Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd argue that the "guilt" phenomenon is a post-WW2 response by the then new generation of youth, who observed that they didn't fight in the war, they didn't suffer the privations of the Great Depression, and at least in the West, they were born into societies that were already relatively democratic and hence needed no revolution or great struggle of storming-the-barricades. The result was a longing for a momentous cause, a great venture, something to define that generation. We have perhaps been struggling with various such "great cause" spasms for some 60+ years, even as the youthful generations age and settle into a quiet acceptance, and new youth replace them.
In this interpretation, the pangs aren't that today's people are enjoying too much material sumptuousness, but that they lack the seriousness that stems from facing and overcoming a great crisis. They lack (in their own view) the character-building gravitas, and hence, search for a surrogate.
Great points all. I agree that there are no "great causes." Opposing "the man" and the Vietnam War came close, but when Nixon moved towards an all-volunteer army, somehow the ardor faded. Facing enemy bullets does concentrate the mind wonderfully.
I think these views also had their "genetic roots" somewhere. It didn't happen by accident. When people say "we can't go on living this way" or words to that effect, I look for deeper roots. My views, in reading both histories of the 18th Century and late-1950's literature on down, is that the writers are looking for reasons to immiserate (to borrow a Marxist term) the populace, to compel or persuade them to accept a lower living standard for some unstated gain.
Also, after the Gilded Ages of the 1890's and early 1900's and then again the 1920s the reaction to prosperity, by the very wealthy (think the Vanderbilts and Carnegies) was to establish foundations and fund them. They perceived themselves as burnishing their names as well as doing good by society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
One piece of evidence, towards the conjecture that it's more about crisis-overcoming than ascetic renunciation of consumption, is that so many of the anti-materialist voices, are saying that OK, we should buy less stuff, but then we should spend our money on "experiences". The call isn't to live an impoverished lifestyle, but to go see the world, instead of buying its material goods.
That's perhaps nice, but experiences take travel in many cases and that's just what environmental activists seek to minimize. "Going to see the world" may be what the elites do, but do not advocate for the "plebes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Where this is all fundamentally different from Puritanism, is that Puritanism was all about living the sort of life here on earth, that is indicative of preparation for a supposed eternal life in heaven. In Christian Puritanism, as in any austere religious sect, human life in the here-and-now is constrained and devalued, in effort to somehow comport with a recipe or a doctrine, of preparing for the afterlife. In contrast, the environmental movement, the "de-growth" movement, the various socialist movements and so on, all aim to transform the earth as it is, to revise the world from its current state, into a putative better state. Puritans - of whatever stripe - would never have bothered.
Essentially, stripped of the label of Puritanism that's what's happening. People are first told that ICE's won't be sold after 2035. Then the gurus at the Davos convention a few months ago acknowledge that means serious limitations on car ownership, since the cobalt and lithium needed for so many EV batteries just isn't there. These acknowledgments will be quite at first because of the uproar they'd provoke. The average, "hoi-poloi" middle class do not feel themselves to be living ostentatious lifestyles. The elite powers don't want to be too open about it let it influence election results in what they see sa an unfortunate direction.
I received this response on my Blogs, and posted it here since it had merit. From DillonBlanch:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DillonBlanch
Hi.
There is a complex historical relationship between sumptuary laws, Puritanism, and modern self-abnegation, but it is not accurate to say that one directly morphed into the other.
Sumptuary laws were a set of regulations that aimed to regulate people's dress and behavior, based on their social status. These laws were widespread in medieval and early modern Europe, including England in the 16th and 17th centuries. The laws were intended to reinforce social hierarchies by restricting people's consumption of certain goods and services, including clothing, food, and entertainment.
Puritanism, on the other hand, was a religious movement that emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly in England and North America. Puritans believed in a strict interpretation of the Bible and emphasized personal piety, morality, and discipline. While some Puritans supported sumptuary laws as a means of promoting modesty and discouraging extravagance, others rejected them as an infringement on personal freedom and an unnecessary distraction from spiritual concerns.
Modern self-abnegation, or the practice of denying oneself certain pleasures or luxuries, is a more recent phenomenon that is not directly linked to sumptuary laws or Puritanism. It may be influenced by religious or philosophical beliefs, or by personal choices related to health, environmentalism, or minimalism.
In summary, while there are historical connections between sumptuary laws, Puritanism, and modern self-abnegation, these are distinct and complex phenomena that cannot be simplified into a direct morphing or causal relationship.
I agree that there wasn't a direct morphing between the periods. I posted the thread because of my view that people have an instinct to try to control other peoples' lives and actions. The drafters of the Sumptuary Laws, the Puritans, the Covid restrictions, and the climate change restrictions and conspicuous consumption all see things that others are doing and don't like it one bit. They think they know better than everyone and want control.
Just for fun, I asked the ChatGPT AI the question.
Q: Did Sumptuary Laws in 18th Century England, Morph in Puritantism and Modern Self-Abnegation
ChatGPT AI's response:
Quote:
Sumptuary laws were regulations that attempted to regulate the consumption of luxury goods and clothing, often based on social class or occupation. These laws were common in many societies throughout history, including England in the 18th century. The purpose of these laws was often to reinforce social hierarchy and to discourage people from displaying wealth that was considered excessive or inappropriate.
While there is some overlap between the ideas behind sumptuary laws and Puritanism, they are not directly related. Puritanism was a religious movement that emphasized simplicity and austerity, particularly in dress and behavior. This was seen as a way to distance oneself from worldly temptations and to focus on spiritual matters. However, there were no formal laws mandating this type of behavior in England during the 18th century.
Modern self-abnegation, which refers to the practice of denying oneself certain pleasures or luxuries, is not directly related to either sumptuary laws or Puritanism. It is a more recent concept that has emerged in various forms, often as a response to concerns about overconsumption and environmental issues. While there may be some overlap in terms of the idea of limiting consumption, modern self-abnegation is generally seen as a personal choice rather than a societal or legal requirement.
That's probably good enough for a passing grade for a high school freshman.
I think Puritanism was a good fit for the early New World Colonies. Not much free time to make ornaments. Everything had to be built from scratch, and by hand. Work or die. That kind of thing.
In the modern world we developed a taste for ornamentation and workers had the time and inclination to make everyday items such as dining tables and grandmother clocks into works of art.
In the ultra-modern world, we have the luxury of rejecting luxury. That is, we go in for Brutalist architecture over Beaux-Arts in the name of efficiency for its own sake. Much easier to power-wash concrete than to polish brass, you know.
I think that as we move into the post-ultra-modern world where ChatGPT writes term papers and Humanoid robots do housework and perform other mundane tasks, we're going to have to look at ways to enrich our lives. And I think that means turning towards pumping out art the way previous humans did. Art does not have to be vulgar and conspicuous, but it can be, and shouldn't be illegal or tut-tutted about if it is.
I think Puritanism was a good fit for the early New World Colonies. Not much free time to make ornaments. Everything had to be built from scratch, and by hand. Work or die. That kind of thing.
My premise is that Puritanism has made modern-day obsession with "climate change" and other forced self-abnegation a good fit. The fact is no one knows if making car ownership and driving impossibly expensive and cumbersome will do anything to change the weather. Similarly no one knew before we put ourselves into solitary confinement in the Spring of 2020 whether it would have any effect in saving lives, but it felt like we were "doing something." A society more dedicated to the pleasurable pursuits of life would have sternly vetoed these measures.
However no one is willing to argue with "there are terrible droughts, floods, hurricanes" or "more than a million people have died." Unless jetting to a Climate Change conclave, or "peaceful demonstrations" in favor of defunding the police take precedence.
Whilst the US itself later rejected such laws and restrictions, and in doing so went on to embrace capitalism and as a result became one of the most successful capitalist and free trading countries in the world,.
How successful really is capitalism overall? That is the question I ponder..
Capitalism is in every country of the world sans Cuba and North Korea.
Yet, 80% of population of the world is struggling; 50% of US population doesn’t even pay income tax.
Every 5th child in US is food insecure. The US is just slightly behind Mexico, Romania, etc in children’s poverty.
Perhaps, the relative “success†and the quality of living in the US could be attributed to military aggression and the exploitation of the rest of the world? that buys the weapons, consumer goods, technology? provide favorable trade agreements, cheap natural and labor resources?
The US is a great country to live in if you are a talented entrepreneur with great ideas or just happen to have “FU†money…
The rest of the people -are not on an easy street..
Last edited by L00k4ward; 03-11-2023 at 09:54 AM..
How successful really is capitalism overall? That is the question I ponder..
Capitalism is in every country of the world sans Cuba and North Korea.
Well there's capitalism and capitalism. Using your definition you are calling every country in the world "capitalist" except or the two hardest police states. There is a dizzying array of systems elsewhere. You have "crony capitalism" in most countries, such as Turkey, Russia, the "Stans" and China. You have "social democracy" in most of Europe except Russia, Canada, Japan and many others, you have "G-d only knows what" in most of Latin America and Africa. I would put into the "capitalist" column the UK, Israel, the U.S., Australia" and I don't know where I'd put New Zealand and Ireland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L00k4ward
The US is a great country to live in if you are a talented entrepreneur with great ideas or just happen to have “FU†money…
The rest of the people -are not on an easy street..
Well there's poverty and poverty. American poverty in general looks nothing like Mexico's or most of Latin America's, much less Africa's. In Mexico we were taken on a boat tide to go waterskiing from Club Med. The poverty I saw in the backwaters was shocking. Then again, so was the poverty I could see from the plane on the approach to Jackson, Mississippi in 1981.
My premise is that Puritanism has made modern-day obsession with "climate change" and other forced self-abnegation a good fit. The fact is no one knows if making car ownership and driving impossibly expensive and cumbersome will do anything to change the weather. Similarly no one knew before we put ourselves into solitary confinement in the Spring of 2020 whether it would have any effect in saving lives, but it felt like we were "doing something." A society more dedicated to the pleasurable pursuits of life would have sternly vetoed these measures.
However no one is willing to argue with "there are terrible droughts, floods, hurricanes" or "more than a million people have died." Unless jetting to a Climate Change conclave, or "peaceful demonstrations" in favor of defunding the police take precedence.
What Chat-GPT/DillonBlanch missed, is that Puritanism or other religious precepts are ultimately about "getting into heaven", or earthly signs that certain people are predestined for heaven. The rules aren't per se about making the best of our lives here on earth, nor are they for leaving a better earth for successive generations. On the contrary, if the Rapture is coming soon, there's little reason to even worry about a next generation... which perhaps is why so much of the opposition to measures against global-warming is coming from religiously devout people.
As to "no one knows..."... well, not quite. If suddenly the entire planet disavowed the entire Industrial Revolution and strictly limited itself to technologies that were only available say by 1700, then it's not a contentious leap to aver that climate-change would greatly slow down. What is contentious, is whether such a move is worthwhile; whether the benefits justify the costs. One might very well acknowledge the benefits and still decry the costs, as being stupidly excessive.
The Covid panic was more a matter of our increasingly risk-averse and infantilized society, rather than some do-gooder desire to make sure that one's neighbor is morally upright. It's the same impetus as that which prevents kids from playing unsupervised outdoors, or limits risky public projects such as manned space travel, or building nuclear power plants. We've become a society consumed by fear, of what-if catastrophizing. Just 20 some years ago, this all-consuming fear was terrorism, whence the public accepted all sorts of restrictions, surveillance and abridgement of basic rights, all in the interest of "being safe". I don't think that the Puritans were much concerned about being safe. On the contrary, if God is in control and God has a plan, than our being timorous about this or that venture, implies a lack of faith. And this again is reflected in the response to the Covid restrictions, where religiously devout people were among some of the most dedicated opponents to Covid restrictions.
What Chat-GPT/DillonBlanch missed, is that Puritanism or other religious precepts are ultimately about "getting into heaven", or earthly signs that certain people are predestined for heaven. The rules aren't per se about making the best of our lives here on earth, nor are they for leaving a better earth for successive generations. On the contrary, if the Rapture is coming soon, there's little reason to even worry about a next generation... which perhaps is why so much of the opposition to measures against global-warming is coming from religiously devout people.
Some of the Puritans may have preached impending rapture, but they did an awful lot of pioneering. In other words, like many preachers they are, as one of my colleagues likes to say,"pontificating hypocrites." I wonder how much Increase Mather believed what he was preaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
As to "no one knows..."... well, not quite. If suddenly the entire planet disavowed the entire Industrial Revolution and strictly limited itself to technologies that were only available say by 1700, then it's not a contentious leap to aver that climate-change would greatly slow down. What is contentious, is whether such a move is worthwhile; whether the benefits justify the costs. One might very well acknowledge the benefits and still decry the costs, as being stupidly excessive.
I for one seriously doubt that even such lemming-like Luddism would slow or reverse climate change. I think this is basically a power grab. There is little impetus on their part to pressure for Chinese self-abnegation.. More to the point is a later part of your post that deals with "our increasingly risk-averse and infantilized society."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
The Covid panic was more a matter of our increasingly risk-averse and infantilized society, rather than some do-gooder desire to make sure that one's neighbor is morally upright. It's the same impetus as that which prevents kids from playing unsupervised outdoors, or limits risky public projects such as manned space travel, or building nuclear power plants. We've become a society consumed by fear, of what-if catastrophizing. Just 20 some years ago, this all-consuming fear was terrorism, whence the public accepted all sorts of restrictions, surveillance and abridgement of basic rights, all in the interest of "being safe".
Here we agree. People expect the government to form a nice, neat cocoon that will protect them. Maybe, losing a father at age 15 I knew that I would have to be pro-active in protecting myself. Basically, to quote one of my close friends I had to learn to "make things happen."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
I don't think that the Puritans were much concerned about being safe. On the contrary, if God is in control and God has a plan, than our being timorous about this or that venture, implies a lack of faith. And this again is reflected in the response to the Covid restrictions, where religiously devout people were among some of the most dedicated opponents to Covid restrictions.
Again I watch what the Puritans did, not what they said. While Sturbridge Village is a replica, it must bear at least a passing resemblance to colonial society in Massachusetts and there-nearby Connecticut. As far as Covid restrictions, I am amazed that people acted like sheep, at least until they didn't.
Puritanism has been a blight on the American psyche for centuries. I would not attempt to assign it solely with any sort of religious, governmental, or collective conspiracy theories. It transcends the religious context that is frequently, or historically, used to define it. It is simply an ingrained, but learned, way of limiting human potential. In some ways, in America, it is the sea that we swim in. Like fish, we are not fully aware of it. It fosters a sometimes confining and oppressive guilt-ridden view of things. That is easily transformed into a judgmental attitude and perspective of others. I have been to countries where there is no pervading sense of puritanistic austerity in personal affairs. You can sense that something familiar is missing -- a weight has been lifted. It is missing or at least has taken on a different and minimized influence. It is difficult to explain unless you experience it. Since it permeates American life, perhaps puritanism is best defined by its absence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
