Construction

In my American Culture class we're reading a book called "The Culture of Plenty," and it's about the way that the post-WWII economy ushered in what was apparently the first era in all of history where the "average" person was no longer merely working to survive. I don't think I'd ever stopped to consider just how different life in 21st century America really is from life in other places and times.

The author talks about how this enabled the rise of feminism and the civil rights movement, and I've been particularly interested in his discussion of feminism. I think most of us have gotten the 4th grade story about women's suffrage and how this movement in the early 20th century just sort of arose out of the ether when women decided (arbitrarily?) that it was time to put their collective high-heeled feet down and demand some rights. Then, as we get a bit older, we get into discussions from the 60's and 70's about equality in the workplace as women start to become more and more career-minded.

The book's author has done quite a bit to step back both from this rote description of fact and from the sometimes venomous feminist rhetoric to try and understand what society in general was actually trying to accomplish. This is a bit of a generalization, but his basic argument is that after the war, people were desperate for some kind of peaceful and quiet existence. The infrastructure developed during the war allowed for a more efficient economy, but it also meant that the household was no longer an actual unit of production. This kind of led to a new division of labor that grew from the old patriarchal system wherein men still tried to "produce" and the women's job was then to manage the household - the new center of "consumption." Not only that, but women (as the socially constructed nurturers) were expected to provide quiet comfort and safety for a somewhat shell-shocked society.

This was important on two different levels. The most immediate was that previously, the "glue" holding households together (particularly agrarian ones, but to some extent also ones in urban settings) was the need to survive. Without this dire necessity, people became a lot more introspective - and at the same time, women in particular started feeling (subconsciously?) that perhaps their innate skills weren't being fully used (which is enough to make anyone kind of unhappy.) This combined with the perhaps subtler effect that modern inventions were ensuring that they developed progressively fewer skills contributed to the creation of the "neurotic housewife" - restless, frustrated, and resentful.

Without getting into a debate about technology as useful vs harmful (I address that below), I think it's an interesting train of thought because it's a way to look at feminism without immediately jumping to the conclusion that men are evil, ignorant pigs who hate women. It's certainly true that they created (or helped create) this role for women that led to some pretty unfulfilling situations, but I think it's hard to actually find or assign much malice here.

Rather, it's more of a look at the roles and ideals that we (as a society) tend to create, and how hard it is to keep an actual perspective on what's going on. It also brings up the question of what, exactly, keeps couples (and families) together as life becomes less and less dependent (at least economically) on having a strong family. It's a double edged sword for a lot of people, because while people presumably have more energy to put into social ties (including relationships), they also have a lot more energy to put into self-fulfillment. People talk a lot about the high divorce rate and how hard it is for people to commit to each other, and how this is a reflection of the loosening morals of the modern age, and how marriage and the family won't actually survive in any positive, recognizable sense.

I don't think so. I would actually tend to argue the opposite. I believe, very strongly, that humans are inherently social. I think that our era can be considered as just another transitional period. It makes sense to me that this seemingly "selfish" society where people are intent on self-fulfillment will probably, in the long run, enable people to actually get GOOD at figuring out what makes them happy and fulfilled. As people learn to reach that fulfillment and stop depending on externalities, healthy relationships become the natural result (as opposed to the zero-sum game that a lot of people still seem to experience...) I acknowledge that my argument is still a bit normative, as I'm assuming that most people will find fulfillment in companionship.

Now that I think about it, though - you could even take away that assumption, and allow for some people to be socially oriented, and others not so much. As it becomes more of a choice and less of a structural imperative, I think it will still result in the same end. (Eg, people who are unhappy in relationships just won't be in them and - importantly - won't need to be, and vice versa for people who are...)

In conclusion, technology is good. Information is good. Efficiency is good. Self actualization is better. I think (hope? delude?) that they're all actually taking us somewhere really, really, good.

(This entry was partially motived by a particularly awful modern dance performance I saw over the weekend which was little more than a 50 minute tantrum about "the challenge of communications in the modern age," and offered little in the way of answers, hope, or even a cohesive message deeper than "it's hard to relate to people sometimes...")