American Pragmatism: The Silent Generation

The first article in the series on American pragmatism beyond the historical foundation laying, will analyze the socio-historic group known as the Silent Generation. The Silent Generation were understood to be those that were born between 1925 and 1942, and hence reached adulthood sometime around the 60's. As such, this article will focus on possible reasons the counter-cultural movements of that time period took place in respect to those who were the main instigators of it: the Silent Generation.

Now, it has already been laid out that the culture of the United States was imprinted with pragmatic beliefs due to its history, these causing high cultural value in the pursuits of exploratory progressiveness, scientific-inventive progressiveness, and societal progressiveness. This is the main hingepoint for interpreting the actions of the Silent Generation.

Born in the midst and on the cusp of wartime, the Silent Generation has been understood as having strong resilience in matters of using resources efficiently, working hard, and having good analytical skills; traits that allow people to survive optimally in a difficult situation. Pragmatically, they were very good at understanding how to do things; they likely explored better ways to sustain what they had and work with what they were given.

And yet, the American pragmatic would not allow them to stay this way once the opportunities flourished in a post-war environment. Since there is high value in exploring progressively, inventing progressively, and going forward as a society progressively, the Silent Generation arguably was probably a bit lopsided. Most of their development had been spent figuring out how to work with materials; impersonal objects and resources; they were probably not well experienced in social matters. And so, it is possible that this drive, this cultural ethic to always be progressing as a people, drove the Silent Generation to consider that which was style enigmatic. For them, social relationships would certainly be one, while inventive and work-related pursuits would seem dull and already extinguished of any enigmatic qualities.

And so, the action to progress societal understanding in dark areas began with the movement into exploring by experimentation the possible family, social, and sexual-relational structures of the day. Thereby, the so-called "Postmodern Experiment" was born.

Historical and Symbolic Thinking, with Deconstructionism

After going through a week of difficulty due to my old apartment catching on fire, I was able to return to where I left off in my thinking. Recently, I've reading through a book which looks at the Western mindset and society in regards to its views on history. It has been one of the most interesting pieces of work I've read lately, though I'm not done with it, so I'm not sure if I would recommend it yet to anyone. Anyways, reading and thinking, I came to see an association between the physical nature of man and the necessity of being able to think historically and symbolically. Recently, I have tied to this modern history's views on deconstructionism and how that has had implications on modern man's ability to think in these ways.

First off, history is relevant to man because on a physical level, man cannot escape his memory, past experiences, and past knowledge. By the very way his brain is wired, man tends to think in these manners. As such, having an ability to think historically is valuable for it builds upon the physical nature of man.

Second, symbolism is relevant to man because if man is to know any sizable number of things and will be able to retrieve these things quickly, the brain must build cross-idea associations which create symbolic intuition.

The opposite of this; a perspective that eliminates one's ability to think historically and symbolically has repercussions that one must be aware of. As a note, since we're speaking of the ability to think based on physical reality, I'm assuming that man is able to have a brain constructed in such a way that limits it to be used in ways highly contrary to its construction. Taken this way, a way of thinking that doesn't allow historical and symbolic processing tends to cause man to be unable to progress in building tendencies. Non-historical thinking means that man has built his mind such that he is a stateless machine; he can process pieces of data at any time regardless of context. Non-symbolic thinking means that man has built his mind such that data is stored in his brain so that either there are repetitive data (ideas, even though they share sub-concepts, must be compartmentalized / isolated) or retrieval of isolated ideas takes a long time because one must filter off associated ideas that don't belong to the idea being sought after. Assuming that the brain has a limited capacity by its limited number of neurons, both a-historical and a-symbolic ways of thinking may cause man to be unable to delve deeply into ideas without foregoing being able to go deeply into other ideas; historical and symbolic thinking are more efficient in storing ideas, but they do not hold the benefits of being able to think more freely.

Deconstructionism comes into this because it is a way of thinking that seeks to eliminate historical and symbolic thinking for the sake of freedom from tendencies. Since this is freedom from tendencies, any attempt at making assumptions is fought against. As such, if a society stays in deconstructionism, it and his mankind will not progress, but will only continue to spin on its shallow mess of assumptionless thinking. To anyone who knows of deconstructionism, it is a historical movement that began some time in the mid 20th century as an attempt by Western society to free itself of what it saw as mass injustices it was predisposed towards. Since as we've seen, a-historical and a-symbolic thinking keep man from building tendencies and foundations of sorts, it seems to be a way of thinking that accomplishes this, and could arguably be one of the reasons Western society has been in the process of deconstructing itself for the past few decades.

So if man is to build any foundation, he must at least approach thinking more historically and symbolically; to not do so continues a cycle of deconstruction and arguably antifoundationalism. Emerging thought seems to be that this past of deconstructionism shouldn't be continued much longer; that reconstruction should begin. Why this change has occurred is for another article, but the fact of its existence is the reason this article is relevant.

Male Gender Roles in Leadership, Then and Now

The other day, I was thinking about the period of the 60's and 70's and the topic of gender roles. It seemed interesting because of the potential reasons why the sexual revolution of that period took place. The specific aspect I'm going to focus on, is the period's stance towards gender roles, and why perhaps the roles in gender shifted from previous years. Flashing forward, I'm going to also try and address the impact this is having on current generations and why that's interesting.

From what material I have exposure to, it seems that during the 60's and 70's, for one reason or another, it tended to be that male leadership in the home was weak, whereas female leadership was strong. Now, this state of leadership didn't appear to exist prior to this period; the 60's and 70's were a transitional period where male leadership had been strong before, but now was becoming weak. Why exactly male leadership weakened, is a topic that won't be broached here, but it is certainly important. Now, following this transitional period, women began to take on more responsibility over the home; for the men were becoming less. For some reason or another, it doesn't seem like the society of that age criticized men that much, even though many of them were giving up the degree of responsibility they once held. Some could argue that the reason criticism was held back was because people had accepted that females were to be given more power over the home; more delegated, egalitarian power structures. Based on what I've seen, there were people who understood and accepted the change, but there were also many who didn't understand and were confused by what was going on around them; some even men themselves who were following society though confused as to why things were falling apart for them. Perhaps it is because the period was such a flux point in the culture, and so this caused inability to discern whether men were in the wrong for foregoing responsibility (whether they accepted feminism or not).

I contrast this response to lessened male responsibility with that of today's culture. There has been in popular thought, for the past 3-4 years at least, the idea that the typical modern male's sense of responsibility is lower than it should be, and therefore it is wrong. This is seen in that men are portrayed in the national media as being weak, irresponsible, impractical, too emotional, and baby-like. An excellent portrayal of this is in the film Knocked Up. Before, it seems as if men who held these qualities weren't seen as in the wrong, whereas now, it seems all over the national media, that men like this need to change. Not that I don't disagree, I tend to lean towards being more responsible, but why exactly this is happening now, is the question.

A few reasons that I can think up now could shed light in future thoughts: first, that the 60's and 70's were so tumultuous that no one really knew what was going on and whether it was right or wrong, thereby correcting the mistakes of the past. Second, that criticism now has only come from the Gen-Y crowd because they have been brought up to believe in the gender roles that existed before the 60's and 70's. Third, that the Gen-X crowd is trying to correct Gen-Y's veering towards such male gender roles because Gen-X doesn't see any real reason for Gen-Y's adoption of such cultural ideas other than men likely indulging in truly wrongful irresponsibility. In other words, they haven't sought these roles out of necessity, but out of selfish gluttony.

More on the 60's and Gen-X

Television shows can sometimes be a good source of introductory information into a new topic. Usually there isn't much depth to them, and as such, they qualify as mostly entertainment. Looking online for recent shows, I came across Swingtown, which is still a television show in its simplicity, and yet seems a good source of introductory information about why the events of the 60's and 70's took place, and what impact they had on Generation X.

The show also has full episodes online, which are helpful just to get a feel for the content, which surprisingly, isn't all that scandalous:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/

Historical Identity and Generation's X's Creation of a Politically Correct Culture

Often, when thinking about the topic of identity and how it is formed, I choose to focus on historical factors that have led a person to being a certain which way. This partly tends to look at pre-existing influences, or factors that follow fate, and decisions chosen early, or factors that follow choice, both of which seem to lead to hardened, determined characteristics of identity later in life. Looking at the method of analysis, two methods lean towards a fatalistic perspective (early pre-existing influences and determined character by early influences in general), and one method leans toward a free will perspective (choices made earlier in life). So the lean of this analysis is likely to be more fatalistic than free will, simply because the basis of analysis is laid out as such.

Now that the method of analysis is understood, the topic can be broached, which involves largely, the origins of PC, or Politically Correct, culture that became popular in the 90's, the reasons the generation titled Gen-X gained such an identity, why Gen-X brought great influence to create PC culture, and what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively. In order to understand these topics, my impressions from three signifying periods in Gen-X's history will be laid out.

According to what seems as sociological opinion, Gen-X went through its young-adult stage from around 1980 to the early 90's. Young-adult would be in my book, from age 15 to around 20. It seems to me that popular culture often reflects this age group across recent generations simply because this age group is struggling to understand the world and define their identity, and as such, it is typically one of the most creative periods in a generation's life-span. Hence, popular culture is affected greatly by these strongly sought-after goals. Back to the point. Observing the culture of the 80's and early 90's, one can observe that this is a definitive cultural period compared to that which came before and that which came after. Therefore, it can be looked to as a time in which Gen-X was struggling to understand the world and define its identity.

Now that the period can be defined as unique and therefore attributed to Gen-X, I will briefly comment on what made up that period. The culture of the 80's and early 90's can be agreed upon by most as a very non-conservative, almost chaotic in historical terms, expression of life. The culture seemed to be in rebellion to most of the culture of history through the artistic and philosophical expressions of the time. Artistically, many venues seemed to focus thematically on randomness and chaos. In music, one can see the emergence of high experimentation and a focus on what would be considered the darker side of culture in thematics of death and fatalistic thinking: death metal, grunge, and other emergent musical styles that commonly hold the noted cultural traits. Philosophically, existential and anti-foundational nihilism seemed to be prevalent as can be seen through the artistic expressions of the day. It is important to note that existentialistic nihilism was popular before the 80's and early 90's, but that anti-foundationalism seemed to be emerging during this time.

The next signifying period in history for Gen-X, is their development during childhood years. If the young-adult period is slated from the 1980 to the early 90's, then the childhood developmental period would range from 1965 to around the late 1970's. Cultural observations will note that this time period in history can also be defined because it was rather unique in recent history. The consensus to this is that this period enveloped the social revolutions caused by the counterculture movements popular at the time. Part of the movements that are recognized historically are the anti-war movement, the sexual revolution, and the resurgence of feminism. The relevance of these movements were that they involved what are considered those that brought up Gen-X in their childhood developmental years; their parents. Since parents impress themselves into their children during childhood development, this period is analyzed because it aligns with the idea that historical pre-existing influences are part of determining later identity.

The last signifying period in history for Gen-X, is their first entrance into their adulthood period, which occurs in the time period generally of the 90's. This seems significant as a period of time because it can be uniquely described as the period where PC culture emerged. Now, PC culture wasn't pop culture, as that which in the 80's Gen-X formed, but rather was the accepted culture by the greater populace. This is a significant period for it shows the emergence of a new culture formation that was broadly accepted. It is significant to Gen-X because, again, it was the time where the generation had entered adulthood.

Now that the three signifying periods have been laid out, the arguments pertaining to the topics can be made. The topics again, are as follows: the origins of PC, or Politically Correct, culture that became popular in the 90's, the reasons the generation titled Gen-X gained such an identity, why Gen-X brought great influence to create PC culture, and what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively.

It seems that the origins of the broadly accepted PC culture is in large result of Gen-X's assertions to culture as they had just entered into the adult world in the 90's. The time period's culture that was accepted broadly is recognizable as asserting the need to have a strong separation between personal and work life. Often this can be seen in how companies seemed adamant about "work / life balance." This philosophy carried itself into not just business, but nearly all public events such as extra-familial interactions, where to use politically correct language that was accepted as neutral was seen as good, whereas language associated with one's personal opinion should only be shared in closer / personal circles. The acceptance of this culture resulted due to what Gen-X asserted once it had entered the adult world (This necessarily includes the belief that adults that enter the adult world often affect the greater culture compared to the smaller pop culture which they affected in their young-adult stage). The reasons Gen-X held to such a broadly-accepted belief / culture / identity will be explained after first looking at Gen-X's internal identity and why their were labeled as such.

Gen-X gained its identity largely through historical influences of pre-existing nature as well as through early made choices. The pre-existing influences can be ascribed to that of their childhood developmental period, which, as stated, occurred in the period between 1965 and the late 70's. The early made choices also occurred in this time period and its young adult period, bringing about the resulting expressions of identity in its young adult period and first experience in the adult world. The pre-existing influences of Gen-X's childhood developmental period can be ascribed to their parental influences. As noted, the period of Gen-X's childhood developed occurred during a time where the adult world was undergoing many social revolutions. These produced a measure of inconsistency in the lives of the Gen-X's parents as they struggled for and against the forces of the various movements. Many of these movements had strong reaches into the family unit, as they challenged definitions of one's commitment to married partners in sexual life through the sexual revolution, challenged definitions of a household's authority by gender through the resurgence of feminism, and challenged allegiances to society through the anti-war movement. This created much inconsistency and lack of strong identity itself in the parents of Gen-Xers. Since children tend to follow that which is consistent around them and therefore a source of solidarity, the developing Gen-Xers were affected by pre-existing influences such that they could not use the lives of their own parents as a guide for growth. Through this, they had no choice but to embrace that which was consistent. The result of this caused Gen-X identity to be determined in many ways: it caused them to gain a more individualized identity, to attempt to enter adulthood faster than previous generations, and to embrace the chaos of childhood as an emotional grounding to identity. Aside from pre-existing influences, the choices in the developmental childhood period were likely similar and therefore mixed with the determined actions that were in fatalistically in response to parental influence.

Coming to the young-adult period of Gen-X's life, identity was affected by choice and pre-existing influences that came from their childhood developmental period. The young-adult period in recent history involves a sense of determined seeking of understanding the world and of understanding one's identity. Since this is a struggle with one's history, it is also an emotional struggle. As such, the expressions of identity in this struggle to understand it, have strong links back to the childhood developmental period, which had largely chaotic parental figures and required Gen-X to quickly mature. As noted, the 80's and early 90's for Gen-X had strong cultural thematics of chaos, death, and an overly high rejection of parental culture compared to previous generations. Because of this rejection, as the generation moved into the adult world, they sought broad cultural changes that then brought about the emergence of PC culture.

The next topic, that of which why Gen-X created the PC culture, and what the aspects of PC culture represents as it is an expression of Gen-X's identity, will be shown. Gen-X's reasons to create PC culture centers on two intentions: to protect the definition of family that existed before their generation, and to allow themselves to have a more free environment in which to reclaim their lost childhood. In order to protect the definition of family from becoming like that which Gen-X experienced, Gen-X sought to put explicit norms in place such that public life would not influence private life. In their experience, the public life coming into the private life had brought about the chaos and destruction of normality in the family unit. In order to protect, against further incursions and because the previous generation had stepped out of bounds, public life had to be redefined and neutralized. In order to allow Gen-X to reclaim their lost childhood, the construction of the barrier between private and public life allowed for more individually-determined private lifestyles. The idea was that one could act according to private aspirations in one's private life and have little to no influence upon public aspirations in one's public life. Thus, the reclamation of Gen-X's childhood could safely begin. It is important to note for future thought that this created an impression of a dualistic nature to other non-Gen-Xer's, but which will not be addressed here.

The next topic, then, is what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively. Note that this is in retrospect to the topics that have already been discussed, that of, the origins of PC culture in the 90's, the identity of Gen-X and the reasons they gained such an identity, and why Gen-X created PC culture. It would then seem that taken more broadly, identity is affected greatly by one's pre-existing influences, at least in one's childhood developmental period, which may or may not determine choices made there and in the future. Regardless of choice, again, it seems that the presence of and action by parents in this period determine an arguably great portion of one's identity. The history of Gen-X's development also seems to have implications about the nature of human psychology and that children will attach to that which is consistent versus that which is not, even if it means attaching to a theme of inconsistency (a theme in life created by consistent chaos). I won't consider the logical implications of consistency created out of chaos, or the value judgments made for those that accept this consistent chaos as a good thing, for those can be addressed later.

And so, the origins of Politically Correct culture seems to be in Gen-X's response to culture after having entered adulthood. Generation X's identity seems to have come about based largely on their upbringing which occurred in a period in history in which their parents were unable to hold back public issues into private life, and hence this caused mass rejection of their parent's culture later in life. This is what brought about the aspects of PC culture, so that the family unit would be protected in its privacy from being influenced by what public issues ensued. And finally, this creation of PC culture by Gen-X for the specified reasons give insight into the nature identity from a historical perspective towards pre-existing influences and choice; fate and free will.