"A culture exists to give meaning and structure to human life and to provide a setting and template for the raising of children. If a subculture is not a place for the raising of children then it is, in some sense, transitory and incomplete and probably pathological. I can think of no exceptions."
It says something about modern culture that upon reading this passage I had the following thoughts in rapid succession:
1. Obviously.
2. Actually, that's pretty deep. Why didn't I think of that?
3. Can I think of any exceptions? An order of celebate monks/nuns maybe?
4. Wait, that excludes nearly all of modern culture. Children are implicitly unwelcome in almost all public spaces these days and even those few spaces still set aside to children do not seem oriented toward "raising" them anymore. The entire idea of "raise up a child in the way that he should go" is out of vogue lately.
5. This seems obvious and necessary, yet just saying it is probably going to draw immediate offense from somebody for centering the traditional family as the cornerstone of society, a position that was indisputable and celebrated not that long ago.
I can think of exceptions. When the family is abusive and is a place where a child is not valued nor allowed to thrive and grow. Family is definitely a high value cultural construct - when it is healthy and balanced and loving. But, not all families embody these values. In these cases, the child must learn to exist/survive/thrive outside of the tribal protection of a family - often in the very subcultures enumerated above.
When a human being is told they are not worthy of being connected to, particularly a child, that person is going to seek connection wherever they can find it. The bars to entry for these subcultures are low and this easier access enables the child (or adult) to at least feel some connection (even if low value) to other humans. Feeling connected is so endemic to our survival that any pathology present in these subcultures is easily overlooked just to stay connected. This is also true for cults and other self-subsuming belief systems.
Perhaps if families were a bit more elastic in terms of accepting a broader range of self expression, they might act as a countervailing force to some of this. Homosexuality is a perfect example of a type of excommunication that drives individuals to seek out subcultures where they can find acceptance and validation. There is a reason most of these subcultures exist and the most likely reason is not that some humans want to be bad or heterodox. It is that the family is too rigid and unimaginative to accept anything outside of a narrowly prescribed "normal" behavior.
That said, of course there are limits to my argument above. Drug use, in particular, which drives self-destructive and criminal behavior can be very difficult to deal with and parents do have a right to set boundaries. The trick is finding the balance point between compassion and respect for boundaries.
Finally, immersion in ephemeral/pathological subcultures can be valuable in terms of wrestling with our shadows - from a psychological perspective. It is true that these subcultures can be dangerous/damaging as well. Sometimes damage must be sustained on the path to wisdom/enlightenment.
Great essay. Here is a 2019 essay from Tablet with tables which makes your very point- pay particular attention to Mean In-Group Bias Score Among Whites. It's also why people on the Left are more unhappy and prone to mental health problems. One cannot cut oneself off from family and community without severe personal consequences.
It's also why the early post-cat video YouTube acted like a crude Hogwarts Sorting Hat. People with a pro-government, collectivist mindset searched out social issues, people who wanted to know why 2008 happened, with often dire consequences for their communities, families and friends, searched out economics.
This thesis is based on how the author defines “mental illness.”Would you consider Christian Nationalism, entitlement, ignorance, racism, homophobia and misogyny mental health issues? These are Dark Triad personality traits that disproportionately afflict the far right. In the United States, liberal states are healthier, wealthier and better educated. New England is one of the most left leaning, most educated and least religious part of the US. Countries that identify as Social Democracies are more just, peaceful and affluent than deeply conservative countries.
The Democrat party is no longer liberal- it’s become a party of illiberal cultural progressives. Most of Europe is now further right than it has been in the past 65 years, especially amongst the young. Why?
I agree with you on Social Democracies, but the deontological basis for any progressive movement has to be class-based social mobility, not a Manichean framework which sets one interest group against another in an attempt to force equality of outcome.
The current Democratic party is what Eisenhower Republicans were. The Overton window has moved so far to the right that Reagan, both Bushes and Jesus himself would be considered “woke” today. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk have helped push the entire world right but functioning democracies are starting to see what is really happening. Germany, Canada and Australia have just rejected their version of MAGA after seeing the ignorance and hate that is taking over America.
Eisenhower Republicans? Are you kidding? Eisenhower is my favourite Republican President. He represented fiscal conservatism, whilst accepting the reality of the need for limited welfare capitalism. He curtailed some areas of government, slashing several smaller agencies and their staff (both agencies had effectively wound down their operations, but for some strange reason their employees were still on the federal payroll), whilst redirecting the funds towards genuine infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highways.
On race and social issues, he pursued a gradualist approach. If he had a TARDIS and a mandate to govern, he would probably be pursuing MEI over DEI, end race-based college admission, and even preserve some of the Democrat Family Tax Credit- specifically in relation to means-tested help for parents with children ages 0 to 6, where almost all structural disparities occur (diet intermittency and parental reading engagement)- a tiny fraction of the original budget, but a great investment in the future.
In essence, he would probably support Trump on DOGE, trade and reshoring American manufacturing, but fundamentally disagree with Trump’s manner, comportment and retreat from Internationalism.
Neoliberalism could have worked if it hadn’t prioritised the needs of the capital class and the Brahmin Left over the needs of ordinary citizens. In practical terms this probably would have needed high corporation tax and capital gains tax, but with massive tax rebates for domestic capital investment. The effect would have been the loss of lower value manufacturing to parts of the world where labour was cheaper, but with significant retention of medium and high value manufacturing.
Eisenhower was incredibly strict on immigration. In 1954 his administration launched Operation Wetback. Although the name is unfortunate, the policy differed little from Obama’s role as Deporter-in-Chief.
Anyway, here’s an unusually fair-minded offering from the Guardian. The phenomenon related to Danish McDonald’s workers is called the Beamol effect, although committed neoliberals on both the Left and the Right call it Beamol’s Cost Disease. Despite her occasional nod to Rawlsian redistribution Kamala Harris was far more of a neoliberal than Trump is- she’s certainly closer to Wall Street and the Finance sector as a lobbying interest. That being said, the reversal of many of Lina Khan’s important NLRB reforms dents his credibility with his base.
Canada has the worst economic projections in the OECD- even worse than here in the UK, which is saying something. Basically, the countries which have specifically used solar and wind the most aggressively to pursue energy transition have bought themselves a world of pain, whilst those like Sweden and France are actually better for climate, without destroying their economies.
"A culture exists to give meaning and structure to human life and to provide a setting and template for the raising of children. If a subculture is not a place for the raising of children then it is, in some sense, transitory and incomplete and probably pathological. I can think of no exceptions."
It says something about modern culture that upon reading this passage I had the following thoughts in rapid succession:
1. Obviously.
2. Actually, that's pretty deep. Why didn't I think of that?
3. Can I think of any exceptions? An order of celebate monks/nuns maybe?
4. Wait, that excludes nearly all of modern culture. Children are implicitly unwelcome in almost all public spaces these days and even those few spaces still set aside to children do not seem oriented toward "raising" them anymore. The entire idea of "raise up a child in the way that he should go" is out of vogue lately.
5. This seems obvious and necessary, yet just saying it is probably going to draw immediate offense from somebody for centering the traditional family as the cornerstone of society, a position that was indisputable and celebrated not that long ago.
I can think of exceptions. When the family is abusive and is a place where a child is not valued nor allowed to thrive and grow. Family is definitely a high value cultural construct - when it is healthy and balanced and loving. But, not all families embody these values. In these cases, the child must learn to exist/survive/thrive outside of the tribal protection of a family - often in the very subcultures enumerated above.
When a human being is told they are not worthy of being connected to, particularly a child, that person is going to seek connection wherever they can find it. The bars to entry for these subcultures are low and this easier access enables the child (or adult) to at least feel some connection (even if low value) to other humans. Feeling connected is so endemic to our survival that any pathology present in these subcultures is easily overlooked just to stay connected. This is also true for cults and other self-subsuming belief systems.
Perhaps if families were a bit more elastic in terms of accepting a broader range of self expression, they might act as a countervailing force to some of this. Homosexuality is a perfect example of a type of excommunication that drives individuals to seek out subcultures where they can find acceptance and validation. There is a reason most of these subcultures exist and the most likely reason is not that some humans want to be bad or heterodox. It is that the family is too rigid and unimaginative to accept anything outside of a narrowly prescribed "normal" behavior.
That said, of course there are limits to my argument above. Drug use, in particular, which drives self-destructive and criminal behavior can be very difficult to deal with and parents do have a right to set boundaries. The trick is finding the balance point between compassion and respect for boundaries.
Finally, immersion in ephemeral/pathological subcultures can be valuable in terms of wrestling with our shadows - from a psychological perspective. It is true that these subcultures can be dangerous/damaging as well. Sometimes damage must be sustained on the path to wisdom/enlightenment.
Great essay. Here is a 2019 essay from Tablet with tables which makes your very point- pay particular attention to Mean In-Group Bias Score Among Whites. It's also why people on the Left are more unhappy and prone to mental health problems. One cannot cut oneself off from family and community without severe personal consequences.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-white-saviors
It's also why the early post-cat video YouTube acted like a crude Hogwarts Sorting Hat. People with a pro-government, collectivist mindset searched out social issues, people who wanted to know why 2008 happened, with often dire consequences for their communities, families and friends, searched out economics.
“People on the Left are more unhappy and prone to mental health problems.” Source?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/unique-everybody-else/202103/personality-traits-mental-illness-and-ideology
This thesis is based on how the author defines “mental illness.”Would you consider Christian Nationalism, entitlement, ignorance, racism, homophobia and misogyny mental health issues? These are Dark Triad personality traits that disproportionately afflict the far right. In the United States, liberal states are healthier, wealthier and better educated. New England is one of the most left leaning, most educated and least religious part of the US. Countries that identify as Social Democracies are more just, peaceful and affluent than deeply conservative countries.
The Democrat party is no longer liberal- it’s become a party of illiberal cultural progressives. Most of Europe is now further right than it has been in the past 65 years, especially amongst the young. Why?
I agree with you on Social Democracies, but the deontological basis for any progressive movement has to be class-based social mobility, not a Manichean framework which sets one interest group against another in an attempt to force equality of outcome.
The current Democratic party is what Eisenhower Republicans were. The Overton window has moved so far to the right that Reagan, both Bushes and Jesus himself would be considered “woke” today. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk have helped push the entire world right but functioning democracies are starting to see what is really happening. Germany, Canada and Australia have just rejected their version of MAGA after seeing the ignorance and hate that is taking over America.
Eisenhower Republicans? Are you kidding? Eisenhower is my favourite Republican President. He represented fiscal conservatism, whilst accepting the reality of the need for limited welfare capitalism. He curtailed some areas of government, slashing several smaller agencies and their staff (both agencies had effectively wound down their operations, but for some strange reason their employees were still on the federal payroll), whilst redirecting the funds towards genuine infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highways.
On race and social issues, he pursued a gradualist approach. If he had a TARDIS and a mandate to govern, he would probably be pursuing MEI over DEI, end race-based college admission, and even preserve some of the Democrat Family Tax Credit- specifically in relation to means-tested help for parents with children ages 0 to 6, where almost all structural disparities occur (diet intermittency and parental reading engagement)- a tiny fraction of the original budget, but a great investment in the future.
In essence, he would probably support Trump on DOGE, trade and reshoring American manufacturing, but fundamentally disagree with Trump’s manner, comportment and retreat from Internationalism.
Neoliberalism could have worked if it hadn’t prioritised the needs of the capital class and the Brahmin Left over the needs of ordinary citizens. In practical terms this probably would have needed high corporation tax and capital gains tax, but with massive tax rebates for domestic capital investment. The effect would have been the loss of lower value manufacturing to parts of the world where labour was cheaper, but with significant retention of medium and high value manufacturing.
Eisenhower was incredibly strict on immigration. In 1954 his administration launched Operation Wetback. Although the name is unfortunate, the policy differed little from Obama’s role as Deporter-in-Chief.
Anyway, here’s an unusually fair-minded offering from the Guardian. The phenomenon related to Danish McDonald’s workers is called the Beamol effect, although committed neoliberals on both the Left and the Right call it Beamol’s Cost Disease. Despite her occasional nod to Rawlsian redistribution Kamala Harris was far more of a neoliberal than Trump is- she’s certainly closer to Wall Street and the Finance sector as a lobbying interest. That being said, the reversal of many of Lina Khan’s important NLRB reforms dents his credibility with his base.
Canada has the worst economic projections in the OECD- even worse than here in the UK, which is saying something. Basically, the countries which have specifically used solar and wind the most aggressively to pursue energy transition have bought themselves a world of pain, whilst those like Sweden and France are actually better for climate, without destroying their economies.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/02/american-reindustrialization-manufacturing#:~:text=A%20poll%20from%20the%20conservative,we%20make%20of%20the%20results%3F