Why is modern culture so awful?

In the contemporary era, with our record levels of wealth, technological advancement and scientific understanding, it follows that our culture should be as groundbreaking as everything else. We should be composing the best ever music, building the best ever buildings, and painting the best ever art. Yet in most ways, the culture of the past was more sophisticated and refined. Why?

Modern culture often values function over form. Take mosques for example. If you go to countries like Iran or Turkey, the oldest mosques are utterly sublime: the attention to detail is breathtaking. Go to any mosques built within the last half a century, and although the engineering skills have increased, the mosques no longer demonstrate the same intricacy or craftsmanship. The same could be said of churches, or most buildings with a medieval and a modern equivalent. We just want thinks to work well, and care less for the effort put into it. Minimalism is elevated, and ‘fussiness’ deplored. But perhaps we have lost something.

Mass production has deprived manufactured products of their personality. Which is more beautiful, the handmade dress or one made in a third-world sweatshop? Which employs more skill, the plate made by hand in a pottery, or one churned out in a ceramic factory? By making things in bulk and on the cheap, we lose the diverse identities and talents of the individual. Marx noticed this in what he called the alienation of labour from its products. Unlike Marx, I’m not calling for capitalism to be replaced. But perhaps the efficiency of capitalism is also its ugliness. Just as significantly, perhaps the globalisation of capitalism has caused the different cultures of the world to become more similar, just as the nature of our economies has converged.

Conservatives are generally the ones who deplore modern culture the most. They argue the decline of culture is a result of the decline of traditional morality. Look at how much sex and mindless violence there is in culture nowadays. Would a moral and truly religious society permit that? Equally, culture has become derivative in its endless pursuit of being anti-establishment, anti-tradition and often overtly left wing. Trying to be edgy or countercultural is no longer profound when counterculture is the culture.

Culture has fallen victim to the desire for everything to be quick and easy. Fast food may not taste very nice, and may be bad for you, but its easily made and everyone knows what they’re getting. Modern pop music uses a familiar song structure, simple melodies, predictable chord sequences and is virtually always in 4/4 time. But it’s catchy, short enough to be played on the radio and easy to make, so it catches on. In the age of convenience, culture which values time, effort, and acquired tastes, is sidelined.

But for most younger people, modern culture isn’t so bad. There is plenty of good art, music, films, literature, food and architecture out there- you just have to know where to look. Globalisation has given rise to new forms of culture, such as Tex-Mex food, Korean pop or Nigerian cinema. Moreover, they decry critics of modern culture as being socially conservative reactionaries, overly nostalgic for a golden age which never existed, and who view good taste from a parochial, Western viewpoint. Ultimately, the desire to assess culture in a hierarchical fashion is a nonsense when you consider that it is social construct, good taste is entirely subjective, and everything is constantly evolving. Those who wish to wear three-piece suits and tailcoats, listen to Renaissance or Baroque music and read Chaucer are perfectly free to do so. The rest of us will move on happily.

 

Divorce by text message

Women in Saudi Arabia who are divorced by their husbands will now be sent a text message by the court to inform them of their new status; they will also be able to log into the justice ministry’s website to access legal documents relating to the divorce. The new system is seen as an advance for women’s rights in the kingdom: until now, Saudi men have been able to end their marriages without telling their wives, which made it easier for them to get away with not paying them alimony. (The Week, 14 Jan 2019)

Well, thank you, I’m sure! A great move forward. She’s cooked for the creep, had his children, kept house and put up with being treated like a house-chattel, and he hasn’t the human decency to discuss his unhappiness and the divorce and its details face to face. Instead he gets the Court to send a message in the same way he expects his stockbroker to inform him of the sale of company shares. This may seem a non sequitur, but roll on the exclusive use of electric vehicles worldwide, and ditch Saudi oil once and for all. Don’t sell the camels, Abdul!

Epicurus treated mem, women, slaves and foreigners equally and with courtesy. So should we.

Tired of petitions

I received an email asking me to sign a petition to demand that Senator McConnell allow a vote on reopening the government. This is part of what the writer wrote:

“Stop blocking the will of the people! The U.S. House has passed a bill to reopen the government, so the Senate should be allowed to vote on it. McConnell’s excuses and tactics run against our democracy!”

“The Senate voted nearly unanimously for a bill to keep the government open last month, but now Mitch McConnell is blocking his own colleagues from doing their jobs with a vote to reopen the government, even though he knows it will pass. This is now the longest shutdown ever!”

“I am tired of Senator McConnell failing to allow the Senate to vote on major issues throughout his tenure, a trait that is expected in countries that do not enjoy democratic freedoms. Congress should not cower in fear of Trump’s anger and hate. 800,000 workers’ pay depends on them; they must act now.”

My wife and I are constantly asked to sign petitions. One could do so all day, every day, and it would be a waste of time. What McConnell listens to is the erratic President and the army of Republican lobbyists. The best interests of the country are equated with the best interests of the election donors. o Were you to tell me that my reluctance to sign is just what McConnell and his rich contributors want, then I would have to agree with you. Yes, people like me are not helping to restore ddmocracy. But last time I looked there were twenty-four hours in the day – only.

American inequality – this house may not stand for long

The widening of the racial wealth divide has coincided with the extreme concentration of U.S. wealth. The wealthiest 0.1 percent of households have grown richer while millions of families face poverty and deep-seated economic insecurity.

The median American family saw their wealth drop 3 percent between 1983 and 2016, while the richest 0.1 percent have seen their wealth jump 133 percent. During this same period, the annual increase for White median family wealth was about $1,000. Latino median family wealth went up by $66 annually and Black median family wealth dropped $83 annually. Meanwhile, the average household in the top 1 percent saw their wealth jump by half a million dollars annually.

The richest dynastic families in the United States have seen their wealth expand at a dizzying pace. The three wealthiest families — the Waltons, the Kochs, and the Mars — have seen their wealth increase nearly 6,000 percent since 1983. The Forbes 400 richest Americans own more wealth than all Black households plus a quarter of Latino households.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, owns $160 billion in total wealth. That is 44 million times more wealth than the median Black family and 24 million times more wealth than the median Latino family. (Inequality.org, January 2028)

History tells us that when you have persistently huge gaps in wealth and manifest unfairness the result is revolution, not necessarily violent, but an upheaval nonetheless. Russia only a hundred years ago is an example, France at the end of the 18th Century another. Look around the world at present at regimes where small, corrupt and self-perpetuating elites are stashing away looted wealth and the local politics is toxic. (Latin America, most of Africa, South East Asia (Malaysia is an example), and Syria in particular, where the corrupt regime has been saved for geo-political reasons by Russia). We haven‘t reached that point in America yet, but the groundwork has been laid by short-sighted people out for a quick buck.

Tax the rich!

You can tax the wealthiest more without ruining the economy. This assessment comes from the
International Monetary Fund and shatters the neoliberal shibboleth that increasing taxes on the top 1% would hurt growth. The IMF’s experts found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But this broke down between 1995 and 2010 as inequality soared.

In Britain the findings will increase pressure on Theresa May ahead of next month’s budget, as the chancellor, Philip Hammond, proposes the usual tax cuts to higher earners and raises the top tax threshold (The Guardian, October 12,2017)

In America Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has propoosed raising the highest tax rate to 70 percent on incomes of $10 million or more. A majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea. Women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin. A majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. The proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it 56 percent to 44 percent. Increasing the highest tax bracket to 70 percent garners a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it. Independent voters backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin, while Democrats favored it, 71 percent to 29 percent. Meanwhile, Republicans are responding to these encoraging results by misrepresenting the proposal, implying that the congresswoman wants to tax all income of the richest Americans at 70 percent. A normal day’s work!

During the 1950s and 60s, the wealthiest Americans were taxed at a rate in excess of 90 percent, and growth was uninterrupted. As for supporters of Epicurus, i suggest that they would not hesitate to level the playing field and reduce the outsized influence of the super-rich, whose control over lawmakers is obscene.