The More Things Change: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of the Intelligentsia
30 Jul. 2007
One of my greatest pet peeves is when people come out with statements like, "Harkening back to a more innocent and happier time" (which I just read about 10 minutes ago as a statement describing the vibrancy of swing, which would have been a favorite during the innocent and happy Great Depression, for fuck's sake). Likewise, "Back in my day, [fill in the blank]" or, my personal favorite, "People were just so different then."
Why should this rub me the wrong way, even the most theoretically educated people ask me? Liberals. Conservatives. The religious. The not-so-religious. Men. Women. Poor people. Rich people. I hear this from all sides, albeit on different topics. Perhaps some grow wistful thinking of the glory days of the Victorian era, or others misty eyed thinking of their days hitchhiking cross country, or perhaps back to when everyone still said "Ma'am" and "Sir."
My complaint, though, is that these anecdotes or observations do not describe differences in people or attitudes, they describe differences only in customs. In other words, they don't describe some fundamental difference about the things we believe or desire - something fundamental about human nature itself - they only describe differences in the particulars of dress, actions, or behaviors. In time, nations might change who they hate or why they hate them, but it doesn't stop them from creating enemies of someone. Failing to see this strikes me as simultaneously failing to understand both history and human nature. And, needless to say, if we are to accept the maxim that understanding history allows us to make an attempt at not repeating it, the above attitude suggests to me that we're pretty much doomed to fail.
I've been especially reminded of this lately reading the fairly intriguing Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Written originally in 1841 (yes, that's right, note it again - 1841), it details frauds, fads, and fashions that have gripped entire nations. It makes it quite clear that we keep falling for the same tricks over and over (and over and over), both in the text itself and for the reader who troubles him or herself to draw parallels to modern events that bear resemblance.
But what drew my attention even more than that was the way the author condescendingly talks about the buffoons who could possibly, possibly fall for such obvious nonsense. The disdain just drips off the pages. Without having the book in front of me, one example in particular springs to mind, in which he's deriding the common man for the ease with which he picks up and then drops various fads, and just how easily entertained he is by drek. But, the author decides, in a moment of charity, I suppose these poor, stupid souls must find something to make their dreary existence tolerable, so perhaps we should allow them their silly enjoyments (even though we, as educated men, can clearly appreciate how foolish such things are - aren't we grand?).
How many times have I heard this argument from the self-appointed intelligentsia, of which I sometimes hate to admit I am probably a member of, when discussing, say, Hollywood movies or television? Popular music? Bestsellers? Seriously - it kills me that we're still stuck in 1841 (or, realistically, 5000BC) in terms of how we interact with other people.
Perhaps the secret to all of this is that I should stop caring that we're doomed to fail, and just accept the world as it is. Perhaps that, after all, is the only way change will come to pass.