h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Novo, Ed,

There's also some implicit 'golden age' thinking in a lot of the 'society is breaking down' claims that are made. Thatcher's promise to return Britain to 'Victorian family values' came as something of a surprise to those who associated the Victorian era with mass poverty, endemic racism, child labour and slums, for example.

We tend to view the past (both within and beyond our own lifetimes) as much better than it really was, and to gloss over the problems it had. By most socio-economic indicators, early 21st Century Britain is doing exceptionally well. Yes, our divorce rate is markedly higher than in Victorian days (when it was beyond the economic means of most), but on the other hand our rate of child prostitution is near zero. Given a straight choice between the two, I know which one I'd pick.

I don't know quite what period Novo is thinking about when society was better than it is today, and that always starts alarm bells ringing for me that 'golden ageism' is being perpetrated. In my experience, when people pick a specific date, some of the problems spring to mind and it becomes much harder to believe in the golden age.

Novo, are you thinking of the inflation-ridden 1970s? The 1960s that introduced the sexual revolution? The post-war 40s and 50s with their lack of consumer goods?

Gif (and optimist )

Hello Ed and Gif,

Listen chaps, I KNOW there was no Golden Age in our past... I accept that becuase I know how much better off I am than I was as a child or a
youth.

To answer Gif !

I was born in Jan 1940, so the formative years of my life were pre the 60's and certainly pre Thatcher. Dammit I was practically in my 20's when the 60's began. My childhood was by definition of the times not 'poor', but we didn't have much. I'm actully one of those who was happy to get one Dinky Toy and an Orange at Christmas! - but we were happy and strong as a family, both in my Mum Dad, and 3 brothers, 2 sets of grandparents and a sprinkling of aunts and uncles, all living within 10 miles . Fortunately as the eldest I got the clothes first! But I don't look back at those years as a Golden Age, rather as one of peace and kindness.

Passing the famous 11+ I went to a Grammar School founded by Henry V111
and continued by Elizabeth 1st, a line of the School Song was "Sentiment is more than skill", it typifies the ethic , and I count myself extremely lucky to have been at that school.

Like many posters I lived through the Cuban Missile crisis, and can still remember going to work on the morning when the Russian freighters carrying the missiles were due to meet the American blockading warships, - we genuinely didn't know if we would be going hom to our families that night ( 4 minutes warning - then Armageddon)

So I can only speak about that time, and since, from the formative years, and from that standpoint I can see so much beneficial progress to the present, but coupled with a decline in the standards that I was taught were the right ones. Does that help?

Novo

Hello edwrad,

I feel that you are fundamentally wrong to assume that we have to for God or against Him. Some of us know that ( in my case ) the Christian teachings in Sunday school , school generally, and in church cannot be sustained in todays Steven Hawking world.

Quite obviously they based on fallcy, falsehood, and freuent misinterpretations. To claim anything else would be equivalent to basing English heritage on the stories about Robin Hood, or King Arthur.

BUT, something of the ideals of service, of concern for others, of compassion remain. Perhaps it is what I refer to as Humanity. As opposed to Mans inhumanity to Man.

I also think you are wrong when you say that family breakup is the result of the economy. That is to deny the very strong family bonds that existed in mining and textile towns when people lived in pretty poor conditions yet held their families together, and scrubbed the front steps of their terraced houses.

Further, I did not say that the cause of was turning our backs on the churches , I said that it was because we didn't replace it with anything else to bind communities together. As far as the economy goes it is the very strenght of it which allows us not to have to think of our neighbours. The changes to the welfare state over the last 20 years has removed the need to 'look out for the family' as we peviously did, coupled with the staggering differentials in living standards now as compared to the relatively recent past we are almost approaching the Victorian era by slipping backwards - not because we are poor but becuase we ( generally ) are rich.

Novo

>>I also think you are wrong when you say that family breakup is the result of the economy. That is to deny the very strong family bonds that existed in mining and textile towns when people lived in pretty poor conditions yet held their families together, and scrubbed the front steps of their terraced houses.

Firstly - I dispute somewhat the idea of poor-but-happy milltowns. For starters, one only has to read 'The Road To Wigan Pier'. Further family lives were, in olden times, just as threatened by single parenthood as nowadays. At the lower end of the economic scale, many families were separated by the necessity of migration for work. Such factors explain phenomena such as the ready supply of women and children for the huge prostitution industry. Those donkey-stoned terraces filled with strong families were the exception, not the rule. A mythology has been built up in much the same way as it has around 'The Spirit Of The Blitz' (reality: The king and queen having bricks thrown at them by eastenders; people refusing to billet the homeless; mass looting and rape; the near collapse of order in many cities; huge psychiatric camps established to house the traumatised; etc. etc.)

As for the issue of relative vs absolute poverty...people are, of course, still dying from malnutrition (hence a high proportion of West-Central Scotland's lamentable mortality rate). Plus, on average life expectancy decreases a year for every underground stop east of Westminster. Etc. etc. Arguably, the remedy is in the hands of the sufferers (eat the occasional vegetable!). But the psychological effects of economic disparity and instability are profound. How does one move forward from a state of economic inequality and low socio-economic mobility and brute anomie?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I question whether religion provided a cohesive framework then than it does today - although I grant the excellent work done, now as then, by many religious charities.

In short - I take entirely your point about a lack of community ethos. I simply question whether religion has, *or ever did have* much to do with it.

(but you'd expect an unreconstructed Marxist to see society in terms of economic structures.)

>>"replace it with another 'binding' force to promote a cohesive society"<<

I don't want to be bound, I'm happier on my island. The society you say you want frightens me. It smells of hierarchies and safety and security and knowing your place.

You can't enforce compassion.

>>You can't enforce compassion.

No - but you can promote cohesion. But I don't mean 'promote' in the sense of 'teach'. In economically equitable societies, people realise that they are dependent on one another, that one's neighbours best interests are one's own.

>>I dispute somewhat the idea of poor-but-happy milltowns. For starters, one only has to read 'The Road To Wigan Pier'.

Or 'North and South'.

<>

Oh well, at least you're honest! You've admitted that nothing I will do will convince you, even if I was turn up at your house with one of my gay friends in tow! Oh, I don't understand why, as I've never understood people who simply *don't want to* believe something, no matter what proof they're offered... Please yourself, I completely don't care! You are a lost cause, and I can't be bothered. Your are also a very arrogant selfish little blighter, but I already knoew that.


>>Don't judge others by yourself<<

I don't. For example, I'm liberal, tolerant and usually honest. I definately don't judge you in such terms. >>

Utter and complete nonsense. Who do you think you're kidding?

This post has been removed.

Morning Edward,

I would like to point etc that my mention of mining and mill towns was not to claim that they were happy, but that the family and community bonds were stronger than you suggested might be the case as a result of poverty.

But since we don't want to get bogged down in semantics I'll summarise my point:-

All societies, tribal, village, urban, etc have in the past benefitted from a cohesive view of the world in which they lived. Whether this was based on faith, common danger, common hardship or anything else. Whereas our current society has become fractured , partly because increased wealth coupled with job mobility etc means that we no longer need to be as awre of our family or neighbours, and partly because that increase in wealth has been accompanied by a feeling that we can do as we like, when we like, and how we like.

I do not know the solution, I only comment on what I see as happening. Unfortunately we assume that the State acccepts responsibility for the poor, weak or disadvantage, but few of us truly trust our politicians our police force or the organs of State which we assume are acting on our behalf.

Great generalisation ,I know , but that is what Ihave been trying to say.

I expect you are right that the church wasn't all that good at holding things together, but at least at its best it was a common ground set of 'rules' to help in the vicissitudes of life. Always good to have someone to blame or thank perhaps?

Novo

>>I've never understood people who simply *don't want to* believe something, no matter what proof they're offered...<<

I can't help but at the irony of that - maybe the problem is that you and I have very different ideas of proof? I think our differing stances on the existence of fairies highlights that.

>>Utter and complete nonsense<<

Which part? The claim that I'm liberal, tolerant and usually honest, or the claim that you're not?

Ah, but you see, your thinking is upside down.

>>All societies, tribal, village, urban, etc have in the past benefitted from a cohesive view of the world in which they lived.

What's your evidence for this? The very most we can observe is that people have lived in groups which share a common culture. But do they coalesce and stick together because of that culture? Or does a common culture develop when conditions are such that it is mutually advantageous to flock together?

How might we test this? Social sciences are messy, so we can't always be as certain as we can in, say, physics or biology; we have to triangulate somewhat. I offer the evidence that the fracturing and dispersal of societies seems to occur under conditions of resource competition and economic fluctuation when society members or subgroups cease to share common interests.

(All totally off-topic - but interesting, no?)

(that was to novo, obviously, not the liberal and usually honest HI)

Let's take another example:

The 'Common values hold people together' theory would suggest that the influence of something like a strong church would bind people together irrespective of changing economic circumstances.

The 'Group coalescion results from by economic structures' theory suggests that economic changes might lead to the drift away from a previously cohesive set of values.

So let's take pre-C16th Western Europe which shared the values of a powerful, unitary religion. As economic circumstances changed (eg the growth of a mercantile class in Germany putting merchant cities in competion with papal fiefdoms), the whole thing fell apart. Following a messy thirty-odd years of war, new societies coalesced around the competing (if related) values of Protestantism and Catholicism.

<>

I always thought you had rather good taste in wine, Ed.


az

Damn! You beat me to it.

<< I offer the evidence that the fracturing and dispersal of societies seems to occur under conditions of resource competition and economic fluctuation when society members or subgroups cease to share common interests >>

Well exactly Ed, we don't actually disagree, we may differ on the reason for societies or groups to coalesce but the loss of a 'need' brings about the same result?

Novo

Well fair enough...but the theories (and evidence) matter when it comes down to working out What Is To Be Done.

So, accepting the fragmentation of current society, and the hardship entailed (especially at the lower reaches of society; the things that happen to the muiddle classes are trivial in comparison), where do we focus our effort?
- On something like the 'Respect Agenda', which aims to teach good manners?
- On the Citizenship agenda, which aims to build a cohesive culture?
- On Christian evangelism?
- Or do we concentrate on widening the access to wealth and opportunity on the assumption that respect and cohesion will follow?

One way would be to look for examples of more cohesive societies and see which of the above they've tried.

<>

Obviously both.

You are amongst the most *extremely* intolerant here! So you're claim to being tolerant is farcical.