[N.B. I’ve seen ironically elitist criticism of José Ortega y Gasset for being an elitist. Most folks who criticize him for noting some of the serious problems that must necessarily ensue from allowing democratic memes too much cultural influence are pseudo-intellectual snobs who don’t even bother–or are unable–to read and grasp some of the core ideas in his most scathing rebuke of “Mass Man” in “The Revolt of the Masses”. Here, I am not going to make direct reference to Ortega, but just note that his articulations of issues do inform what I want to try to convey here, in some very small part. The deficiencies in this blogpost shouldn’t be attributed to his influence though. No, those deficiencies are all mine.]
Democracy as a political system has its own problems. One, of course, is that time worn warning that once some of the People discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse, corruption inevitably ensues, and the road to the failure of democracy as a political system is not long following. But societal effects can be harmful, too. When popular culture is ever more democratized, the process of dumbing down society to the lowest common denominator becomes a process of self-perpetuating debasement.
Let me illustrate this debasement using a very, very limited example which the reader may use to draw his own examples. Lexicographers eventually bow to even the basest misuses of words and finally legitimize the misuse by denoting it in a dictionary entry. Here is one such example: “healthy”. “Healthy” was once a word–and still is among literate persons–with a primary denotation of an organism that enjoyed good (vigorous, robust) health. Its misuse for years has now brought it to the point where is is used to refer to both live and dead materials that may promote (often only in the minds of the promoters) good health. Whereas once, in referring to the health of an organism, it referred primarily to the state of being or condition of something that was alive, now it may refer to some inanimate material to be consumed or even inanimate object designed to act upon or be used by some animate being to promote that being’s health. Once, the word used to denote that latter meaning was “healthful” and so the two words provided useful information in distinction to each other when used. Not so nowadays.
Losing useful distinctions means losing useful meanings, and language is first and foremost about conveying meaning (here I usually insert my rant about those utter idiots who blather about semantics as though distinctions in meanings were… meaningless, useless twaddle, but I am to tired to the bone to deal with useless idiots right now), and anything that broadens distinctions to the point of removing useful distinctions dumbs down the exchange of meaning.
Every time someone is allowed to misuse a word without being corrected, allowed to spread its misuse, society becomes stupider. And that, dear reader, is especially dangerous in a society governed via any elements of democracy. People who do not even have the words to express themselves with clear and full meaning will not be able to rule themselves wisely… or chose wisely when selecting/electing those they represent.
Oh, this thing with dumbed down language as a result of validation of misused is just the tip of the iceberg, as it were, that wrecks overly-democratic societies. Largely, it’s not so much the misuse of words that destroys communication but the very democratic tendency to accept that just because many people do such and so then that makes such and so acceptable. (Didn’t your mother ever warn you about jumping off a cliff just because “ALL” your friends were doing so? Hmmm?)
This dumb-down spiral applies all across the board: clothing fads that make slovenly (or slutty or stupid… or slutty and stupid and slovenly *sigh*) attire normative, popular entertainment–whether it be the mindless circuses of spectator sports, the pernicious drivel of TV and movies or the musicless grunts and moans and banging around of most contemporary fake music–the acceptance of stupid expressions of stupid people as (graphic) “art”: all this and more works to debase society in a society that values the opinions of stupid and subliterate people as highly–and in many cases nowadays more highly–as someone who can actually tell the difference between a well-written book and what Holly Lisle calls “Suckitudinous” writing–or even just badly-written schlock; someone who can actually hear the difference between music and… top 40 crap, someone who has actually read The Founders and can tell when such as Nancy Pelosi is blowing smoke up folks’ skirts defending unconstitutional legislation as a legitimate exercise of governmental authority, etc.
Yes, it does make a difference that fewer and fewer people in our society can discriminate between classes of objects, events, statements… or even know that there can be good things about discrimination.
I could have used more politically charged examples than the less than life-threatening “healthy” word misuse, but discussing the misuse (and even misunderstanding by subliterate morons) of “racist”–for example–probably would have resulted in some SPAM comments accusing me of racism. Oops. *heh*
DGARA. Accuse away. 😉
In a general election year, this sort of thing is actually a bit more than a wee tad scary. While I’m quite glad I have the opportunity to register my views at the polls, I am distressed that so very many who simply do not know “Jacques Schitt” can do so as well, and that it’s quite likely that there are more than enough such persons to make my own vote much less meaningful than reasonable. It’s one reason I am strongly in favor of some sort of screening whereby people like those featured in this video from 2008 could continue to vote, but, having failed a basic–very basic, SIMPLE–civics literacy survey such as this one–would simply have their votes tagged and sent to a shredder.
As a matter of fact, the exceedingly basic (maybe sixth grade level?) quiz I linked above should probably screen to count the votes of only those who scored as the graphic below indicates:
*heh*
Sadly altogether too many people that I know have no idea what is lost when we accept the debasement of our culture. It’s more than the dumbing down that comes from democratization of our language and dress too. Many of us are no longer even taught the distinctions of meaning of the words we have been given or why we should care about how we dress or what we view as art.
Part of it is what passes for education today, part is our culture, and part is the natural tendency of the unliterate to devalue anything that requires more than casual thought to appreciate. Another part is the deliberate rejection of traditional mores of our elders.
None of this is new. As I understand it every generation laments the degradation of its culture and the debasement of its values. I think that the process is only accelerated by our modern instant communications. And, by the democratization of everything.
Ortega foresaw, in the 1920s, pretty much exactly where we are today as a result of the process of letting “Mass Man” set societal standards. The brakes had been taken off democratic societies’ mechanisms for resistance to decay in the 1920s and 1930s Europe he observed, allowing swifter and deeper degradation of societal standards. No longer did “Mass Man” look to higher standards of [behavior, dress, language, entertainment, education] but to lower standards, more easily obtained, less difficult to strive for. Now, “Mass Man” could effect, long before the Special Olympics or “Mom-dominated” T-ball gave us the image of “no losers; everyone a winner”, the idea of achieving “great things” by simply lowering the standards for greatness, living “quality lives” by cheapening the standards for “quality” [whatever].
An elite based on excellence in achievements–achievements measured by rigorous standards of excellence–in all manner of endeavors and a nobility–if you will–that serves as an example of meritocracy and personal contribution to the good of society: an unfair, clumsy, very partial précis of Ortega’s elitist prescription for the ills of a hyper-democratized society.
Instead, what we have in increasing measure is a self-selected elite of kleptocratic kakistocrats: the basest of thieves.
Yes, I think I meant unliterate as opposed to illiterate. An illiterate person may yet become literate. The people I refer to have had and rejected the opportunity to be educated.
I like “unliterate”. It seems to me to be a useful distinction, especially since “literacy” has been re-normed to mean (at least to the “edumacation industry”) to mean “the marginal ability to laboriously decode strange written or printed hieroglyphs to the point of being able to witlessly parrot the words they form without having any more than a rudimentary knowledge of the words’ meanings… if that.”
Unliterate=educable but uninterested
Subliterate=barely able to match the standard I outline in the paragraph above. Probably college or university “mis-edumacated”.
Aliterate=able to match or exceed the “edumacation industry’s” standard, but having no interest in reading, let alone an interest in learning anything from the printed word.
Literate=NOT the “edumacation industry standard”. Well-versed in the printed word and in the wealth of history, literature, and even well-written entertainment available via the printed word afforded by Western Civilization. Wide-ranging knowledge and understanding of many topics recorded in printed form and able to learn as an autodidact via The Great Conversation with authors who have preceded us.
I believe several of our founders noted that without virtue in the people a democracy could not survive very long. I think that the trend you have noted here demonstrates that a democracy cannot survive long even when it is established by and for a virtuous people.
The majority of mankind is not virtuous. Even those who have turned in faith from their error still have a life in the body and must ever turn anew toward virtue. Because of our corrupt nature, no government of men can last, no matter how it is constituted. The best we can hope for is to teach our children well the need for faith and virtue and hope that when their time comes they will have learned and stand for sound principals.
The American Revolution was led by a few
men of virtue and vision. Let us hope that a future one will be as well.
Two responses, Perri:
“The majority of mankind is not virtuous.” Actually, we all deserve to be in hell. Only by grace are we not. Any virtue I posses is borrowed.
“The American Revolution was led by a few men of virtue and vision.” Reminds me of,