Civil Unrest
With the fires going out in Baltimore, I find myself wondering about civilization. The word itself, civilization, has multiple meanings. One is "a being civilized." Another is "the total culture of a people, period, etc." The third one I found is this, "the peoples considered to have reached a high social development."
The height of civilization is something that can usually only be measured in retrospect. Being 'civilized' has also become something of a fluid definition. For example, it was considered civilized for men to remove their hats upon entering a building - especially academic or religious settings. I lament the passing of that mark of civility. Of course smoking was once the mark of high society. I think that particular loss isn't so bad.
So things change. We have to recognize that. Yet with the riots in Baltimore and the rise of groups such as the IS, the growing economic disparity in the US, and so many other issues that seem not to be directly related, I have to wonder about the role of civilization. What I really wonder is this: are we witnessing the loss of civility in our larger human civilization?
Granted, if one keeps their eyes on the news, their nose in the paper, and their ears to the radio, focusing only on the news, one is going to find themselves clamoring for Zoloft, Johnnie Walker, or the remote control to silence the barrage of distressing and disturbing news. I will say that with the advent of 24 hour news channels we have had the opportunity to be continually updated. Yet these channels, designed ostensibly to provide news have themselves become platforms for particular political points of view. No-spin zones and bias free reporting are simply seen as smoke-screen phrases behind which particular ideologies speak.
I saw a sign on the highway that said "Don't believe the liberal media! Get the truth at..." followed by a website. I have also seen ones that read "Don't believe the conservative agenda! Get the truth at...". I am, I think, smart enough to recognize that if you use a label such as liberal or conservative as that which should not be believed, then your "truth" already has a particular slant. I don't know that there is an objective truth to be found - that idea probably frightens persons on every side - but we see people claiming truth for their side. Nothing new, but there seems to be an increased level of vitriol in these kinds of signs. Even on the 'news' we hear people that have obvious agendas. And they aren't civil about it at all.
My grandfather, a newspaper man in his day, once witnessed a reporter ask Joe DiMaggio if he and Marilyn Monroe were going to get back together. DiMaggio turned and said, "That is none of your business." End of discussion.
That wouldn't end the discussion at all anymore. In fact, it would probably fuel it.
But that's the point. Civilization requires civility. Is there such at thing in Baltimore at the moment or is there merely a truce as we wait the next decision or announcement, knowing that someone isn't going to be happy about it. And perhaps that gets to one of the larger issues regarding what seems to be a loss of civility - impartial justice doesn't seem to stand a chance when people will reject or accept the findings based on their own assumptions and feelings. And if justice is only meted out as a means of placation, then it isn't justice. Likewise, if it is only meted out because of protests, then it wasn't justice to begin with - or at least we certainly have to wonder about the process that went on before people's attentions were raised.
But way back when in 2009 when the Congressman called President Obama a liar during one of the President's speeches, we should have begun to wonder about civility. If our highest offices can't operate in a manner reflecting the higher goals and attitudes of leadership, then why in the world should the rest of the country?
Or is it that the leadership is merely reflecting the country that is losing its civility? And if so, we have to wonder - what about the rest of the world?
August Hare once wrote, "The ultimate tendency of civilization is towards barbarism." We rise up only to strike ourselves down. Over and over again. We seek justice, then act unjustly when we feel justice has not been done. We seek to offer up persons as leaders, but will not follow their lead unless they lead where we have already been.
F.S. C. Northrup perhaps summed it up this way: "Ours is a paradoxical world... The nations with the highest standard of living, the greatest capacity to take care of their people economically, the broadest education, and the most enlightened morality and religion exhibit the least capacity to avoid mutual destruction in war. It would seem that the more civilized we become the more incapable of maintaining civilization we are."
Perhaps we have hit our peak.
The height of civilization is something that can usually only be measured in retrospect. Being 'civilized' has also become something of a fluid definition. For example, it was considered civilized for men to remove their hats upon entering a building - especially academic or religious settings. I lament the passing of that mark of civility. Of course smoking was once the mark of high society. I think that particular loss isn't so bad.
So things change. We have to recognize that. Yet with the riots in Baltimore and the rise of groups such as the IS, the growing economic disparity in the US, and so many other issues that seem not to be directly related, I have to wonder about the role of civilization. What I really wonder is this: are we witnessing the loss of civility in our larger human civilization?
Granted, if one keeps their eyes on the news, their nose in the paper, and their ears to the radio, focusing only on the news, one is going to find themselves clamoring for Zoloft, Johnnie Walker, or the remote control to silence the barrage of distressing and disturbing news. I will say that with the advent of 24 hour news channels we have had the opportunity to be continually updated. Yet these channels, designed ostensibly to provide news have themselves become platforms for particular political points of view. No-spin zones and bias free reporting are simply seen as smoke-screen phrases behind which particular ideologies speak.
I saw a sign on the highway that said "Don't believe the liberal media! Get the truth at..." followed by a website. I have also seen ones that read "Don't believe the conservative agenda! Get the truth at...". I am, I think, smart enough to recognize that if you use a label such as liberal or conservative as that which should not be believed, then your "truth" already has a particular slant. I don't know that there is an objective truth to be found - that idea probably frightens persons on every side - but we see people claiming truth for their side. Nothing new, but there seems to be an increased level of vitriol in these kinds of signs. Even on the 'news' we hear people that have obvious agendas. And they aren't civil about it at all.
My grandfather, a newspaper man in his day, once witnessed a reporter ask Joe DiMaggio if he and Marilyn Monroe were going to get back together. DiMaggio turned and said, "That is none of your business." End of discussion.
That wouldn't end the discussion at all anymore. In fact, it would probably fuel it.
But that's the point. Civilization requires civility. Is there such at thing in Baltimore at the moment or is there merely a truce as we wait the next decision or announcement, knowing that someone isn't going to be happy about it. And perhaps that gets to one of the larger issues regarding what seems to be a loss of civility - impartial justice doesn't seem to stand a chance when people will reject or accept the findings based on their own assumptions and feelings. And if justice is only meted out as a means of placation, then it isn't justice. Likewise, if it is only meted out because of protests, then it wasn't justice to begin with - or at least we certainly have to wonder about the process that went on before people's attentions were raised.
But way back when in 2009 when the Congressman called President Obama a liar during one of the President's speeches, we should have begun to wonder about civility. If our highest offices can't operate in a manner reflecting the higher goals and attitudes of leadership, then why in the world should the rest of the country?
Or is it that the leadership is merely reflecting the country that is losing its civility? And if so, we have to wonder - what about the rest of the world?
August Hare once wrote, "The ultimate tendency of civilization is towards barbarism." We rise up only to strike ourselves down. Over and over again. We seek justice, then act unjustly when we feel justice has not been done. We seek to offer up persons as leaders, but will not follow their lead unless they lead where we have already been.
F.S. C. Northrup perhaps summed it up this way: "Ours is a paradoxical world... The nations with the highest standard of living, the greatest capacity to take care of their people economically, the broadest education, and the most enlightened morality and religion exhibit the least capacity to avoid mutual destruction in war. It would seem that the more civilized we become the more incapable of maintaining civilization we are."
Perhaps we have hit our peak.
Comments
Post a Comment