I hear a lot about "the decay of traditional values," and I've recently had a thought about that. I think it's possible that traditional values have been conflated with specific (and traditional) representations of those values. Essentially: There are certain practices that have been considered "normal" by mainstream (and in our country, Christian) society; many people have begun to give up or challenge those practices, and so people feel that their values are disappearing. But I don't think that's true. I don't think the behaviors are the same as the values.
When Americans say "traditional values," they generally mean values based around the teachings of Jesus. (Because part two of my theory, which formed itself as I was writing part one, is that some people think "traditional values" means "being Christian," and so what they're actually lamenting is the fact that fewer people now identify as actively Christian.)
Marriage being between man and a woman isn't a value. The value is that family is sacred and marriage commitments are important; heterosexual marriage is the traditional way in which that value has been represented. (For the record, though it's been said a thousand times before, it bears repeating: What we now consider "traditional" marriage is already not what traditional marriage used to be, and it is universally agreed that that is an excellent thing. So let's maybe acknowledge that "tradition" isn't the best argument in the arsenal where marriage is concerned.) Same-sex marriage is based on exactly the same thing as heterosexual marriage: love.
Judging homosexuality as a sin isn't a value, either. It's tradition, all right, but Jesus didn't do it and he didn't teach it. In fact, the value he did teach was pretty much the opposite: that we shouldn't judge the woman "taken in adultery", that we should love and care for people as we would treat Jesus himself, and—this was apparently important—that we should not judge others. The value people seem to think they're living is "standing up for their beliefs," but I don't actually remember Jesus making that a really high priority. Basically, we feel that it's more important to make sure everyone knows we follow Jesus—which Jesus kind of counseled against—than it is to actually do what Jesus told us to do.
Let's address the "right to life" argument that's generally considered a traditional value. The actual value behind this belief is that human life is sacred. The behavior—the politicized belief that government should restrict abortion—that is not a value. That behavior disregards the life of the woman involved; it doesn't respect all life in the equation, just the one that's politically important. It takes away a woman's agency (which is pretty damn sacred to Mormons, at least, if not to other Christian denominations). It has good intentions at heart, but it's founded on misapprehensions (oh so many misapprehensions)—the belief that women who get abortions are motivated by selfishness or carelessness, the belief that a child's life is a consequence a woman must accept for having had sex, the belief that ending a pregnancy is the same as murder, the belief that other people have the right to control a woman's body and reproduction. Banning abortion is nothing more than a patriarchal society's way of exerting control over women and preventing them from having power over their own lives. Banning abortion actually does not cause fewer abortions; it just causes more women to die. This is absolutely a lose-lose situation if you think life is sacred, so if that were really the motivation behind the political movement, the movement would have ended when that information was discovered. But that's not what the movement's about; it's about controlling women. The political behavior associated with the value is not actually the value itself.
Something to consider:
Marriage being between man and a woman isn't a value. The value is that family is sacred and marriage commitments are important; heterosexual marriage is the traditional way in which that value has been represented. (For the record, though it's been said a thousand times before, it bears repeating: What we now consider "traditional" marriage is already not what traditional marriage used to be, and it is universally agreed that that is an excellent thing. So let's maybe acknowledge that "tradition" isn't the best argument in the arsenal where marriage is concerned.) Same-sex marriage is based on exactly the same thing as heterosexual marriage: love.
Judging homosexuality as a sin isn't a value, either. It's tradition, all right, but Jesus didn't do it and he didn't teach it. In fact, the value he did teach was pretty much the opposite: that we shouldn't judge the woman "taken in adultery", that we should love and care for people as we would treat Jesus himself, and—this was apparently important—that we should not judge others. The value people seem to think they're living is "standing up for their beliefs," but I don't actually remember Jesus making that a really high priority. Basically, we feel that it's more important to make sure everyone knows we follow Jesus—which Jesus kind of counseled against—than it is to actually do what Jesus told us to do.
Let's address the "right to life" argument that's generally considered a traditional value. The actual value behind this belief is that human life is sacred. The behavior—the politicized belief that government should restrict abortion—that is not a value. That behavior disregards the life of the woman involved; it doesn't respect all life in the equation, just the one that's politically important. It takes away a woman's agency (which is pretty damn sacred to Mormons, at least, if not to other Christian denominations). It has good intentions at heart, but it's founded on misapprehensions (oh so many misapprehensions)—the belief that women who get abortions are motivated by selfishness or carelessness, the belief that a child's life is a consequence a woman must accept for having had sex, the belief that ending a pregnancy is the same as murder, the belief that other people have the right to control a woman's body and reproduction. Banning abortion is nothing more than a patriarchal society's way of exerting control over women and preventing them from having power over their own lives. Banning abortion actually does not cause fewer abortions; it just causes more women to die. This is absolutely a lose-lose situation if you think life is sacred, so if that were really the motivation behind the political movement, the movement would have ended when that information was discovered. But that's not what the movement's about; it's about controlling women. The political behavior associated with the value is not actually the value itself.
Something to consider:
The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism.
—Hugh Nibley, "What is Zion? A Distant View," Approaching Zion
The thing about tradition is that sometimes, it isn't very good to people. Traditionally, women have been considered inferior to men. Traditionally, people of non-dominant racial and ethnic groups have been oppressed and discriminated against. Traditionally, it's been people who break tradition who end up creating a better world for us all to live in. So at this point, it might be a good idea for us to take a really hard look at our traditions and our values, and consider what they're actually accomplishing.
I disagree. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Traditions aren't the cause or source. The severe type of Christianity is as a result.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself would it matter if the Taliban were Christian. Would it matter were Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia. I don't think it would.
All theses places are harsh environments. Requiring strong controls over the society for it to survive and the main control needed is population control. That nowadays in the areas of America that were frontier 150 years ago are now the places with the strongest tradition of 'church' in no unconnected scatter in the data. The church was and is a way of binding a community as is the Muslim mosque.
In the so called traditional values heartland what you tend to have is a static population. You have very very few investments that aren't connected to the core activity, normally farming. Or at least that was true until very recently.
Here I need to set the stage. In 1920, you had farms say 200, with 5+ in the family. In the local town you would have 200 businesses, with 5+ in the family. In each there was likely 3 servant's, split males on the farms females in the shops. 400*8=3200. Now that same area will have 50 farms and 25 businesses in town. Now that wouldn't change the tradition. What does change it is the dynamic. The big box store on the outskirts had obliterated the businesses in town Tinker Tailor Cobbler Grocer Butcher etc. For what is stabilizing the population numbers is the decedents of the '20 servants. In the past their numbers were controlled assiduously. If they insisted on higher wages on the farm then the farmers cousin in the grocery simply raised the price of goods. Unemployment meant leaving the town/state/region. But then came federal supports, now they remain in town.
So, the farm today has 3.5 persons where in the past it would have been 5+. The same in town. Now though you have 350 where in the past you had 2000. And in such situations you'll have fear (reasonable or not) and with that fear you'll have responses in that vein. Arsenals in the home, Apartheid in schools or more likely there will be church schools as well as state ones and one or more prisons in the area with sentences vastly out of kilter with any norms.
It feels like you're making an interesting point, but I'm not quite getting the connection. In any case, it seems like your point is about broad social trends; in writing this, I was really thinking about more of an individual level. I came from the conservative Christian culture, so it's pretty easy for me to get inside that mindset just by remembering what I used to think about things. And what I've written here is kind of the process I've been through, and what I feel like might be happening in an individual person's mind.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are getting at and I see where you are coming from. I happen to disagree with it.
ReplyDeleteYou are mixing up correlation with causation. Put simply, society is what it is because of it's needs. If a conservative Christianity, Muslim sect or whatever flourishes in society it is due to it being planted in tilled ground.
Put it this way. The LDS couldn't operate in Pennsylvania or any other rich farmland. Nor could they have survived complete and total freedom. And the very same is true for all aspects of Christianity, at least early on. They require adversity. They require the needs of control.
Anywoo's I enjoyed reading it.
Again, that's very interesting, but I don't think you understand the point I was making. Thanks for attempting to enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteA spot on post. I think we can all agree when you boil it down that family and human life are sacred. However, my representation of a sacred family is one that loves and honors one another. No mention of gender or sex because it doesn't matter. What I do not consider sanctifying the family are cheating, spousal abuse, being derogatory to your spouse, etc. Shouldn't we make getting rid of abuse (physical, mental, and verbal) our priority before even touching the issue of who may get married?
ReplyDeleteOh, but wait, tradition says it's okay to treat your wife life an animal... and after all, if two men are married, which one is the animal? Which one should tradition discriminate against?
Traditions are merely social inertia. That doesn't make them good values or even values, it simply means they are practices that aren't easy to stop. But then again, I have heard that doing right is not always easy.
This post articulates the point well.
Thanks, Blythe. I totally agree. Gender and sex aren't what's most important in a marriage, and they don't have nearly the significance we like to give them. "Social inertia" perfectly describes our obsession with gender roles—you hear boys always described a certain way, you grow up and use the same definition because that's what you've always known, and then even proof that your definition is wrong won't convince you, because you're not willing to get off the inertia train. That's exactly what I was describing in my post, only without that excellent phrase to clarify it so well.
ReplyDelete