A CULTURE
DIVIDED
America's Struggle for Unity
DAVID TREND
Paradigm Publishers
Boulder • London
A�tifURE DIVIDED
btiltural conformity. Indeed, to some theorists such an obsession with
an articulated "common culture" has become synonymous with the
integrity of national identity itself In this context then, the form of
democracy we now face becomes "radical" in at least two senses of
the term. Not only does it imply a fundamental rejection of mono
lithic party politics in favor of broader models based on identity
groupings, but it also suggests the rejection of a set of national
accords seen by many to constitute the very glue that holds. the
nation together. These two factors make possible the type of new
spaces for engagement and new definitions of citizenship that radical
democracy implies.
In other writings I have sought to delineate the problems pro
duced by the binary epistemology of Enlightenment humanism
across a range of disciplinary fields: photography, film, television,
education, music, and new media.18
The roots of this enlightenment model are perhaps nowhere more
dearly articulated than in philosopher George W. F. Hegel's phe
nomenology, which mapped out a basic theory subject/object rela
tions. Hegel postulated an abstract dyad of the self and other,
constructed in the consciousness of individuals. Within this idealized
rendering, the subject envisions an external object that it comes to
recognize as different from itsel£ This difference produces a dissatis
faction that prompts the subject to absorb the attributes of the exter
nal other. He termed this process "sublation."19 According to Hegel,
sublation was the motor force of human learning, as the subject is
changed through the appropriatipn of new ideas and objects. What is
important to remember is that this dialectic was a pure function of
metaphysics. Although Hegel's fundamental subject/object dualism
was replicated for many decades in western philosophies and institu
tions, it was not a model of the world--as contemporary feminist,
poststructuralist, and postcolonial theories have made dear. Indeed,
it is now increasingly evident that it is less productive to view social
relations in binary "either/or" terms than in multiple "ands."
CHAPTER THREE
Belief
Faith in What?
I
N THE 2000s the topic of values reemerged in public discourse as
a point of contention between liberals and conservatives, as well as
a rallying call for moral absolutists. The values debate has emerged
most strongly in debates over "good" and "evil" in people's lives and
on the international stage. In the 2000 presidential race, George W.
Bush ran on a platform of moral platitudes, echoed in his victory
speech by imploring Americans to vanquish "evil" from the world
and "teach our children values." 1 While President Barack Obama has
expressed his values in more nuanced terms, Obama' s appeals for
dialogue, tolerance, and responsibility convey a distinct moral pro
gram. All political agendas implicitly convey definitions of "right"
and "wrong," imploring citizens to accept one set of such definitions
over others. Framing issues of right and wrong in terms of good and
evil intensifies the rhetoric of the discussion, evoking a heightened
emotionalism and sometimes the specter of impending threat.
Throughout American history the nation's enemies frequently
have been portrayed as evil-and such characterizations often have
underpinned rationales for military action and war. Franklin Roose
velt led the United States into World War II for the purpose of
fighting a great "evil." Ronald Reagan called America's Cold War
enemies "the focus of evil in the world." 2 This rhetoric again went
into high gear following the attacks of September 11, 2001, when
President Bush labeled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "axis of
evil." It would be easy to dismiss these remarks as simple political
55
56 A CULTURE DIVIDED
posturing, lest we forget that George Bush won the presidency
twice and Republicans gained the support of many in other elec
tions. The language of good and evil resonates powerfully in the
minds of voters because such concepts are deeply ingrained in pub
lic consciousness.
Concepts of good and evil are fundamental to Western philoso
phy, dating to pre-Socratic times. In both Eastern and Western phi
losophy, these ideas are found at least as early as 500 BCE. The
philosophies of Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, and the subse
quent doctrines of Christianity all hinged on a fundamental dualism
between the good or "the way" and evil or "falseness." Indeed, orga
nized religion has functioned as an important institution of moral
education throughout history. It has guided civilizations in their pur
suits of peace as well as war. In some systems, goodness is seen as the
natural state of humankind, with evil entering as an aberration. In
the biblical account of the creation of humanity, Adam and Eve are
initially innocent, existing in a sort of blissful ignorance. A serpent
appears who convinces the pair to disobey God and consume fruit
from the tree of knowledge, saying, "Eat thereof, then your eyes shall
be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." 3 Thus
Adam and Eve begin their encounters with sin. In some systems,
good and evil are transposed with notions of truth and falseness.
Socrates is remembered for his belief that certain great truths exist
and humanity's task is to understand them. Plato, regarded by many
as the most influential figure in Western philosophy, asserted that
values such as absolute beauty and goodness exist in "ideal forms"
that people can never truly lmow, but they can experience through
copies manifest in things seen in the world. Unlike Socrates, who
believed in many truths, Plato argued that there exists one basic
truth-"the good" -to which people should aspire. Because the
world we experience is but a realm of copies of "goodness," these
copies render understandings that are always imperfect and can
sometimes be evil.
Some psychologists argue that concepts of good and evil are hard
wired into our brains. George Lakoff writes that such values are part
of the basic architecture of thinking manifest in early childhood. In
Lakoff's view, much of the way we think is organized by "deep
frames" or fundamental concepts in the unconscious, which we
BELIEF 57
develop through repeated exposure to ideas. Deep frames "structure
how you view the world," Lakoff explains.4 They characterize the
moral and political principles that are so deep they are part of our
very identities. "Deep framing is the conceptual infrastructure of the
mind: the foundation, walls, and beams of that edifice."5 The surface
thinking that goes with everyday experience, conversation, and
media are effective to the extent they fit only within deep frames.
Owing to their centrality in human belief systems, concepts of
good and evil have functioned as central elements in storytelling
throughout history. Ancient myths, prehistoric renderings, early lit
erature, and religious writings all depend on the simple opposition of
good and evil in creating dramatic tension and conveying meaning
ful narratives. Most fairy tales and children's stories hinge on a
simple opposition of good and evil values. Characters encounter evil
witches, giants, or monsters. Peter Pan fought Captain Hook, Harry
Potter battled Voldemort, and Superman faced dozens of bad guys. It
doesn't take much insight to recognize the transparent moralizing in
myths and children's stories. Most of these narratives function both
to entertain and to instruct. This is because the stories always come
from adults who see them as a vehicle for instilling values in children.
As Jack Zipes writes, "There never has been a literature conceived by
children for children, a literature that belongs to children."6 Zipes
points that children, when left to their own devices, often do not cre
ate stories of menacing bad guys who are overcome by virtuous fig
ures. Instead they recreate other forms of play in their narratives.
Keep in mind that children not only don't write most children's sto
ries, but they also don't freq uently select and purchase the books,
CDs, or videos. The choices come from the well-intentioned adults
who make the decisions for children and hence create the cultural
realm their children inhabit.
The moralizing in children's culture helps create a good versus
bad worldview that sets the stage for a binary understanding of the
world. But it would be a mistake to attribute this black-and-white
worldview to fairy tales alone. Underlying this binary worldview are
deeper philosophical structures that undergird human consciousness
itself Before the Western enlightenment that emerged at the end of
the Middle Ages, the opposition of life and death was manifest in the
dualism between God and humankind, between heaven and earth,
58 A CULTURE DIVIDED
expressed in human experience in the division of man and woman.
Plato wrote of the opposition of the corporeal and the spiritual. In
the 1500s Nicolas Copernicus and Francis Bacon drew distinctions
between science (fact) and religion (belief ). Two centuries later Rene
Descartes formulated his famous mind/body dualism, writing that
"the mind is completely distinct from the body: to wit, that matter,
whose essence is extension in space, is always divisible, whereas the
mind is utterly indivisible."7 Later philosophers parsed the various
kinds of realities and images that the mind could formulate, as dis
tinctions were drawn between perception and imagination, reason
and emotion. Dualism could not have grown to such a large concept
if it did have a use and importance. From early childhood through
adulthood, the concept of opposing ideas, concepts, and values
forms the basis of people's ability to see difference, draw distinctions,
and engage in critical thought. It underlies legality and illegality,
knowledge and ignorance, progress and the lack thereof Many see
dualism as the essence of humanity and human thought.
But dualism has in fact been the rascal of human consciousness.
Its apparent ubiquity and universal applicability have led people and
civilizations to believe it is the only way of viewing the world. To
many people, knowing the difference between good and bad is the
very essence of traditionalism that passes ethical values from genera�
tion to generation. Inabilities to make clear, black-and-white distinc
tions in decision making and assigning value often have been seen as
failures in judgment, insight, conviction, even courage. Knowing the
difference between right and wrong is viewed by many as an essential
element of adult consciousness and civilized society. What this tradi
tionalist perspective fails to realize is that duality is in fact but one
way of viewing the world. It is in many ways an abstraction or even a
fiction conceived about existence. T here are many degrees of value
that lie between truth and untruth. T here are many shades of moral
ity and immorality between good and evil, just as there are many
kinds of people. Admitting the shades of light and dark that exist
between black-and-white distinctions obviously requires a more
complex thought process, one that recognizes ambiguity and partial
answers to questions. President Bill Clinton was criticized by politi
cal conservatives for his resistance to dogmatic beliefs, and his presi
dency even was termed a "gray era" for this reason.
BELIEF 59
But in the post-Bush years, shades of gray seem to be making a
comeback. Recent elections have shown both Democrats and Repub
licans stepping over each other in efforts to stake out centrist posi
tions, keeping voters nearly evenly divided in many races. Media
critics have noted the decline of traditional "good" and "bad" charac
ters in TV and movies, and the rising popularity of "antiheroes."
Most frequently cited is the family man and mafia kingpin at the
center of the long-running cable series, The Sopranos. Viewers never
could decide whether to love or hate Tony, who strangled another
mobster while touring colleges with his daughter. Jack Bauer of 24,
Don Draper of Mad Men, Patty Hewes of Damages, and Dexter
Morgan of Dexter all manifest similar blends of heroism and selfish
ness, virtue and dishonesty. Joshua Alston wrote that the Bush presi
dency "primed audiences for antihero worship, that in the midst of a
war started with faulty intelligence, suspected terrorists sent to black
sites and a domestic eavesdropping program, it's no wonder we
would be interested in delving deeply into the true motives underly
ing the actions of powerful people. " 8 Is this emerging pattern in
media preferences evidence of changing public attitudes-perhaps a
new moment in American consciousness--or simply another pendu
lum swing in popular taste?
Absolutism and Relativism
"Absolutism" is the belief that there are concrete standards against
which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are
right or wrong, regardless of the context in which they occur. Abso
lutism is often contrasted with moral "relativism," which asserts that
moral truths are contingent upon social or historical circumstances.
Absolutists believe that morals are inherent in the laws of the uni
verse, the nature of humanity, or the will of God. From this perspec
tive, all actions can be evaluated as either inherently moral or
immoral. For example, an unprovoked war might be deemed a moral
act by an absolutist.
Relativists eschew absolute black-and-white answers to questions.
Rather than applying a fixed set of good or bad definitions that
always apply in judgments, relativists often argue that new answers to
questions must be created for every situation. What is true in one
60 A CULTURE DIVIDED
situation might not be true in another. For example, an absolutist
view of the family might say that only conventional nuclear families,
gender roles, and childrearing practices are universally valid, and that
single-parent families, working mothers, or extended family models
aren't good. A relativist approach would say that different kinds of
families work in different situations. Some people criticize relativist
views, especially when it comes to families, as too tolerant. Oppo
nents to relativism say that such thinking allows important standards
to be abandoned and leads people into undisciplined lifestyles. By
some accounts, the origination of relativism can be dated to Protago
ras (481-420 BC), who took issue with popular beliefs of the time
that human beings should aspire to godlike ethical perfection. Argu
ing for a more flexible approach to morality, Protagoras wrote that
"man is the measure of all things."9
Nearly eighty years ago, C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud famously
debated moral absolutism versus relativism. Much of the discussion
involved a disagreement over the existence of God and the impor
tance of science. Lewis, born an Irish Christian and the author of the
seven-book Chronicles of Narnia (1949-1954) series, asserted that
science could not adequat
Purchase answer to see full
attachment