WHAT IS CULTURAL COLLAPSE?: R.K. Becker replies to Mark Miller

In regard to what cultural collapse entails, Mark replies: "..my first thought came up with absolute lawlessness. For example, if all criminals were set free and all laws were no longer enforced."

Mark's defining official anarchy. Cultural collapse does not necessarily imply anarchy, although that can be one result. It can also mean that the society has developed such serious cultural problems that the public has no idea how to fix it through democratic means, and therefore turns to an authoritarian figure to fix it for them. It can mean that the problems cause such divisions within the society that it no longer holds together and partitions into a number of smaller and more poorly organized states. It can mean that the resolve of the public is weakened to the point that it is no longer able or willing to work to overcome challenges either from inside or outside the society.

That the idea of cultural collapse seems such a chimera or red herring to so many today says less about its possibility than it does about the sorry states of anthropology and sociology as they are currently taught. To teach about culture without dealing with the possibility of and possible causes of cultural collapse makes as much sense as teaching about medicine or anatomy without dealing with the subject of death.

Mark also states: "Of course I have doubts about the cultural collapse of even that chaos since I believe that through faith, human nature (as a whole) is guided towards good."

If this is what Mark is willing to gamble on it's a very risky gamble, considering all of the fine examples of collective human nature that we have seen over the last century alone. I make no apologies about being a pessimist here. Humanity makes constant progress in knowledge and in technology (which, of course, can improve our lives or create new problems, or even make them worse), but I see no evidence of great improvement of human nature as a whole. Certainly not enough to justify putting faith in human adaptability before the idea of testing a new idea before implementing it.

Mark: "R.K. may argue that there is no 'rights' issue just as there are those who would argue that there will be no negative effects."

Believe it or not, I do see the rights issue involved in SSM. Just as I see it involved in sibling or parent-child marriage, or in polygamy, or in the 'right' of a highly intelligent 14-year-old to vote or hold a driver's license. I see the 'rights issue' in any case where any person can feel that the current law or social custom is unfair to them, even if the right they see is not legally recognized as such. This doesn't mean that I believe that anything anybody sees as a right should be granted to them. Sure, I agree that a rights issue is involved, but sometimes concern for the social order does override individual rights. Those who argue that it NEVER does (although Mark, to his credit, does not appear to be one of them) should stand by their convictions and advocate the legalization of polygamy, and sibling marriage, and allow drivers' licenses at any age if the person passes the test.
posted by Eve at 4:14 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home