The End of an Era.

[LadyStardust]

I thought this would make for an interesting topic. What, in your opinion, triggered the drastic change in society as a whole from the Golden Era standards to what we now experience today? Was it the way music pro/re- gressed? Movies? Fashion? Technology? Just interaction as a whole? Do you maintain one defining cause for the change or a broad umbrella? And also, around what time is definitive to you as the time when the old-fashioned character and atmosphere generally slid into obscurity? Please feel free to be as concise or elaborate as you feel on this issue, I'm really curious as to how others perceive this!
Final question: Do you think these changes, as a whole, reflect a progression or, in fact, regression in humanity? Do you really think we're better off now than we were then? That there are more positives than negatives in our era than in any other? The last is of particular interest.

 

[katiemakeup]

Goodness- lots of things I guess... You have the good with the bad in all eras. "back then" seemed civil and gracious, yet we know that isn't all true. Socially yes maybe, but there was censorship and human & womens rights weren't as advanced as today. Did the country feel safe? Thanks or no thanks to big brother? The 60's is usually stereotyped as a rebelious time- just look at the music, the realism of movies... were people just tired of fantasy? Maybe it seems flip flopped- to be docile, gentile and well mannered as the Golden Era all the muck was hidden, where as now it seems that to have a better rights, economics, lifestyle and the such all the 'goodness' is now hidden. Maybe in the 60's & 70's people wised up to things? Intellegence and the allowence of it is very very powerful.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it was a lot of things happening in the mid-60s -- the assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, the violence showing up on the news every night, and the general sense of disillusionment and cynicism that these events left in their wake. There had been some of that disillusionment during the Depression years, but the 60s really hammered it home, and it marked a huge cultural shift.

It didnt happen to everyone though. Where I grew up, "The Sixties" were something that happened on TV, and had very little relevance or impact on everyday life. I never saw a hippie in the flesh until about 1975, and even then he was more of a goofy poseur than an actual social rebel. So all this social change was a long time coming in a lot of places.

 

[RedPop4]

Combine this with the anti-authoritarian movement that sought to eschew any type of arbitrary "authority" including law-enforcement--"the fuzz, the pigs"--and etiquette which is all quite arbitrary. And, there you go.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

There was also a shift toward "the young." Youth became co-opted by advertising and marketing. It seems in the old days, you couldn't wait until you were an adult - rights of passage. Today, it seems people will do anything to stay "young" but that usually means they want to avoid being responsible, act with decorum and civility, and being mature. Much of media plays right into that by celebrating youth and all of its shallowness. It is me, me, me, me and nothing is done for the good of the order.

 

[warbird]

Combine this with the anti-authoritarian movement that sought to eschew any type of arbitrary "authority" including law-enforcement--"the fuzz, the pigs"--and etiquette which is all quite arbitrary. And, there you go.

i.e. Hippies :rage:

 

[dhermann1]

You have to remember what the 50's were really like. I'll never forget how shocked I was when I heard younger people calling the 50's "Fabulous". I think most people living through the 50's tought they were pretty dull. We loved Ike, but the status quo was like concrete. The civil rights movement had a lot to do with it. Segregation, Jim Crow, lynchings, they were still with us in the 50's (not to mention the 40's, 30's, and especially the 20's). The country really felt a sense of stultification. The 60's may have been an overreaction, but the upheavals of those days brought a lot of changes for the better, as well as for the worse. It's nice to be able to pick and choose the things from the past that we like, but I'll bet 9 people out of ten would find it a nice place to visit but they wouldn't want to live there.

 

[Senator Jack]

I do not like authority, and I am not a hippy.

 

[Archie Goodwin]

Baby with the bath water

I have always felt that the baby was thrown out with the bath water. It was good to get rid of segregation, and I certainly appreciate the effect of the birth control pill on women's role in society, but the social rebels of the 60s also got rid of ettiquette, politeness and any respect for authority. Then they spent the 80s and 90s "discovering" all sorts of social realities that their parents could have told them about, if they had been capable of listening.

 

[Big Man]

Then vs Now ...

"Was it better then than now" is a very good question. I think our individual answers most likely would be somewhat (if not a lot) colored by our perception of the past, as well as our present life experiences.

For example, my family has for as many generations back as I can discover been basically white, middle-class, working people who have lived in a relatively rural environment surrounded by a majority people of like race, religion, and social status. In short, we've had it pretty good for the past couple hundred years. For sure, there have been some "good times" and some "bad times", but on the whole, it's not been too bad and we have progressively improved our lifestyle from one generation to the next.

Had my family been of another race, religion, or social class, or had we been the same but lived in a different geographical location (urban vs rural or north/west vs south/east) than my views on "then vs now" most assuredly would be different.

Of course the real short version of the "then vs now" question is: "SSDD" (same s---, different day).

 

[Senator Jack]

Much of media plays right into that by celebrating youth and all of its shallowness.

Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. Everyone likes to blame hippy youth for the upheaval when in reality it was good old-fashioned capitalism that caused it. Which leads us to...

but the social rebels of the 60s also got rid of ettiquette

Again, the youth rebellion didn't hold a gun to anyone's head. Quite the reverse, I should think.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

saying the 60's is when Ettiquette died....is misleading at best.

If you look in my 1940's books on that very subject...they are filled with woeful statments about how the times were changing and the young people were not nearly as mannerly as they used to be....

Ettiqutte is evolving, not gone. Just because the rules change, does not mean there are -no- rules.

Much like fashion...if nothing ever changed....you would all be wearing hose and a codpiece......

D...who might pay good money to see that...

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Elvis and the pill....

 

[MrBern]

The `60s?
Wasnt it really the `50s that was full of rock&roll rebellion and blackboard jungle and social upheaval?
Or wasnt it just the postwar `40s filled w/ disillusioned young men who'd seen the horrors of wars & werent exactly enthused to reintegrate into society?
Was there ever a time that wasnt filled w/ scandal & poor manners?

 

[Paisley]

let's not forget that until recent decades, anyone different (different race, religion, the handicapped, the divorced, the mentally ill) was generally shunned. Or worse.

 

[LadyStardust]

let's not forget that until recent decades, anyone different (different race, religion, the handicapped, the divorced, the mentally ill) was generally shunned. Or worse.

Hmm, I would have to disagree with this, in a way. It's not so much the action/process as the mentality that has changed. I don't live in the -most- cosmpolitan place in the world, but my community is open-minded, and tolerant, but certain sets, not even the "token" groups are shunned very explicitly. By this I don't mean they go out of their way to make each other feel unwelcome, but you can definitely catch a vibe. Shunning as an action is still prevalent, very much so, and almost certainly always will be. It's just that it is now "wrong" socially to do so.

 

[Senator Jack]

It's just that it is now "wrong" socially to do so.

I'll be the first to defend the social mores of any era; I believe we cannot judge the people of the past by the social conscious of today. But just because something was never deemed socially wrong, doesn't mean that it was never morally wrong.

 

[LadyStardust]

I'll be the first to defend the social mores of any era; I believe we cannot judge the people of the past by the social conscious of today. But just because something was never deemed socially wrong, doesn't mean that it was never morally wrong.

I think you misunderstand me. By no means am I judging yesterday based on today. I am neither so blind nor pessimistic to think that the older generation considered such behavior normal. It's just that until -the change- came about, there was no -major- outcry about it. I'm just stating that now if you exhibit such behavior people won't just walk by, and let such an action pass. Many will actually speak out against it, and you will be viewed as a Very Bad Person.

 

[Dr Doran]

I think you misunderstand me. By no means am I judging yesterday based on today. I am neither so blind nor pessimistic to think that the older generation considered such behavior normal. It's just that until -the change- came about, there was no -major- outcry about it. I'm just stating that now if you exhibit such behavior people won't just walk by, and let such an action pass. Many will actually speak out against it, and you will be viewed as a Very Bad Person.

Generally speaking I think you are right.

 

[Paisley]

Hmm, I would have to disagree with this, in a way. It's not so much the action/process as the mentality that has changed.

I agree with you, but the vast majority of people will follow the crowd in their mentality.