long for the third world authenticity, which is, of course, antithetical to political liberty.

We do? Not me. I like first world plumbing as well as first world liberty. Not to mention, first world safety, rather than third world terrorism, and brutality. Have you ever visited or lived in the third world? Try it before you praise it.

I am not praising it, I am describing the state of society today.

You did say that "we" long for the third world. Who does that? Not first world people I know. They want nothing to do with it. And neither do I. Where did you ever get such an idea?

In modern societies the people are not mythologically bound to the state and the meanings of the political state is not expressable in ethno-religious terms. Modern societies are said to be 'free'.

What makes modern societies different is they were founded by philosophical ideas. Before these ideas were constituted within actual states and nations, they were written out by philosophical thinkers. The idea of human freedom which helps to define American identity is revolutionary history - the ideas of liberty, equality and individual rights were first proposed as revolutionary philosophical ideas.

And the Universities of today where scientific research is conducted are historical newcomers.

There is no authentic architecture in the United States as there is in old Europe and the third world.

The dilemma that individual Americans face today is the dilemma of authentic identity. There is none. And it seems there cannot be authentic identity without a consequent restriction on freedom. We are stuck with merely private identities which cannot involve the state. The state is basically economics, not culture.

It is nearly universal on the left end of the American and European social spectrum. I actually find it hard to believe that you're not aware of this.

And I would also add that it will be in the name of a longing for cultural identity that the American people in the future will embrace a leftist pseudo-absolutist form of government. I think we are already far down that path.

--

The dilemma that individual Americans face today is the dilemma of authentic identity. There is none. And it seems there cannot be authentic identity without a consequent restriction on freedom. We are stuck with merely private identities which cannot involve the state. The state is basically economics, not culture.

The real problem is that there is no absolute freedom within which a human life can be fulfilled - and no absolute reason that authentic culture can grow out of. So, today, in modern society, we live in rock 'n roll personality culture and long for the third world authenticity, which is, of course, antithetical to political liberty.

I generally disagree with the thrust of the original post.

I don't see any reason for thinking that the U.S. lacks an authentic culture. There's no reason to think that an authentic culture can exist only where it is imposed by the state. Culture can also develop through the private associations that make up civil society. And in any case, the American government takes all sorts of measures to promote particular cultural values and traditions.

I'm not sure that this is true. How has the modern state eliminated mythology?

There is the mythology of manifest destiny. That of the western cowboy. Remember the Horatio Alger mythology of the young, downtrodden boy who climbs his way to the top through sheer intellect and force of will. There is the mythology of the open road.

However appealing a mythology might be, it is still part of our mythological framework. And when we live in a particular society, it is sometimes difficult to recognize the mythologies we take for granted. Remember the old saying - 'a fish is the last thing to notice water'.

Hasn't every society been founded upon some sort of philosophical idea? Whether this is Divine Right, Social Contract, ect, there seems to have always been a framework for justifying the state to the people, a system for establishing the necessity of the state in the eyes of the people.

The modern techniques and equipment may be newcomers, but scientific inquiry is ancient. And from what I can tell, has always been part of higher learning.

Maybe this is a quibble in the context of your larger post, but we all know better.

There is a great deal of authentic and original American architecture. For example, the steel framed sky-scraper. Or consider the residential designs of Frank Lloyd Wright. Or the larger phenomenon of suburbia.

This is a very interesting idea, one that has been presented in one way or another before. And you may just be right. Take, for instance, that great American novel, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The protagonist and his sidekick romp through a large American city with absolutely no inhibitions, running wild, anarchist freedom at play. And what is the protagonist told when he asks someone where he can find the American Dream? He is told that the American Dream burned down years ago, and that even then it was just a hangout for hustlers and prostitutes.

These characters have every hedonistic freedom, and still they find no American Dream. Of course, you make a slightly different case than that suggest by this novel, but the conclusions regarding American identity seem pretty close.

Very interesting post, Pyth. I'm looking forward to your thoughts!

Oh, them. I pay no attention to them. Maybe that is what they long for. I would not know, and neither would they. If someone is not white, and is poor, they think they are superior.

The dilemma that individual Americans face today is the dilemma of authentic identity. There is none. And it seems there cannot be authentic identity without a consequent restriction on freedom. We are stuck with merely private identities which cannot involve the state. The state is basically economics, not culture.

Pyth, I agree with Thomas, yours is a very interesting post.

Sometimes I visit Youtube just to observe "group identity". I'm fascinated reading comments (under the videos) by members of groups which have existed with a strong concept of cohesiveness, be it national, ethnic, religious, cultural, geographical, etc, for hundreds of years. This may sound voyeuristic, but when I see a video about certain strong groups, and look down and see 1000 or so comments (one video I found had over 3000 comments), I know it's going to be interesting reading. I've learned a lot about "foreign" and world history, old and modern, through other eyes, other perspectives.

And yes, I find myself envying that strong sense of identity, even from "less advantaged" nations or peoples. I'm amazed that they've managed to survive centuries of hardship and oppression, changing political systems, often ruled by foreign powers ruthlessly trying to eliminate their native culture, without breaking, without surrendering their "essential identity" for the sake of convenience. Willing to spend years in prison, to sacrifice their lives, to pay any price for this "quality, idea, ideal, whatever-it-is" which I can't begin to understand -- I've never experienced anything like it, at least not to my knowledge.

And I've wondered what kind of "identity" we in America might have? Do we have any kind of "identity" strong enough to endure the inevitable long, hard winters in our future (as with any long-lived nation's future)? Or, will "Americans" simply disappear -- and if we do, is there anything of value, any significant, unique essence, that will disappear with us? Honestly, I can't think of anything. Can you?

rebecca

Well, I came back to this one because I couldn't quite see what you were getting at.



I just don't where you get the premises from. The common use if identity is tied to individuality. My "ID" card refers only to me. If I join a mob of people wearing masks, I lose my identity. Uniform, homogeneous cultures have very inauthentic individual identities.

If there is authenticity, it comes from each of us being who we naturally are. And we are naturally different. Some of us are inclined towards religion, some towards atheism. Some towards chastity, some towards promiscuity. People forced to dress, act, and live a certain way because that is the only culture possible to them are not living naturally. That's the folly of primitivism.

People who say they want to live more authentically usually mean they don't want their values decided by advertisements, i.e. they want to be free from their culture. You are describing the opposite.

How can one individual all alone posess any inner identity? You are describing our relative values, but if all values are relative then how can there be any truth in any of them?

The common use of identity is not tied to individuality but the general case only. Only groups appeal for the recognition of their identity. Old world cultures have no need for individual identity for they are already in posession of the authentic item.

The choices between religion/atheism, promiscuity/chastity is proof that there is no authentic morality present. The need for an individual to "choose" who he really is is proof of what he is lacking. Identity does not arise magically from within an isolated individual; identity comes from history, ethnicity, family, or tribal relations. Individuals do not form themselves as relativism would have it, rather they are shaped by the external world, which authenticates them.

I'm speaking of mythology which unified the individual with the group or the state in a continuum where the original identity of the tribe or ethnicity lies. For example, the Native American tribes had no notion of political freedom and they were unified by blood and divine ritual. This is the kind of compact or 'nation' or folk that was once universal on the face of the earth. It was Europeans who broke from these blood and ritual ties with their revolutionary philosophy of political freedom, equality and indivdiaul rights.

I agree, that mythology per se can be said to posess an existence in the minds and imaginations of the Western peoples, but when it comes to politics they each to a man posess parliaments or other forms of rational deliberative bodies based on liberty and individual political rights. In America there are no blood rights that can make legitimate political claims.

I don't believe so. At least not philosophical justification. The gentiles posessed no philosophy as far as I know. Their ideas are to be found within their religions. The priest held as much power as did the chief, who was usually a war leader. And 'Divine right' is exactly the opposite of equality and individual freedom. The American and French revolutions were carried out in direct opposition to the aristocracy and king. The Social Contract of course is part of Rouseau's modern revolutionary language.

Most ancient schools, Plato's academy for instance, were dedicated to abstract ideas. The Alexandrians were the forerunners of modern scientific academies, it is true, however, you need to understand that the priests were often the enemies of scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Can you account for the difference in material conditions and standards of living between the third world and the first? How do you account for the differences between the Stone Age and the Space Age?

Very interesting examples, DT. The skyscraper is of course an office tower, developed by businessmen. They were not developed, for example, as were the Gothic Cathedrals in Europe, out of religious devotion. The U.S. is a free economic zone, where culture is left to the private sphere.

Frank Lloyd Wright was a modernist, of course, who took his bearings from the European modernist scene. I do not say the modernists were not authentic, but they were appealing to mass societies and not in the service of royal Princes and priests, in my opinion.

The suburbs, considered a blight by bohemians, is the housing of 9 to 5 business employees. They are not exactly renowned for their cultural expression, quite the opposite in fact. The suburbs have long been ridiculed by artists and poets and other leftists, as was also the 'square' 9 to 5 workers who build and inhabit them. (Of course, America itself has long been and remains today the subject of ridicule for its 'bourgoisie' population and philistinism.)

The establishment of individual rights based on the state of nature teaching and the Enlightenment political revolutions precludes the authentic cultural expressions because they are laisser faire, and if there were any religions they were disestablished in modernity one way or another. Reason came to replace religion and the legislators of humanity, who were once the poets, are now technocrats, at least in the Western world.