by dr ngo
Another advantage of aging is that it helps give us perspective on the world over time, just as travel, especially residence abroad, helps provide perspective on the world across space and ethnicity. Put in terms of academe, both history and area studies point us to alternatives to what it's like all around us. Things don't have to be as they are. (Fiction, particularly science fiction, may do this even more memorably, but reality is more real.)
The fact is that we all grow up thinking that the world is – and always has been, and really ought to be – more or less what we ourselves have encountered. When we're very young, we think all families are like ours: kids have mommy and daddy and siblings (or not); this is what the mommy does and what the daddy does; these are the other relatives that sometimes show up, etc. That's “normal,” for us; it's the human experience.
And though before long we come to understand that there are different kinds of families – though how different, and how “normal,” remain significant variables – we persist in larger mythologies about what communities and countries are like (= our community, our country), what schools and churches and elections are like (= our school, our church, our elections), and what human nature itself is like (= us). And therefore, by implication, why those who don't think and behave like us are Doing It Wrong.
This is what we feel, even though we know better. Since the ancient Greeks, if not before, we have known that nothing in life is constant. Everything changes; you can't step in the same river twice; the universe is not fixed Platonic essences, but a constant state of Heraclitean flux. In our hearts, however, we deny this:
I conceive of beings static,
Which is reasoning erratic
That I borrowed from the Attic:
Yet 'tis true
That I dream not of emotion,
Mutability or motion,
Or the everchanging ocean,
But of you.
Experience helps – or should help – overcome this sentiment; the study of history just does so more systematically. Sometimes when people find I'm a historian, they'll say, “Doesn't history show that people everywhere are always pretty much the same?,” and I'll try to mutter some polite response, because a social gathering is not the place to argue the point or to parse precisely what is meant by “pretty much the same.” But the honest answer would be “No – or at least not necessarily.”
For one thing, almost anything that can be measured has recurrent ups and downs – climate, the Dow, women's hemlines. Global warming is not disproved by a season of cooler temperatures. Nothing is linear above the level of basic physics/chemistry, and I'm not even sure about that. Everything goes up and down, despite Lucy's attempt to gainsay this truism:
Charlie Brown: "Well Lucy, life does have it's ups
and downs, you know."
Lucy: "But why? Why should it? Why can't my life be all UPS? If I want all UPS, why can't I have them?.....Why can't I just move from one UP to another UP? Why can't I just go from and UP to an UPPER-UP?......I
don't want any Downs! I Just want Ups
and Ups and Ups and Ups!"
But the more important question is whether there are long-term trends – up, down, or level/constant. (Many cultures envision cyclical patterns, but for our purposes we can take cyclical to be a version of “constant,” if the ending point is where we began. Alternatively, as my old friend and fellow historian Michael Aung-Thwin has pointed out, there may be “spirals,” in which the second and subsequent times a phenomenon comes around it is consistently higher or lower than the first time; these we might consider a variant of “upward” or “downward” trends.) My conclusion on this topic, evolved over nearly seventy years of living and more than fifty of studying history, echoes Fats Waller:
One Never Knows, Do One?
I grew up in California in the 1950s, which was about as upward-trending an environment as any child has experienced since Victorian England. The USA was the richest and most powerful and best country in the world, we understood. And California was the very essence of American modernity: the fastest growing, most “advanced,” most enlightened state, with far more college students than anywhere else in the country, indeed in the world. Whatever happened in California would generally happen a couple of years later in New York, a decade in the Midwest, a lifetime in Europe. I'm scarcely a Pollyanna by temperament, so something must have been in the air for me to assume that things were always, automatically getting better. A lot was wrong, sure – probably more than I was aware of at the time, but greater knowledge wouldn't have altered the underlying premise. Setting aside routine ups and downs (I had figured that much out already), this year was better than last year, and next year would be better than this.
Sure, we'd make mistakes, but we'd learn from them, and do better after that. OK, the Russians pipped us into space, but we'd catch up and pass them. (We did that.) OK, there was still segregation in the South, but Ike had sent the troops in, and we were gradually defeating racism, just as we had defeated Hitler. (Not so much.) Democrats and Republicans squabbled with each other, but a GOP president and a Democratic congress managed to work together to get things done, including a national highway program, and the economy kept growing, even with a 90% marginal tax rate at the top. We dominated the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, because we were also the highest, fastest, and strongest people in the world.
The only real question seemed to be whether we were “progressing” fast enough, and Kennedy's 1960 campaign was essentially that we were not. He promised to “get this country moving again,” and the great deadpan jest of the year was, “What's wrong with Eisenhower? He hasn't done anything.” I favored the Republicans at the time, thanks to family inclination and my underdeveloped political philosophy, but I never believed for a moment that if the Democrats won they could actually reverse the trend, undo the progress we were predestined to enjoy. They might mess it up a bit, slow it down, but time was definitely on our – on America's – side.
The 1960s began dismantling my assumptions, though some of them did not crumble until the 1970s, when a few years after Nixon had been forced out of the White House and the US had been forced out of Vietnam it became clear that we had not “progressed” after all. The forces of reaction came back stronger than ever, starting with revisionist accounts of the Vietnam War (a topic on which I was then teaching), culminating in the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, a man who was publicly determined not to learn anything from history. And of course if you can't acknowledge your mistakes, you can't correct them, and we didn't, and here we are . . .
(I cannot fully imagine what it must be like to be growing up more recently in the United States, where so many trends are downward, and it must seem as if everything is going to hell in a handbasket. I'd like to assure today's youth that This Too Shall Pass, but there would be little real surety in such assurance.)
To Be Continued . . .
Recent Comments