When I read something like this, I can't help but think of two important phrases.
> Plans are useless, planning is priceless
> All models are false, some models are useful
10 years from now, the world is going to look completely, indescribably different in ways that can't be predicted (can't even predict how to predict these changes). I think posts like there are best served as 'posts in the ground'. Something to look back on as a marker of 'where and how things were' when they were made. There are many views encoded, and it will be important to notice which ones are more fundamental/central, and which ones are more peripheral/contingent.
Once my wife and I wrote down what we thought were the core principles of our marriage, and then a few years later we already felt like the principles were misguided. So, yeah, that's definitely a risk of writing down you opinions.
However, remember that these days we have a pretty strong underlying cultural preference that parents should not try to influence adult children very much. This cultural preference can result in a certain amount of discomfort talking about family legacy beyond very vague sentiments.
One reason for this is that, as you mentioned, times are changing rapidly. Also, it is an element of our prevailing culture. People aren't expected to stay close to home. They don't learn economic skills from parents. We specialize and trade with strangers. So there is less need to adopt the patterns and beliefs of your parents.
However, I take this as a challenge because I think the pendulum has swung too far. Young people (especially young men) are not wise. They just aren't. I could have used some more guidance/perspective when I was young but few people were really talking about these issues.
So yes, my views will evolve, but also consider that your reaction reflects some cultural biases and those should also be questioned.
> Young people (especially young men) are not wise. They just aren't. I could have used some more guidance/perspective when I was young but few people were really talking about these issues.
Yes, the Greek Pantheon portrays 'wisdom' as Lady Sophia for good reason. I recently read Richard Rohr's book on initiation – 'Adam's Return' – where he discusses how boys need a lot more cultivation to become wise.
I'm working on a piece right now that addresses the ~complete starvation of true feminine power in the world (& also from a personal standpoint); lack of wisdom is certainly a result of this.
I think it's great you're trying to influence your kids in a more sustainable way. I share a deep disappointment and hurt that my parents were not really able to do this for me in a satisfying way.
I look forward to reading your piece. It's interesting you mention "complete starvation of true feminine power". I think something like this is happening, but we also have the feminization of everything (see, e.g., https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/feminisation-has-consequences-i)
How do we reconcile these two things? I think Louise Perry has argued that the sexual revolution tried to get women to adopt male sexual norms, and women have tried to adopt traditionally male work norms as they enter the labor force.
I guess the word "true" is carrying some weight here. Maybe true feminism has never been tried!
Great article. I am religious and think that religion is helping propagate culture better than most other institutions. So I plan on and do invest heavily in my local church congregation and in teaching my kids about my religion. As you suggested their is a major trend that even conservative religions are being swept up in the prevailing culture. There is a backlash against this as well. Unfortunately, much of the backlash ends up being political, which I don't like to get to involved in. But maybe I missing something. Maybe some mix of religious and political ideology would work to carve out a culture niche that is sustainable.
When you say "religion" though, there are different levels of social communication. Do you want you children to learn the religion of your nuclear family? The religion of your congregation? The religion of your nation? Sometimes these are pretty closely aligned (although they are probably more different than people assume even within the "same" religion).
Culture (including religion) is propagated by groups, and religion exists at multiple social levels. But they also tend emphasize one level over another. Perhaps one of the reasons Christianity tended to break down the cultural propagation power of clans is that it emphasized a central religious authority (e.g., the pope).
There are three levels that I think about and want to pass on all three:
1. My family religion - For my family this includes: Self-awareness, Journaling, Reading and discussing scriptures, Going on outdoor adventures, emotional intelligence, among other things.
2. My congregation - This includes congregation rituals like: Taking the sacrament weekly, getting baptized, going on a mission, going to church each week, fulfilling a calling, etc.
3. Global Religion - In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I view this specifically as general conference, temples, and tithing other standards.
The things you mentioned seem more like concepts and activities, but what I am saying is that culture is passed via populations. So the main question is which groups are providing social feedback. Rituals are like a coordination mechanism for a group. But the real questions are which groups you are going to participate in and which ones you are going to try to restrict.
It used to be that extended family and local community (which had a lot of overlap) were major cultural vectors, but their influence is greatly reduced. Congregations are definitely a cultural group, and they absolutely do help perpetuate cultural norms, so the decision to participate in a congregation is an important one.
There are two big questions to ask when assessing the importance of a social group for the next generation: 1) what is the group they will select a mate from? and 2) what is the group they will look for a job from?
A few related questions:
- If you did not put in any particular effort to modifying their social network, do you think your kids would marry and work within the church network?
- Do you want them to marry and work within the church network?
- If the answer to the first one is No, and the second is Yes, is there any way to change the default trajectory?
When I read something like this, I can't help but think of two important phrases.
> Plans are useless, planning is priceless
> All models are false, some models are useful
10 years from now, the world is going to look completely, indescribably different in ways that can't be predicted (can't even predict how to predict these changes). I think posts like there are best served as 'posts in the ground'. Something to look back on as a marker of 'where and how things were' when they were made. There are many views encoded, and it will be important to notice which ones are more fundamental/central, and which ones are more peripheral/contingent.
Once my wife and I wrote down what we thought were the core principles of our marriage, and then a few years later we already felt like the principles were misguided. So, yeah, that's definitely a risk of writing down you opinions.
However, remember that these days we have a pretty strong underlying cultural preference that parents should not try to influence adult children very much. This cultural preference can result in a certain amount of discomfort talking about family legacy beyond very vague sentiments.
One reason for this is that, as you mentioned, times are changing rapidly. Also, it is an element of our prevailing culture. People aren't expected to stay close to home. They don't learn economic skills from parents. We specialize and trade with strangers. So there is less need to adopt the patterns and beliefs of your parents.
However, I take this as a challenge because I think the pendulum has swung too far. Young people (especially young men) are not wise. They just aren't. I could have used some more guidance/perspective when I was young but few people were really talking about these issues.
So yes, my views will evolve, but also consider that your reaction reflects some cultural biases and those should also be questioned.
> Young people (especially young men) are not wise. They just aren't. I could have used some more guidance/perspective when I was young but few people were really talking about these issues.
Yes, the Greek Pantheon portrays 'wisdom' as Lady Sophia for good reason. I recently read Richard Rohr's book on initiation – 'Adam's Return' – where he discusses how boys need a lot more cultivation to become wise.
I'm working on a piece right now that addresses the ~complete starvation of true feminine power in the world (& also from a personal standpoint); lack of wisdom is certainly a result of this.
I think it's great you're trying to influence your kids in a more sustainable way. I share a deep disappointment and hurt that my parents were not really able to do this for me in a satisfying way.
I look forward to reading your piece. It's interesting you mention "complete starvation of true feminine power". I think something like this is happening, but we also have the feminization of everything (see, e.g., https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/feminisation-has-consequences-i)
How do we reconcile these two things? I think Louise Perry has argued that the sexual revolution tried to get women to adopt male sexual norms, and women have tried to adopt traditionally male work norms as they enter the labor force.
I guess the word "true" is carrying some weight here. Maybe true feminism has never been tried!
Feminism is a very loaded term, and I try to avoid using it. 'Feminization' as described above is an attempt to reclaim power from subjugation in an inverted way. I've talked a little bit here more about what I mean: https://open.substack.com/pub/tribesrising/p/raise-a-glass-raise-your-bottom-line?utm_source=direct&r=7y5fh&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true
Great article. I am religious and think that religion is helping propagate culture better than most other institutions. So I plan on and do invest heavily in my local church congregation and in teaching my kids about my religion. As you suggested their is a major trend that even conservative religions are being swept up in the prevailing culture. There is a backlash against this as well. Unfortunately, much of the backlash ends up being political, which I don't like to get to involved in. But maybe I missing something. Maybe some mix of religious and political ideology would work to carve out a culture niche that is sustainable.
When you say "religion" though, there are different levels of social communication. Do you want you children to learn the religion of your nuclear family? The religion of your congregation? The religion of your nation? Sometimes these are pretty closely aligned (although they are probably more different than people assume even within the "same" religion).
Culture (including religion) is propagated by groups, and religion exists at multiple social levels. But they also tend emphasize one level over another. Perhaps one of the reasons Christianity tended to break down the cultural propagation power of clans is that it emphasized a central religious authority (e.g., the pope).
There are three levels that I think about and want to pass on all three:
1. My family religion - For my family this includes: Self-awareness, Journaling, Reading and discussing scriptures, Going on outdoor adventures, emotional intelligence, among other things.
2. My congregation - This includes congregation rituals like: Taking the sacrament weekly, getting baptized, going on a mission, going to church each week, fulfilling a calling, etc.
3. Global Religion - In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I view this specifically as general conference, temples, and tithing other standards.
The things you mentioned seem more like concepts and activities, but what I am saying is that culture is passed via populations. So the main question is which groups are providing social feedback. Rituals are like a coordination mechanism for a group. But the real questions are which groups you are going to participate in and which ones you are going to try to restrict.
It used to be that extended family and local community (which had a lot of overlap) were major cultural vectors, but their influence is greatly reduced. Congregations are definitely a cultural group, and they absolutely do help perpetuate cultural norms, so the decision to participate in a congregation is an important one.
There are two big questions to ask when assessing the importance of a social group for the next generation: 1) what is the group they will select a mate from? and 2) what is the group they will look for a job from?
A few related questions:
- If you did not put in any particular effort to modifying their social network, do you think your kids would marry and work within the church network?
- Do you want them to marry and work within the church network?
- If the answer to the first one is No, and the second is Yes, is there any way to change the default trajectory?