It has suddenly occured to me that the Western society has never become truly liberal (i.e. “thinking freely”). It has always been revolving around an accepted, limited set of very rigid conventions. This set could evolve, change, be replaced or modernized, but the system has remained the same. It’s like changing wallpapers in a prison cell.
The most famous period when this set of conventions was most conspicuous is the Victorian era in the British Empire, and probably around the Commonwealth. It featured a very rigid class system where servants were subhumans who couldn’t expect to be even noticed, women of the society were sexless aerial beings who somehow gave birth, but were supposed to avoid mentioning it at all costs. And even if you wanted to discuss fashion, it was paramount to not name body parts below the belt or, God forbid, underwear. Men of the society were powerful demigods whose intellectual superiority couldn’t be doubted or denied by inferior beings (women, kids, servants, black people, etc.).
Moreover if you bother to read the Thorn Birds by Colleen McCullough set between 1915 and circa 1960 in Australia (a weird story of a catholic priest who grooms a little girl), you will see that in the beginning a farm girl of 20 has very little idea of how sheep mate, let alone humans. Outside the British Empire, in the Continent or in Russia, views and customs were not much different to tell the truth, though Victorian is the most powerful moral brand of the time. Unlike other conservative/traditional societies that were just conservative and traditional, it seems to be the first truly mature Orwellian system with double thinking, rigid behavior standards and practice of weaponizing certain concepts to keep the society divided.
What I am referring to is a continuous tradition of cleansing the mental space while allowing some controllable conflicts in it. On top there was the good old bipartisan consensus represented by Whigs and Tories. While the whole society accepts the mental dungeon, no major uprise can happen. The modern Western society follows the tradition to a “T” with more illusions thrown in and some rebranding carried out to refresh the colors (Labor and Conservative, Republican and Democratic in their modern form). And these illusions are not thrown in for your comfort, they provide even more control. That’s how dialectics work. Let me try to clarify.
The mainstream communication convention in the West is very rigid. You should use all sorts of euphemisms and are supposed to catch up with new ones as old ones become as offensive and triggering as the original “rude” terms. You mustn’t mention certain topics when in public, while you have to clearly demonstrate your support for every new “current thing” in place. Otherwise you are ostracized as a “threat to democracy”.
Yet, there is an illusion of freedom created by the concept of diversity. You are told that you can choose one of 100,500 genders like a Victorian era girl could choose a petticoat, but your actual thoughts on the matter should be as inconspicuous as Victorian era servants, you can choose a religion (including Satanism), yet you mustn’t argue with the Climate change agenda or openly refuse to eat bugs. You can be both famous and virtuous by going #vegan and #minimalist, but no one cares if you create something original, as long as there is no tag for it. Feminist police seems to be vigilant of every inadvertent show of courtesy to call out rape. Yet, more and more girls probably consider being boys, as transwomen are positioned as “uber-women” and the prolife&Co undertow threatens actual women’s rights and freedoms, but you cannot call a mother “mother” and must admit that there are women with penises.
The result of this double thinking is a very divided society in a solid prison of convention sold as tolerance, wellbeing and liberalism (ew..). An atomized society where smoldering dissatisfaction is hushed up with euphemisms and antidepressants will never escape its prison, therefore it is convenient for the ruling class. The modern implementation of this concept is very complex and multi-dimentional, yet it is not a new thing.
You cannot change the system as long as you are part of it. If you are protesting against something within the system you are still part of the system. “Conservative vs liberal” is part of the system, “white vs black” is part of the system, “vegan vs meat” is part of the system, “religious vs atheist” is part of the system, “men vs women” is part of the system, “minimalist vs consumerist” is part of the system, “chastity vs sexual freedom” is part of the system. Everything that makes you part of the game is part of the system. Whenever you see something is weaponized, stay away from this and call it out. Common sense is not part of the system.
I’m far from saying that Russian society is perfect and 100% healthy. It is not. it is sometimes reactionary, sometimes gullible, sometimes too emotional, sometimes xenophobic (not racist, though). But despite all ongoing attempts to poison us with this Orwellian, hypocritical construct we still can call a spade a spade. By the way, I was recently surprised to learn that even this phrase that I know from Oscar Wilde’s masterpiece The Importance of Being Earnest triggers some people of color (fun fact: the Western society ruined Oscar Wilde by charging him with sodomy before it was a thing, now they would accuse him of being a threat to democracy, I guess). It is not normal when someone is triggered by a saying that in various forms dates back to Ancient Greece. It is not.
the Western society ruined Oscar Wilde by charging him with sodomy
Oscar Wilde was a weak character, victim of his own appetites. It had nothing to do with “society”. And why doesn’t people question the suffering caused to his wife, children and parents?
The Victorian era wasn’t the repressive and hypocritical time we are presented with. As much as Marx wasn’t the voice of the proletariat. Those are myths that feed modern narratives.
Everything the modern world is composed of was created by those vilified Victorians. God bless them.
Oscar Wilde was a genius and a human, the whole trial was a kangaroo court. A lot was, indeed created then, but not Everything/there). Himan history is, wider/longer. And a lot of what was created/founded is terrible. Good stuff was often created by those who disapproved of the state of affairs. As for the working class, its condition is well described by Jack London in his articles. It’s early 20th century, I don’t think mid/late 19th was any better, probably worse. The society was entertained by cartoons about Disraeli vs Gladstone and cheap horror stories inspired by Jack the Ripper, they had an illusion of involvement, while they hardly participated in actual politics or could see all the implications. Shaw’s Pygmalion though published in 1912 is characteristic of that period too. The only true difference between Eliza and the nobility is language, a convention. Otherwise, she is no different from a dutchess. At least, she is probably less of a hypocrite.
Oscar Wilde was a fairly good writer. A genius? definitely not. His trials were brought about by his insistence on publicizing what should had remained private. He was vain and stupid.
The Industrial Revolution gave the common man economic and political power. There were birth pains to a new reality, misery, exclusion. But that was inevitable. As to Jack London and Dickens and others, writing about the working class conditions, they took things out of context -unintentionally I’m sure- and they made money by doing so. Dickens was a polemicist. Dickens was also a genius writer, contrary to the flaccid Oscar.
What happened? WWI happened, and everything went topsy-turvy. And people started to believe in ideas, and all ideas are lies.
“Men of the society were powerful demigods…”
This kind of writing is too common. “The Men” have never ruled any civilization ever. Anywhere. Throughout history the working class men have always been on the receiving end of the stick same as everyone else. It has always been a small minority of elites that have ruled over the majority. I wish people would take more care in their wording.
Dialectical
That’s an important word. Within the social flux there are always poles and anti-poles around which developments swirl.
Many scholars connect the upsurge of witch persecutions (and resistance to herbal folk remedies from old or ale wives) with the breakthrough of empirical and rational science in the 17th century.
In the same way, stultifying Victorianism has been connected to the industrial revolution, public education, the commoditization of labor, working hours, demands of conformity in behaviour.
In modern society, the latitude for personal freedom (wearing a strange hat or clothes, or sexual habits) stands in stark contrast to increasingly rigid social conformity demands to still “belong”, in contrast to a village where there is social pressure to stay with norms of behavior, but personal eccentricities beyond those limits will not result in not “belonging” and being isolated as a non-person.
There’s always a dynamic of conservation of mass/energy — where more leeway or lack of structure appears in one place, more rigidity and control will appear elsewhere.