Taking a Step Back to Begin the Week
Every once in a while it's important to take a step back from the noise of daily living to get some perspective on what's really going on in your life. Last week's market action didn't really tell us all that much that we didn't know about what's going in the economy or the financial markets. So let's raise our sights a bit. Let's step back and take a look at the culture from the point of view of its relevance to our lives.
After reading some informative studies about the current "Millennial" generation, I came across an article that focused on two preceding generations: the so-called "Greatest" generation and their children, the ubiquitous Baby Boomers. The Millennial generation - basically today's young adults - differ somewhat from preceding generations in that they're not as focused on material success. This appears to be some combination of them not having the same opportunities and the simple fact that they're not as impressed as their predecessors by the baubles, bangles, and bling that so entranced their ancestors. If that's true, good for them.
Contrast their attitude with the article I came across over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal focused on the "greatest" generation - those who grew up in the Depression, fought in World War II, and came home to build the mighty American economy of the 1950s - and their Baby Boomer children. Commenting on the social and cultural aspects of those times, the author compares the "fun" that his parents had when he was a kid to the "fun" he's had. It also compares methods of child-rearing. Let's look at these and see if we can learn some bigger lessons than our author presents to give us some perspective on where things stand in our world as we begin the month of March in this year 2015.
Regarding fun:
Moving on to child-rearing, our author notes the contrast between today's "helicopter" parents - his own generation - with his parents:
What stands out in this treatment of the frantic fun in the 50s and 60s is the lack of any judgement about the effects on one's soul that result from such antics. That would have made for a much more interesting piece. But, of course, we can't make such judgements these days. While we're allowed to comment about the physical side of things, and shake our heads at what's unhealthy for the body, we can't comment on anything remotely having to do with ethics or morality - that which has to do with the soul. To do so would be considered "judgmental." As a result, our author focuses instead on child-rearing, one of those areas of human behavior about which we're all allowed to opine, as long as we restrict our judgments to whether such behavior is "effective" or not. We certainly can't judge whether such behavior is good or bad.
Now, clearly this guy grew up in Westchester, NY, decidedly upper middle class. It was a different world from the way some of us grew up in those days. In our more modest circumstances, such parties would be out of our reach. But perhaps more importantly, my parents wouldn't indulge in such goings-on, understanding, being somewhat grounded in their Faith but far from Puritanical, that over-indulgence of any sort was bad for the soul, as well as the body. It's an important distinction.
Well, that's a step back to start the new week. The markets will do what they're going to do this week. The economy will chug along, likely keeping up appearances that things are just Jim-dandy. And the culture will continue to insist that we look at the world with "non-judgmental" eyes and restrict ourselves to calling that which is effective "good" rather that that which is truly good.
After reading some informative studies about the current "Millennial" generation, I came across an article that focused on two preceding generations: the so-called "Greatest" generation and their children, the ubiquitous Baby Boomers. The Millennial generation - basically today's young adults - differ somewhat from preceding generations in that they're not as focused on material success. This appears to be some combination of them not having the same opportunities and the simple fact that they're not as impressed as their predecessors by the baubles, bangles, and bling that so entranced their ancestors. If that's true, good for them.
Contrast their attitude with the article I came across over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal focused on the "greatest" generation - those who grew up in the Depression, fought in World War II, and came home to build the mighty American economy of the 1950s - and their Baby Boomer children. Commenting on the social and cultural aspects of those times, the author compares the "fun" that his parents had when he was a kid to the "fun" he's had. It also compares methods of child-rearing. Let's look at these and see if we can learn some bigger lessons than our author presents to give us some perspective on where things stand in our world as we begin the month of March in this year 2015.
Regarding fun:
They held theme parties—charades parties, talent show parties, parties involving scavenger hunts. They’d hire a dancing instructor to teach them the mambo, the cha-cha, the twist, whatever was popular. The parties would go late into the night; the next morning, the living room would be littered with empty drink glasses, loaded ashtrays and, occasionally, a partyer or two snoring on the sofa.The author notes that this and some other practices took their toll on the body. One wonders what effect these had on their souls, but that's not the author's concern here.
Moving on to child-rearing, our author notes the contrast between today's "helicopter" parents - his own generation - with his parents:
...letting a child go trick-or-treating without a watchful parent hovering within 8 feet, ready to pounce if the child is given a potentially lethal item such as an apple; or engaging in any form of recreation more strenuous than belching without wearing a helmet—are now considered to be insanely dangerous. By the standards of today, the main purpose of human life is to eliminate all risk so that human life will last as long as humanly possible, no matter how tedious it gets.The credit the author gives to his parents generation is summarized here:
...they did not worry about providing a perfect, risk-free environment for their children. They loved us, sure. But they didn’t feel obligated to spend every waking minute running interference between us and the world. They were parents, but they were not engaged 24/7 in what we now call “parenting,” this all-consuming job we have created, featuring many crucial child-rearing requirements that my parents’ generation was blissfully unaware of.While we may agree with these negative characterizations of those parents who obsessively control their children's lives, we wonder why our author struggles to compliment to some degree what can only be described as a rather superficial, self-indulgent style of entertainment. Yes, he critiques such behavior as physically unhealthy. But there's an implication that these folks just weren't aware - as we now are - that excessive drinking and smoking weren't good for you, never mind the practice of getting drunk and driving home. That's a hard one to swallow. These were otherwise successful people - at least in the economic sense - and it's hard to believe they had no idea they were doing things that weren't conducive to health. Even more so, it's hard to believe they didn't understand that such behavior wasn't conducive to spiritual health.
What stands out in this treatment of the frantic fun in the 50s and 60s is the lack of any judgement about the effects on one's soul that result from such antics. That would have made for a much more interesting piece. But, of course, we can't make such judgements these days. While we're allowed to comment about the physical side of things, and shake our heads at what's unhealthy for the body, we can't comment on anything remotely having to do with ethics or morality - that which has to do with the soul. To do so would be considered "judgmental." As a result, our author focuses instead on child-rearing, one of those areas of human behavior about which we're all allowed to opine, as long as we restrict our judgments to whether such behavior is "effective" or not. We certainly can't judge whether such behavior is good or bad.
Now, clearly this guy grew up in Westchester, NY, decidedly upper middle class. It was a different world from the way some of us grew up in those days. In our more modest circumstances, such parties would be out of our reach. But perhaps more importantly, my parents wouldn't indulge in such goings-on, understanding, being somewhat grounded in their Faith but far from Puritanical, that over-indulgence of any sort was bad for the soul, as well as the body. It's an important distinction.
Well, that's a step back to start the new week. The markets will do what they're going to do this week. The economy will chug along, likely keeping up appearances that things are just Jim-dandy. And the culture will continue to insist that we look at the world with "non-judgmental" eyes and restrict ourselves to calling that which is effective "good" rather that that which is truly good.
Comments