1. IrvingSnodgrass - June 3, 1999 - 10:55 AM PT
Here is the post from the Suggestions thread which first brought up this topic:
24084. splawrence - June 2, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
Suggestion for new thread: Great Disruption and where to from here? Francis Fukuyama has written a book and article in Atlantic Monthly about rapid social changes which have occurred since 1965 in society in developed nations. These include increased crime, decline of family, increase in divorce and illegitimacy, decline in trust in major institutions including government and churches, shallower relationships and ties with others and community, and a decline in what is called social capital. The Atlantic Monthly article makes a compelling case for what has happened. What will happen next? Why? What new social paradigm will emerge to adapt to both the information age and the nature of humans, who may be more hardwired for hunting and gathering than for the age to which they are born?
And here is Francis Fukuyama's article from the Atlantic Monthly:
The Great Disruption
Fukuyama has some interesting things to say (which I'd tell you all about, but I haven't read it yet). Read the article. Then share your considered opinion here.
2. FreetoChoose - June 3, 1999 - 11:11 AM PT
Well, the speedup as a result of the information age has affected the Fray. Our new thread for Monday is ready a few days early.
3. bubbaette - June 3, 1999 - 11:21 AM PT
Fukiyama suggested in the Atlantic article that one of the factors behind the breakup of the family is the wide availability of birth control has changed the structure of relationships. I had been thinking for a while that the availability of birth control and abortion has decreased the ability of women to hold the fathers of their children accountable, particularly in the case of unintended pregnancy. I suspect that this is a trend that will continue and exacerbate as the birth rate in developed nations declines.
That the birth rate and population will decline seems inevitable to me, as the economic burden of childbearing comes to rest ever more on women.
4. Ronski - June 3, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT
Although the article is rich enough to warrant praise in some sections, and capable of stimulating numerous interesting digressions, from what I've read so far its premise boils down to this: invididual liberty is not really a very good thing. As such, it is, imo, the same old collectivist garbage.
When I get my computer and printer working a bit better, I'll try to add some genuine analysis to the above hit-and-run. (I like reading from hard copy when possible.)
5. Raskolnikov - June 3, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
Ronski: I saw little in the article that described whether or not individual liberty was a good thing. What I read was an article which attempted to determine the causes of a specific social disruption, and then looked at those causes, as well as the causes and resolution of other social disruptions to determine what the likely result of this one would be.
I quite liked the article. Initially, it looked like a collection of bald assertions and statistics taken out of context. But he eventually backed up the assertions and the stats (to the extent common in mass market periodicals - I will want to take a look at his sources when it comes out in book form). And the article was generally logical.
6. Slackjaw - June 3, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
Message #3
1st paragraph: decline in birth rates will exacerbate shift of burden of childrearing onto women
2nd paragraph: shift of burden in childrearing onto women will cause decline in birth rates
7. bubbaette - June 3, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Slack
are those somehow mutually exclusive? I see it more as a vicious circle.
The article argues (as I recall) that the availability of birth control and abortion has made it less imperative that men support their unwanted children. The increase in never-married mothers appears to bear this out. Also with the decreased societal expectation that men support their children (because pregnancy is supposedly avoidable and because women also work more) comes decreased stigma for failing to support his children.
I would guess that the birth rate would decline even further as women realize that they are increasingly likely to bear most of the economic burden of any children they have.
8. ScottLoar - June 3, 1999 - 1:45 PM PT
Why the Great Disruption, Francis? Not inequities of income distribution but unparalleled, well-nigh universal prosperity cascading upon the societies of developed countries, flushing away the restraints of traditional mores and authoritative institutions and advancing self-gratification as the prime principle of modern life.
9. ScottLoar - June 3, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
Proof: Have there been any other societies at different times experiencing such "Great Disruptions"? Yes, but such a period is often styled as decadence.
10. ScottLoar - June 3, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
That the Information Age will rank as one of the three great historical "transitions" (hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies, agricultural to industrial societies) seems a speculation more satisfying to the yearning for three's than a definitive historical trend.
11. splawrence - June 3, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
Fukuyama correlates "individualism" and Rationalism with the phenomena he calls the Great Disruption. Rationalism and greater control over nature yields less religion, more self-gratification, + birth control + wealth/security from want = a snowball of individualism: sex, drugs, rock and roll, illitimacy, divorce, decline in trust of major institutions, crime, less socially controled behavior and more individualistic behavior. Fukuyama seems to say that this trend has reversed, and must, because the anomie created is disturbing to humans and human nature, which is more hardwired than most think (see evolutionary psychology. While he thinks we will not revisit the Victorian Era, thank goodness, he suggests a trend towards greater community and family is inevitable, tho just how manifest I don't know. I think that is right. Perhaps because I live in a major city, I observe that those of the counter-culture are having fewer children, and so I expect this line to die out. Also, I've observed within my own family a rejection by kids of the counter-culture the values of their parents; these kids value family much more than the counter-culture did.
12. cmboyce - June 3, 1999 - 10:13 PM PT
Message #10
I'd say the Information Age is _part_ of the transition from agricultural to industrial society (allowing that "industrial" will seem a quaint term by the time it's all over; "technological" seems a better word, at this stage anyway). And that it _is_ indeed as big a deal as the "neolithic revolution" and that it is just beginning (or, maybe, given the accelaration of history, that a large fraction of it is now completed, but that it still has a long way to go. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will still be amazed, imo).
Though I haven't yet read the Fukiyama piece, I'm delighted to see this thread, and I want to thank splawrence for bringing the subject up (regardless of how good or bad FF comes to seem).
13. Slackjaw - June 4, 1999 - 7:40 AM PT
Message #7
No, they're certainly not mutually exclusive; I just wondered if that's really what you meant. Of course, it can't be too vicious, or pretty soon there are no kids left.
It's not clear to me why declining birth rates should accelerate this shift, however.
Actually it's also not clear that the shift should necessarily lower birthrates, either--especially given the rise of single motherhood. It depends on whether children become a substitute for various means of support from a husband available to a woman over her life cycle.
The real pressure on birth rates seems to me to come from expanding economic opportunities for women...more opportunity means more is given up if a woman decides to take time off to have a kid.
14. cmboyce - June 4, 1999 - 7:44 AM PT
Could someone link the FF article, please?
15. IrvingSnodgrass - June 4, 1999 - 7:55 AM PT
cm:
See Message #1.
16. bubbaette - June 4, 1999 - 8:16 AM PT
Slack
I suspect that there are too many variables to be able to pin a single main cause. The Great Disruption suggests that women taking greater part in the workplace also allows society to reduce ostracism of non-supporting fathers, since the child's survival need not depend on his efforts alone. The cost of daycare also exerts pressure on the birthrate, as the more children a family has in daycare, the less of that second income is available for other uses.
In some countries, the birthrate has declined well below the replacement rate. In some respects this might be positive, but it certainly doesn't bode well for Social Security.
17. stamper - June 4, 1999 - 6:56 PM PT
Mr Snodgrass
please forgive me for being presumptuous, but this thread seems to be dying a slow death. it is some 30 hours old and this is the 17th post, and god knows when the next one will be when my name comes up.
this is a very good topic of discussion, but that article by Francis Fukuyama has lots of words and not much substance. i challenge any of these PhD's to break down Fukuyama's main point to a one page document.
count the many times he says these idea are very complex. he talks as if there is no physical labor left in the world. does he live in a tree house maybe?
he says man it a social creature, which is obvious, but does not mention the one modern invention that disrupted social intercourse-T.V.
where is the evidence that man is by nature rational?
he several times mentions "escessive individualism". i guess he gets that from the hippy days when everyone was so individualistic as long as they all looked alike.
the biggest change in the 20th century is the internet. it takes a hillbilly like me to see that, i think, 'cause all you PhD,s take it for granted. i have no conception how it has changed the life of normal people.
well, i probably am way out of line, but i paid my $20 just like pnellisssinnil, so i get to have my say
18. coralreef - June 4, 1999 - 6:59 PM PT
I don't think t.v. disrupted social intercourse nearly as much as air conditioning did. In fact, t.v. has in some ways brought people closer together. But people used to hang out with their neighbors a lot more before air conditioning.
19. coralreef - June 4, 1999 - 7:01 PM PT
The biggest change in the 20th century is the internet? You've got to be joking, res.
20. stamper - June 4, 1999 - 7:18 PM PT
coralreef
the reason i say T.V. is from what i heard from my Mom, people used to just stop over and visit, maybe play cards. after T.V. if they did drop over they all watched T.V. in the dark and nothing was said. probably given enough time people would have forgot how to talk.
i sold Kirby's door to door in the early '70,s and my main compitition was T.V. i got so i would just turn it off and promise them a better show.
why is not the internet the biggest thing in the 20th Century? now we can talk with people like on the Fray, or by e-mail, and so many things. have you heard of Amazon.com? i can buy a book and get it in three or four days with Dolly's credit card. credit cards are important too.
21. coralreef - June 4, 1999 - 7:24 PM PT
How about the transistor as the biggest thing of the century. Or the phone, if that counts, timelinewise. Some of the building blocks of the internet both made the internet possible and had many other hugely important ramifications.
22. coralreef - June 4, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT
What does Dolly think about all this, Stamp?
23. benear - June 4, 1999 - 7:35 PM PT
Well, this has got to be the slowest thread in the history of Slate.
Still, I want to see it stay around for awhile because it really requires some "deep thought" to post.
24. stamper - June 4, 1999 - 7:47 PM PT
benear
you are the most curious fellow. i can't really tell if you are poking fun or serious. i know you think i'm a hoax, 'cause that is the first thing you said to me three weeks ago. hey, i'm an act, you're an act, we are all just actors playing parts. some get good roles, some get one liners, but we're all the same.
Dolly is a real good speller. i'm the idea guy.
coralreef
you make a good point, but every invention ever made is somehow dependant on what came before. a guy told me that was true of everything except the lazer beam.
it is not the thing itself, it is the use of it and how that thing changed man's behavior.
we have not seen the end of the internet, just the beginning, and i think it will change man in very important ways.
25. benear - June 4, 1999 - 7:53 PM PT
One of the reasons I want to see this continue is I have observed, as have others, that homosexuals being ostrasized from general society have organized ourselves into a rational, structured "family". In agreement with the article prompting this thread
26. benear - June 4, 1999 - 8:00 PM PT
Stump: who was it that said that humor is a form of agression? And that smiling is just a bareing of the teeth?
Actually, I am a rather friendly fellow. But as long as you continue to talk like one, spell like one and punctuate like one, I will continue to call you one.
27. joezan - June 4, 1999 - 8:03 PM PT
Of course the change from the industrial age to the information age is just as disruptive, as transforming, as....well, as BIG a change as the change from hunter/gatherer to agricultural, and agricultural to industrial. "The business of America is business" is no longer just a hoaky cliche - it's common knowledge. And as the free market continues to expand and grow, business will be the business of the entire world.
In business, information is the coin of the realm. And with the advent of the internet, the way business is conducted has been changed more drastically, in a shorter span of time, in more places, affecting more people, than at any other time.
There are ordinary people communicating with the rest of the world, in real time, from the jungles of South America.
Pop Tarts has its own website, ferpetesake!
28. stamper - June 4, 1999 - 8:09 PM PT
benear
do you feel that homosexuals should act as a family on Fray? or should they act as individual who happen to be homosexuals? of couse if you acted like my family you would be having lots of fights and disagreements.
i wish that Fukyyama was right and that our society was plagued by "rampant individuality." if i say i don't care if you are a homosexual or not, you will probably say, "oh sure, i've heard that one before" or some such thing.
so, you are a homosexual. but that is one part of you, not all of you. i posted something in the politic thread that was offensive, 'cause i was trying to make a point.
i guess it was best that it was just ignored.
i hope what i say does not offend
29. benear - June 4, 1999 - 9:14 PM PT
Didn't see it, so wasn't offended.
And, I will concede that you may be genuine while still a fake persona.
In that light, if you are truely new to the Fray, then you have a lot to learn about homos.
And in case you think I am as anal retentive as MsIT or AceOfRetention about spelling and punctuation, then pay attention.
30. stamper - June 4, 1999 - 9:45 PM PT
joezan
i agree that it is business that is going to make the biggest difference in the world. in another thread Au Natual said something like advertising just lets you know what is available and doesn't create need. but what people *need* is a subject for discussion by itself.
now, people all over the world don't need K-Mart or Wal Mart. all they got to do is plug into the net. there are not enough hours in the day to see all the net contains. if MsIvoryTower tells me about a book. i just go to Amazon.com with Dolly charge card and two or three days later i got the book.
would i get that book if i had to get in my car, drive down town, look for the book god knows where and then ask to be told they are out of the book but in a week or so they will get it for me and would i like to leave my name.
do i still sound as dense as benear thinks, or is he still reading me as he percieved me three weeks ago? interesting question
31. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 8:01 AM PT
In Message #5 Raskolnikov says:
"Initially, it looked like a collection
of bald assertions and statistics taken out of context."
That was my impression. As I read the opening paragraphs, I was unimpressed. I was going to post examples, and ask if it was worth pushing on. I think I shall list some examples, but you are saying it is worth pushing on. I shall try.
32. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 8:26 AM PT
In the second paragraph, Fukuyama states:
"A society built around information tends to produce more of
the two things people value most in a modern democracy --
freedom and equality."
I agree that an information-based society will tend to produce freedom and I agree freedom is, and should be, highly valued. I don't accept his conclusion regarding equality, although there may be a definitional issue. By "equality", does he mean "equality of results" or "equality of opportunity"? Sometimes people use "equality" when they mean "equity". It isn't a minor distinction, as a high degree of equity tends to produce a high degree of inequality (of results).
One of the attributes of an information-based society is that it will decrease the equality of results (unless freedom is curtailed). On this point I believe there is no serious disagreement. The question of how an information-based society affects equality of opportunity is murkier, but I believe that there may be less equality than under an industrialized or agricultural community.
I disagree that equality is one of the two things people value most in a democracy, although, again, the answer is murkier if he meant equality of opportunity, rather than equality of results.
33. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT
He says,
"People associate the information age with the advent of the
Internet…"
This is sloppy scholarship. I would expect better from a high school student; from someone of his "stature", it is inexcusable.
To be sure, the Internet has become a convenient shorthand example of the information age, and a useful symbolic representation of many important facts of an information based community, but serious, and even casual students of the issue know better.
He even referenced Toffler's "Third Wave" in the opening paragraph, a term coined before the internet became ubitquitous.
34. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
In his third paragraph, he want to further his thesis that several trends changed simultaneously, and he claims,
"The decline is readily measurable in statistics on
crime, fatherless children, broken trust, reduced opportunities
for and outcomes from education, and the like."
I don't doubt there are statistics supporting his first two items. How does one measure "broken trust" statistically? I don't have a strong opinion whether this trend is up or down, but I wouldn't accept this statement without an explanation of what measurable variables he associates with this value-laden term. More significantly, I reject his claim that the past few decades have exhibited " reduced opportunities for and outcomes from education".
35. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 8:43 AM PT
He goes on,
"The changing nature of
work tended to substitute mental for physical labor, propelling
millions of women into the workplace and undermining the
traditional understandings on which the family had been based."
Huh? He is arguing that women entered the workforce because the work became less physical? How insulting. Is there any evidence to support this notion?
"Innovations in medical technology leading to the birth-control
pill and increasing longevity diminished the role of reproduction
and family in people's lives."
This sentence conflates two unrelated items. (Or, if they are related, the relationship requires elaboration.) Again, I think any decent high school teacher would insist that this sentence be rewritten.)
The above examples didn't give me hope that the article would lead to anything of value. Rask suggests otherwise, so I will try to read on, but I hope that the scholarship improves.
36. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 9:12 AM PT
FreeToChoose
by god, i wish i had said all that, but mainly i wish i could have said all that. i went back over Fukuyama's article and your comments and my notes in the margin and i agree with your every point enough said my me
37. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
my=by
38. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT
In Message #5 Raskolnikov says:
"Ronski: I saw little in the article that described whether or not individual liberty was a good thing."
I think there were statements both positive and negative about individual liberty, so I think Ronski somewhat overstated his synopsis of the premise. However, I suspect Ronski did read a sentence such as the following:
"The tendency of contemporary liberal democracies to fall prey to excessive individualism is perhaps their greatest long-term vulnerability, and is particularly visible in the most individualistic of all democracies, the United States."
Is it possible to put a spin on this other than a belief that too much individual liberty is a bad thing?
How about this sentence?
"As people soon discovered, there are serious problems with a culture of unbridled individualism, in which the breaking of rules becomes,
in a sense, the only remaining rule."
Almost too silly for comment.
39. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
i wish i could convince all the Fraygrants that i was FreeToChoose
40. CharlieL - June 5, 1999 - 2:15 PM PT
stamper, you couldn't convince us that Thursday follows Wednesday.
I'm glad I read this thread, from its title I was afraid that AceOfSpades had finally gotten his own thread.
I don't think that "The Information Age" is responsible for many changes in soceity. If anything, the Internet forces even more critical thinking upon those who want to use it for research because so many sites that purport to provide information are just plain incorrect. Culling the chaff from the wheat is very hard to do given the vast amount of misinformation one has quick access to nowadays.
I once heard the Internet described as "The largest library in the world. Unfortunately, the books are scattered at random all over the floor."
41. arkymalarky - June 5, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
"Culling the chaff from the wheat is very hard to do given the vast amount of misinformation one has quick access to nowadays."
And that is very hard to deal with when teaching students research, much less trying to convince other Fraygrants that just because it's in FreeRepublic or Washington Times or Drudge doesn't make it so, though they are right at times, which only lends credibility to an incredible source.
42. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
CharlieL
well, if you don't already know that Thursday follows Wednesday, i don't suppose by good logic would convince you of a damn thing
43. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
CharlieL
"I don't think that "The Information Age" is responsible for
many changes in soceity. If anything, the Internet forces
even more critical thinking upon those who want to use it
for research because so many sites that purport to
provide information are just plain incorrect."
I think you are guilty of the same error made by Fukuyama; equating the information age with the internet. While the internet is an indisputable and ubiquitous part of the information age, it is only an important subset, in the same way that steam was an important part of the industrial age, but steam was not THE industrial revolution. I'm sure there were naysayers complaining that steam burned people. I also suspect that the first generation in the Industrial age didn't totally appreciate all the changes it wrought.
" I once heard the Internet described as "The largest library
in the world. Unfortunately, the books are scattered at
random all over the floor." "
I love this quote. Very timely, as I just spent an hour searching for a particular site. When someone can create a decent search engine, they will earn a lot of money, and my appreciation.
44. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
Arkymalarky
Do you tell your students that the Washington Post is more credible than the Washington Times? That F.A.I.R. is more credible than Freerepublic?
45. CalGal - June 5, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
The search engine is irrelevant to the problems with finding information. In fact, I think the search engines do a phenomenal job, given what they have to work with.
46. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
CalGal
So I need to reword my response?
Finding information on the Internet is a bitch. If someone invents a way to do this well, that person will earn a lot of money, and my appreciation. If you want to give the resulting software a name other than "search engine" that's fine with me.
47. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
FreeToChoose
i know you guys don't think much of my intellect, for that matter after reading you guys i don't either. but your remark about steam is what i was trying to get at with the internet. when did the "information age" start. was it with Homer, or Plato, or Aristotle? or was it just a few hundred years ago with Shakespere and Bacon and Milton and Lovelace and Donne? or was it just last Century or the beginning of this? did Moses misss the information age.
you see, FTC, i'm as confused as can be. all i know, or think i know is this internet, and of course the computer is going to change this world in ways we probably can't imagine.
i just discovered Micrsoft Word and found out that if you misspell a word it gets a red underline, and if your grammar is faulty, it gets a green underline.
if you say mistakes were made it tells you that is passive and you should use active. passive is evasive where active accepts responsibity. Clinton always says "mistakes were made". maybe Chelsea made them. who's to say
48. CalGal - June 5, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
FTC,
Yeah. That happens to be a problem that interests me, which is why I quibbled with your wording.
49. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
I thought I was the quibbler around these here parts.
50. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
Stamper
The information age didn't start with the first piece of information, just as the automobile age didn't start with the first auto. Generally, we associate the beginning of the age with some level of ubiquity. That still doesn't answer when the information age started, but I don't really care. I am interested in how this change will affect our lives and the future, but I don't think I need to identify the starting date to discuss that.
51. CharlieL - June 5, 1999 - 3:33 PM PT
FTC, I didn't equate the "Information Age" with the Internet, but that is how many people perceive it. I simply stated that just because information is available, it isn't necessarily _good_ information, and people who blindly accept what they read without the facilities to analyze the content of the information they are receiving are examples of what happens when critical analysis isn't taught in schools.
I remember classes I got in Elementary school all the way through college that told me to challenge what I read and saw. We dissected TV commercials and magazine advertising starting in the 2nd Grade, learning terms such as "glittering generalities" and "false premises and conclusions." Those lessons serve me well today. Is this stuff still being taught?
52. CharlieL - June 5, 1999 - 3:36 PM PT
stamper, thank you for telling me that in fact, Thursday does follow Wednesday. After reading your post, I was no longer sure this was true because you said it. I am fortunate that I had a calendar handy, and was able to reassure myself that what I knew to be true was actually true, despite the fact that you believe it also.
53. ProfEmeritus - June 5, 1999 - 3:37 PM PT
Message #40 makes the valid point that the Information Age may not responsible for all the changes which Fukuyama describes. In fact, there is another valid question: IS there an Information Age which is qualitatively different from a preceding age? An age, if it is a meaningful concept, must be at least 50-100 years, even better measured in centuries. Information has been growing and dispersed at accelerating rates since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; all of this is a function of widening markets and technological progress.
Fukuyama does not satisfactorily analyze the relationship between information and the penetrating socio-economic-political changes he describes. These changes were actually more precipitated by the underlying economic evolution than by information. The economic sequence from traditional agriculture to an industrial society and finally to service sector society lies behind such changes as urbanization (and recent de-urbanization) and the composition of the labor force.
54. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
FreeToChoose
thank you if for no other reason for the word ubiquity. i had to look it up. no shame in that now, is there. crepuscular some people would have to look that up
when i get a new word i like to use it right away. maybe on The Bombing of the Serbs. i could say, jexster is a ubitquitous fellow. well, there, i used it already.
55. ProfEmeritus - June 5, 1999 - 3:49 PM PT
Later in his article, Fukuyama seems to shift ground and speak of the "advances of technology and the economy" as affecting "social norms."
His discussion in this connection is interesting. He writes that "since the 1960s the West has experienced a series of liberation movements that have sought to free individuals from the constraints of traditional social norms and moral rules." Again, the three or four decade perspective is too short.
These liberation tendencies have been at work for several centuries as the market has widened and human mobility has increased. In developing countries, these changes are compressed into a shorter period. But in the West they have accelerated since the Great Depression. In many ways, the Great Depression increased the tempo of the Great Disruption.
56. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 3:56 PM PT
CharlieL
" FTC, I didn't equate the "Information Age" with the
Internet, but that is how many people perceive it."
Fine, but if you reread your post, you will see why I inferred that.
"I simply
stated that just because information is available, it isn't
necessarily _good_ information, and people who blindly
accept what they read without the facilities to analyze the
content of the information they are receiving are examples
of what happens when critical analysis isn't taught in
schools."
I agree. Too bad you weren't contributing such thoughts when we were discussing them in the relevant thread; perhaps it wouldn't be RIPed.
57. ProfEmeritus - June 5, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
Fukuyama's description of the liberation of individuals is interesting. He maintains that both left and right have participated in the great liberation, and both have resisted it. The left sought to free women, minorities, gays etc from the constraints of traditional socities; the right has resisted. The right propounds freedom from property constraints (including guns); the left resists.
This supports the view that the popular liberal-conservative dichotomy is faulty. All political persuasions want to hold on to some of the traditional norms and abandon others. They differ only in what particular aspects are to be retained and which abandoned.
58. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
CharlieL
if you want to play insult with me, join me in the Play Pen. let's quit mucking up a sensible thread with your silliness.
59. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 4:02 PM PT
stamper
"thank you if for no other reason for the word ubiquity"
I'm smiling, because as I typed that word in, I fully expected to see the red underline appear, at which time I was going to search to find the right word. To my pleasant surprise, no underline appeared, and, being fully under the power of my employer, Bill gates, and unable to even question anything he might say, I accepted that, sans underline, it must be a word.
60. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
Ummm, pretend I did not say "My employer, Bill Gate" I'm supposed to keep that to myself.
61. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
ProfEmeritus
"The
economic sequence from traditional agriculture to an
industrial society and finally to service sector society lies
behind such changes as urbanization (and recent
de-urbanization) and the composition of the labor force."
Interesting observation. Is it the information age (whatever that is) or is it the transition to a service economy that is the root cause of some of these changes? Does it make a difference? Is it possible that his arguments make more sense in terms of a service economy argument, but "service economy" is not the hot phrase of the moment, so he opted for information age.
I have skimmed ahead, but unable to convince myself that his thesis is worthwhile. He natters on about crime rate increases, barely acknowledges the recent decreases (and has no way to explain them in his paradigm) and never even mentions demographics, which may well explain more of the data than a change to an information age or a service economy.
62. arkymalarky - June 5, 1999 - 5:01 PM PT
"Do you tell your students that the Washington Post is more credible than the Washington Times? That F.A.I.R. is more credible than Freerepublic?"
Nonono. I tell them the Nation is the most reliable source of information available and give them bonus points whenever they use it as a source in research.
But seriously, I don't mention any particular sources at all. I just try to help direct them to what to look for wrt reliable information, and that itself is nigh impossible with the glut of info available.
63. FreeToChoose - June 5, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
arkymalarky
Ooops, I misread your earlier post. I thought you were telling your *students*, not other fraygrants about those sources.
But I am making progress. I knew you were joking and you didn't even have to add a humor alert. :)
64. arkymalarky - June 5, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
Yeah, but I said "but seriously" so that doesn't count. (G)
65. AuNaturel - June 5, 1999 - 5:17 PM PT
"This supports the view that the popular liberal-conservative dichotomy is faulty. All political persuasions want to hold on to some of the traditional norms and abandon others. They differ only in what particular aspects are to be retained and which abandoned."
Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head. Contemporary conservatives and liberals all favor a larger government in areas they are concerned about and a smaller governmewnt in areas they consider unimportant. Conservatives would expand the military and police sectors while liberals would expand the social services sector. This is why many don't see any fundamental difference in principle between the two major parties/ideologies.
66. AuNaturel - June 5, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
I lost interest in Fukuyama's ideas ever since he ended history.
67. AuNaturel - June 5, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
When I view the rate of societal change over time it appears to me to be increasing exponentially. What I think is driving this change is the rate at which information is exchanged and ideas can propogate thru society. The increase in propogation rate allows new ideas to be tested quicker and the victorious one to take hold more quickly. Which then allows even faster methods to develop, etc.
We started with a long flat line with very slow change. I suspect we are now on the steep slope of the curve and will eventually flatten out when the limits at which people can absorb data are reached. What that limit is and the final value of the "change slope" will be, I have no idea.
68. Slackjaw - June 5, 1999 - 6:18 PM PT
Message #67 While that is certainly a common observation, I implore you to either define "societal change" or quit throwing around words like "exponential" and "slope."
Message #65 "This is why many don't see any fundamental difference in principle between the two major parties/ideologies."
Now that is funny. Do you realize that in this sense your claim about the faultiness of the popular liberal-conservative dichotomy is observationally equivalent to the claim that *all* politics takes place in a 1-dimensional liberal-conservative space populated by voters, and two parties take positions to maximize their plurality?
It is impossible to tell which world we live in on the basis of the observation that there are no fundamental differences between the two major parties in the US.
69. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 6:38 PM PT
AuNatural
your logic is faulty once again, and for a hillbilly like me to point it out is not right.
liberals want to see government do many things that the Constitution does not allow them to do. Conservatives want to see government do the very thing they are required to do.
now which is right and which is wrong, i cannot say. i guess it gets down to weather we want to live under the Constitution or not. i am beginning to not give a damn, and just cultivate my own garden and live my life as i see fit. if the government wants to give your money away, i have no beef. they don't have any of mine. i am in the underground.
70. benear - June 5, 1999 - 6:39 PM PT
The Stump=Bill Gates. How else to explain his blatant promotion of MS Word?
I think it is clear that the "Information Age" started in the early 80s with the wide distribution of the personal computer (Apple II and IBM PC and even the that Radio Shack thing). The PC gave access to the general public to things formerly reserved to the gurus.
71. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 6:40 PM PT
FreeToChoose
you're goofing on me now, aren't you. or you might be Plotz, but i think you are way brighter than him, though.
72. benear - June 5, 1999 - 6:42 PM PT
Actually, MS Word is a sore point with me. My employer just implmented a COE (Common Office Environment) and made MS products the only thing acceptable. My beloved WordPerfect is about to become verboten. I am quite proficient with Word, but consider it much harder to use than WP.
73. arkymalarky - June 5, 1999 - 6:54 PM PT
I'm kind of the opposite. WP has too many bells and whistles for me. Word has some neat features that are easily turned off if you don't want them. I don't do anything fancy on either, though.
74. splawrence - June 5, 1999 - 7:22 PM PT
I started this thread, and I've just read it through.
First, the subtitle is not mine, and is misleading. Fukuyama's article is not about the information age, it is about his observation of a cluster of social phenomena he calls the Great Disruption--increases to crime, illigitimacy, sex; and decreases in community, religion, and trust. He explores certain possible causes, including individualism/Rationalism. He notes that crime rates are now down, and I think would predict a swinging back of the pendulum--because he believes humans are uneasy with too much individualism and freedom, and with its consequences.
Au Nat, he doesn't end history, and my question is: where do we go from here?
Prof, 3-4 decades may be short, but FF is examining what he observes has happened in the second half of this soon to end century. he would say hopefully informed by some understanding of history, but, yes, it is always dangerous to write history of the recent past. Still, we try.
Free, 35, the Pill + longevity, i.e. that most newborns live, means that women have more freedom to be other than mothers. This, plus labor saving devices, have meant that women can and have joined the work force. Yes, that work is less physical is a factor; men and bigger and stronger than women, on average, and men don't have to worry about miscarriage, but this is a minor factor; women have always worked, and hard physical labor it has often been, by strong women.
I find FF's article interesting _because_ it tries to sum up my lifetime and make sense of it in historical perspective. I find it a bit depressing. I've spent a good bit of time/energy on some of the very individualistic things. I've noticed in the next generation a greater interest in family and religion. Perhaps this article begins to explain that, or make some sense of it. Evolutionary psychology suggests that we have evolved brains that determine our social behavior more than we may presently
75. joezan - June 5, 1999 - 7:59 PM PT
CharlieL - Message #40:
"...I don't think that "The Information Age" is responsible for many changes in soceity. If anything, the Internet forces even more critical thinking..."
...and
FTC - Message #43:
"...I think you are guilty of the same error made by Fukuyama; equating the information age with the internet..."
...as was I, in my original post. But as I considered the benefits and consequences of the "info age", it occurred to me that the biggest change wrought by the info age was probably the defeat of soviet communism, which began with the Solidarity uprising in Poland. The soviets lost control of the country when they lost control of the information the Polish people had access to. Of course, the Internet existed, but not as we now know it. And it had little, if any, part in those events.
But long before this it was radio, and then television, which enabled the soviets (and the governments of just about every other developed country) to control their peoples.
So, yeah. Fukuyama missed the information age by quite a few years.
76. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
joezan
while it is true that radio and TV have been used to influence opinions in other Countries, they were not so effective. first, they were easy to block. second, many people just considered it more propaganda, which they were used to and discounted. all of the information was tightly controlled.
then common use of computers came along, and the internet and people all over the world could get a glimpse of what was happening in other countries. if they read something, it was not tightly controlled information from the usual sources.
maybe it was better, maybe worse. the point is, it was different, and had to be reacted to in a whole new way. they were able to shop in stores they did not know existed a few years earlier.
the intelligencia, all of you Fraygrants, had all this information already. now it was available to the common man.
it is hard for me to make myself clear, as to me this revolution has just started and the end is not in sight. but all this talk of Fukuyama is meaningless in today's world
77. msgreer - June 5, 1999 - 9:07 PM PT
stamper..
excuse my interuption but get your ass over to fraygrants corner and tell irv he can email me your true identity.
78. joezan - June 5, 1999 - 9:16 PM PT
stamper:
Well...yes. I see your point. But MY point was not that radio and/or TV have had as important a role in the liberation of information available to the common man as the Internet has. Certainly, in this respect we see the potential of the Internet to eclipse that of anything that went before.
My point was that the Internet is not the be-all and end-all of the Information Age. It may well be the end-all. But it is hardly the be-all.
79. stamper - June 5, 1999 - 9:17 PM PT
msgreer
please get your tookus over to Fraygrants' Corner and read my response. i e-mailed Mr. Snodgrass and told him to use his vast wisdom in dealing with this issue.
80. coralreef - June 6, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
A review of The Great Disruption
It begins,
"Francis Fukuyama's The Great Disruption comes at a peculiar moment. In a season of school shootings, spy scandals, and "collateral damage" from errant cluster bombs, it's tempting to regard as wishful thinking a book that argues, using graphs and diagrams and lessons from economics and anthropology, that our present state of social turmoil will, in time, be naturally replaced by a new, benevolent moral order. But that is precisely Fukuyama's prediction, not merely his hope. A resurgence of grass-roots goodness. A spontaneous regeneration of civic-mindedness. The dark days are almost behind us, he asserts. At a time when the average news watcher might mistake America for a rich but failing empire, unable to keep the peace at home, abroad, or in the marbled corridors of government, Fukuyama is bullish on human nature."
81. joezan - June 6, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
coralreef:
Ehhhhh...I don't know.
Certainly the press are a cynical bunch, and anything which comes across as remotely positive is bound to be met with more than a fair share of skepticism.
Although there were no great revelations (but who knows - the book will go into much of this in much greater detail), Fukuyama's article just seemed to hit home on so many points. One in particular was this observation:
"We appear to be caught, then, in unpleasant circumstances: going forward seems to promise ever-increasing levels of disorder and social atomization, at the same time that our line of retreat has been cut off. Does this mean that contemporary liberal societies are fated to descend into increasing moral decline and social anarchy, until they somehow implode? Were Edmund Burke and other critics of the Enlightenment right that anarchy was the inevitable product of the effort to replace tradition and religion with reason?
The answer, in my view, is no, for the very simple reason that we human beings are by nature designed to create moral rules and social order for ourselves. The situation of normlessness -- what the sociologist Emile Durkheim labeled "anomie" -- is intensely uncomfortable for us, and we will seek to create new rules to replace the ones that have been undercut. If technology makes certain old forms of community difficult to sustain, then we will seek out new ones, and we will use our reason to negotiate arrangements to suit our underlying interests, needs, and passions."
82. joezan - June 6, 1999 - 9:18 PM PT
...cont'd:
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but imho, that's about as "positive" as the article gets. FF does not imply that we have as a society hit rock bottom, like some pissy old sot who has no place to go but up. In fact, although the author doesn't say so, I think that things may get worse before they get better.
In such heady, economically vigorous times as these, there is plenty of comfort for sale, and we have plenty of money to spend on the means to numb ourselves to our discomfort with this "normlessness" that Fukuyama mentions. And perhaps it will take a major economic disruption to make enough people so uncomfortable with the "normlessness" of modern society that they will finally get to work on "creat[ing] new rules to replace the old rules which have been undercut".
83. jayackroyd - June 7, 1999 - 7:12 AM PT
Message #78
Don't forget the photocopy and fax machines.
84. splawrence - June 7, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
Joezan, one thing Fukuyama does not cite as evidence of Great Disruption is an increase in alcoholism or addiction, and my guess is there has been none during the period he studies. If anomie is hard, one might expect that to increase, yet it (I'm guessing) hasn't. Odd. Maybe the disruption isn't as great as is made out. One can always find some stocks (or social phenomena) going up, and some going down, but focusing on a few might make for an illusory trend. Maybe I just wanted to believe FF and think of my life time as one of "Great Disruption"; hey, we all want to think we're important, right? and by extension our lifetime and experiences have been?
Still, if FF's premise is valid, then I too think he is optimistic, log-run if not short, because he believes humans will create norms, are evolved to do so. Too much norms yields stale culture (50's?)and less social vigor; too little yields chaos, not success. The 60's did stale western society a favor, but at a price. From here? It seems to me we're at a pretty good balance, and the economy seems to confirm this view. But how do younger folk, born after Woodstock see it?
85. splawrence - June 7, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
Coral, I was unable to succeed in following your link to the review in is it NYmag? My computer has been funny recently.
Joezan, don't miss my msg to you on Today's News.
86. coralreef - June 7, 1999 - 12:38 PM PT
I think the link works, SPL, but here's the raw url anyway, in case it helps.
http://www.nymag.com/critics/view.asp?id=2236
87. jayackroyd - June 7, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
Well, I read the whole thing, and found it to be very hard to follow. This anomie thing seems to come to our feeling bad. I dunno about you, but I don't feel all that bad. This notion that we've lost our families is not supported by my observation; families still seem to be the most important force in most people's lives. You can talk about a lack of formal organization of families vis a vis the fifties in the United States, but weren't those times more abnormal than these, historically speaking? Is this nuclear family construct at all like the way kids were raised in the last 500 years, in the developed countries? Rousseau's France comes to mind, where he dumped his out of wedlock babies at orphanages, moms routinely sent their kids off to wetnurses for the first four years of their lives. And when you look at the underclasses, would you find the stability he's talking about?
I guess the idea that women were sufficiently suppressed by social pressures and a lack of economic opportunity that they would enter into shotgun marriages. Was that a good thing? Is a nuclear family imposed by social convention on unwilling participants a good one to raise children in? Is a two generation female household worse? How about Uncle Bill and Mr. French?
I've never understood the people who see the US fifties as an idyllic time.
88. PincherMartin - June 10, 1999 - 1:10 AM PT
Ronski --
Fukuyama makes an odd collectivist. While he is too independent and original a thinker to be fully enclosed in one political creed, he writes for "Commentary" magazine, a right-wing periodical.
Also...(from the article)
"We know now, however, that in an information society neither governments nor corporations will rely exclusively on formal bureaucratic rules to organize people. Instead they will decentralize and devolve power, and rely on the people over whom they have nominal authority to be self-organizing."
Collectivism?
89. PincherMartin - June 10, 1999 - 1:17 AM PT
Rask -- Message #5
"I quite liked the article. Initially, it looked like a collection of bald assertions and statistics taken out of context. But he eventually backed up the assertions and the stats (to the extent common in mass market periodicals - I will want to take a look at his sources when it comes out in book form). And the article was generally logical."
It is out in book form. The Great Disruption : Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order
If the customer review is correct, this might be a book SlackJaw wants to read.
90. PincherMartin - June 10, 1999 - 1:33 AM PT
FreeToChoose -- Message #38
Fukuyama: "'As people soon discovered, there are serious problems with a culture of unbridled individualism, in which the breaking of rules becomes, in a sense, the only remaining rule.''
FTC: "Almost too silly for comment."
Why do you think such an obviously correct statement as too much individualism might be a bad thing is "too silly for comment"? You think that an ethic of excessive individualism (i.e. an individualism unchecked by any restraint other than obvious physical harm to others) should be the basis of the family, good citizenship, or other social relations?
91. PincherMartin - June 10, 1999 - 1:37 AM PT
FTC -- Message #43
"I think you are guilty of the same error made by Fukuyama; equating the information age with the internet."
Where does Fukuyama equate the information age with the internet?
92. FreetoChoose - June 10, 1999 - 10:12 AM PT
PincherMartin
See Message #33
An argument can be made that he said it to reject it, but if that were the point, it was badly done.
93. FreetoChoose - June 10, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT
PincherMartin
“Why do you think such an obviously correct statement as too much individualism might be a bad thing is "too silly for comment"? You think that an ethic of excessive individualism (i.e. an individualism unchecked by any restraint other than obvious physical harm to others) should be the basis of the family, good citizenship, or other social relations?”
Fukuyama wasn't talking about some hypothetical world in which individualism has reached that level, he was talking about the 80's. He suggested that, “breaking of rules becomes, in a sense, the only remaining rule”. The argument that there were no social restraints on individual action in the 80's is, I repeat, “too silly for comment”.
If you would like to make a serious argument that there were no societal restraints on individuals actions in the 80's, be my guest.