The darkness inherent in the notion that we can invent ourselves

I'v been thinking about an array of items currently on the sociocultural radar screen that, while seemingly disparate, form a sum total that beckons our examination.

• The latest school shooting and the utterly predictable reactions from the tribes who are entrenched regarding this issue
• Nellie Bowles' New York Times piece about Jordan Peterson and patriarchy
• Prince Harry and Meghan Markle living together before their wedding
• The fact that, even if one doesn't care for the term "fake news," the mainstream media has a definite agenda and has had for decades.

Let's examine each one in a bit more depth and then explore how they tie together.

The school shooting: Yes, there are some good ideas being floated, ranging from ways to harden school campuses to common-sense measures Congress could take that wouldn't infringe on Second Amendment rights, but they don't address the basic question that looms over it all: Why are there so many more crazy people than there were fifty years ago?

The Nellie Bowles - Jordan Peterson dustup: In my post on serving communion from yesterday, I mentioned, as I often do in posts about my spiritual journey, my remaining sticking points before deciding to become a Christian. The whole matter of patriarchy was a biggie. The fact that the Ten Commandments are obviously addressed to men (commanding them not to covet the neighbor's wife), Paul's teaching about how a woman should remain silent in a church service and wait until she got home to ask her husband any questions about it, the traditional inclusion of the term "obey" in a bride's wedding vows - these things struck me as fundamentally unfair, and I'm no feminist. 

But I am a historian, and if you look at the broadest possible sweep of humanity, you see that patriarchy is baked in to the way societies have always organized themselves. It's just a plain fact that most of the great philosophers, scientists, artists, kings, presidents and generals have been men. For that matter, the founders of the world's great religions have been men: Buddha, Mohammed, Lao Tzu. I finally had to concede that Christian doctrine, as it does with anything, merely confirms what is apparent in human life generally.

The new royal couple's pre-wedding cohabitation: You know how nine out of ten people in Western civilization are reacting to this: "Oh, come on, we're not going to get outraged about something like that at this late date, are we?" Which indicates how differently we define marriage, and by inference family, than we did until recently.

Mainstream media bias: The linked Bernard Goldberg column includes his recollection of how that played itself out in the 1980s - when he was a CBS News correspondent:

. . . the homeless lobby had an agenda and they needed their liberal friends in the media to help them pursue it. They needed to drum up compassion for the homeless -- and one way to do it was to convince reporters that the homeless were just regular folks brought down by a bad break. And journalists, who pride themselves on their compassion, gladly went along. After all, if the homeless were mainly a bunch of winos and junkies the public might not want to fund government welfare programs to help them. But if they were "people you know" we'd all be more sympathetic. (Besides, putting homeless folks on TV who look just like the audience helps boost ratings.)

So liberal reporters became cheerleaders for a liberal cause they believed in.

And something similar happened with AIDS. In the 1980s, journalists were spreading an epidemic -- of fear. And that too was based on fake news.

A headline in U.S. News & World Report said, "The disease of them is suddenly the disease of us."

The Atlantic Monthly headlined a cover story with this:
"Heterosexuals and AIDS: The Second State of the Epidemic."

The Ladies Home Journal ran a story with this tease on the cover: "AIDS & Marriage: What Every Wife Must Know."

Life magazine ran a cover with this scary headline: "Now No One Is Safe from AIDS."

And then he reminds us of how it's playing out today:

 They're still putting out fake news -- about the supposed sexist wage gap between men and women doing the same job with the same experience, about the "epidemic" of rape on college campuses, about the 99 percent of scientists who supposedly believe Al Gore's version of global warming and think everyone else is an ignorant science "denier."

 Now, let's see about tying them together. It seems to me the common thread is this: We have utterly jettisoned the foundation that used to bind us together as a society. We have rejected the very notion of transcendence. We've assumed we have the power of self-invention, that it's us who can do the transcending and overcome the basic structure of the universe, a structure that precedes our very existence. And the "mainstream media," which is supposed to be in the business of informing us of factual occurrences, is actually in the business of perpetuating the notion that our self-invention has no negative consequences.

I probably should also have included this NRO piece by Clay Routlege on how Americans are increasingly attached to their pets:

Humans have a basic need to belong — to form and maintain close social bonds — as well as a need to feel like our lives are meaningful. These needs are typically intertwined: When asked to describe what makes life meaningful, most people zero in on close relationships, and studies show that the more people feel connected to and supported by others, the more they view their lives as full of meaning. Traditionally, family life has played a vital role in meeting these psychological needs. But young adults today are less likely to marry and have children than young adults of previous generations. They are also more likely to live alone and have fewer people in their lives whom they feel they can rely on for social support.

Are young adults who aren’t partnering up or starting families turning to their pets to feel loved and purposeful? Pet ownership is on the rise among single people. Single women are more likely to have pets than single men, but pet ownership among both groups is increasing. Compared to married people, single adults are more likely to view their pets as family members. And the lonelier people are, the more inclined they are to perceive pets as having human-like characteristics.

Young adults appear particularly likely to prioritize their pets as if they were human family members. While income is generally a good predictor of spending on pets, this isn’t the case among the younger generation. Unlike middle-aged and older adults, for Americans under the age of 30, limited financial resources do not reduce the likelihood of buying premium pet food. Corporate America is beginning to understand and capitalize on how young adults view their pets. Some employers looking to attract young talent offer pet insurance and pet-daycare services, or allow workers to bring their dogs to the office. Some companies even provide employees “pawternity” leave to allow them to spend time bonding and adjusting to life with a new pet.

More and more, pets are at the center of the major life decisions that were once driven largely by marriage and family. A 2017 survey found that 33 percent of first-time home-buying Millennials say that finding a better space or yard for their dogs influenced their decision to buy a home, while only 25 percent cited marriage or plans for marriage and only 19 percent cited the birth or expected birth of child. The only two motives for home ownership that topped wanting better space for dogs were the desire for more living space and the opportunity to build equity. 42 percent of Millennials who have yet to buy a home reported that having or wanting a dog is a key factor in their future home-buying plans. 

Why is this happening? Routlege offers two possibilities:

First, if young adults feel more socially isolated or disconnected, they may view pets as a safer form of social connection. Research indicates that loneliness and ostracism trigger a defensive cognitive and emotional response in which people become motivated to avoid further social harm. This can reduce their inclination to take social risks, to put themselves out there in a way that makes them more socially vulnerable. Their social defensiveness may in turn make pets an especially attractive source of companionship. (Indeed, as previously noted, loneliness is associated with a tendency to view pets as having human-like characteristics and pets can help reduce feelings of loneliness.)

Second, in our individualistic society, pets may be appealing to some because they lack the agency of humans and thus require less compromise and sacrifice. Other people have their own goals, opinions, and interests. Human relationships thus require negotiation. With a quick Google search, you can find a number of “think pieces” arguing that dogs are better companions than humans. The unifying and ultimately self-centered theme of many of these pieces is that dogs will shower you with positive affirmation no matter what, while demanding little in return. They allow you to gain some of the benefits of companionship and caregiving, without most of the costs.

He then gives us the bracing splash of cold water:

We shouldn’t be surprised that Americans are increasingly interested in the types of social connections that allow them to feel both safe and special. In our individualistic culture, we often privilege self-esteem over characteristics such as responsibility, loyalty, duty, and sacrifice. We also coddle children and teens to protect them from the social risks and emotional pains of life. But doing so is not without its costs. By teaching our kids to focus primarily on their own happiness, we may be failing to convey that life’s most meaning-providing and socially-fulfilling goals are often stressful, can make us temporarily unhappy, and require concession.

People find the greatest personal meaning and are best able to cope with the life stresses that threaten meaning when they view the individual self as subordinate to a broader social self — a marriage, a family, a religious community. Pets are great additions to our social world, but they are poor substitutes for the messier human relationships that make life worth living. 

We are starved for that "broader social self," but are now so far along the path of insisting on our own autonomy that we don't know how to muster the self-inventory to begin a trek back.

Human beings can't be whatever they want to be. There is an architecture to this universe that precedes us, and we enter the realm of sheer insanity when we try to buck it.

We are so far gone that many if not most post-Americans have convinced themselves that everything is fine, that life is merely all about being able to keep a roof over one's head and pursue whatever it is that interests one.

That's why society is so atomized and why modern life is so ugly.

I'll go a step further: This is the work of the Devil.