Thursday, October 29, 2009

Blog Post 9

"Modern individualism seems to be producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable, yet a return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression" (Bellah et. al., p. 144).

I believe I understand what Bellah is saying here, that the rise of individualistic thought leads people to abandon traditional values; yet strict adherence to those traditional values squashes individual freedoms, our quintessential American dilemna. Bellah describes this better in the marraige portion of the book than he does in the paragraphs leading to this statement. Take for example, the arguments for a traditional Christian marraige- that seeing your love for someone as an obligation higher than your own personal wants leads to a more secure and fulfulling relationship. I think this has merit, it means you are willing to make sacrifices to make a relationship work. However, I don't want to think that there is an obligation, for example, for the wife to remain at home her whole life.

This conflicts with the lifestyle espoused by Ted Oster in the Values section. Oster believes that he "needs to try everything once" and that there is no good or bad except for what makes you feel good. While this may lead to an open and accepting lifestyle, it also makes your viewpoint extremely black and white- there is no moral gray area that many people want. If something makes you happier, it is autmoatically better, and something that requires to much labor or sacrifice instantly is bad. Oster cannot answer, for example, what would happen to his happy marraige if he met someone who was immediately more pleasing than his wife.

I think that we have are still in the argument section of the book. While Bellah raises interesting questions about American identity here, we still have not seen his idea of solutions to these problems, yet.

No comments:

Post a Comment