Thank you Leah, it's reaffirming to know this resonated. Without sounding melodramatic, it actually deeply saddens me to realise the extent of this loss of Beauty in public appearances, whether attire or architecture or mannerism. When I glimpse it I really feel a sense of nostalgia, for something the culture of my time never conclusively gave me, but still preserves in moments and instances particularly amongst the older generations...
You are not melodramatic. You probably feel that way simply because you are of the minority with eyes to see it for what it is, but there truly is loss. Keep up your work of cultivating this beauty within your own self and home. It will make a world of difference to your family.
An insightful point in this post: how the carefully bounded arena for Dionysian transgression overgrew itself and displaced the power of normality.
That, along with social criticism as an unnoticed in-group norm have, I think, undermined the once-prevailing recognition that human social arrangements have a legitimate grounding.
And a phrase worth chewing on: “the general inversion of inter-personal ethics whereby you are no longer required to prove yourself through social presentation but rather the onus is on other people to give you the benefit of the doubt because, ‘underneath’, you are an immutably good person, which you needn’t prove by means of appearances”
Well: in addition to being immutably good people, everyone can now take the mantle of honest social critic—with all the associated assumption of courage!
That, I think, happened via the same mechanism by which Dionysian transgression took power.
Once upon a time, societies held a niche for rare Holy Fools, who accidentally provided a model of deep awareness and alternative commitment, and who punctured social pieties when necessary. Later, people lost the ability to distinguish that special function from garden-variety immaturely oppositional rhetoric; and so the latter assumed the former’s prestige.
This is brilliant Derek. I had never considered Holy Fools but that is another very insightful example of transgression productively bounded by social order. Definitely something to look into further. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments
Thanks so much, Penelope! On decorum, you are articulating something that I believe many of us have been only dimly intuiting. I wish this post had been available for me to read a few decades ago.
I'm afraid I might have to write an essay of my own to be in conversation with this piece, Penelope, as I found my notes for the comment section getting longer and longer in the reading! I'm curious to know, though, if you've read Rob Henderson's thoughts on countersignaling in wealthy communities and how this countersignaling is the poison drunk by the youth within non-wealthy communities (who have no wealth to cushion them from their behavior)?
Your insights around the paranoia of analysis removed from judgment feel like a well-paved back-gate pathway to examining the cultural West's obsession with searching out and depending wholly on ever-shifting "evidence" in all realms of life. It seems we've dissected our sense of intrinsic value and worthiness to death, quite literally, and are now in the rather despairing process of trying to rebuild a living thing from the hacked-apart pieces of the corpse.
I also cannot help but think of psychologist Esther Perel's observations around the widespread abandonment of eroticism—a cultivation of respected space between Self and Other—and how that might be worth considering here.
Oh Jan I would so love if you wrote an essay response, if indeed you have the space and time! Otherwise, I welcome further thoughts or feedback for anywhere I might have gone wrong or lacked nuance in my analysis, as it seems you've turned similar topics over in your head for a while.
Thank you for your insights, they are brilliant. Yes, I have come across Henderson's notion of "luxury ideas". I must admit I have not read much of his work but find that some of his classist analyses here on Substack can be limiting. However the point about the non-affluent adopting behaviours they have no cushioning for is very valid.
I also appreciate that you've linked my comments on paranoia to obsessive data-crunching and analytical dissection which I hadn't made an explicit connection of but yes, it's entirely relevant. I appreciate the somewhat morbid image of rebuilding a living world from the bits and pieces of a corpse, but tend to feel that it's impossible. We rather somehow need to reignite the whole or source from which the parts grow and unfold!
Lastly, I am aware of Esther Perel but, again, have limited exposure to her work. Thank you for giving me so much to follow up!
This was, sadly, so absolutely insightful and true. Thank you for the clarity of thought.
Your conclusion was powerful. I personally couldn’t answer more fully in the affirmative.
Thank you Leah, it's reaffirming to know this resonated. Without sounding melodramatic, it actually deeply saddens me to realise the extent of this loss of Beauty in public appearances, whether attire or architecture or mannerism. When I glimpse it I really feel a sense of nostalgia, for something the culture of my time never conclusively gave me, but still preserves in moments and instances particularly amongst the older generations...
You are not melodramatic. You probably feel that way simply because you are of the minority with eyes to see it for what it is, but there truly is loss. Keep up your work of cultivating this beauty within your own self and home. It will make a world of difference to your family.
Absolutely, that's all we can do. Our family pursues it without reservations and in spite of it putting us against the current. Thank you Leah!
An insightful point in this post: how the carefully bounded arena for Dionysian transgression overgrew itself and displaced the power of normality.
That, along with social criticism as an unnoticed in-group norm have, I think, undermined the once-prevailing recognition that human social arrangements have a legitimate grounding.
And a phrase worth chewing on: “the general inversion of inter-personal ethics whereby you are no longer required to prove yourself through social presentation but rather the onus is on other people to give you the benefit of the doubt because, ‘underneath’, you are an immutably good person, which you needn’t prove by means of appearances”
Well: in addition to being immutably good people, everyone can now take the mantle of honest social critic—with all the associated assumption of courage!
That, I think, happened via the same mechanism by which Dionysian transgression took power.
Once upon a time, societies held a niche for rare Holy Fools, who accidentally provided a model of deep awareness and alternative commitment, and who punctured social pieties when necessary. Later, people lost the ability to distinguish that special function from garden-variety immaturely oppositional rhetoric; and so the latter assumed the former’s prestige.
This is brilliant Derek. I had never considered Holy Fools but that is another very insightful example of transgression productively bounded by social order. Definitely something to look into further. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments
Thanks so much, Penelope! On decorum, you are articulating something that I believe many of us have been only dimly intuiting. I wish this post had been available for me to read a few decades ago.
That's quite an honour to hear, thank you Derek
I'm afraid I might have to write an essay of my own to be in conversation with this piece, Penelope, as I found my notes for the comment section getting longer and longer in the reading! I'm curious to know, though, if you've read Rob Henderson's thoughts on countersignaling in wealthy communities and how this countersignaling is the poison drunk by the youth within non-wealthy communities (who have no wealth to cushion them from their behavior)?
Your insights around the paranoia of analysis removed from judgment feel like a well-paved back-gate pathway to examining the cultural West's obsession with searching out and depending wholly on ever-shifting "evidence" in all realms of life. It seems we've dissected our sense of intrinsic value and worthiness to death, quite literally, and are now in the rather despairing process of trying to rebuild a living thing from the hacked-apart pieces of the corpse.
I also cannot help but think of psychologist Esther Perel's observations around the widespread abandonment of eroticism—a cultivation of respected space between Self and Other—and how that might be worth considering here.
Oh Jan I would so love if you wrote an essay response, if indeed you have the space and time! Otherwise, I welcome further thoughts or feedback for anywhere I might have gone wrong or lacked nuance in my analysis, as it seems you've turned similar topics over in your head for a while.
Thank you for your insights, they are brilliant. Yes, I have come across Henderson's notion of "luxury ideas". I must admit I have not read much of his work but find that some of his classist analyses here on Substack can be limiting. However the point about the non-affluent adopting behaviours they have no cushioning for is very valid.
I also appreciate that you've linked my comments on paranoia to obsessive data-crunching and analytical dissection which I hadn't made an explicit connection of but yes, it's entirely relevant. I appreciate the somewhat morbid image of rebuilding a living world from the bits and pieces of a corpse, but tend to feel that it's impossible. We rather somehow need to reignite the whole or source from which the parts grow and unfold!
Lastly, I am aware of Esther Perel but, again, have limited exposure to her work. Thank you for giving me so much to follow up!