Social science will remain forever in the dark, where it seems to be quite happy to stay, in attempting to explain human behavior unless it recognizes the importance of three simple things. First, mothers are important. Second, mothers are designed to influence or lead their offspring; and third, children are designed to respond to the influence of the parent. These seem like such simple obvious facts, but if we take that same idea back a generation or two worth of parents influencing children who grow up to be parents who influence, then we see that traditions are part of the picture--one generations copies the prior generation, back through time. We are designed this way.
So, the argument will be: why do intellects reject traditions? In my bad moments, I say because they are stupid. However, I would argue that they are influenced by the current focus on individualism, which implies that we allow few if anyone to influence us. To allow the past to influence us would be something they reject with vigor, as it is both old and involves influence.
So, the next argument will be: parents don't influence children; peers do.
So, again, I would point to a novel environment. Somewhere I have a paper I wrote on parental, not peer influence. I will find it and summarize it in my next blog.
2 comments:
Well, let's look at it another way. One thing that separates us from lower primates is that we have more rituals. It might just be that rituals are the very thing that keep us humans, as they allow us to know the social expectations.
So, in answer to the question of why our intellectuals reject rituals, I would say that they -- intellectuals -- are very naive in not thinking deeply enough to realize how very important they (rituals) are -- markers that there as rules and boundaries,reminding us of the various levels of our responsibility to one another, our obligations. If we are a human we cannot just rob, kill, rape, or ignore our handshaking rituals, without some consequence.
Basically, of course you must be right. But how complex it is! Following traditions and rituals when families are dispersed all over the continent or the world...hard. And look at today's news...Turkish youth insisting on the headscarf. Is this just an insistence on religion and tradition, or is it just youthful rebellion, or is it, most likely, both? Even the Amish have an established period of a few years when the youth are expected to sort of rebel. Where is the line between stifling and nourishing? And must it be so tied to religion? I don't think it MUST, but that is certainly the EASIEST way to do it. I think a lot of people still know where that line is, but you must be right in that MOST, at least in the US, have lost it. Christy
Post a Comment