Framed another way, I might have asked in this diary's title which is more important..."nature" or "nurture." That framing, for obvious reasons, is a little problematic here, but when it comes to generational generalizations, I think it is a valid way of approaching the questions at hand. Many of the diaries that I have read here over the past several months, or those who comment therein, seem to aver that Boomers are somehow different than the generations which either preceded or followed them. That there is something intrinsically different about their generational culture and world view. More selfish, and less willing to sacrifice for the generations which follow. I have to admit I find the discussions in these diaries interesting. I am also in the midst of reading a book that came out 12 years ago, already, that I can't recommend enough: Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone." It is a fascinating, if heavy, read.
His book is both voluminous, at some 400 pages, and based upon a lot of facts, charts, research, historical polling data on social attitudes, etc. It is hardly a house of cards constructed from anecdotal stories. Written as it was in 2000, it doesn't address the "Millennial Generation", as there wasn't research yet to paint any sort of accurate picture of them. But the picture he does paint of both the Boomers and Gen-X is one that shows no clear divergence in main attitudes or behaviors. Indeed, the data suggests that Gen-X follows the same trend line as their Boomer parents in most things, only more so.
The book deals with the observable and measurable phenomena of America's collapsing levels of civic engagement, its dissolving sense of community, and growing embrace of individualism, seemingly at the expense of the first two. In a recent diary here http://www.dailykos.com/... Dave In Northridge makes a tongue in cheek claim in his title, but raises an interesting question. I made a comment after the fact that I felt the Boomers were more of a product of eroding communities, lack of connectedness, and the growing anonymity that marks modern society. I could have simply said "alienation", but nobody talks about that concept anymore.
StellaRay countered, a few comments down, that I was mostly indulging in a form of nostalgia about community structures that were suffocating for many. Her comment is valid, and is the quintessential liberal critique of "community" as it existed in the 50's and 60's. Her comment is here, and it needs to be read, as this is what I wish to diary about:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Stella's critique is directly addressed in the last chapter of Putnam's book, before he launches into what can be called "What is to be done" conjecturing. The Chapter's title is "The Dark Side of Social Capital." As a bit of housekeeping, I should explain what Putnam means when he uses the term "social capital", as it is central to his book. His book measures the myriad ways in which America's "social capital, has shrank and atrophied over the past 30 years (by all measures, the "peak" of American civic engagement and social capital, which he measures both politically and, more importantly, nonpolitically, was right around 1968.)
Social capital is defined thusly: In its most basic form, social capital is the willingness of individuals to engage in communal activities, join communal organizations, engage with those around them, or participate in civic activities that help to address and resolve joint differences, joint issues of concern, or merely to socialize and get to know one another. It ranges from belonging to the Kiwanis Club, or the Elks, or having an annual block party in your neighborhood, or agreeing to sign on to a local petition drive, or attending a neighborhood meeting to discuss some local zoning matter. That is just a short list of the ways in which social capital can be measured...but even with that short list, America's predilection to engage in it has diminished measurably since the mid sixties.
I can't do Putnam's book justice in one diary...it will take several. Each of his chapters is a fascinating discussion unto themseves. I will start here with his chapter towards the end, which addresses StellaRay's lack of nostalgia for community as many us can remember it, and perhaps many more cannot or do not.
Before I do...here is a quote from social philosopher David Hume that opens another chapter in Putnam's book. It is a damned good quote, and it gets to the heart of the issue:
Your corn is ripe today; mine will be so tomorrow. 'Tis profitable for us both, that I should labour with you today, and that you should aid me tomorrow. I have no kindness for you, and know you have as little for me. I will not, therefore, take any pains upon your account; and should I labour with you upon my own account, in expectation of a return, I know I should be disappointed, and that I should in vain depend upon your gratitude. Here then I leave you to labour alone; You treat me in the same manner. The seasons change; and both of us lose our harvests for want of mutual confidence and security.
That's just about the crux of the matter, isn't it?
So...what's this got to do with Boomers? Only this: We came of age at exactly that point in time in American social history when "community" had reached its zenith, and began setting quickly to it's current nadir. We didn't cause it, but we have been affected by it. So have you, my GenX and Millennial brothers and sisters. Putnam spends some 22 chapters in his book enumerating the causes, and tracking down the culprits, as if he were a detective novelist. The forces are mostly outside of our power, but they have nonetheless shaped us.
To touch upon StellaRay's observation, because it is a common critique, let me attempt to summarize Putnam's arguments. Herr critique is valid, and has, in fact, informed much of social/political philosophy in the last century. How do you reconcile the obligations of community, and the concept of consensus, with the individual, and individual liberty? Can they be reconciled? At what expense? Is Pluralism better than a simple system where "The Ayes Have It?" What are the implications, then, for democracy? Is consensus even possible any longer? If not, how do we govern ourselves? These are all Big Questions...and Putnam deals with most of them in this book.
Stella likes to think of community as stifling, discriminatory and intolerant. I will use an analogy that is not Robert Putnam's, but rather my own. "Community" acts as, in the Freudian sense, the "Super Ego" to the "Id" of Individualism. There was a fascinating psychological experiment conducted in 1973 by a psychologist at Swarthmore College, in Pennsylvania. He took out an ad asking for volunteers in an ill, if not completely undefined experiment. He was studying the affects of anonymity.
His experiment was this: A group of strangers are assembled, and placed into a room with one another for 60 minutes to see how they interact. The group that is placed into the lighted room naturally begins to converse and socialize. Another group was assembled, and told that they would be sent into a padded, pitch black room with strangers whom they would never meet again, for the same period of time.
Conversation in the second group lasted about 20 minutes before it began to trail off and end. An awkward silence overtook the group. (This experiment was conducted with several groups, and the results were the same) At one point one person called out into the darkness..."Why isn't anyone talking?" Another voice, a female one, responded "Why don't you shut up?" After about 30 minutes, people started moving around and groping. Soon, they were groping each other. Some were touching the faces of others in the room, and others were touching more intimate parts. Many were touching both, as well as hugging and kissing complete strangers.
Gergen, given that this experiment was conducted in 1973, concluded that anonymity allowed for a more free expression of the natural yearnings for intimacy that we all harbor. I would argue the opposite. The anonymity of the darkness, as well as the promise that the participants would never be introduced after the fact to each other, simply unbridled their libido, their id, and banished the countervailing effect of their super ego...there was no moral check on the way they interacted.
Communities, neighbors, friends, the parents of your childrens' friends who live two doors down, You, yourself, knowing the friends of your own kids, as well as who their parents are....these are all social brakes on potentially antisocial, selfish, generally bad behavior. Or...they are the yokes of White priviledge, or social conformity...however you choose to view it. Perhaps...just PERHAPS...there is no definitive answer.
Tolerance has undoubtably been on the wax over the past 40 years, even as a sense of community has been on the wane. But are the two connected? When it comes to attitudes regarding race, interracial marriage, LGBT issues and other social hot-buttons, we have become a measurably more tolerant nation, even as, as Putnam notes, we were becoming more disconnected from one another.
He goes on, however, to note that there is no Hobbsian choice to be had between strong communities and social tolerance. One does not preclude the other, as much as many would care to say that it does. Referring to the banner of the French Revolution, "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity", Putnam describes "Fraternity" as "Community". And he describes the natural tension that exists between these ideals.
Most Liberals argue, as Stella does, that "community" is at odds with "Liberty' and tolerance. I would argue that a lack of community condemns many in this country to a life where the only thing you truly must tolerate is crime, vandalism, rudeness, incivility and distrust. As for liberty...your miscreant child is at liberty to bully others and generally show his ass, because nobody knows who his parents are...since they don't know their neighbors. If someone stepped outside on their porch, when they saw a kid acting wrongly, and said "You're Momma's gonna set your ass on fire when I tell her what you're up to."...More kids would act accordingly.
But they are living in the same darkened room that Kenneth Gergen experimented with at Swarthmore. They know nobody's looking, and few care. There is no Superego of community.
I gotta cut this short, but there is so, so, so much to discuss in this book. I intend to do a multi-part series on it, chapter by chapter, because, as I said, each chapter is a a rich trove of social and historical observations, with future implications.
I'd love for about 6 Kossacks here who have also read this book to collaborate with me...We could each take a couple of chapters and do our own diaries. It will be the discussion that follows that will be excellent, not our attempts to either affirm or refute Putnam's assertions. If you would like to participate, send me a Kosmail, and we'll work it out. Otherwise, I'll undertake the endeavor myself. The book is that good, and that pertinent, and that illustrative of what has been happening here for the past 40 years.