3 ms·
The article assumes that wealth should correlate with an increase in, decidedly secular values (tolerance of homosexuality, divorce, abortion, freedom of expres
by aprilthird2021 3y ago
The article assumes that wealth should correlate with an increase in, decidedly secular values (tolerance of homosexuality, divorce, abortion, freedom of expression, etc.)
In a vacuum this makes sense; poverty causes people to be very dependent on each other to share resources, and when any group of people depend on each other so much, they need a set of shared rules and norms to govern their interactions with each other. Rich people can live relatively more independent lives and so for them self-expression is obviously easy to endorse. Poorer people depend on each other and the better they fit in the more accessible to resources they have. They thus have no incentive to bring more non-conforming people into the fold to diminish their resource pool and erode their shared values which help them work together with the people they depend on.
But this strikes me as one of those things statistics and surveys cannot measure. I am from one of the "poorer" and "anti-Western" countries, and even as people have become wealthier there has been a staunch anti-Western sentiment. It feels to me, without much statistical proof to back it up, that two things occur:
1. There's lots of distrust for people who become wealthy and also are seen as selling out the shared morals and values of their people, in every country, Western or otherwise. You can see the anger hurled towards Hollywood celebrities by conservatives and conservative religious people in the US as an example. But a solid chunk of American rich people are conservative morally. They tend to keep their American values in tact and are relatively humble. Consider Bill Gates who wears a Casio watch, Zuckerberg who dresses in t shirts, Buffett who eats McDonald's every day, etc. These are very American traits every one. Alternatively, many of the elite in poorer countries are more American than they are from their own people. They retain very few cultural aspects of their own people. In essence, most of the elites of the third world are like Hollywood celebrities rather than down to Earth people who the masses can see themselves in. This isn't always true (Ambani is a notable exception), but it's often true.
2. As other countries have not yet totally bought into the Americanization of the world, they're aware of and wary of the pitfalls that come with it. The shift towards liberal values have come with great individual freedom and enormous strides in humane treatment of others, but they've also come with increasing isolation, the breakdown of families, shrinking and aging populations, and many other negatives. It wasn't clear to people before that conservative values might be the glue that keep large families and tight-knit societies together (it may not even be true, but the perception that it might be still grows). So I'd say the lag in those values spreading around the world has given people time to think about whether the tradeoff is worth it. Many still say yes, but larger and larger numbers of people are pushing back than before
- hx8 3y ago> The article assumes that wealth should correlate with an increase in No, the article observes wealthy countries and less wealthy countries have different values based on survey results.
- david-gpu 3y ago> The shift towards liberal values have come with great individual freedom and enormous strides in humane treatment of others, but they've also come with increasing isolation, the breakdown of families, shrinking and aging populations, and many other negatives While these things have converged in time, I don't see how the shift towards liberal values (i.e. kindness towards people different to oneself) has in any way caused the other societal issues you mention. Just as an example, doesn't homophobia contribute to "the breakdown of families"? I do appreciate your very measured contribution to a thread that is otherwise leading to shallow inflammatory comments.
- blackbear_ 3y agoLiberal values need not be the only cause, increased individual freedom is also a factor. For example, it takes a lot of work and sacrifice to establish and preserve a good and happy relationship and family. Without the external pressure from society, many people are choosing not to bother with this difficulty and rather focus on their own lives and enjoyment.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoYou said it quite a bit more succinctly than I did. Thanks
- aprilthird2021 3y agoSure I can expound on the idea. Thanks for not conflating me personally with these ideas, I just like to talk about them with others to help form my own opinions. I mostly mean that when a society is very tolerant of wildly differing views and values (both conservative religious and secular types), then people congregate to their favored values and leave their families. In a way we create clusters of our own thinking. It's kind of like the forum-ization of our lives. In a world where obedience to a larger set of shared values (even by those who disagree with them) is emphasized and important, you actually end up spending more time with people you don't agree with at the core. Familial bonds are stronger in such a world because familial bonds aren't based at all on shared values, so having an imposed shared value on the family keeps the differences in values from breaking it apart. Hopefully this makes sense and doesn't sound like rambling. I would compare it to the hippie counterculture of the 60s and 70s. It was a far bigger tent of differing people and values than any subculture you can find today. Back when tolerance was less, anyone who was different stuck together and there wasn't room for big disagreements and splintering, etc. (there eventually was and this is what killed that culture). I feel a similar thing is happening in our world. Tolerance of everything means, why spend your time and effort on pesky family members you disagree with at the core? Again these are all unquantifiable and so they run the risk of being unprovable and wrong. But when the numbers can't tell you the story you have to fill it in somehow.