In the most recent chat thread, some forumers were discussing names and arbitrary gender restrictions on them. This restriction is quite illogical and solely based on tradition. Mark is a boy's name.(1) This is the tradition that has been handed down to us. Tradition, however, has become a sort of abstract object of supreme influence in the modern mind. Tradition comes from the latin verb "tradizio" to pass down. It can still be used in English: "I traditioned unto my children respect for the law," though it sounds fairly archaic. The normal meaning of tradition is still what is handed down to the next generation. It's normal function is that of a passive object, with possible reflexivity.
Nevertheless, there is an increasing trend to think of "Tradition"(2) as a force of it's own, which we have no control over. Conservatives have viewed Tradition as something to be worshipped and feared, set in it's ways, never to change. Liberals have viewed it as the inherited flaws of Western Culture, to be battled with and surgically removed.
This view of tradition has long been tied to progressivism. However, the same outlook and rhetoric is now used by those who wage war on Society. They view "Society"(3) as a collection of evil social structures, a subjective force at odds with freedom, that seeks to keep the upper class in power. Society impresses upon us(4) racism, sexism, classism, and faulty values that keep us in eternal hope of that which we will never receive.
I feel that these changes are the result of a post-secular society, where the church and the government(5) do not have controlling functions in our lives. The church really has no moral power, and totalitarian governments,in the vein of communist states, no longer exist. We have am almost genetic desire to blame others, and this compulsion to blame is also manifest in society. In a societal level, however, we have to abstract the blame, or else we blame ourselves. And this abstraction is opposed to progress. When the abstracted object of ridicule was the church or the state, the objects of ridicule could be changed or worked on. But when we take that which we do not like in ourselves and project it outward, we cannot fix it: we will not operate on ourselves, and thus will never be able to operate on that which is actually ourselves. The ominous "Big Other" has become itself.
(1)I don't think this is the place to discuss naming traditions. There are bigger issues at hand. I think most would agree that gender restrictions on names are stupid, but no good parent would name their boy "Sarah" or daughter "Bobby," because the need to protect your children is more important than instilling in them some abstract notion of societal progression.
(2) The subjective, culturally monolithic force hereafter distinguished from the passive, objective set of morals passed down by use of capitalization.
(3) Again, notice the capitalization to signify nominalization.
(4) Passivity
(5)In America
Posts
What, why?
^ this
If you don't like it, there are a plethora of unisex names to choose from.
Yes, I'm just dumb.
Yeah, he mentioned naming traditions, and then started talking about society and tradition in a very abstract sense. That's why I didn't feel like commenting on the latter, even though he did make it clear that he doesn't want this thread to be about names.
That's pretty accurate. However, I think abstract nominalization is important as well. Tradition should be something that we control, as should to a lesser extent society. However, they have been abstracted into their own beings, forces which dominate us and strip us of our ability to act, which leads to thanatos and apathy.
Now, go watch the intro sequence to Fiddler on the Roof so I don't have to quote it here in mockery.
Yikes, that is something we certainly don't want. He's hairy.
So you're establishing "society" and "tradition" as chimeras we've created to blame ourselves without blaming ourselves
I think that's a significant problem, yes, because it does create apathy and even paralysis. How can you change "society," especially when it is being conceptualized as an entity separate from and above individual humans?
I don't see any obvious solution to the problem, either.
No, my problem is that society as anthropology enlarged into communities is one of the defining characteristics of humanity. (s)ociety is brilliant and I love it. I believe that the post-secularists can no longer diametrically oppose themselves to the church or the state, which, while being abstracted, where still real entities. Now, the "Big Other" of their ridicule is a creation, which allows them to rant without actually opening up a discourse or possibility for change.
I don't really see where the controversy is supposed to be.
If you want to change something in society you must start with yourself. Don't want to close your shop on Sundays? Then don't. Someone has to start with it.
No. People who view "Tradition" and "Society" as structures which have moved from objects of human control to subjects who control human culture and nature are whom I argue against. Tradition and society are flawed because people are flawed. Tradition has great things that we pass on to our kids, yet we also pass some hurtful things unto the next generation, mostly out of ignorance.
In some countries (not sure about USA) there are anti-competition laws preventing people from keeping their stores opening/closing their stores earlier/later than a certain time, and being open during holidays.
Yep. I just see a flaw in his elucidation of his premise: names are not gender-restricted because of some horrible plot, but rather mostly linguistically. French-derived names, for example, tend to add '-ette' and '-anne' and so on to signal femininity. It's not religious or even particularly cultural, it's just the way the language works. Claude/Claudette, Jean/Jeanne, Mari/Marianne, and so on. The same thing happens in other languages, though we mostly use Biblical and Latin-derived names these days. Take, for example, the English names Hailey and Hadley. First is used for girls, second for boys. Tan, Tania. First for boys, second for girls.
Sometimes names are chosen for meaning: a boy will be "Strength," a girl "Grace."
I suppose you might argue that those gender roles are unfair, but that's entirely separate from the issue of names.
I do agree though that it is often a human trait to despise in others (even abstract others) what we dislike in ourselves. But not everything we despise is an example of that reflection (unless you think I'm secretly a pious misogynist?). Pointing out things that need to be changed is the only way they get changed, and while we can't do much to alter the beliefs of those who constitute Society, we can do as much as we can do dismantle the institutionalizations of those beliefs.
I don't really think you can argue that this is a new phenomenon. Tradtion, or custom, or whatever you want to call it has been a powerful force in society, probably for nearly as long as we've had societies.
It was an example based on the movie Chocolat. I understand there's rules in some places that forces people to close their shops on Sundays, but that is kind of besides the point and it would be lost to Americans anyway.
I'm pretty sure some towns in the US have this too.
Such as not being able to be open on Sundays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
--
Anyways, here's the thing: Society controls the world. You cannot separate from it on a large scale unless you want to go and live in the woods. And even then, they may very likely try to hunt your ass down and throw you in jail. So we are all, for the most part, forced to be part of society. We don't have to like the fact, because while it's very useful it's also full of horrible crap that you have no choice but to participate in via taxes.
They had (and I think still have this) in Nova Scotia when I lived there. It was hugely annoying, as the law forced big stores like super markets to close, but drug stores, where they'll add two bucks to the normal cost of a loaf of bread or whatever were allowed to be open. Its a relic of a more religious society I guess.
That's not what he's arguing. He's saying that tradition is being perceived not as part of society but as an independent force, out of our control, separate from us and yet affecting us dramatically, and that such a conception is dangerous.
I agree that defining our society as "post-secular" is kind of hard. However, by it's very notion, secularism means freedom from religious persecution. Yes, the church does exert an extremely great influence over society. However, this influence is not power. As much as it may try, the church itself cannot step in and ban gay marriage universally. Likewise, the state can no longer dictate, for the most part, how we act. You can be opposed to it - I'm diametrically opposed to those who oppose religion, I guess, but this is just from my beliefs, not any sort of political struggle.
On your second point, I think your reading of my post is a little Freudian :P I believe that structure in society has been completely misread, and it has taken on a life in its own. This is lamentable in academic philosophy, but downright dangerous when it is politicized. I fear that liberalism and progressivism will use it as a tool to paint issues in black and white. I view arguments for abortion that seek to understand where it fits in broken social structures as positive, despite my pro-life beliefs. However, if someone were to place their argument by saying "anti-abotion legislature is a societal impulse to strip women of power" they might be able to get a lot of supporters with terribly ill-founded rhetoric.
@Corvus: Indeed, but I think that before our view of tradition came from our volition, whereas now people view it as something outside our control, an entity of it's own right.
So, Society is brilliant, tradition and society ought to be controlled by us, and tradition and society are flawed.
True. Your point?
People can choose to not celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a tradition and within some societies it is celebrated. If an individual within that society does not desire to celebrate it then they don't celebrate it.
So, what are <i>you</i> talking about?
Nope. I feel that I've explained it pretty well in my most recent few posts.
The West, mostly
Hmm. I don't really see that as anything new either.
Well bully for you.
Are we talking about Church and State and how these influence society and tradition? Are we talking about individuals within society and the manner in which they subscribe to tradition? What sorts of traditions? What sorts of societies?
What do you mean by "I believe that structure in society has been completely misread, and it has taken on a life in its own."? Because society exists in the act of societal beings exercising it.
In two pages this thread has thrown around "state", "church", "society", "tradition", "secularism" and many other topics which are themselves terrifically complicated and has somehow tried to combine them all into a sensible conversation.
What are we talking about?
What about Tiffany?
I have been wondering that since the OP.
Podly: Less stream-of-consciousness and "The world looks like this to me," more -discussion points-.
I think we are viewing what it means to have power over people in very different ways. True, the Church can't just make an announcement and say "Gay marriage is now forbidden! Ha ha!" But it has convinced many people that allowing two men or two women to marry is akin to letting a man marry a box turtle, that gay marriage would be the downfall of modern civilization, that gay couples want to be able to marry so they can adopt children for perverse purposes, etc, etc. And people believe them, because the Church speaks from a (false, in my opinion) position of moral and historical authority. And those people then go out and vote the way the Church says they ought to. For a large enough value of influence, influence = power.
I'm not even sure to start with your fear that progressivism will lead to things being painted only in black and white. There's a lot of "for us or against us!" rhetoric out there, and most of it ain't coming from the left wing. I don't really understand your abortion example, either. In what way is stripping women of bodily autonomy an example of ill-founded rhetoric? (Although maybe this isn't a good thread to start digging into that area.)
I hear she makes a pretty good breakfast.
Influence is very much power. It's just indirect, rather than direct.