Last night during a wandering conversation with a good friend (who will be a guest poster here if he gets his act together), we innocently bumped into the topic of social freedom. Taking a bird’s eye view of history, we examined the many ways in which people have more freedom now than a hundred years ago, especially women and minorities. We also uncovered, though, that in several ways our freedom is more limited. For many reasons, our culture has an increased need for black and white definitions for undefinables such as family, relationships, political stance, success, roles, and art. With the need for stricter definitions has come heated debate as to what is acceptable and what is not as well as the need to legislate these definitions. Combine that with our insidious paparazzism (his new word, not mine) and our natural voyeuristic tendencies, and many people feel trapped in a very small glass box afraid of every move they make and every word they utter.
So where do we go from here? How do we recapture the linguistic and stylistic subtlety of the 19th century that gave people more license without reverting to the oppression that held so many back? Is there a third way that brings together the best of all worlds?
2 comments:
We also discussed the devolving road to vocational equality, but that is another blog as well I suppose.
The thought that we had greater freedom in the 19th and very early 20th century may seem inconceivable. And, it isn’t meant as a blanket statement. Pre-Suffrage, pre-civil rights. I know, I know. I’m not saying that freedom extended to all corners of society. I acknowledge that very important aspects of what we refer to as liberty or social freedom fell somewhere between non-existent and significantly marginalized.
However, the record also shows some areas that would be admirable in today’s society. For example, two, “confirmed bachelors,” might share a house for their adult lives, and no one would pry further. Same goes for, “old maids,” that didn’t otherwise live with family. Granted, medical decisions were far simpler, but no one would preclude a confirmed bachelor’s friend and housemate from visiting the hospital and discussing the patient’s care with the doctor. Same would go for other issues (funeral planning, estate disposition) that face greater and greater codification in today’s society.
And somewhere along the way, we’ve developed a need to know and pry that goes beyond simple widow peeping voyeurism, and has devolved into a, “gotcha,” level of paparazzistic invasion. Combined with codifying the basis of relationships in more and more legally constricting terms, we seem now to works towards stricter and stricter, “black and white lines,” whose byproduct is greater and greater conflict over the definitions themselves.
So, perhaps we’re working toward nurturing the worst practices of interpersonal relationships from the 19th and 20th century instead of the best. Instead of extending the privacy, liberty, and latitude that were the best practices of the 19th century to those who were initially excluded, we instead are maybe causing greater restrictions as we try to legislate, ”greater equality,” – making infinitely more definitions that serve special interests as opposed to truly tearing down the complexes of exclusion, division, and marginalization that would lead [back?] to a, “less-labels,” society.
you have just managed to write an article above my ability (or perhaps desire) to digest. good job
Post a Comment