Showing posts with label American culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American culture. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Morality in America

A columnist for the weekly newspaper in my community recently decried the loss of "morality" in the United States. After being offended by the nudity and sex in the movie No Strings Attached, he crafted a piece which lamented the morally upright times of 1950s America. Warning of a "moral crisis," he calls for a return to the "unified morality" of the 1940s and '50s. The following is my response:

Mort Marks validly asserts that American entertainment has become more risqué. Offended by the blatant sex in a movie he chose to see, Mort laments the loss of morality in the United States, claiming there once was a moral “unity in this country” that in the 1950s became a “triumphant decade of togetherness.” While Mort no doubt has fond memories of the ‘50s, his ideas about America’s “Golden Age” are somewhat mythical. While the post-WWII economic boom created much progress in American society, the 1950s was also a time of harsh racial segregation and persecution, not to mention the “Red Scare” of McCarthyism and an assault on Constitutional rights. These incidents could hardly be representative of a unified “togetherness.” In the “unified” utopia Mort recalls, the Civil Rights Movement and the social rebellions of the 1950s and 1960s would never have happened.

Dissent and challenges to tradition and authority have always been a part of American culture. Mort’s “Golden Age” gave us the Beat Generation whose freedom and drug use inspired the hippies of the 1960s. Marlon Brando’s rebellious film The Wild Ones came out in 1953, and James Dean’s Rebel Without a Cause premiered in 1955. Clearly, all was not well in Pleasant-ville, or James Dean wouldn’t have screamed at his parents “you’re tearing me apart.” Like many of his generation, Mort may also view the 1950s as the “Golden Age” of education when young people all worked hard, respected their teachers, and knew how to behave. However, he would be naively overlooking the fact that Rudolph Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can’t Read in 1953. The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger’s classic novel of disaffected, angry youth, was published two years earlier.

Mort also seems to think sexual promiscuity began with the 1960s. Yet Marilyn Monroe was a sexual icon of his age, and Playboy debuted in 1953. Hugh Hefner is clearly a member of Mort’s generation, not the “hippies of the 1960s.” Obviously, today’s open sexuality in movies and society is extreme, but it doesn’t mean America is any less moral. The 1950s was certainly a time of greater modesty, but it wasn’t more “moral.” In fact, Mort seems unaware that the Kinsey Report on the perverse sexual habits of Americans was released in 1948 and 1953. Morality is not simply about how public or private people are with their behavior.

Mort’s criticism of the “cynicism ruling America” ignores his own naïve, cynical views. As an educator I see hope and optimism in America, not a “moral crisis.” Young people may spend a lot of time on Facebook, and their fashions and entertainment may make us uneasy. Yet, they are also a tolerant and hopeful generation who volunteer and aspire to achieve college degrees at rates never seen before. I, too, worry about the lack of modesty in contemporary society. I often criticize the adult humor injected into children’s movies, and I’ve never shown my kids a Disney film. However, I also have great faith in Americans, and I’m not naïve enough to connect Robert Kennedy’s vision of moral certitude to a concern about nudity in a romantic-comedy. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing – but its weakness is its detachment from reality.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

American Princesses

"When women shave their heads, cut out the make-up, and stop wearing high-heel shoes, they will take over the world."

That is how many of my students would characterize one of my standard rants in class each year. While it is a bit of my standard hyperbole, the spirit of the argument is sincere. There is much that girls and women do which adheres to historical subjugation of the rights of women, and there is much in those areas that adhere to control by men. The "princess fantasy," or expectation is another symptom of this dichotomy, and it is making the news lately, especially with the onslaught of marketing from Disney over the past decade. Is this "princess syndrome" a hindrance to the growth and independence of identity in young girls? Or is there a positive
side to the "ideal life" image of the myth?

My students would laugh at the possibility that I could see anything positive about representations of girls and women by Disney. I've written before about my opposition to my children seeing Disney movies - actually they've never really seen any movies. However, my daughter just turned four and received several Barbies from her friends. It didn't bother me, and I concede that much of the opposition to popular culture is overblown. Of course, the standard rational response - of which I am always a fan in any discussion - is the use of moderation and common sense.

We'll see what the pundits and sociologists have to say. I'm not worried about my daughter, or my students, precisely because of the openness and discussions we have.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Colorado's Lawmaker Poses Questions

In quoting the Bible as a model for what the state government of Colorado should and should not do, Senator Scott Renfroe, a Republican from Greely, has generated a serious discussion for which more information is needed. I am hoping he will address the following issues during his next speech on the floor of the legislature:

1. Exodus 35:2 says people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. I'm wondering how many doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, grocers, and other merchants Senator Renfroe thinks the State of Colorado should kill?

2. Leviticus 10:10 says eating shellfish is an "abomination." Interestingly, that's the same word used to describe homosexuality. Is Senator Renfro as aggressive in pushing legislation that denies the rights of shrimp eaters? If not, why not?

3. Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling children into slavery, and I am wondering if the senator has done this. Should Colorado laws be re-written to address this? Or is that a constitutional issue?

3. Leviticus 25:44 allows the purchase of slaves from other countries. Was the Civil War wrong, as well as the government's current efforts to combat the slave trade? Should Colorado secede from the union?

4. How does Senator Renfroe propose to kill his male friends and neighbors who cut their hair, especially around the temples, as forbidden by Leviticus 19:27? Should the state complete that task?

7. If Senator Renfroe learns of people who plant two different crops in the same field, or who wears garments made of two different kinds of thread (say a cotton/poyester blend) does he get the whole town together to stone them to death, as required in Leviticus 19:19? Does he stone everyone who curses as required by Leviticus 24:10? How many public burnings has he attended for people who sleep with their in-laws, as required in Leviticus 20:14? Should the state organize these activities, or does the senator want to leave it up to individual communities?

Obviously, there is much in the Old Testament that doesn't necessarily work in practice in America in the 21st century. Christ focused clearly on a personal relationship with God and with the plight of the poor and downtrodden. That, of course, brings up an entirely different issue.

What should the state of Colorado do, in a legislative capacity, to erase the problem of excessive wealth and ease the suffering of the poor? Christ said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.” Is Colorado’s tax policy making it difficult for people to live Christian lives? Christ told a rich man to give half of everything he owns to the poor. Should the state increase taxes to fifty percent, so that each citizen can live according to the word of Christ?

Senator Renfroe has said the government must not make laws “that go against what biblically we are supposed to stand for.” If that is true, then the legislature has a lot of work to do. Of course, if Senator Renfroe seeks to initiate a theocratic government, he might want to put that to the voters first.


(NOTE: many of these citations originated from the oft-published "letter to Dr. Laura" featured in a West Wing episode)