Culture War.
The struggle for dominance by secular progressives against religious conservatives.
We have all heard this term, and many of us reject it outright.
My buddy Cooper who is a bit of a political mentor of mine says that religiosity in the United States seems to follow a pattern of rise and decline. He says that because of this pattern there is no Culture War.
I take his word for the facts, but how do we know that spotlighting secularism the way we are doing right now wont prevent or increase religiosity in the next wave? I think it will.
Another popular argument against the notion of Culture War is that the center is largely disinterested in these issues. The average person is too worried about paying the bills to really lose any sleep over gay marriage, or the teaching of evolution.
There is another angle to this, there is much argument for what is known as the Elite Theory of History, which is a thesis stating that it is the famous and infamous, wealthy, and powerful who shape civilization. However one feels about the finer points of these issues, in the U.S. the names of the founding Fathers are invoked with reverence in every political cycle. In the science enthusiast culture we name drop like its going out of style, hell my podcast was really all based on interviewing famous science advocates. I believe that if it is important to the elites its important to the world.
Even the great populist movements are known mostly by their charismatic leaders, we speak of Guevara, Marx, Trotsky, Abbey Hoffman, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, and eternally Noam Chomsky.
There is no shame in taking pride in the best of our species.
And there is also no avoiding it.
So, if its not obvious by now, I am a believer in the Culture War.
I am not just a believer, I am actively engaged.
I want gay marriage and the teaching of evolution to be far from peoples minds because it is common place and uncontroversial. I want the United States to cease being so anti-intellectual, and be known for its collective intellect. As Athens once was, as Florence, as Rome, as Paris, as Vienna, as so many places which will always be honored for their contributions to human knowledge and understanding.
I want a humanist ethic to be dominant, which guarantees all the personal freedom one needs to self-actualize, and guarantees a great mutual tolerance so that everyone who disagrees with humanism can still be free to pursue their own ethical inquiry.
I want a world thats too smart for violence, too smart for poverty, and too smart for religion.
Is this really too much to ask?
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Rodrigo Neely
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
i dont think the problem is lack of intelligence, at least i dont belive that less cause, and more symptom.i believe if you watch a group of children, you will find the dymanic almost instantly.humans are a social creature, and like other social mammals we need a social hierarchy. the actions we take on the global stage mimic that of a playground.humans compete for resources, food, energy, technology, wisdom, and even love.americans especially like to be number 1, as an individual first, then as a collective. this is i belive the root of the problem. the misunderstanding that for me to win, you have to loose is i think the heart of the matter. from this understanding everything else trickles down. elitism is robbing us of realizing our potential.
it is the reason the US has private and public schools.how many potentiall brilliant minds do we loose so that the elite stay elite?if you want to get rid of ignorance, get rid of private education.level the playing field and let those with the greatest potential and effort rise to the top.humans need to stop looking at their diffrences, and start focusing on commonalities.
I see it as a widespread project to initiate the kind of paradigm shifts which, once started, will unfold on their own. The Obama victory in November I think is a good sign that this is possible. We get nowhere without charismatic leadership.
War on Drugs
War on Terror
Culture War
Anyone see a pattern?
Anyone want to guess the outcome?
Well the war on Terror and the war on Drugs are both Government initiatives, promoted by republican administrations. The war on drugs was Raegan’s baby, and terror is Bush’s.
The culture war in contrast is something that exists only in debates about society.
Linking the three is a false association.
So, you seem to be saying, because you are not a president, there is no similarity between Reagan declaring a war on drugs, Dubya declaring a war on terror, and you declaring a war on ‘culture’?
You don’t have the power to make it ‘official policy’ so its not the same…. even though ‘wars’ often happen whether there is a policy statement or not….. ?
Sorry, but I’m not seeing the big difference. You are advocating for ‘war’, in a very rhetorical way, since there is no solidly defined ‘enemy’…. and so did they. I’d say your ‘culture war’ is based on a false dichotomy created by a two party system, combined with an inherently militaristic attitude.
‘Culture war’ is really just inflammatory rhetoric, with little substance. Sounds like WMD to me
Oh man, culture war is totally not my idea.
It was already here when I was born in 1979. Google it.
But to call it inflmmatory rhetoric with little substance, we will see. This is the first of many posts to come on the topic. Perhaps you will show me the error of my way.
Thanks, I’ve heard the phrase before… the fact you didn’t invent it, doesn’t mean its any less inflammatory, nor any more meaningful.
And don’t worry, I’m always willing help you out, when I can.
inequality is a natural condition that humans have always and will always have. We have inequality because of our genes, the way our parents nurture us, where we ware born, where we live,and because of those that we interact with. All of those various forces work together to create a unique individual. Focusing on commonalities and then forcing us to act in a common way stymies the individual and his/her talents and thus their contribution to society.
always obliged, I will probably write my next post as just a defense of the term then