.  This empire continued to grab up new territory until the early 20^th century at which point it stopped geographically expanding (Alaska and Hawaii being the last states added to its list) and switched to an economic-military extractive posture.  Through most of the 20^th century and into the 21^st it has used its extensive military bases around the world to project its power and to extract resources from allies/partners/the third world without actually colonizing them.

For the American empire to continue it must periodically expand geographically, or break up.  And, since the first priority of any superpower is to remain one as long as possible, it is time for America to expand geographically.

This can come about in many ways:

1.      Peacefully; the US can announce to the world that it will accept more states.  Invite other nations to join the US.  I assume there will be takers.  This is a empathetic path.

2.      Violently; America conquers another nation and chooses to colonize (oil nations of Africa and South America come to mind). This is a non empathetic path.

3.      Out of economic necessity; a political Union of North America comprising Canada, US, and Mexico is created and politically merged. This offers the possibility of an empathetic union.

4.      WW3 with China creates the opportunity to incorporate Taiwan and or South Korea into the US empire.  This is a non-empathetic path.

The point here is that empires require LAND not pseudo colonies based on economic exploitation.  I hope for versions 1 or 3 or some combination.

The above options require a mindset, an ethos, that helps rationalize the expansion.  Can it be done with harmony and a sense of doing good and bettering society?  Or, must it be a surge of American crassness?

I think that 40 years of run amok crassness and materialism is about to end and the pendulum will swing the other way, toward increased empathy.  Americans could also be shamed into this position.

In one video Berman spoke about how he did not believe that Americans can change from their hustling ways.  We are not like the violent Norse who became the socialist Scandinavians.

Berman offers no options but I think there are plenty.  The Norse did change; and many Germans are embarrassed about their Nazi past; and the Japanese are no longer samurai warriors.  Americans can become Saints living peacefully on a hill if they chose to do it.  They can turn their world upside down (remember the song from Yorktown). 

On Cultural Heritage

 I debated if I would comment on this essay: “The Collectivist War Against Cultural Heritage” by Brandon Smith, here.   After the idea wouldn’t go away, I obviously had to.  As a person who studies American culture and a professional in Heritage conservation I probably need to comment.

Basically, Smith rants about how big government is supposedly taking over our lives and is a threat to our individualism.  “Collectivism” is used as a dirty word.  His first paragraph sums up the essay

Two things make man what he is; his soul, and his memory.  Lose one, or both, and he ceases to exist.  He might as well buzz over his own garbage like an insect.  When a society is drawn into the repugnant shadow of totalitarianism and collectivism, it is usually because the masses have abandoned (or been enticed to abandon) a piece of their inner and outer heritage, something which kept the darkness at bay, a lesson from the past, or a principle long honored.  In the wretched and psychotic quest for the “perfect” establishment system, we are even often encouraged by the elitist ilk to slough off the warm remnants of our cultural inheritance like so much skin and “look forward” to a bright and more promising tomorrow, where everything will be different, and certainly, better than today.

Normally, I wouldn’t comment on such a rant. Smith is a young blogger, b 1981 based on his profile, and he markets a Safe Haven place in Montana, in Kalispell, were people can get off the grid.  What is silly about this idea is that it is consistent with our American heritage for people to rant and rave like this, and to set up commune-like places to get off the grid.  This is not new to anyone who has read American cultural history.  A minority of every generation has felt compelled to do similar things as Smith is advocating.  So, I am uncertain what Cultural Heritage he thinks is being lost.

It certainly is not “individualism” as I understand that concept. Those that know me would easily say that I am okay with being a loner. It is hard for me to ask help from anyone. I take care of myself and my own. I am happy to help others in need as long as it doesn’t turn into some long term commitment.  I don’t like social connections that reduce my options (although I will engage in one that seems to expand my options).

Also, take a look at the safe haven concept he presents at his home page.  It is a collectivist’s wet dream: social networking, help each other, living socially, etc.  His definition of collectivism is bizarre.  To him, it is big government forcing people into railroad cars. He spits out the other curse words (socialism, fascism, totalitarianism) with glee.  I see him as a faux individualist.

Let’s be clear here.  Individualism and collectivism are not opposites—they are two sides of the same coin.  In American culture people like Smith often contrast them but do so out of ignorance. 

An individualist is a person who chooses to keep much of the pressures and challenges of society to a minimum because they are afraid of being overwhelmed by them.  They also try to control those social activities that do exist in their life.  Individualists are more comfortable in low context cultures and situations.

A collectivist is a person who embraces the pressures and challenges of society and likes being embedded in social activity.  They give themselves over to it (and being in control is optional). A collectivist is more comfortable in high context cultures and situations.

This paradox of how to live in society is likely the defining cultural trait of American culture.  It is there for all cultures, but for Americans, it is a crucial problem.  And, it has been well studied.  The best reports are:

Bender, Thomas

1978   Community and Social Change in America.  Rutgers, University Press, Piscataway, New Jersey.

Dumont, Louis

1986  Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Madsen, Richard, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler and Steven M. Tipton

1985   Habits of the Heart:  Individualism and Commitment in American Life.  New York, Harper and Row.

They are dated but well worth the time to read.

We are not losing our cultural heritage. We are living through the normal cycle of cultural high, then awakening, then unraveling, then secular crisis, and then repeating.  We are in the crisis era which will end with people being pushed or forced into more social conformity.

I don’t like that anymore than Smith seems to.  But this process is not the loss of any heritage; it is our American heritage cycling once again, just as the seasons change. 

I have always liked autumn.

The White House Needs a Pioneer

When Obama was elected I was generally pleased that someone from the South was not going to be president.  Unfortunately, he is such a mutt and vagabond that he doesn’t attach to any region.  I suspect that this is not good because he has no anchor, is listless and directionless.

I like the South in many ways, and much of my family history comes from there.  Great food and lovely ladies with nice accents can be found there.  But I am tired of the belligerent attitude that most southern politicians bring to DC; Eric Cantor being the most recent belligerent.  Since the early 1960s we have had the following southern presidents:  Johnson, Carter, Clinton, & Bush Jr.  Those 16 years with Clinton-Bush Jr. was too much.  It seems the South has risen again and is dictating national policy, just as they did in the antebellum years.  Well, yawl know where that led.

My preference is someone with alkali in their veins, who knows what Hantavirus is, and understands that immigrants are not aliens.   

My image of such a person is more the Pioneer rather than the Mountain Man or the Marlboro Man.  Someone who Walt Whitman or Willa Cather could write about, someone with a vision and a destination, and the will to carry it out.

“All the past we leave behind,
We debouch upon a newer mightier world, varied world,
Fresh and strong the world we seize, world of labor and the march,
Pioneers! O pioneers!”

July Fourth as Cultural Preservation

As we get ready to celebrate July 4^th a comment about historic preservation is appropriate.

Those of us who work in this field protect from development, damage, or desecration, significant tangible evidences of our past.  “Our past” is understood from many levels (local, regional, national, world, or ethnic).  My own work pushes me to focus on the national because the National Historic Preservation Act is the primary driver of my work.

I am often asked why I do this type of work.  I rarely have a good answer.  Most of the stuff I get to protect doesn’t seem like much to others.  Sometimes I agree.

So, let me pose a hypothetical situation.  If China were to successfully invade North America through Puget Sound what do you suppose they would destroy?  After all, conquerors have to destroy something because the act is symbolic of the success. When our military took Baghdad, we toppled the statues of Saddam Hussein and occupied his palaces.  Oh, the desecration we did there.  It was all televised to prove that success was achieved.

I think China would target the Space Needle and trash Microsoft.  Those are easy targets that represent our technological prowess.  Given more time, they would also destroy all evidence of World War II and, more deeply, our cowboy culture.  World War II made America a super power; destroying its remnants proclaims that that heritage is dead.  Smashing the cowboy culture is a deeper expression of this too because the Cowboy is the global symbol of America.  The Marlboro Man still rides in the imagination of the world, which is why conservatives continue the image.  Kill the cowboy to symbolize that America has ridden into its sunset.  Burn the ranches, the hats, the boots, & kill the cows and horses.

Take away the symbols of a culture and it is dead.

Historic preservationists work to protect those symbols, even the small humble ones that don’t obviously suggest national greatness but likely do contribute in some small way.

What about the intangibles, those ideas that sustain America?  What are they?

William G. McLoughlin [1] provided the following as the basics of American ideology:

a)  We are a chosen people;

b)  We have a manifest (or latent) destiny to lead the world to the millennium;

c)  Our democratic-republican institutions, our bountiful natural resources, our concept of free and morally responsible individuals, all operate under a body of higher moral laws (and to transgress from them threatens our destiny);

d)  And, our personal and social ethic (aka the American dream, the protestant work ethic, the success myth) causes the general welfare to thrive by allowing the greatest possible free play and equal opportunity to each individual to fulfill his/her potential.

These are the simple recurring ideas that have sustained “America” from its earliest puritan days.

Where are they now?  They seem to be lost to most Americans; and in some cases, they reek of a conservatism that is not appealing anymore.  They need to be reborn.

They have not been destroyed; they are now latent as we go though our great secular crisis (here & here).  We will begin to recover and reinvent ourselves when these ideas are reworked to guide our future.

America’s recurring transformation is well underway.  It will have turned a corner and we will be able to see the light at the end of its dark tunnel when these ideas are transformed to meet the needs of the 21^st century.

July 4 (1776), Gettysburg, and D Day are all great turning points in American crises.  We will have another one soon. 

If China was successful as described they would also ban Fourth of July celebrations because they are acts of historic and cultural preservation.

Enjoy your BBQs and parades.

Note

1.  William G McLoughlin, Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform, Chicago, 1978, pg. xiv.

Stealth Collectivism

Are we embracing more collectivism? 

Back in 2006 the US Census Bureau reported that a “new minority” was present in America--the married household.  It was the first time in the history of reporting such figures that married households had fallen below 50 percent, to 49.7 percent.  All other households were individuals living by themselves, single parent households, or cohabitating non-married couples.  I argued then (here, pg. 162) that the data should be viewed as a peaking of individualism and that the momentum was going to turn the other way, towards strengthening community values.  Today I checked the numbers again (BLS web site, Table H1).  The 2010 married household data is still at 49.7 percent (married households/total).

Based on this data point, America is still strongly individualistic even after the mortgage crisis, the increase in bankruptcies, and the reshuffling of households that has happened since 2007.  I haven't looked at other possible dynamics in the numbers. 

How do I interpret this based on the Cultural Seasons model that I have been following?  The model suggests that during the secular crisis--which I believe we are in--there should be a shift away from individualism towards a stronger collectivism.  Based on the above statistic, this has not yet happened, and that a trend change in that variable is not even under way.

This statistic has long bothered me because the cultural model suggests (to me at least) that the peak of individualism should be near the beginning of the secular crisis.  I have long believed that the crisis began with 9/11 2001.  However, the four-year data point above better supports a 2007 beginning of the crisis (began with the credit crisis of Aug. 2007).

Having said all that, this blog is about qualitative analysis. I only use numbers now and then as a cross check. Let's look at some qualitative data.

The secular crisis is about heightened dark moods and a wider and louder sense of survivalist perspectives, much of which is present in American culture.  Maybe stronger collectivism comes midway or in the latter half of the crisis era.

There have been some loud and clear signals lately that overt collectivism is appearing in our culture [1].  The best examples are the new commercials for military recruiting based on a new campaign by the Department of Defense.  Here is the campaign:

Here is a commercial:

This new DoD campaign seems to elaborate on the Army Strong campaign that started about 2007 that targeted the Millennial generation..  (Recent Navy, Air Force and Marine commercials continue pushing Gen X themes such a adventure, excitement, and honor). 

An important aspect of individualism is making ones own choices in life.  For the last several decades, a life choice, such as going into the military, has been a Me decision.  Most Boomers and Gen Xers were raised to make their own decisions in life--decisions are Mine to Make.

Today, this appears to be changing.  We now are seeing the public acceptance of life decisions as being overtly a family matter.  When a Millennial kid joins the military it is no longer a 'Me' decision; it is a 'We' decision.

Overt collectivism is creeping into our culture.

Note

1.  I say overt because we all know that covertly, family and friends influence people's decisions. The point here is that these influences are displayed either in public or private.