More smokescreen from the columnist who gleefully voted Trump.
Drop the act, Mr. Brooks. It's not working. Mensch up and come clean.
4
It’s appropriate to be appalled when people hit their dogs.
----------------
?????
If a person beats their dog after it darts into the street, it learns not to go into the street. Tough love sometimes is safer than waiting on obedience training, or cleaning up your dead dog in the street...
I don't care if you are appalled. My dog is alive and doesn't run into the street. Mind yo bidness, DB.
1
The problem is that our incentive system is totally screwed up, turned systematically upside-down ever since Reagan declared 'greed is good.'
Fox News reached phenomenal success (and profits) by spreading fear and hate and giving a platform for the mean and nutty.
Trump was elected by a media that hoisted a fairly unknown two-bit con man into national consciousness and then turned him into a megalomaniacal bully who publicly attacks good people in the most horrific, shameful manner and defends brutal despots.
Obstructionism, voter restrictions, and denying Constitutional privileges to a sitting president get votes. Banning terrorist-type firearms equipment, increasing the minimum wage, and eliminating special deductions for the wealthy do not.
Someone gets rich by getting people to run down their car (for many, their only asset), jazz it up by calling it the 'sharing economy,' and then act like a total social jerk -- he gets heralded as a brilliant 'disrupter.' Pointing out that all he's done is merely created a new way to transfer wealth, make traffic more unsafe, and destroy professional jobs -- that's a spoiler.
Tele-evangelists rake in millions by preaching wealth is a sign of god's love and Obama tried to force nuns to perform abortions. But people on the ground doing God's work go starving for funds.
Now, who is society -- and our kids -- supposed to look up to?
Personal space was never a flexible concept, except as practiced by handsy men in positions of power over those they accosted. Did it ever occur to these perverts that the invasion of personal space was not welcomed? Not to Mr. Biden, it didn't. Why elect a politician who has no clue in this most basic human relationship? Doesn't matter is he NEVER intended any offense, he's a moron.
4
Every time I read a David Brooks column I wonder if he ever interacts with anyone who isn't a white man. Shockingly myopic.
1
I think people make too big a deal of how Trump is a presidential “norm” breaker. Sure, there are plenty of examples of his behavior we do not attribute to a president, but we most certainly do attribute to celebrity culture. Trump is first and foremost a celebrity persona that we happened to elect as president thorough the un-democratic process of the electoral college.
He is not an anti-PC “breath of fresh air” some on the right give him credit for, but rather a contortionist who oh so badly wants to conform to what will make him popular. He is the pathology come to life of our obsession with celebrities and our vacuous need to be entertained even when something like good governance can be dull (I often heard Obama described as a boring egghead by acquaintances).
I think we need to look at him as negative norm that finally broke through to the big stage, not a one-off aberration. If he indeed loses the 2020 election there will still be millions that are fans of Trump and will need to be reckoned with. Those of a liberal inclination need to understand that he represents something that is not new, but brewing for decades after the success of the civil rights movement. A reactionary culture of mostly white men who have steadily seen their unquestioned dominance diminished. They are virulent force who, if not the dead center mainstream norm, are an established norm that will not easily be pushed aside even when Trump fades away.
7
"They [the 'illuminators'] do this by showing how cool and just the norm breakers are and thus encourage others to copy them ... When famous, good-looking or cool people embrace a norm-shift, you get a mass cascade. That’s when you win over all the people who may not be intrinsically interested in the cause, they just know that this is how the cool people think and act, so they want to do it, too."
That is a good outline of what happened in the 1960 Popeye cartoon short "Coffee House".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xod4cNfSxKo
Our square-to-a-fault hero sees that Olive Oyl has gone full beatnik, broom-bristle hair, Maynard G. Krebs sweatshirt and all, with her new beau Brutus following suit. Finding his old style dead in the water in a nightclub whose patrons all snap their fingers and say "Cool! Cool!", he decides that since he can't beat them (up) he might as well join them as he pops a can of "Cultured Spinach", confronts Brutus clad in an artist's smock and beret - and fades out with a reconciled Olive in saying, "Like, I yam what I yam."
2
Great article.
2
Celebrity Donald has "cool" persona amongst his base. He's in high school Riverdale and Melania's Veronica--he wants to instill envy as if high school with prettiest girl--and it's working because his base like high school is immature, somewhat illiterate with not enough experience to know its hogwash
2
Thomas Kuhn already wrote this one. It is called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962).
Brooks needs to stop it with his silly anecdotal parables of individual behavior. Your earlier vignette about Luke the custodian was ludricous. No custodian would clean a hospital room twice out of a sense of charity for a grieving, petulant parent.
The tableau that Cass Sunstein witnessed may have been more common in the 1960s, but it is still unlikely. Both the student and Sunstein did not want to risk their careers, but Sunstein, accompanied by the student, should have discreetly reported the incident to the Dean. The student's behavior is also suspect. Perhaps she wanted to cultivate a new, more virile mentor.
Brooks really grinds his intellectual gears or remains in neutral. He repeatedly evinces a "this/that," "first, second, third" mindset that is unsuited to analyzing the complexities of a grey world. Forget philosophy.
The most obvious large-scale paradigm shift governing social norms that even adolescents would attest to is the emergence of FAANG and related technologies. Social media and the compression of space and time are producing human consciousnesses of increasingly questionable probity. New media companies, not individuals, are scripting the way we see.
How did this man become a NYT columnist?
5
nice - I've read that the most important person in social change is 'the first follower'
what is that ? Imagine people standing in a group. One person steps away and say's 'I've got a better idea' and stands apart.
It looks scary to follow that one outlier when you're safely ensconced with the group. Why follow the crazy ?
So it takes bravery for 'the first follower' to step away from the group and follow the odd one out.
Once two have stepped out, it's easier for third, fourth and eventually the whole crowd to go in the new direction.
watch - https://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement?language=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO8MwBZl-Vc
“The first follower is actually an underestimated form of leadership in itself. … The first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader.” - Derek Sivers
5
Yeh... Conservatives savage them, progressives revive them.
1
One of the interesting things about contemporary conservative discourse is the absolute refusal to engage with people as though they are acting in good faith. Thus David Brooks and his "school of fish" approach to his fellow human beings.
It's important to understand just how deeply cynical Brooks's view of his fellow citizens really is. He clothes his nihilism in treacly language, invoking feelings and norms and tears and such, but what he's really doing is extremely sarcastic, indeed a form of anti-morality.
Thus he represents civil rights activism as a "soap opera", to make it appear like an inauthentic drama. In Brooks's telling, people don't act on the basis of genuine beliefs about right and wrong; rather, they obey "how society tells them they’re supposed to react".
In David Brooks's representation of society, there's no ethics, no political philosophy, no right and wrong: it's just people "showing how cool and just the norm breakers are and thus encourage others to copy them".
This is a reflection of a wider mindset amongst conservatives, to refuse to engage with other people as though they actually have beliefs. It's not an act: they really do believe that no one actually believes e.g. in global warming. When they see someone advocating to protect the environment, they really believe they're seeing someone who is just following a fad, or being influenced by money, or trying to look cool, playing up a mere cause celebre, or what have you.
5
Bill Moyers
Oliver Stone
David Letterman
Jay Leno
The list goes on, of good people doing good things.
1
This piece neglected to mention social engineers, you know, the people who work to force unneeded and unnecessary change on to society. Take, for example, the "norm" of believing President Trump is an unpatriotic Putin Puppet, or even better, that transgender is perfectly normal because sex is not determined at conception but interpreted -- sometimes incorrectly -- at birth.
Donald Trump is not merely an infantile narcissistic who trashes social mores. He is also a willing advocate of a sick ideology of white supremacy who has captured the leadership of this country via the self-serving acquiescence of a hollowed-out and regressive Republican Party. The 2020 election is not just a test of America's social mores, but, more importantly, it is a test of the very IDEA of America. Strike two, if we fail that test. Strike three, and America is gone.
2
" It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.”
— Mark Twain
2
As usual, your entire seemingly reasonable argument is predicated on a foundation of complete garbage: why oh why didn’t Sunstein confront the “older male professor”? No wonder the woman came to him crying! He was putting the onus on her, the victim, to somehow fix the situation—an impossible task. I could barely read the rest of this piece because my eyes were blurring with fury at how consistently you fail to see what’s right in front of you.
4
I'd like to make an addendum to the three points he makes... one reason that children can cause so much laughter and embarrassment is owing to the fact that they often express and question social norms that haven't yet been internalized.
2
A minority group of gun owners in the USA seem to think that owning a gun is a social norm. Maybe they need to change how USA sees owning a gun as a social norm. USA citizens have been brainwashed by a minority group called the NRA into believing that ALL USA citizens own guns when it's only a minority of the population that own guns. These minority groups usually make the most noise publicly, so the general public are brainwashed into thinking most USA citizens own guns, and it is the social norm.
NZ gun legislation and buy back scheme should be made into law by the end of the week in Parliament. There is no buy back scheme for businesses that sell automatic and semi-automatic guns.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/386700/christchurch-terror-attack-gun-retailers-and-owners-uncertain-of-buyback-scheme
3
Yea, the last paragraph captured it all. We are living in those times, and I have no idea if it's good or bad on balance anymore than my neighbor.
Who would have liked to live under the Roman Empire? Under Trump, we are in fact turning into that abomination. Prosperity doesn't define decency. These are totally unrelated ideas.
Did I just imply that Trump brought us prosperity? No, because he didn't. I'm only saying directly that what Trump sold to the American people was prosperity, and sometimes we have to turn our backs on that. The idea that we can all be a bit better off if we act a little bad has to perish forever.
This is pretty direct and obtrusive language.
My understanding is informed by towering figures of knowledge:
Paul Krugman
John Keynes
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Brad Delong
Mathew Yglesias
Noah Smith
Dean Baker
Jared Bernstein
Barak Obama
Hillary Clinton
Allen Kruger
Ben Bernanke
There are more. If I missed someone, I'm sorry. If you think you mattered, you probably did.
1
What were the "old rules of decorous behavior?" When the media hid the affairs of presidents because they were gentlemen?
1
Here's an easy way to tell if an activity is harassment. Would you do the behavior to someone you were not sexually attracted to? If you are a straight male, would you stroke the hair of another male? Maybe you only like "pretty young things" - would you stroke the hair of a woman older than you?
Would you enjoy someone you are not sexually attracted to, stroking your hair?
If the answer is "no" then it's harassment.
5
Honor, decency, integrity, truth, fact telling are and have always been the norm. Lying is and has never been acceptable except to other liars. Confront the liars and their enablers and supporters, truth matters do not let these false prophets get away with their con. In 2020 make a difference, vote these immoral people out of office.
6
Then, of course, there was Socrates, a real crowd pleaser.
With regard to the example of the young student who was upset by an older teacher stroking her hair, there is something completely missing from this analysis and from most of the comments.
Why is it assumed that the old professor is doing something that he knows is making the student uncomfortable, given the milieu he grew up in, he might not. The analysis seems to think the only alternatives are the student either stifling her feelings, or putting in a career damaging formal complaint. How about talking to the prof as if he is a human being? He might be surprised and upset to find he is doing something unwelcome, and never do it again.
And it is her, not the other professor who should do this, asserting oneself is a necessary skill for all young people to learn.
If he persists, or ignores her , then its definitely time to put in a complaint.
Mr Brooks in his writing always extols us not to think in binary terms of the good guys verses the evil people, this is laudatory, to follow this good advice, shouldn’t the Professor be given a chance to amend his ways?
In the currently upcoming social norm, anybody who makes this kind of mistake is automatically assumed to be a irredeemable villain, and this is itself, a norm that should be questioned.
1
@Sergay Mendelv
Yea, he might now know. The student didn't show it to anyone.
So we have to rely on our knowledge rather than our instincts. We know as a human race, some more than others, that this is indecent behavior.
Some of us know this inherently. We can sense it when we see others doing it.
It's a disconnect in our large frontal cortex to the rest of our lizard brains.
So the lesson, think, is don't ever let that man do this kind of thing again. I think he'd get the message with social conditioning much more than through jail time or means.
But who knows, social conditioning only works of social systems are moral, fair, and operating properly.
If they aren't, they need to be fixed.
1
I gave up all political content on Twitter. Those I agree with and those I do not. The algo to determine what I see required it! Next up is anything political on TV.
This argument is surprisingly reductionist. Yes, people who supported gay marriage were once punished (by bigots), and now they are not (except by bigots, but fewer of them). To remove the parentheses and to say that this shift in attitudes can be reduced to shifting norms is to create a false equivalency between bigotry and inclusivity. On the national stage, despite everything that Trump has said, seeing things as closely to reality as you can is still different from seeing things through a veil of bias and prejudice. Yes, both "sides" (as if there were just two) can call the knowledge used by the other side "fake," but all knowledge is not created equal, despite shifting norms.
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but I will listen to Dr. King instead of Sunstein, Esq. I will do my best to follow the arc of justice rather than the rhetoric of norms.
3
Once again , David, your party, the GOP, is responsible for this downturn in social norms. Do a column on your own people who are ripping democracy apart. Be brave and call them out!
4
Usually, you argue in favor of norms, because we should all act like Victorian upper-class gentlemen and laidies. Anyway, you fail to distinguish between social distance and personal distance.
oh dave, it had to end in a typology, didn't it?
what comes of simplistic thinking? putting people and problems in little boxes.
norms aren't rules; if they were, we'd be an algorithmic society, like bees, performing scripts in response to cues. we'd make honey, and that's it.
"norms" are emergent from situations. pick any "norm" -- don't ask strangers their income? not if i'm an IRS officer, or attending a wealth seminar. don't hit a poor dog -- not if the dog is biting my child.
hidden behind the weasel idea of "simple rules" and "what's appropriate" is that we still can't program computers to "respond appropriately" in conversation (through text, voice simulation). golly, rules so simple, we don't even know what they are!
i don't need no stinkin' badge -- nor your permission to speak my mind. i laughed at the #MeToo comedy starring a safe space undergrad and timid wee Cass. (don't rock that tenure track boat, dude!) but those of us who have grown up don't work that way. if we have something to say -- we say it.
and what comes of speaking your feelings? not social change, but possibly personal situational change -- work, relationships, family. why is society otherwise intractable? because it's mired in infrastructure, especially digital infrastructure. (YouTube, Twitter are major "conveners.")
what box fits me? hmmm ... celebrity in my own mind, illuminator of my style, namer of dogs, convener of dinner -- and confrontationalist with sentimental thinking.
To the five disparate types of norm-shifters must be added the reality of a lamentable, potentially ruinous sixth type: Underminers.
Perhaps this category of norm-shifters can be described best and most succinctly by simply naming its foremost contemporary American exemplar: Donald J. Trump. For the many ways in which he not only publicly bastardizes but seeks to proactively subvert truth, objectivity, scientific consensus, and time-honored political and social values, our inglorious President deserves to be ingloriously christened as The Underminer in Chief.
6
"But we all have the power to create cultural microclimates around us, through the way we act and communicate."
As a columnist for one of the most widely read publications in the entire corporate mass media, I feel like this part is a little disingenuous.
YOU have the power to affect the civil discourse in significant ways. Your parent company has that ability.
For the majority of Americans, we are basically stuck with whatever cultural norms your parent company decides are appropriate for our civil discourse.
Respectfully, many people believe that is one of our biggest problems.
1
I believe, very strongly, that politeness and civility are a couple of the greatest human powers for good. I try, when driving, to yield right of way to others, yielding to pedestrians and signaling them that I am doing so. I try to act politely to those I encounter. I also try to speak and write, in a civil tone, though I have failed at times, when it comes to what I have written about Donald Trump. Treating people with curtesy and respect helps increase that sensibility in the world around me, and I think it adds up, like a small ripple, in a deep human sea.
6
Let's start with something everyone should be able to agree on: The President of the United States can't be a serial liar. Nothing that comes out of the mouth of the current leader of the nation can be trusted. He is not the first to mislead while in office but he certainly is the most prodigious. What a squishy place to try to establish social norms.
3
There is another type of norm breaker you didn't mention - The Manipulators. I would define Rupert Murdock in this group. By taking hold of large swaths of the media he was able to shift opinion away from norms and give voice and credence to regressive thoughts and ideas. By knowingly identifying under-served groups, he played to their weaknesses and then fed them ideology that served his goals and desires. He labeled liberals as weak and corrupt, conservatives as caring and christian, taxes as abhorrent, and those that live on the coasts as elites looking down upon the ignorant, hard-working heartland. He helped bring in the age of subjective truth in order to balance an equation that couldn't be balanced and rejected the idea of greed as a negative to society.
I know I got specific instead of keeping the category inclusive of many but as the greatest norm breaker of our time the manipulators are the most important category. Trump would not have existed with Fox News or the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine or abolishing the limits one individual could own news sources.
4
Recently in my home city of Philadelphia, a man walking his dog in a park told another man to leash his dog, per the park's rules. The man with the unleashed dog punched the first man so hard he fell. The fall killed him. Violence is down in significant ways, but when acceptance of inappropriate behavior like pushing and throwing punches at political rallies reaches a certain level, more extremes like this fatal punch in the park occur. Those extremes will frighten enough people not willing to take risks to abandon any idea of creating cultural microclimates around them. It's easier and safer to not get involved.
3
Living in South Carolina I often meet people who are exactly what outsiders might expect to meet here. But I'm convinced they are not the majority. Culture acts like a bully, forcing decent people to conform to thought and behavior they know is backward. But what to do with that? Thinking and acting backward is a lot like being backward.
1
@omstew
Two take-aways:
"Living in South Carolina I often meet people who are exactly what outsiders might expect to meet here. But I'm convinced they are not the majority."
I wouldn't be so sure. Better check again.
"Thinking and acting backward is a lot like being backward."
No, it's the same thing.
1
Interesting piece. So where are all of those Republicans who used to live and die by maintaining our countries norms? In the past they would be fighting for the return of norms that have been shattered by DT. They certainly put great effort into shattering norms and pushing against Obama when his policies were an effort to actually help Americans in need. Instead, they are silent and more often than not, overtly complicit. Between their support and the use of social media and Fox news as lie machines that gore the truth, we have an uphill battle. A battle out of the gutter created by DT.
Have some back bone and tell it like it is.
3
Many people think "not complaining" is a virtue (maybe even a Stoic virtue). It really just perpetuates injustice. We need to complain (you called it "name") injustice.
2
Let's see if I have this straight. Cass Sunstein has a new book which puts norms at the center of how we think about change.
He's a young male lawyer who observes and older male lawyer stroking a young female student's hair in the hallway. He is "astonished" and later goes to the young female student to let her know that was completely inappropriate. First she says it's fine then she comes up and relates that her boyfriend (age unknown) thinks she should make a formal complaint but she doesn't want to make a fuss.
Why didn't he go to his lawyer colleague and tell him it was not appropriate? Or if that was uncomfortable for him go the head of the law school? Nope. Just tell the young lady that she shouldn't let the old man stroke her hair in the hall . . . Sheesh.
49
@MARY If he went to the colleague or head of the department to talk about the student, would that have then been seen as patronizing? Would he be then called out for not having gone to the student as a person with sovereignty of her own? Just trying to nail down how, in an age where nothing he does will be considered correct, how nothing he does will be considered correct.
10
@MARY
He declined to protest to the malefactor for obvious reasons: he didn't want to damage his career.
Forty years later, this profile in courage is writing books on high principle, with an assist from David Brooks, another self-appointed sage of decency and moderation, and acolyte of the egregious William Buckley,
*Anything*, to avoid what these men fear the most: discussions about "class".
9
@Tintin He was a witness to this event and it made him uncomfortable. He could very well express his own discomfort and feelings about the matter to 1st and foremost his colleague who committed the offense; perhaps secondarily to the chair or on up the chain. So he doesn't have to go to the department about a student, he can go to the department about his own feelings on the matter.
I would also suggest that he notify the student of his discomfort and actions so that she not be blindsided and additionally so she may then to make a complaint or not as her own conscience and agency dictate.
1
My students knew the phrase, "World peace starts with each of us and in our classroom." We adopted that idea in my high school classroom for years, and the norm in my classroom was that students were not hurtful or discourteous because that violated the norm. I rarely had to say a thing.
Even though the mantra seemed to be straight from Pollyanna, we all subscribed to it within those classroom walls. The "norm" of classroom bullies and weak victims just did not fly.
We can all live our convictions. Sometimes they will cause thought; sometimes they might even result in imitation. If our hearts and minds are honest and compassionate, our lives speak for us in ways that words never can.
3
@christie828
A friend who taught for years used to spend regular time on good behavior - not rigid obedience to rules, but on learning to care about classmates, and making it the norm in her classroom to say good things about one another. It's easier for kids to listen to others when they know they are heard. It's developing emotional intelligence, via learning strategies for controlling one's own behavior.
There was one group of hyperactive boys she worked with where she also added a special once a month "formal" lunch where they did learn to go by "rules."
The kids all loved her -- I think it's because she gave them control over their situations, and made them love themselves more. And made her classroom a peaceful, sometimes joyful, place.
There are upteen times I've been with her when some adult approaches with a big grin, saying "Do you remember me? I was in your class . . . "
Teachers have such influence.
3
David Brooks! You forgot "apologists" and "toadies". How things never change in your GOP.
2
I have a single word for you and Mr. Sunstein: Kristallnacht. When social norms are suddenly assaulted by atrocity, those norms can collapse in an instant, and suddenly we may be faced with a holocaust. Behavior and social norms may adapt as you argue in your thesis, but they may change dramatically in a single stunning moment. I give you the Chicago riots during the Democratic National Convention in 1968, or the September attack on the World Trade Center. Riots, and unexpected attacks can foment societal leaps that one could never predict. The norms Mr. Sunstein discusses are normal and expected. Old people simply need to be aware. The traumatic events, plotted to disrupt are those we need to fear. I fear, the Republican administration currently leading our nation , and the direction they are leading us. Will they use a normative shift to force dramatic change? I think so.
3
Yet another article from DB where he ever-so-tentatively approaches the idea that conservatism has utterly ruined our society and then backs away.
David, it is getting B-O-R-I-N-G.
Trump "savages" the laws of the land and our democracy on a daily basis...
McConnell and his gang "savage" the workings of the Senate (and yes, our democracy)...
Barr "savage" Justice, just like all the other toady farce cabinet secretaries and "acting" secretaries...
And Mr Brooks thinks the key issue facing the nation is "social norms" and natters on in his usual disingenuous way, making much ado about nothing... More squid-ink for the Right...
2
Odd, when Sussman's wife referred to her boss's opponent in the run up to the 2008 presidential election as a "monster" she broke a norm with me!
1
Trump and his blind followers have stumbled their way into an old norm which has been successful throughout history. Most recently, the Nazis used it to demonize and devalue millions of Jews and other non-Arians. This strategy served to enhance the Arians' views of themselves and was focused on enhancing their power in their country and in the world. The 'other' is the 'problem'. The current focus on the supposed immigration problem is now being concocted to be the pathway to a win in 2020. The US can only be great again if all others (read non white, et al) are diminished and seen as a threat. This proposition obviously appeals to many.
My wish is that some prominent Democrats would be willing to clearly state the above proposition so that the country could understand, regain its sane agendas, and dispose of the threat that is currently facing us.
5
Robert Fulghum perfectly expresses, “Everything I Need to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten.” Simple and true.
1
Does the US government pay POTUS-owned resorts for his entourage's stays?
Is this another as yet uninvestigated emoluments-clause issue?
To my knowledge, no previous POTUS has personally profited from time spent in
alternate venues on business or vacation. If this is presently the case, perhaps it
should be documented and publicly reported.
Thanks for your consideration of this matter, about which I have seen
nothing specifically written.
3
Excellent! Well written and germane to the context in which we live. Gives me perspective into social action in my micro-context.
Dissects the massive angst that is present with the arising 'Trump Phenomena' ..... and, more importantly, what we can do to counter it.
This permission granting works as a two edged sword and warriors will grasp the significance of this and wield it to the betterment of society. Thank you Jesus for the NYT and the quality of intellect that you project.
1
Trump is a mess. Yes, he is. But the bigger issue in the attack upon civilization is not Trump, a swaggering brainless front man, a circus barker in his dotage, but the fanatic folks running Trump and the GOP and spreading disinformation and alternative reality with a propaganda machine that rivals Goebbel’s during the rise of Fascism.
Until Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, Alex Jones, rabid Bible radio, scurrilous YouTube, Twitter, Facebook disinformation posts, until this machinery is disabled, 45% of the electorate is beyond the reach of common sense and the evidence of their own eyes.
4
Dissonance.
1
Walk down the hallway. Michelle Goldberg just called for the shunning of Kirstjen Nielsen.
Perhaps another way to get norms back on track would be national service for one year for every high school graduate and an optional year of service for those over 50.
Civility, compassion, consensus, compromise. Four terms that are noticeably absent in much of public discourse today. Manners are the lubrication of society.
3
I wish the opening anecdote would have been, "Sunstein went to the male professor who had been stroking the female student's hair and said, 'you shouldn't have done that. It's inappropriate." Maybe we'd see more change if men call out men.
2
True enough, Mr. Brooks, but woven through the fabric of evolving normlessness is our focus on short-term fixes, immediate results and a selfish, Trumpesque attitude of "where's mine?"
The resulting anomie is increasingly likely to yield a bitter harvest, and by the time enough of us realize it, it may well be too late. And, yes, Donald Trump is doing his level best to harness and provoke disregard for measured and thoughtful evolution, in favor of fanning the flames of selfishly motivated revolution.
As long as Mr. Brooks is calling out the stars among us, hockey great Wayne Gretzky, when asked long ago for the secret of his success, famously responded, "Skating to where the puck is going to be."
We would do well to consider where the national puck is heading, and whether that is really where we, as a nation, want to end up. Sadly, for many, some of whom don't yet realize it, we are already on our way, and by the time we get there, it may well be too late to do anything about it.
Trump and his presidency by then may be history, but the normless wreckage he leaves behind may weigh us down for a very long time to come, norms be damned.
1
The next wave of archaic and offensive norms to be illuminated and confronted deal with money. Perhaps decades away, but eventually the concept of multi-billionaires hiding wealth while our streets compound with homeless will be unacceptable, illegal, offensive. Smart countries will mandate this money to help people. Long-term: Capitalism and norms around hoarding, hiding and luxury spending must change. Three yachts, five mansions, most sitting empty, while people starve -- confront, illuminate, convene.
2
Soap operas?
The civil Rights movement created soap operas?
Something is not right with this trivializing analogy.
3
Interesting piece.
I’ll say this. In the USA and most countries around the world it’s going to take a whole lot of new social norms and reconstituted old social norms to reach the oft-referenced international targets for carbon neutrality.
Case in point. I’ve been reading a lot of publicly (positive and negative) about the new Hudson Yards development, but no critique or analysis of its carbon footprint beyond “buried in the details” reference to LEED Platinum rating...and we mere “civilians” don’t really know if that is enough. Unlike your local strip mall, super tall buildings very rarely get demolished ant certainly not every 20-30 years. That can be a good thing since relative building obsolescence can have a big impact how much latent embodied energy it wastes by being replaced.
Next Sunday, take a look at your newspaper’s real estate section...particularly the marketing...and ask yourself if any social norms relating to carbon neutrality (whatever that might be) are reflected in the advertising.
Yeah...people really need to “give a damn” beyond lambasting Trump over pulling out of the Paris Accords.
This is also true of what is known as political correctness and this is one reason for trump's popularity. He gives voice to what people think but feel that they can't say. This also makes him interesting to listen to because you don't know exactly what he's going to say. It doesn't matter that it's not nice or not good. Dems are going to face this problem in 2020. Most of them are fighting to see who can do the old song and dance most popularly, but lots of regular people are tired of the old song and dance and aren't that invested in it anyway. The only one, so far, who is interesting to listen to is Mayor Pete. A trump/ Pete debate would be entertaining because trump likes to do the macho thing and Pete is gay but Pete served honorably in the military and trump had bone spurs. We might have to redefine some norms in that election. trump is actually using old playbook that only seems new because of the supposed strength of political correctness. Pete seems to be genuine and thus flies in the face of some norms that we've become accustomed to. This makes him something new.
It must be tough having deadlines and nothing to write about except your bedside reading material.
I wish Mr. Brooks would get real and address some of the issues afflicting us instead of hoping that a slurry of tiny fish will change the downward spiral of the trump era. We still have laws, regulations and conventions. It is up to the gatekeepers, Congress, public officials, teachers, even clergy, to step up and resist the fouling of our country with the tantrum spewed filth coming from trump's mouth, and worse, the damage caused by his vengeful actions..
Please?
Trump has given voice to what many Americans think should be the norms. Maybe it's not a majority. It's hard to tell with social media and what is reported on. However, that is not the point. The point is that there are enough Americans out there who agree with Trump and believe that, because Trump says these things as president, it gives them leave to say and do some very, very ugly things to and against others. Don't forget, Trump is the man who took out an ad in the NY Times after the Central Park Jogger rape calling for the death penalty even before anyone knew if the young men accused were guilty. (And they weren't but they were railroaded into confessing to a crime they did not commit.) Trump and some of our politicians do appeal to our racist tendencies, our ignorance about Islam, science, etc.
Education and learning critical thinking skills could prevent some of this. But that would mean revising how we educate our children and accepting questions and skepticism from young people rather than squelching it. Somehow, given how intolerant our society is with anyone who questions or is halfway intelligent I don't see that reform occurring any time soon.
1
I was stunned to see Ken Kesey's name in a David Brooks column. There is one thing I am very certain of... Brooks is definitely not on the bus.
Change is going to come. It always does. Change can either be embraced or it can become the enemy of the fearful and those whose fortunes are in danger.
These last 50 years we have seen the republican party tell old confederate voters that republicans would protect their status by holding back what gains were made by African Americans and other minority communities. They couldn't really stop these changes, but they could make them as painful and slow as possible.
When Barack Obama was elected those promises vanished. republicans had failed to keep the Black Man down and the bigots and haters that now make up the base of the republican party are as equally ticked at them as they are democrats. Hence t rump, who is really not a partisan, but he really knows how to work them up and get their support.
Will the same outrage that stoked the massive vote in 2018 be enough to turn the tables? We had better hope so.
We all have the power to create cultural microclimates, but not at work except if the microclimates are agreeable to our bosses and/or help their bottom line. Low-level managers may be encouraged to create microclimates of concern for employees if that will make them more productive rather than costing money, but unless they make it clear that their highest loyalty is the bottom line, they will not be promoted.
The people that rise to the top in health care companies are those who put the bottom line over health but are good at projecting the opposite image when needed. Such two-facedness is the norm for the more liberal side of our ruling elite, but many of the more conservative members value an appearance of being tough enough to be indentured to the bottom line.
The 'shredding of political norms' is like the shredding of ligaments and tendons. Ligaments and tendons bind the power of muscles to the levers of the bones, with the correct amount of flexibility and 'give' that adapts to a wide variety of circumstances. So it is with unwritten political norms, binding together the political muscles and levers of power and laws. But when you shred ligaments and tendons, the damage is not as easily repaired as broken bones (laws). In fact, damage to ligaments and tendons can be a lifetime sentence of pain and discomfort.
We have cultures because they share the same values and norms. You are part of a group by how you conform. if you do not you are suspect. Ideas, manners, beliefs, dress all matter. To go against any of this may cause you to become an outsider which is a terrible punishment for most of us. To be a Christian , in the past, you could not be gay. Now, its changing. I remember when smoking was OK and children were exposed to smoke each day and often began smoking early in life. it was OK, acceptable and no questions asked. It took lots of efforts and time to change this dangerous habit. It was culturally acceptable and OK. Now, if you are a smoker you are often an "outsider".
More deepities from the master. There are some attempts at norm-shifting that Brooks could mention, but doesn't. #MeToo is one of them. #BlackLivesMatter is another. These fit his definitions and should be shown as positive examplars. But no, this wouldn't fit his individualistic biases.
We are faced with a dilemma. On one side one norm is (still) to drive big gas guzzling trucks (and not only in fly-over America), have larger homes than we need, and consume mindlessly. Moreover, we are addicted to the concept of economic growth(supposed to be good) and how countries with growing populations offer great economic potential...and so on...
On the other side we know we are doomed and science show incontrovertible proof that it is so. And yet, and yet, when AOC introduces the GND and Greta Thunberg begins a global movement, the first is disqualified for she was a bartender and the second, well, she lives in a Socialist Sweden, which, by the way, many registered Democrats don't know what it is and how it works...
Hence the dilemma. Shall Democrats be "realistic" and shun the "progressives" who call for GND to be taken seriously, which, in effect, will give Trump another four years of extending the Norm of Destruction, or stick to The Truth, the evident truth?!
The Truth is that we can aleready look at a devastated land where a tropical forest used to be with a single tree left in the middle of destruction. And at the top of the tree is an orangutan, clinging, with no hope left, waiting for the...end?!
Such norm-busting by Trump is only possible because he occupies the Office of the President. There are very strong norms about how we respect and respond to this office. His presence has the same effect as letting an animal, say a pig, into one's house. An unbelievable mess follows. Knowing the animal probably can't be removed for 4 yrs. means your house will be changed in ways you would have thought impossible.
Any yet, it is the Office of the President, and the media tries its best to keep a grip on the respect that past occupants have earned. Fox News takes a different view. The animal made it in the open door, so treat it as "normal" like other occupants.
As always, the trained readers of the NYTimes miss the point. Scroll thru the comments and note the hubris on display. Surely, they are the ones displaying and supporting all the right norms, and they can't possibly have been a fish swimming in a school of unthinking plebes while unreflectively supporting Obama, OWS, or more. No, of course not. Because their norms are better! They are "Progress" and everyone else is something to be disdained. This might be why they lost over 1000 elections between 2008 and 2016.
Is this supposed to give us hope that after the chief norm-buster trump is ousted we will be able to "revive" the norms he has intentionally trashed? I have my doubts.
I can relate to this as a woman. As a physics graduate student in the 1980s and 90s, I heard a lot of things from faculty that ranged from mildly sexist wool-gathering to emotionally abusive misogyny. In my urge to "prove" myself as someone who focused on physics rather than on my gender, I swallowed enough of this malarkey to poison my own self-confidence. Seriously.
I was afraid I'd be seen as some "angry feminist" who fakes her interest in physics just to bother men. So I failed to stand up for myself when I should have.
That's how it was back then. Smile and pretend you're okay with it. The second you complain, it's into the "angry feminist" box you go.
I didn't really start letting out my true feelings until Trump brought his blatant misogyny into the White House and kicked off the #MeToo surge of women complaining about things we never felt we had permission to complain about before.
Now the norm is changing dramatically. A professor at CERN was just asked to leave that organization because he kept telling his women colleagues that they'd be happier cooking and having children and they shouldn't be forced by political correctness into imagining they can do physics.
I wish the norms had changed earlier. But you can only live in the times you were born into. I'm glad we're in an era now that sees women in science as a social norm, not as an odd or threatening idea that goes against our social norms.
83
@Patricia
"Social norm"? What pray tell does that mean? Statistically, at least in computer science and engineering, to name two, there's nothing "social norm" about their numbers.
David's emphasis here on the role of the individual is wholly in line with rightwing, conservative dogma. Implicit here is the unspoken remainder of the rightwing, conservative story, namely, that government can and should do little or nothing. David refers to Mr. Trump with the morally indifferent term "norm smasher." David explicitly gives Trump the aura of a Bob Dylan and the bend toward justice of the belated acceptance of gay marriage. I do not disagree with the societal mechanisms that Mr. Sunstein discusses in his new book. David's piece, however, is abhorrent. White nationalism, which is just white supremacy behind a new fig leaf, is no new norm. Demagogues are not norm smashers.
1
The concept of social norms and imagining the future of such for the human race?
The discussion of social norms has to be one of the most fascinating discussions in the world, because the human race unlike say, bees or birds of a feather or sheep or fish has arrived at its domination of the world, its advantage over all other animals, by a constant break up of thought and action, a constant disruption of norms of behavior, in fact all we mean by individuality, the striving for such and rebellion against the commons, is an attempt at greater flexibility, an attempt at twisting and turning the entire human system into new possibility.
The sad paradox of always trying to establish social norms, or resurrect them, or pinpoint them somehow, the entire subject of clearly establishing morality, is that one locks the human system into a pattern which defeats the actual and supreme goal of the whole human project: To increase flexibility, to become capable of the most extreme and various forms of behavior and thought to never get trapped like virtually every other animal species which demonstrates social behavior.
Humanity constantly speaks of norms on one hand but what we actually admire are people who break the mold, gymnasts who shock with new routine, musicians who can change on a dime, technology which performs in the most various and startling ways, chess players who always avoid getting trapped, thinkers who can be horrifying yet also realize the most astounding dreams.
Mr. Brooks,
Your consistent focus on the smaller, township model for American discourse is becoming tiresome when collective voices are silenced at the ballot box.
What good are civil norms when all calls for better healthcare, increased civil rights, common-sense gun regulation, updated public amenities (on a local and national level) are demonized as "socialist"?
Civic norms haven't just been broken, they've been dematerialized by the party you once called home.
1
Another stunner where Brooks proceeds rationally and measuredly on a timely topic, then drops an amazingly condescending quip "The civil rights movement had a strategy aimed at creating a soap opera every day" and euphemizes our criminal POTUS as a breaker of norms.
David concludes as a narrator of a spectacle-filled nature documentary might: "The whole school of fish has shifted course in rapid ways that would have astounded us beforehand." The expert on character is not in the mood to judge; the political commentator will not weigh in on the norms being broken, which may delineate the boundary between democracy and fascism.
It is like getting food poisoning at a pleasant restaurant, calling to complain, and getting a lecture from the chef about toxic social divisions in the culinary world when the most helpful and honest response would be an apology coupled with a promise to weed out bad clams in the future.
2
Big fish little pond syndrome. Sometimes norms can be imported. It happens all the time. When a student from a small town goes away to college. Learns a bunch of new stuff. Works a bunch of years at some high paying big company and moves home. They're experience increase the size of their inner fish.
I have to wonder why so may people have this urge to do ad hoc typologies. Who says there are five types of people? Why not six, seven or eight? And what difference could it possibly make?
2
@Bob Acker
Because David Brooks loves using reductionist theories which divide everyone in the world into a small number of finite categories.
The ironic part is when he writes an editorial urging people to avoid stereotyping or simplistic thinking yet does this himself in nearly every article.
2
"It’s inappropriate to ask strangers to tell you their income." I must disagree with this. In an age when strangers accuse others of being "privileged" based on race, cis gender, sexual orientation, and other identities, I say it's absolutely fair game to demand to know the accuser's income and assets. I have noticed that it tends to be the wealthier, more educated members of society making these accusations of "privilege". I rarely see working people of any race or identity doing it. It's a form of gas lighting where the wealthy want to own, in addition to all of their monetary advantages, the presumably desirable and socially competitive quality of being "woke". It makes them "better". So they position themselves as the authority on wokeness and begin accusing everyone else of being less so. Meanwhile, they are hoarding all the privilege they can in the form of material wealth, not sacrificing for foregoing any of that while accusing others of enjoying "privilege". I say, when the privilege shamers show up, demand to know their income and wealth status, and if they aren't willing to share it, refuse to own any form of privilege they feel entitled to hold you accountable for. If they are not candid enough to acknowledge their own form of hoarded privilege, they should not be free to call out the rest of us, strangers or not.
5
@Tintin
Yeah, the wealthy in this country are so picked upon.
I kind of felt the same way during the last recession, when I was unemployed and some of the Republican jackals in Congress at the time (Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, to name a few) were calling people who needed to have their unemployment benefits extended "takers" and implying that unemployment benefit payments was a form of welfare (in spite of the fact that in order to receive unemployment benefits, you have to have been working and contributed to the system. You'd think people in government positions would know this; guess not.). When I had to decline invitations to events or social gatherings or explain why I was going to school at the age of 47, my explanation of my unemployed status was often met with, "Why haven't you found a job yet" (there weren't any in my field) or "Why don't you start your business" (starting a business costs money and often require loans, which banks weren't giving at the time) or "Well, just get a job at (fill in black with retail or fast food outlet name) until something in your field come open." I guess it served to make them feel "better" at my expense.
When these kind of presumptions and boot-strap lecturing about unemployment and the un-and underemployed made by the "haves" is castigated for the glib cluelessness that it is, then I'll be more inclined to take into consideration any lectures about so-called "privilege shamers."
1
@eheck Not following you at all. You may be assuming I'm a Republican, which would be very wrong. At the same time, wealthy liberals who want to capture the titled of "woke" while hoarding their own financial resources need to be called out for what they are: Hypocrites who want to appear to be the moral authority.
1
@Tintin
My point is that if you're going to shame wealthy liberals for being "hypocrites who want to appear to be the moral authority," you might acknowledge that wealthy conservatives have been "hypocrites who want to appear to be the moral authority" to a larger extent for a much longer period of time. They should be "called out for what they are," too.
The problem is shifts are based on how we act and communicate and that is based on a root self-perception that has to change. The idea that we are all separate, limited human beings living apart from everyone and everything around us is the self-ignorance that drives the dysfunctional behavior we claim to abhor. Unless we change how we view self, we are only using norms to make us behave as something we are not. Unfortunately, what is "normal" is what we are seeing. Human history is nothing if it isn't a repetitive display of greed, hate and violence based on a singular self-centered focus of survival of the fittest. The gift of this time in human history is that it can show us who we think we are so we can decide who we really want to be. This may open the door for trans-personal change, but only if we choose to walk through it.
"...if there is mass dissidence between how people feel they’re supposed to act and their actual feelings..."
This illustrates the peril of intentionally trying to make new norms: it automatically creates that dissidence. Mr. Brooks offers a theory of how norms evolve to fit the spirit of the times, but it would be interesting to take it further. What about intentional social engineering, promoted and carried out by the social media elite?
I'm sensing, and experiencing, a lot of dissidence in the Democratic Party because its most intolerant activists are controlling the conversation about the party's direction. We're seeing norms imposed from above.
4
For the first time in its history, the United States has a President intent on destroying the foundational structures of his own government. His goal, obvious from public statements and private reporting, is to minimize or eliminate all authority except his own. He wants an Attorney General and FBI Chief who follows his command. He wants a Homeland Security Secretary who will change our laws and reinstate family separation and maybe more. He wants unqualified sycophants appointed to the Federal Reserve. He fervently believes in conspiracy theories and lies continually. He supports no policy whose aim is not to aggrandize and enrich himself.
In the face of this attack on US civic standards, a meek and supine Senate trades power for justice, and an ideologically extreme judiciary cannot be relied upon.
This existential threat to our fundamental governing principles is the norm we should be concerned with in April 2019.
4
I'm all for creating new microclimates, but the macroclimate is now being developed by big data, Fox News, and the plutocracy. Trump is a side effect of the stupidity deliberately created by the above to support their interests.
Personally waking up is good. But getting any kind of traction for a social movement in this era of large scale manipulation will be very difficult.
1
Great article - bad headline. Savage? Revive? The whole article discussed the process of CHANGING social norms - neither savaging nor reviving them.
Mr. Brooks, I don't know who is in charge of your headlines --and perhaps the "fake news!" outcry is really about bad headlines-- but whoever's in charge of yours should really think about changing their social norm and look for another job.
1
It is the political class in most struggling democracies that is to blame. I never imagined the United States would be one of those struggling democracies - Half the country voted a demagogue to office and are condemned to repeat history since they forgot it.
Voting them out of office rather than bringing their nativist/racist/divisive politics into our lives is the answer.
2
Trump-era conservatives long railed against political correctness and under Trump have declared it dead. What they had really been complaining about was existing social norms that prevented them from publicly expressing hateful viewpoints. Under the new social norms they are trying to establish, they would be free to express racist and misogynistic views without fear of social reprobation. After all, what they most love about this president is his ability to say anything he wants, no matter how hateful or damaging, and they credit him for telling it like it is."
If these new social norms do, in fact, take hold, it will result in white males returning to a position of unquestioned privilege, and minorities and women once again enjoying second-class status.
4
Social norms I'd like to see changed:
People walking around in public yelling into their speaker phones and their speaker phones yelling back at them. Every other table in a restaurant with people (including children) watching loud videos on their cell phones or tablets. Extreme profanity laced music (including the n-word) loudly blasting from cars at the traffic light and (now even in public businesses and restaurants ).
There was a time when these things would have been unacceptable in polite society but selfishness now rules the day.
14
I believe Mr. Brooks means “dissonance” not “dissidence” in the fourth paragraph. That is, “if there is mass dissonance [not dissidence] between how people feel they’re supposed to act and their actual feelings, then you’ve got a situation ripe for radical and sudden social change.”
2
Mr Brooks, I think it is time for you to use the strength of your reputation, and your articulate style, to get on a war horse and start charging the White House, lance level.
You have so much more power to affect change , where we need it most now, i.e. subduing the cruel, vengeful, lying, incompetent, braggart, who slipped into the presidency with the aid of a Founding Fathers contraption.
The microcosmic "we" can help but it is the macrocosmic voices like your own that can make the difference.
1
"When a small group of people shift the way they show approval and disapproval, it can shift the social cures among wider and wider circles."
I believe this is called the tyranny of the majority, only on a micro level.
On the left as well as the right, what is circulating these days is a disease, not a cure. The right have their white nationalism and open contempt for the poor, the left have their open contempt for whites and for males (which is in a way even worse because they hypocritically express this racism and sexism under the banners of "diversity" and "inclusion").
We have, in short, become addicted to disapproving of others. That's perhaps not so new a phenomenon, but with the "help" of social media we go beyond that now, effectively taking the view that if they violate our sensibilities, they should be shunned from society and stripped of everything, including reputation and livelihood, even the right to feel secure in their own homes and neighborhoods.
It is ugly behavior. It also is violent behavior. And it's so dangerous for the same reason it was dangerous for mankind to develop weapons of war that could be dispatched from great distances - when you no longer have to look your "enemy" in the eye to do them harm, you no longer have to be reminded that you're doing harm to a fellow human being.
1
Some years ago, Huffington Post reported that a reproductive-rights group was selling a t-shirt with the following message: "I Had an Abortion."
Would wearing such a shirt violate a social norm?
Jasper
What do you do when someone believes his norms come from a divine being who can beat up your divine being?
You fight and wait. The young are better people than us. Permanent progress comes one funeral at a time.
1
I'm glad people no longer take the public stance, "It's okay. He's an old man and old men just act that way," and instead make public that which used to be private, "You're touching me is inappropriate; take your hands off, creep!" Women need to keep calling out men; men need to keep calling out clergy and priests.
2
.
When an individual is encouraged to complain, blame others and generally not take responsibility for their station in life – they tend to stop growing; they stagnate and fester. When a community or society is encouraged to think, believe and behave this way – what do you think happens?
And yet this is the central message of the left: if you are not satisfied with your life, it is not your fault, the system is rigged against you. Sign up here (for socialism, social programs, bigger government, guaranteed minimum income, etc.) for free stuff. And don’t bother being stoic or pulling yourself up by your bootstraps – those are out-dated modes of thinking (APA on Toxic Masculinity).
This is NOT how the west was won, folks. This is the matriarchal shift.
#longlivethepatriarchy
2
While tolerance of Trump's egregiousness resonated well with his base (and possibly cable news), I agree with Brooks that that trend can be reversed.
However, I see no possibility of reversal as long as Democrats are riven with a obsessive-compulsive quest for political correctness and litmus-test politics. They Trumpism were the co-creators of Trumpism.
3
Some of our norms don't reflect reality.
The less they're based in fact and arbitrary the more force is needed to protect them. The inquisition is a good analogy.
Which assumptions underlying or current norms are protected with the most coercion by those in power?
There is a missing principle in your discussion about changing norms; to paraphrase the old saw, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Trump and Co. are not part of this continual evolution and refinement of norms; they are a backlash to it. I am always entertained by conservatives who claim to support traditional culture but who rail against "political correctness", which is just the perceived wall of social disapproval used in traditional culture to ensure most people adhere to social norms.
2
There are two norms currently under attack.
1) One should promote what is true.
2) One should settle conflict through compromise.
The first affects society in general. The second affects in particular the political world: which candidates are elected, how government legislatures perform.
Mr. Brooks is on record as despising Trump and the road Republicans have taken. To me, his purpose in this essay is to convince people there is a way to counter the effect Trump and contemporary Republicans have had.
I may disagree with his ultimate goal, but I believe we should act in a way that reinvigorates society's support of the truth and of the worth of compromise.
1
"But we all have the power to create cultural microclimates around us, through the way we act and communicate. When a small group of people shift the way they show approval and disapproval, it can shift the social cures among wider and wider circles. Suddenly, revolutions. The whole school of fish has shifted course in rapid ways that would have astounded us beforehand." Your words, Mr. Brooks. And I agree.
How is this not what Bernie Sanders is trying to do? "Getting a small group of people to shift the way the show approval and disapproval. Suddenly, revolutions."
Trump's wrecking ball and the debris he is leaving in his wake is being challenged by Sanders in playbook very similar to what you are proposing. Yet, he is branded as an extremist, socialist, taking us to an extreme and dangerous path to......where? To a return to the values you espouse where dignity and voice is returned to the common man. He is the only candidate trumpeting - your words - revolutions. Perhaps what you are suggesting is indeed happening and should be recognized as such. Most of the Sanders platform, and those of Warren and other candidates, is supported by a majority of voters in the poles: Environmental protection, affordable college, fair immigration policy, assault on inequality, health care for all, and the list goes on.
Just sayin.....
1
What about some good old fashion common sense ?
Most of the situations we face every day must be framed in the context of that moment .
Our upbringing and the culture we have been raised in , particularly in the mosaic of American society , are important contributing factors of our behavior .
Live and learn from your personal experience !
Everything is about accountability, and ''norms'' only shift when society sees people that are breaking laws (whether they be moral or actual) being held accountable.
If a person flaunts or breaks laws (especially ones of decency) and is not held accountable (in fact is praised) then of course there are those that are going to mimic and follow. (even if it goes against everything they might know to be true - or the opposite)
If a person or entity is held responsible, tried in a fair way, and then punished for said actions, then society will change. There is a deterrence (to a degree) in place.
That SHOULD be the norm, but even that is under attack.
2
Civility, consensus, compromise, compassion are 4 words missing from public dialog these days. That is the problem.
3
It is dangerous when a society does not recognize the sociopathy involved in breaking particular norms and those that feel compelled to accept and follow the same. Social norms exist to aid in the civility of a society. The how and why, purpose, rationale, impact, etc.---all have meaning and context. Blind acceptance is dangerous.
2
David,
Looking at the social fabric that surrounds and embodies us, the threads you suggest are made visible. We all play different roles. But, as is often the case with scientific reductionism, we can lose the gestalt - the picture of the whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. What is needed today is the vision of the whole enchilada, who we all are, where we are headed, the prize one step ahead of us.
Why do clouds of molecules gather together to form reality as we understand it? What is the attraction that binds us into these forms? What motivation propels us to face another day of struggle?
The older I get, the more I understand human consciousness as a developmental process for finding Love.
2
Trump is implicitly giving people permission to say or write things that were acceptable decades ago but had been beaten back more recently. So we have regressed rather than progressed as a society.
144
@Cal You so right. Not rationalizing and absolutely #45 is very destructive. However, the under the surface toxic way of thinking/living needed to be screamingly apparent to be publicly, socially, ethically and politically addressed. Has the catalyst been worth the possible fix ?? Would have been much better for Dems, Liberals and various power brokers to have pulled their heads out of ....well complacency. Most of us are doing our best to deal with the day to day, we need and rely on some level of leadership to steer the big picture boat . Thank goodness for Mainers btw.
@Cal I think there is a pendulum phenom going on with Trump. Meaning he has given some solace to those nostalgic for the old days. But it's more complicated and layered than that. Trump has also beaten back the hypocrisy in the traditional, accepted norms of politics. He is worse in some important ways, but he has shaken things up. The landscape has changed.
1
@Cal
Yes, many people who felt they had no voice.. may now "have one ." And we have # Metoo.
Be careful what you wish for. The past was never as benign as it may now seem.... and conditions often were different. Eg. climate change is here -- no discussion of potential overpopulation; going wy backwards on abortion which many of us do not entirely understand from a biological point of view -- meaning should there be a cut-off and when in terms of viability and screening for genetic defects that would affect the life of the person to be. The wealth gap -- worse.. AI here to stay … The good old days are a figment of the imagination!!
This column is, among other things, an indictment of the culture of conformity we inhabit.
You shouldn't join a school of fish swimming in the wrong direction, which is the Trump phenomenon.
But you also shouldn't need a school of fish to indicate the ethical direction.
Our national critical capacities are crippled. It shouldn't take "norm shifters" to draw people toward truth and justice.
60
@Barking Doggerel This how humanity has worked since the beginning of time. The ability to self-correct is what makes our system work. It's not perfect, but neither are its members. Progress is not perfectly linear, but it happens. Our the society fails.
5
@Barking Doggerel
Like fish, we are either swimming towards food, or swimming away from predators. Some fish follow trump like pilot fish. Others try to flee.
That's some indictment of our so called president.
1
Stay off of social media, you will be happier, and treat all people with respect.
4
Who is and has been "we" and " our" and " people" in America?
Everyone except black African enslaved and separate and unequal Americans.
Everyone except brown Native colonized and conquered Americans.
No Americans ever worked harder and longer for less return than African Americans.
No Americans ever had more of their land, lives and natural resources stolen than Native Americans.
David Brooks confuses the thoughts of his fellow color aka race ethnic national origin sectarian educational tribesmen with a universal humble humane empathetic norm.
3
To me what's so upsetting about the times we live in is not that Trump shatters norms.
It's the people surrounding him.
His daughter, son-in-law, William Barr, Rupert Murdoch, Mitch McConnell, Mark Meadows, Sean Hannity, Melania Trump, Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, Kirsten Nielsen, Sarah Sanders.
There are so many more who enable him, every day, who don't stand up to him, don't stop him from this downward slide.
They are not just shattering norms, but they are forgetting that they are Americans first.
6
Yes, change is urgently required and "norms" are ripe for enlightened revision.
Hereafter, no Republican will be permitted to cross the threshhold of my home. They have adopted a malicious, cruel, indecent, moral and intellectual defective as their leader and celebrate his every corrupt act. So my "norm" of welcoming all to my home will change. I don't expect to change them with reasoned or moral dialogue and will not associate with those who now accept evil as their own "norm".
3
@TS. Does this mean that if I don’t support the New Green Deal, medicare for all, open borders, etc., I am unwelcome at your house, the door slammed in my face? Does it mean that you might favor at some point ostracisizing of every Republican since they are “evil,” malicious, cruel, indecent, morally and intellectually defective.” Or perhaps, some second class citizenship for them? I find your thoughts tending to evil more than those of the many millions of Republicans.
1
The old rules of decorous behavior in politics? What era is Brooks referring to, when people in politics behaved in a "decorous" manner? Surely not the era of George W. Bush, a candidate he strongly supported? In the 2004 campaign Bush's minions organized state referendums against gay marriage to demonize gay people and get the ultra-religious in their party to turn out to vote. Wasn't that the same campaign in which people acting on Bush's behalf impugned the wartime service of John Kerry, a man who served in combat while Bush himself enlisted in the "Champagne Brigade" of the Texas National Guard, where rich men's sons like him could avoid combat? Yes, it was. Decorous? Disgusting would be a better word.
Brooks has a big, big problem. He wants to draw a line on the calendar and pretend that everything he did, everything he supported, before that date never took place, so that he can preach a virtue he never practiced in those days. But many of us remember what he did and who he associated with. Shame!
3
Geeze, I always thought Noam Chomsky had wonderful insights and valid criticism of our world, but I don't think he's been in the NYT for about ... forever.
Maybe you could offer him some space or even interview him. Just a suggestion.
3
Our shared beliefs in ethics and morals have weakened and all but disappeared. The bubble has burst; the house of cards, fallen. It's tribal warfare: We are right; you are wrong: Can't you see my golden truth, brighter than ten thousands suns, right in front of you? (Nor can I anymore.)
When you begin examing foundational myths, you ultimately see through them. They are, at best, ethical Forms, nowhere to be found on Earth. So if god is dead, so to speak, everything is permitted; it's Newt Gringrich politics: dog-eat-dog, and the biggest, baddest dog always wins, as it should -- survival of the fittest.
Has Nietzsche's greatest fear -- nihilism -- conquered, at least Trump's America? Not completely, perhaps, but its stock is ascendant.
What will put Humpty Dumpty back together again? A huge guiding fiction, like Christianity, is unlikely to dawn upon modernity, that's according to my visceral computer: I just don't see it. Maybe you do; if so, good; no, if so, great -- not a moment too soon.
Socialism could do it, but its terrible, undeserved reputation precedes it; its well, effectively poisoned. Without such a grand civic moment as this, political chaos will continue. The devil's on the loose.
(My golden truth)
2
I'm not counting on the current occupant of the White House to revive all the social norms he's trashed.
2
Sunstein approached the law student. Why didn't he talk to the professor? THAT is how change happens.
123
@Meryl Shader--Thank you for saying that!
8
@Meryl Shader who is to say they eventually didn't confront that professor? Remember, even the "victim" wanted to keep quiet about it, at least at first.
4
@Meryl Shader
If I've just witnessed inappropriate behavior, I too would first offer help/solace to the one on the receiving end, rather than immediately going off to confront the perpetrator.
Unless the perpetrator is likely to repeat the incident in such a short time, I (And while I cannot speak for Professor Sunstein, I suspect the same was true for him) think it more important to care for the one wounded rather than immediately seek justice - especially because the one so wounded may not wish for me to act on their behalf.
To challenge the perpetrator might have unintended consequences; well-meaning attempts to help without consulting the one being helped have a long history of backfiring not on the would-be helper, but on the helpee instead.
9
There is a step missing from Mr Sunstein's story at the top of this article.
He tells the student that the professor was inappropriate; apparently he does not tell the professor.
We need a lot more of THAT step from people who are in a position to do it, and we aren't getting it.
5
We can't always have everything tailored to please us. And I don't know if I would really want this. Part of my psychological make-up is based on coping and making do. Not that life has been a disappointment for me...
I have always made important choices on the basis of whether I've hated something or loved something. Keep what you love and lose what you hate, and deal with the rest. Cope and make do!
We are now in a situation in the United States that is intolerable. Our leader is vile and infantile. Our elected officials are not doing anything that needs to be done. We are turning into a pariah among nations. Our debts are mounting. The rich and powerful are fleecing the public. There is no attempt to speak to the truth or to present the facts clearly. There is no public debate.
I know that there is always this tension between staying in bed or getting up. At some mysterious point, you can no longer stay in the sack and have to be getting on with your day. We are way beyond the point of pretending to think about this, and it does not require super-human choices or violent revolution.
Trump and the Republicans are no longer tolerable.
2
Computational scientists have dissected the murmurations of flocks of starlings and found information flows almost simultaneously through the flock when each bird interacts with as few as its seven nearest neighbors. They call this scale-free correlation and it is wondrous to behold:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxfvseECDcs
The human "flock" is more difficult to change course as few of us today can even name much less interact with our five nearest neighbors in our cities and towns.
To change course or restore and maintain norms requires us to reach out even at short range to repair the webs of community we abandoned in our search for personal but not societal enrichment.
Bake a batch of brownies for your neighbor. Visit a senior community for an hour. Read a book to children at the library. Reconnect and reestablish your community and the rest of the flock can follow.
48
The GOP has been destroying social norms for decades. They started, in my memory at least, with trickle down/voodoo economics and continued from there. We watched as Clarence Thomas, a man deemed unsuitable for the Supreme Court, passed the gantlet called a confirmation hearing in spite of what he did to Anita Hill. (He was a Bush Sr. nominee.) We watched as the GOP, in partial revenge for Watergate, pursued Bill Clinton to the point of impeachment. (Yes, he lied but it was over something fairly stupid.) We watched as W reauthorized torture to be used against enemy combatants and the GOP went along.
The GOP has called the people who disagree with them unpatriotic. Now we have Trump who does far worse and encourages violence in what he says. People attempting to revive social norms have an enormous task and one that takes nerves of steel.
All of us do not have power. If we did, Trump would not be in office because he did not win the popular vote and our politicians, especially the GOP ones, would be mindful of that. In America power comes with money. The more money a person has the more power they have. Read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer if you need to be convinced.
5
@hen3ry--Another terrific response. Thank you for going back to the origins of all this ugliness.
1
Interesting analysis. The largest social change IMO would seem to be gay marriage-- or domestic partnership. Interestingly, women's lib never seems to have quite made it.
OTOH LAWS -- those insidious minor details about which most of us know very little -- often nonintuitive or even IMO immoral and unethical. I am thinking of the upcoming stuff on right to abortion -- where most of us know not enough from a medical standpoint to make pronouncements. And the continuance of regressive taxation -- e.g. congestion pricing. Why does the IRS go after mostly people with very low incomes?
Intellectualizing, categorizing is this "indexing" (another new concept) is all sorts of fun but -- look too closely at the trees and you miss the forest or the desert or the encroaching ocean! (Why are we discussing overpopulation when we discuss climate change? Why aren't we And it all started long before Trump -- e.g. Reagan and Gingrich and the Dems did not stop the nonsense. ACA is NOT universal single payer!! When do we rid ourselves of our problem Congress? If the Dems continue with too many candidates they will lose the election -- or maybe not -- but who is their "Trump"? maybe Bernie?
1
Has Donald Trump smashed the norms or simply defied them? I guess it depends on whether the norms he has smashed survive him. That's a whole other column.
2
"... Confrontationalists. Social movements move forward by declaring disgraceful things that had formerly been acceptable: segregation, littering, sexual harassment, etc. They wake people up to the ways an old norm is disgraceful by actively and visibly confronting it. The civil rights movement had a strategy aimed at creating a soap opera every day: Do something every day that forces the segregationists to display their own hatefulness and the unjustness of their norms. This is how you rouse people. …"
Question:
Mass shootings have been acceptable for a few decades now. You suggest doing something every day to display the hatefulness of this norm. Are you suggesting that one should acquire an assault weapon and shoot 50 people every day?
1
I believe that Trump supporters elected him in order to thumb their noses at their perception of societal norms, in general. They believe that American culture has shifted too radically to the left, with its "political correctness". No longer can they express themselves freely. Trump is their savior. He is immune to the browbeating of social norms. Through Trump they are allowed to express how they feel without fear. In Trump's world white supremacists transform into "fine people", the sacred cow war hero image of John McCain holds no sway, and long held relationships with our allies go cold. There is no politeness or norm needed anymore. If you don't like it, "you're a snowflake".
3
You make it all sound so simple. Usually a war is interwoven somehow into the dynamic of a changing norm; or a brutal murder of a James Reeb or a Viola Liuzzo or a thousand or a million other anonymous victims. You make it all sound so simple.
1
So when is the norm of racism, controlling women about there bodies, Gerrymandering’s, murder of transgenders, profiling people etc going to be addressed.
Very interesting piece there is a great deal of understanding and work we need to do
Trump like Facebook ceo is a destroyer because they have no character love for the country that made them rich and no plans to fix what they break. Trump is destroying homeland security so the norm is to take away our security because a fool is in charge .
Voting is the norm and the next election will be the norm for Americans.
2
Or as Gandhi put it: "Be the change."
2
If only America's reality was as cheery and carefree as your reality. A friend of a friend is in deportation proceedings led by the government that she has been paying taxes to for decades. She'll be barred from reentry until she's a senior citizen, and there no chance that she will live long enough for "family reunification." I think it would be just dandy if all she had to do was expand her social circle, but it's not dandy. Your priveliged status makes you blind to the challenges that most of America faces.
1
Sniffing, stroking, kissing women and girls has never been acceptable.
When subjects are being decided in private conversations, such as acceptance of gays and letting black people use the same public facilities, I notice they get adopted rather quickly.
In my hearing, there were lots of people telling each other privately that gays were not deliberately choosing their situation, and they did not care if blacks were in the same hotel, restaurant, etc.
1
This is a worthwhile sentiment, that in Brooks's hands become a Pollyanna-ish piety. Trump isn't just an individual, even on the level of a Dickens or a Dylan. He's the President of the United States, and the leader of a major party that has endorsed his norm smashing with all its heart (see Sean Hannity), and all its institutional power (see Mitch McConnell, or Neil Gorsuch). He's currently calling people who object to his norm-smashing, or even describe it as such, "traitors" and "enemies of the people," and calling for them to be prosecuted and jailed. His Press Secretary recently suggested that his "treasonous" political critics should be executed. He has succeeded in putting hundreds of children into the equivalent of concentration camps. Plenty of "confrontationalists" and "illuminators" and "conveners" have weighed in with condemnation. The kids are still in camps.
There is more than a whiff of telling us to clap harder for Tinker Bell here.
4
How a person deals with changing social norms is different if one is a Christian. The apostle Paul tells us in ( Romans 12:2 )…." Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.".....A mind dedicated to the world and its concerns will produce a life tossed back and forth by the currents of culture. But a mind dedicated to God's truth will produce a life that can stand the test of time.
2
“there used to be a societal penalty for supporting gay marriage”? What? I don’t remember that. I do know that now if you don’t support it you can lose your job and livelihood. Never mind the fact that same sex marriage was never ever even dreamed of until about 20 years ago.
4
The whole school of fish must come together, or there’s no hope of outmaneuvering the Shark. And I’m tired of waiting to see WHO is next on his menu.
Seriously.
4
One of the first norms to go under the thumb of tyrants is tolerance. Donald Trump is stoking intolerance. Another norm in a democratic republic is division of power; Donald Trump is concentrating power, aided and abetted by the Republican Party. Meanwhile, pundits and critics offer homilies and tut tuts. By the time this nation wakes up, it may well be too late. We are watching the demolition of American government and the American people are treating it like another reality show.
214
We should be asking for a Performance Improvement Plan for our Commander-In-Chief. He is definitely lacking the skills needed for about 90 percent of the job.
Can Congress write a bipartisan bill to turn Camp David into an educational retreat for Trump and his administration? The first six topics should be honesty, leadership, sensitivity, ethics, diplomacy and economics. (Trump might be a lost cause in negotiations.)
Yeah, the 2020 elections are big. It's our chance to vote for someone closer to the norm of decency.
3
The most important norm of all is truth telling. Without it, we loose our sense of a shared reality, which in turn makes working together impossible.
For example, there is no longer a scientific controversy over whether humans are causing a dangerous amount of climate change. Yet politicians continue to pretend that it's merely a conjecture. That makes it possible to delay or reverse our efforts to confront it. FATAL ERROR.
Donald Trump's worst offense is that he has normalized lying in politics to a degree I'd never have believed possible. When he lies, "he speaks his native language." His followers treat his relentless lying as an endearing eccentricity, or at worst, as an example of God using a bad man to good purpose.
I never thought I'd see an American President who speaks falsely so often that major publications display his lie count as a box score, like a baseball statistic.
428
@writeon1
It is not Trump alone, a lot of people close to him and further away have no more concerns lying about the most important matters.
They simply do not care if the lie is exposed. That approaches the state of criminal regimes which are not interested in truth but only need to position a narrative.
Final result is the breakdown of society.
29
@writeon1
Trump would not be able to do, undo all he has done were there not precedents. This is the most interesting part of the current experiment that the is almost historical transparency. E.g I did not realize tha a three month window for abortion is in fact very very little. I did not know that separation of families at the border began under Obama. I don't know why unescorted young migrant people are kept in a kind of incarceration and NOT put into foster care? (These persons are almost impossible to "send back" but the sooner they are assimilated the better. IMO.)
From the teaching of history to partisan journalism to advertising to much of religion I think there is scant evidence to support the notion that truth telling is or has ever been a norm.
5
Development is a complex and active process, not a passive one of unconsciously "absorbing" through imitating. People develop through actively participating with others in cultural practices. The ability to imitate also develops.
1
More sentimental nostalgia for a gauzy moment in American history when everything was great and everyone knew who they were and everyone knew their place.
Donald Trump alone is not responsible for smashing norms and poisoning discourse. He simply stepped into the cultural space that the GOP has been cultivating since the 1960s. He is the logical extension of everything philosophers on the right have worked to install as "good": individualism, greed, and a rigidly hierarchical society organized by race, gender, and class.
Instead of pining for the past, maybe we should start trying to imagine a path to a better future.
4
“Trump has smashed through hundreds of our established norms and given people permission to say things that were unsayable just a decade ago. Especially in politics, the old rules of decorous behavior no longer apply.” Yes, the old rules do apply to the vast majority of people. It’s up to each of us to refuse DJT’s “permission”, to name and confront his horrible behavior, and to demand it of others. I’m looking for an “Illuminator” among the 18 Democratic Presidential candidates.
3
Before Trump was elected, I said that the silver lining should he get into office would be the backlash against his administration--so long as we survive the experience.
The five categories of norm-changers mentioned can be used for bad norms as well as good ones. Trump, sad to say, is a five-in-one for our country's worst impulses.
2
I highly respect Cass Sunstein and look forward to reading this book. But Brooks is focusing solely on individual actions to change society, and ignoring the rule of law. I don't think collective changes in thinking always precede change in the law. Sometimes the law changes people's thinking.
As in the case of civil rights, or later, gay rights, there was a shift in thinking and more pressure from some parts of society, but hardly wholehearted consensus from all of society. We came closer to that after the laws were changed.
4
At social gatherings, in public settings, conversations with neighbors, there is no doubt Trump has resurrected norms of behavior that were pervasive during my teenage years in the 50's ---where racists jokes were common, women were second class citizens, and white males were masters of the universe. Those norms were slowly shredded in the 60's and in my career path in the 80's were buried. Periodically, at a social gathering or even at the office, particles of those norms would fly into the open---only to be quickly waved away with sharp look from a wife or colleague. But, unfortunately, these 50's norms are back..we now live in a culture where there exist pockets of voters where racism, sexism, nationalism is now an accepted worldview.
12
The Overton Window is a construct that measures the civility level and tolerance of public discourse, from totally acceptable to totally unacceptable. And it’s always in some sort of flux as it reflects the values and conditions of our contemporary culture and society. Regardless of whom you ask, today’s level are extreme at both ends of that spectrum. Thus, the hatred, polarization and dysfunction we’re experiencing. This too will pass. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Vote.
6
This is another book report from Brooks where he summarizes someone else’s ideas for us.
The ideas are always ones that appeal to Brooks’ reductionist and simplistic worldview. They are typically grounded in the conservative belief in the power and rights of the individual – that individuals can affect widespread collective change through principled effort and cooperation with other individuals who agree with them. It’s a bottom-up approach to social organization and government in which individuals have the power to make choices and transform the world. Individuals produce revolutions, not governments.
Often these ideas see individual behavior as best filtered through spiritualism and religious moral systems, and other forms of magical thinking based on a nostalgic impression of how things used to work and therefore can be revived to positive effect. For Brooks, faith moves mountains – that’s all it takes.
In an entire article about how social norms change, Brooks never mentions technology and social media as likely the most powerful influencers on those norms. Instead we get “five different kinds of norm-shifters.” Thanks, David; that’s useful.
6
@Michael
Excellent comment, Michael. If ever there was a time for clear and principled government intervention, the time is now. A few individuals swimming against the tide just won’t do it. It’s too easy for the “vast right wing” internet to drown out people like AOC,Buttigieg, and Stacey Abrams with lies and mockery and characterize their idea as the dred SOCIALISM. Meanwhile pundits like Brooks offer book reports for guidance.
2
@Michael
I agree wholeheartedly on your "... yet another Brooks book report" column ...
I really wonder why he is afraid to tell us what he thinks ?
Norms are shifting in the screen-viewing world as well, which could eventually move the needle toward healthier social patterns. Fat figures were once a signifier of wealth, and parasol-protected pale skin meant you didn’t have to work out of doors. Constantly checking your device in public is still cool with kids, but in adults it reveals low-level job: you’re kowtowing to bosses who demand 24/7 hop-to-it. Today the SV elite enroll their tots in tech-device-free schools, and many forbid iPhones till 12yo or later. Social media may just be the TV ad-blitz of yore which even the lower-middle class can bypass today via cable/ dvr.
Yes! "Individuals can change the way we see." Let's all get started, now!
Step One: Change the way we see one another from enemy to colleague, both of whom serve the people.
There is no need for more steps.
2
Brooks: "Especially in politics, the old rules of decorous behavior no longer apply." This is not true. These rules may not apply to Donald Trump, but he is the only one. And he is only allowed to continue to act in disrespectful ways because the Republican party is convinced it cannot survive if it were to censure him. Trump's behavior in how he treats other people, conventions and the rule of law clearly disqualifies him from being president. But here we are.
6
1. I think Brooks meant "dissonance," not "dissidence." 2. Micro-climates are fine, but it's the law that protects us. Look at how those protections have been degraded by Republicans in recent years, and the Republican focus on continuing to install conservative judges, and you will see more clearly how very much we have lost.
9
The acculturation and social change is a continuous and an ongoing process;the more a society is exposed to the external influences the more disruptive such intersociety interaction becomes in cultural terms. Only a closed and secluded society can retain its norms long lasting. Moreover, even across time and space social norms appear relative in nature and acceptance.
This article points out but does not address, a very ancient problem in ethics, first discussed by Socrates and Plato.
There is a big difference between appearing to be something and actually being something. And so we have to decide, if by norms we mean acting or speaking in certain ways for appearance sake (so one is not ostracized) or if we mean acting or speaking in certain ways because we actually hold these norms.
In todays environment, we have a in Trump a person who thrives on violating norms, because he is wealthy and is used to acting with impunity. And his popularity is largely driven by the resentment of people tired of having to "appear" to hold certain norms, on everything from women's equality, to racial equality, and in general, popular norms about not being a cruel bigot.
It turns out, a lot of people are angry they have been asked to "keep quiet" about their dislike of changing norms. They are tired of the act. And hence why more and more people are, to use their favorite phrase, "telling it like it is," just like Trump does.
So changing norms has a catch. There are those who resent new norms but keep it to themselves. Until there is reduced penalty for letting it all hang out, so to speak. Norms are a weak social force for this reason: social pressure can maybe create an interest in wanting to appear good, but it gives us no guarantee the person actually wants to be good.
This is our crisis.
15
I liked this piece. I wish it had pursued one idea a bit further: "if there is mass dissidence between how people feel they’re supposed to act and their actual feelings, then you’ve got a situation ripe for radical and sudden social change." This is sword that can cut two ways. On the one hand, it can produce positive social change. On the other hand, when well-intentioned norm entrepreneurs create a environment of ostracism (aided by social media) for those who fail to embrace the new norms, people will often change their behavior without changing their beliefs. That produces seething resentments which can fuel a reactionary populist backlash. To be truly effective, norm changers need to focus on changing peoples' beliefs, not just their behavior. That's much harder work.
7
In the opening paragraph, the author could have approached the older professor to tell him his behavior was inappropriate. It should not be the student's responsibility to challenge the system. When men start pulling men aside and saying, "what you did back there is not cool" or better yet, interrupting bad behavior right there in the moment, that's when things will change.
7
Mr. Brooks, the question remains, what kind of social norms do you want to foster? Do you want ones that foster and support the value of everyone as humans or do you want norms that cater to fear and bigotry? The spirit behind sixties movements from women's rights, racial integration, protests against unjust wars and even sexual freedom were about the rising up and awareness of people to their value and dignity. Trumpism and the GOP would have us go back to an era that fostered only the rights of a few and that is no where near the best populism, a word that seems all the rage today, but is far from practiced in its best sense.
2
When I was a child, it was considered inappropriate to discuss politics with strangers. And sometimes even with people who were NOT strangers. My grandparents didn't even tell each other who they were voting for, and if I brought up politics in the home I was told I was being "uncouth." It was the internet that changed that. And I think that's true of many of our broken social norms. It started as a way for people to anonymously say things they could never say in person. And now it's bleeding into the "real world."
To younger people who grew up on the internet, the "digital natives," I would just remind them that there aren't two sets of rules for the internet and the "real world." Because there's only one world, and it's real everywhere. Even that stranger you're yelling at in a Youtube comment thread is a real person.
Some changes of social norms are good, and part of how our culture evolves. Some are not. Ask yourself, "Would I behave this way if I were talking to this person face to face?" If the answer is, "No," don't behave that way on the internet, either. Because the internet is the petri dish in which the plague of aggression in our discourse is growing. We need, perhaps, to expect a little more from each other in these spaces.
14
@Revelwoodie Do you think it was ever a widespread norm that people didn't know who their spouse voted for or didn't talk politics in the house? This seems a bit like something that might've only happened among very proper northeastern WASPs. I can't imagine this norm existing among Jews or Italians or Black people, let along in any country outside of America. (In many countries people loudly talk politics on the bus own while grocery shopping)
1
Yes, until fairly recently, it was broadly considered inappropriate to discuss sex, politics or religion in mixed company. And yes, I suppose we are "proper northeastern WASPs," but if that stricture was stronger among traditional Yankee types, it's only because Yankees have traditionally been more concerned with adhering to social norms in general.
Nonetheless, that was the generally socially accepted social norm. Everywhere. (In the US and the UK, anyway. I won't pretend to speak for the entire world.)
To be clear, I'm not advocating for a return to that convention. I'm pointing it out in order to illustrate how far we've moved in terms of what is considered socially appropriate conversation, and to make the point that while our more open discourse certainly has many benefits, the breakdown of even the most basic standards of civility should show us that we've got a bit of work to do on reestablishing some standards.
I think that is the challenge of the younger generation -- learning how to have these conversations without resulting to vulgarity and abuse. I'm not sure whether or not to be optimistic on that score.
A very thought provoking article. There have been social norms that have been trashed that I view as negative, but others may see them as positive, and vice versa. Age, sex, race, etc. play a role in how we perceive these changes, and people tend to read and listen to those they agree with. Social norms have always been fleeting, but I can’t help thinking that social media has accelerated these changes and skewed what is perceived as “normal” because it can exaggerate the scope and range of apparent acceptance.
3
good column. The power of each person to create and shift norms is amazing. Calm movement forward is always a good idea.
4
Mr. Brooks writes: "But we all have the power to create cultural microclimates around us, through the way we act and communicate. When a small group of people shift the way they show approval and disapproval, it can shift the social cures among wider and wider circles. "
I like this concept... but as one who lives in a New England college town that is a "cultural microclimate" I find that there are limits to how wide the circle can extend. The bubble we reside in has well-funded schools and infrastructure, is populated by well-educated and relatively affluent citizens who reliably yield to pedestrians who enter crosswalks, and are generally open-minded and kind. There are communities within a 30 minute drive from here where factories left decade ago, Main Streets are full of empty shops, and town and school budgets are necessarily austere because property values are diminished. I want to believe that the civility encountered in our bubble could be contagious... but I fear that until something is done to equalize the resources available to citizens in our neighboring towns the width of the circle will be limited.
38
@WFGersen
Your special “civility” could be contagious—admit way more POC to your pristine bubble, in hopes that your elite, “bubble students” could meet them and see that they are talented human beings, not the things this president calls them. Oh, but wait. You need like $60,000 K as the price of admission to the bubble? It’s an effective gate on your gated communities, no?
Only half of American society is interested in halting Trump's ongoing demolition of social norms. That makes regaining the social civility that has been lost to date exceptionally difficult and highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. When the President of the Divided States actively enjoins and encourages half of the electorate to continuously obliterate the social bonds that have been holding the society together for three hundred years AND that group actually enjoys the process, the prognosis for "reviving" the bonds we have heretofore enjoyed are dimmed at best. The real test of the American spirit and will now seems to hinge on the 2020 election, if Trump is unable to undermine that process in the coming months. The 2020 election will be the impetus which will see the beginning of the "revival" the article addresses, or the continued downward spiral of the society we now know as the Divided States.
20
Good article, we seem to be in a free fall in this moment in time and I am looking towards the youth of today to make the changes necessary to revamp the constitution, bring about term limits, vote in a women president, and do something about global climate. Youth today are powerful and smart they remind me of the sixties when social norms pivoted and a senseless war was brought to an end.
5
The trans movement is a prime example of this. You can literally name and/or recognize the people who have helped change the cultural, medical, legal and political mindset in just a decade.
What's different now is the speed of change in some places and the opposition to change in others. Norms, and the speed at which they change, are not evenly spread out through geographic and socioeconomic areas.
5
Many Americans are still in shock over Trump becoming president and over the vast majority of Republicans falling in line behind him. We are still catching our breath and opening our eyes.
The attitudes and beliefs of those Republicans are not new, they are just more openly expressed -- so maybe we should distinguish quiet from loud norms.
Reactions to loud noises is either numbness, deafness, or noise reduction activities.
The jury is out on which reaction will prevail.
So maybe it is not a change of norms, but a new balance in the decibel level of the various norms of our society's subgroups.
And let's hope that the noise of the bigots gets reduced to insignificance, and the choir of decency is heard all around.
21
The last paragraph of this piece seems especially apropos for the current supporters of Mr Trump. They seem to have turned our heads and minds in ways unheard of only a few years ago.
Unfortunately I don't see the small group (actually, large group) of Trump detractors making much headway in reversing the trend toward increased incivility and social polarization. I fear that in the case of the current U.S. situation, that there exists a point at which the best intentions and actions of those wanting change are suffocated or crushed by authority and defiance of the law. The election of 2020 will be telling.
6
Yes, our norms are in maximum flux. The Trump revolution has truly smashed through hundreds of norms, as you say they have.
But my feeling is that those norms will be restored.
The so-called conservatives have become a counter culture. They're a counter culture that once was the primary culture. The smashing you see is their culture in its death throes, not the creation of a new norm. It was their culture that politely and quietly accepted the unjustness that roused the illuminators of the 1960s.
In their death throes, they've simply stopped being quiet and polite. They're now open about their own hatefulness and unjustness.
Once and for all, it's time for us to bury that obnoxious culture for good.
24
When the teenaged Swedish Climate Justice activist Greta Thunberg spoke at the UN Climate Change Conference and at Davos, she broke the accepted social norm that we're not supposed to treat Climate Change like the crisis that it is. She is changing the way we see. "We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis...if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, then... we should change the system itself." - Greta Thunberg
23
I was with you, Mr. Brooks, until the end. You mentioned Donald Trump as someone who "savages social norms." And 40% of the American voting public is content with this diminution of the conventions of polite society.
And in politics, you say, "old rules of decorous behavior no longer apply." What did America do; how did America react when Mitch Mcconnell shredded the Constitution and, by the force of his personal racist animus against President Barack Obama, denied Judge Merrick Garland a hearing on the president's Supreme Court appointment? The Republican Congress acquiesced to this "bottomlessly dishonorable" behavior (thank you, Brett Stephens) with a shrug and a yawn. This was all before Donald Trump entered the White House. So who is to revive what was ripped unceremoniously from us? The mores and folkways that knit us (or some of us, anyway) together have been scattered to the four winds. Some of us lament the good that has been lost. Too many of us elevate the evil that is now the lifeblood of American politics. Who, again, is to renew what we allowed to be taken from us, or gave away?
You tell us that "most norms are invisible most of the time...the water in which he swim." That water is now polluted and no one wants to go near it except to defile it even further. We're close to being at an impossible point, Mr. Brooks: we can't start over and we can't continue on our present course.
We've trashed the veneer of gentility and substituted it for the cult of offal.
66
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
And, Mr Brooks, your allegiance to the GOP at all costs paved the way for Trump (and the costs have been many, as you are slowly realizing).
3
Brooks' last category - celebrities - defines our decay. When a person like Jenny McCarthy becomes our voice for health policy, we are in trouble.
We are not responding to ideas and ideals, but to people who write for TV.
Education is the process that is expected to result in giving a person the tools to reject the vapid, the untrustworthy, the emotionally charged falsehoods, and act on reality. Education has failed us.
31
@Cathy: " Education has failed us." Not at all. The preventive medicine can't work unless taken regularly. Instead of education, we get snake oil.
2
@Cathy More the point, we have failed the educational system.
1
"Donald Trump has smashed through hundreds of our established norms and given people permission to say things that were unsayable just a decade ago. Especially in politics, the old rules of decorous behavior no longer apply." Trump's constant flow of harsh, judgmental, abusive, language, coupled with lies and lack of personal responsibility for any of his actions is having serious impact here and globally. His election has revealed a darkness in this country and Trumps venom has spread globally. I fear it will take decades of one off actions Brooks recommends to reverse Trump's impact. And the Left is now mimicking his actions.
6
"And the left is now mimicking..." Any firefighter knows that you often have to fight fire with fire.
The constant torque of changing and conflicting cultural norms is what makes the world go around. Anticipating these norms, their strengths as well as their lengths is both art and science.
Currently, both pro & con Trumpsters were caught unaware of what happened, to the pain and pleasure of both.
Mr. Brooks, you have wonderfully stated the harmful effects of 6 decades of radical individualism. The desecration of norms is part and parcel of this societal shift. In a nutshell, the philosophy said "I don't have to obey any norm, I'm free to be me." So, now we have a nation awash in illegitimate children, broken families, neighborhoods that used to be communities, divorce, drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicide. But, hey man, you're free. Everyone seems to want to blame Trump for all these ills. It seems to me he only hopped on the bandwagon when he started to assault "norms."
6
Bingo.
Really David?! Do you actually think that this is possible when people who support Trump feel empowered? These people have no concept of social norms. Trump is the perfect representative for how they view America.
7
Real social change is dependent upon conforming to a standard that isn't socially derived but is independent of norms, i.e. the standard of truth.
5
I'm thinking about the Green New Deal. It seems that it has a lot of characteristics of the norm changers. People like AOC are both confronting the need to change and suggesting what that change might look like.
Are we ready for that kind of change? It might be better to ask how long we can delay making changes if homo sapiens is to survive on Earth.
7
My kids in their late 20s consider Bernie Sanders both Illuminator and Convener. He opened their eyes to the realities in our system. He helped them feel empowered, he gave them a voice. But you in the media dismissed these young people who dared to fill their hearts with hope. Never mind, these kids are resilient and Bernie is back, even if he does not win, once he opened their eyes, our kids will never go blind again.
15
@petey tonei I immediately thought of Bernie when I read this article. I also thought of Greta Thunberg, the teenaged climate justice activist from Sweden who speaks the truth about the climate crisis we are facing. Her direct words and actions are inspiring people, especially the young, to address the crisis and challenge elected officials to do the same. Once our eyes are opened, we cannot turn away from what we need to do: speak up, speak out, change our ways to consume less and walk lightly on the earth, our only home.
8
@petey tonei: did your kids vote? if you don't vote, you don't get a say so.
Did they refuse to vote for Hillary, because they wanted Bernie instead? what did you and they learn about "super delegates" as a result of her installation as The Anointed One?
Also, do you and your kids realize Bernie is pushing 80 years of age?
It wasn't Trump who steam rollered Bernie Sanders in 2016. It was DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS in your own party -- their powerful machine -- the one run by Pelosi and Schumer.
@Concerned Citizen, they voted for Hillary, they did not vote Republican.
3
I would like to see the norms changed in the articles here, the editorials and the comments. The practice is to blame Trump for way too much of our troubles. That is the easy way out. And Trump is hardly so powerful and persuasive. I propose that the new norm be that whatever wrongs have deep-rooted causes in longstanding policies and in our own prejudices and failings be the subject of thoughtful reflection rather than pithy Trump insults.
Among the worst problems that have emerged in recent decades are economic inequality, climate change, and the carnage in our inner cities. (Yes.). All of these problems have complex causes and solutions and laying all the blame on Trump is not particularly constructive even if it is therapeutic. If you wait, I’ll contact a good looking celebrity who will tell you that blaming Trump for everything is often an excuse for doing nothing.
21
@michjas
There's also carnage in rural communities. Whenever the economy gets broken there are social impacts.
It's true that blaming Trump is not enough, but it is an essential component to get to a positive change.
8
@michjas It is not that these problems all had their oranges with our so-called president -- it is that he has worked so diligently to exacerbate them.
2
@michjas
Trump is the result, not the cause. Nobody blames Trump for America having devolved into this madness. All I see is a bunch of less populous states housing a sufficient number of small minded people to get an electoral college victory because they spent too much attention on media outlets like Fox Fake News.
Why on earth would anyone blame Trump? He's a symptom, not the disease. Ten years ago, he was a Democrat. He put his finger up to find out which way the wind was blowing and changed course to suit. In one of his so-called 'books,' Saudi Arabia is nothing but a terrorist state. Now? We're BFFs with them! Why would anybody take him seriously--he's not too bright and horribly uninformed.
All he wants is adoration, and he gets that from the MAGA crowd. Democrats never saw much in Trump because it's been clear for decades that he's a grifter. His being a grifter doesn't seem to matter to the MAGA crowd, so that's his new political home.
Like a cancerous wart, he'll most likely be removed and forgotten in two years. If not, then America will just continue its decline. Such has always been the fate of nations, I guess we're no exception.
While I appreciate the sentiments expressed in this this piece, I can't help but feel it's part of Mr. Brooms larger narative about people helping people come together on an individual level to overcome adversity at a community level.
There's always an undertone, "you and maybe your neighbors are responsible for, and the only ones capable of, creating meaningful positive change in the world."
While I believe he has good intensions and his messaging is positive, I think he is misguided at times and he has an overarching agenda.
Government playing any role having a positive impact on society is rarely discussed at length in his opinion articles, and if it is mentioned, it's benefits are only briefly mentioned and drowned out by 20 paragraphs about "communities".
The golden solution to society's ills always revolve around disenfranchised people helping one another at a community level and good will and social prosperity trickling upward from some kind of grass roots level.
He totally blew it when he mentioned Trump.
No reasonable intellectual elected to office could defend the garbage that's come out of Trump's mouth, discussing him in confidence behind closed doors, whether you're a supporter or not.
It's partisan hacks that put party before country that are responsible for allowing and enabling the man child in office to behave the way he does. It's their responsibility for reigning in one of their own, not me and my community.
83
The problem with Brooks' idea (that we can all work together to make reasonable norms) is religion. Religious people believe that there their norms are established by a higher authority. That belief makes it impossible to have a cooperative approach to norms. For example, I have never been able to have a reasoned discussion about a woman's need/right to control her reproduction with someone who calls abortion murder. So even if we can re-establish some reasonable norms (like telling the truth, as a rule), norms can never be a substitute for guarantees in law to protect the dignity and equality of all people.
110
@NeilG
I am a deeply religious person and I work for a religious entity. And I am a profound believer in the rule of law and our democratic processes. Those two things peacefully coexist in the vast majority of religious people.
I would not have an abortion myself because I believe it is immoral. But I consider the right to a safe, legal and accessible abortion to be non-negotiable. While I disagree with the view that abortion is murder, I am okay with someone holding that view if they work honestly to change the laws around them. That's the way our democratic system works.
I recommend against making uninformed judgments about religious people. Thanks.
14
@Cousy
In my personal experience, you are an exception among religious people who are anti-abortion.
7
@Cousy
I am pleased to hear that you respect the democratic process, and I apologize if I over-generalized about religious people. However, I am sure you understand who the the people are to whom I was referring. For example, I recently saw in the courtyard of a Catholic church in New Mexico a single headstone, for "All the little children killed in abortions". That is a provocative gesture, designed to keep the subject as highly charged as possible. The result is an ongoing effort throughout the red states to impose barriers to abortion under the guise of protecting women. IMHO, these legislative efforts violate all the norms that Brooks was promoting.
5
Studies have shown that humans crave structure, and need structure to thrive. Norms represent the operating instructions of a society without which vital functions such as government fail to work. Norms are not inviolate and must be changed when change benefits society as a whole - abolition of class barriers, ending of slavery and the end of segregation are cases in point. However, tearing down norms just because they are norms is an existential threat to maintaining a civil, functioning society. The total lack of respect for norms exhibited by Trump represents such a threat to our society and democratic traditions.
19
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
.
Live your life as you wish those around you would live their lives.
.
This works more often than you might think. People are constantly watching the actions of those around them for clues as to how to live their own lives, wanting to be like, hoping to game the system. We prize conformity to the herd. You can change how the herd moves if you are willing to be a non-conformist, to be special, to do something extra. Those few people who stand out because of their non-conformity change the direction of the herd. Be one of those people. The direction of the herd is constantly changing.
.
Do you want universal health care and lower inequality? To accomplish that politically we must generate more trust in our fellow citizens (greater trust is why smaller, more homogeneous European countries find social democracy more appealing). Talk to others more; do things to help others. Make yourself worthy of their trust. If a million others do the same we can change the country. But we won't learn to trust because we have universal health care. We will have universal health care because we learn to trust our fellow citizens to take care of us.
4
@Tom Meadowcroft
Yeah, but....
I often see on these pages the assertion : homogeneity = trust.
Trust has not fallen through the floor in Australia. We are by no means an homogeneous society down under.
( I make no assertions about the level of trust in the US)
1
@Guy
True, and the same can be said for Canada. I have observed that faith in social democracy has gone down in places like Denmark and Sweden as they are hit with a wave of immigrants, but clearly homogeneity is not the only factor lead to acceptance of social democratic principles. Trust is lower in the US in part because of the tensions of the aftermath of slavery and the civil war, for instance. Canada has a more trusting society in part because it is more highly federal, i.e. the provinces have more power to manage health care and other benefits, and the provinces are quite homogeneous. The Quebecois do not trust les Anglais, but they trust each other. It's complicated, clearly.
1
Most Americans have no problem identifying and embracing new norms we know in our hearts are right -- even if sometimes belatedly, belligerently, or blackmailed into.
But, we've pulled out all the stops in the name of money and power and restructured our incentive system so that there is to no penalty for bad behavior (the badder the better) and a whole lost lost in giving it up.
Even much our leadership -- political, economic, cultural, religious -- can now be held up as poster children for really bad (and that doesn't even begin to address our so-called first family and their sycophants).
What can we say about a country that will kill the poor who are in jail (and who we cannot ensure are always guilty), but excuse the people who perpetrated the biggest economic heist, then let them keep their gains? Or a country that will put its children in harms way for a lobbying firm that wants to put a gun in every pocket? Or the large number of people who cheer a president who sides with despots and thugs -- and is the most social-norm challenged person in the country?
We don't need labels or categories. We need a government that will govern for our lost middle-class (past and potential), or we are going to continue this zero-sum mentality that has put us on a race to the bottom in social norms.
16
So what societal behaviors do President Trump and his supporters normalize? Lying to perpetuate power and wealth; constant anger and aggrievement, which leads, among other things, to normalizing racism; never apologizing, admitting guilt, or even admitting being wrong; bullying; a glorification of money above all else; anti-intellectualism; and on and on and on. It remains to be seen whether these debased norms will have a long term impact on our culture.
Along with Mr. Brooks's five "norm-shifters," I'd also add "Contrarians." There are many people in this country who don't want fix things; they want to break them, most especially government. For example, if the world's experts agree the climate is warming and humans are the cause, well, by golly, nobody's going to tell these folks what to think. If contrarians feel a certain way in their gut, it must be right. Unfortunately for all of us, such individuals, including Mr. Trump himself, control the levers of power at the moment.
46
David,
Your perspective reflects a New York City mindset perfectly. The people you are interviewing in other places are coming to you because you reflect their very liberal - a la New York City - mindset. After reading this article, many Americans would question your ability to actually understand what is happening - and not happening - in America. Keep traveling. And try the rural South and Midwest.
10
Would you care to elaborate on this? Surely core American values are much the same wherever you go. Or are you suggesting that some regions are more vicious or virtuous than others?
1
@Richard Janssen Thank you for your interest. My experience has been that there is a vast difference in values among us, and they will determine voting more than social norms. Norms evolve; religious values in particular are much more stable. JD
Generally agree. However, when the press remains under unrelenting assault for publishing facts; the FBI and Justice similarly and eerily undermined from the White House and Congress; the Fed now targeted for degradation and alternate facts prevail in half the nation the ballot box remains our ticket to redemption.
22
@texsun Well, yes. That's why the Trumpublicans are trying to take away the ballot box - by hook or by crook, some might say.
Very interesting. I hope we soon find one prevalent social norm inappropriate - that all we can offer the victims and survivors of appalling violence are our thoughts and prayers.
32
@Partha Neogy thoughts and prayers are easier to offer than doing the hard work of figuring out how to deal with violence, guns, alienation, etc. The same goes for the pointless speeches our senators and representatives make. As long as there is no cooperation or intent to cooperate we are without a functional government. The only people they are representing are themselves. I want this norm to change.
12
"Most norms are invisible most of the time. They’re just the water in which we swim. We unconsciously absorb them by imitating those around us. We implicitly know that if we violate a norm, there will be a social cost, maybe even ostracism."
Very thought provoking and what an interesting way of thinking about norms - how they come into being and how they evolve. I especially like the line "they're just the water in which we swim".
I think the analysis is accurate and holds true in a CLOSED SYSTEM. But it seems to me there is a category left out and a very important one. There should be a category for the potential impact of sudden change on the SYSTEM OF NORMS from outside in an OPEN SYSTEM which has the potential to upend long held norms in the closed system.
For instance, mass immigration of cultures far different than the native one. Would that be a new category or fall under the "conveners"? The conclusion of the piece "and we implicitly know that if we violate a norm there will be a social cost, maybe even ostracism" certainly applies to certain immigrant communities who fail to assimilate in the system.
I know the article is not about immigration but somehow it seems to relate to how a country should focus on societal impacts of too much immigration too fast.
16
The basis of good character is empathy. It is utterly lacking in Donald Trump. It will show us how to get back to our better selves as a country, if we let it.
90
@Andrew Grainger
Bill Clinton was able to fake empathy. Point to any of the current Democrat leadership that can even fake empathy.
@ebmem - you may well be right. I guess I'd say it's better for a role model to fake good behavior than to be genuinely full of hate and animosity. Then, there's always the great Groucho Marx: "If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made." But I take your point.
1
@ebmem Too many to name. Let’s reverse that. You name the Democrats in Congress who don’t show real empathy, along with your evidence to support your claim. You're just stoking cynicism with no proof.
3
Food for thought, I think. "If everyone swept their own porch, the world would be a cleaner place." (not my quote, but can't find the reference, sorry). It feels like many Americans are looking at the road back, trying to figure out the wrong turn-we all know however. I believe the major concern of many of the worried Americans-myself being seriously worried the road will be longer if we are not careful-about how long the road back seems at this moment.
Civil discourse requires norms, many of which are seriously old; conversely, old does not mean outdated and/or not useful. We absolutely need to find a way back to a place where compromise is possible. This nation was founded on compromise, and, when we ended up with a highly charged political and social atmosphere and lost the ability to compromise, 600,000+ Americans paid the price. I couldn't tell you if we are close to repeating history or not, but, I do believe that is the road we might find ourselves on in a couple of years or so. All because norms seems to have disappeared. We are better than this current point in time conveys.
12
@Peter M Blankfield: One problem is, there are a lot of people out there that are so busy checking on what the neighbors' porches are like that they do not have the time to sweep their own. A lot of people like to tell (force) others to do a certain type of sweeping that they themselves are not willing to do.
Maybe a touch of "live and let live" would result in a world that is not squeeky clean, but a nice place for everyone to be at home.
2
"But we all have the power to create cultural microclimates around us, through the way we act and communicate. When a small group of people shift the way they show approval and disapproval, it can shift the social cures among wider and wider circles."
So now we can have the tyranny of a whole bunch of "cultural microclimates" (whatever that actually is) shifting from to there and expecting everyone to shift with them.
8
There is one basic truth that need be mentioned...the tenet that we are bound to follow, that is our responsibility and even our spiritual salvation. That is the universal moral code...it's called goodness. Except for the sociopath or psychopath, we all have that inner alarm that tells us: Something is wrong. We all have that inner messaging that says: It may be in vogue to say or do this now, but it is not right.
You say easier said than done. How true. We are constantly challenged from youth through our teens, from adulthood and on to our ironically misnomered "Golden Years." We want to be a part, we want to be accepted. I get it. I to this day have that inclination. But is it worth it if at its core the new norm is abnormal. And how do we know what is healthy and what is diseased? I guess we need to look outward and witness who we are hurting unjustly. And we need to look within and ask: Do I really want to be this person I have become?
40
@Kathy Lollock: are you really SURE there is a universal moral code? because it sure doesn't look like it, when you have THE SAME PEOPLE who cry out about global warming & climate change, and on the FRONT PAGE today is an article insisting that the US have massive illegal immigration because we are UNDER POPULATED!!! and that this will solve all our economic problems.
"The whole school of fish has shifted course in rapid ways that would have astounded us beforehand."
Shifting works both ways. As you mentioned we have a shifty, tweeter in the White House.
Place also matters. When I was a senior in high school, (1966) and the Beatles were popular, I let my hair grow long enough to touch the top of my ears. My father laughed, called me a Beatnik, gave me some money, and told me to get a haircut.
I have a buddy from Romania. He's about two years older and he also let his hair grow to a similar length, at that time.
He was beaten by the police in his communist bloc country.
29
In other words, we're just monkeys taking our cues from the other monkeys. There is no good or evil, only what's acceptable as usually determined by a ruling elite, whose existence itself is largely arbitrary and subject to change at a moments notice.
26
@stan continople
There is a whole book - written over 133 years ago - about this very subject: Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future by Friedrich Nietzsche.
And no - we are not monkeys but we are being sold a bill of goods by folks that claim 'norms' should be the foundation of our moral vales - as if norms have some magical truth-value.
8
"When a small group of people shift the way they show approval and disapproval, it can shift the social cures among wider and wider circles. Suddenly, revolutions. The whole school of fish has shifted course in rapid ways that would have astounded us beforehand"
Mr. Brook's fascination about the latent power of neighborhoods, communities, and small groups of people seem out of touch with our electronically hyper connected global community . Since the advent and rapid ubiquity of smart phone ownership, Brooks is hard pressed to liken social - cultural revolutions to the shifting direction of a small school of fish. Apparently, Brooks is either insensitive or entirely ignores the many platforms of interactive social media that create mass messaging and marketing on an hourly basis, and have the effect of elevating or destroying ideas, cultural norms, news and commercial products, services , and yes, politicians. Alas, modernity is radically changed from the social context from which Mr. Brooks draws his ideas and conclusions
26
I take respectful exception. :-) Malcolm Gladwell says this best, so:
"The evangelists of social media...seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend and that signing up for a donor registry in Silicon Valley today is activism in the same sense as sitting at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960. “Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,” Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires. The Facebook page of the Save Darfur Coalition has 1,282,339 members, who have donated an average of nine cents apiece. The next biggest Darfur charity on Facebook has 22,073 members, who have donated an average of thirty-five cents. Help Save Darfur has 2,797 members, who have given, on average, fifteen cents. A spokesperson for the Save Darfur Coalition told Newsweek, “We wouldn’t necessarily gauge someone’s value to the advocacy movement based on what they’ve given. This is a powerful mechanism to engage this critical population. They inform their community, attend events, volunteer. It’s not something you can measure by looking at a ledger.” In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro."
62
There's a word for the breakdown of a normative consensus, when "the center does not hold"--anomie.
I think we're in a period of great anomie. There have been such periods before--the time right before and after the First World War springs to mind--but our anomie is being supercharged by the ability of electronic media to let everybody know of everything in milliseconds. And, with the breakdown of standards of truth, scientific or otherwise (I have referred to this before as reaching Peak Deconstructionism), in which it is felt there are no objective standards, and the only measuring rubric of legitimacy is power and wealth, it's hard to see some other normative consensus developing--unless that consensus is defined in the negative: "the new normal is that there are no norms".
There may still be normative consensus in small pockets among those of shared ethos, but we may have fragmented to the point that there will never be a society-wide consensus on anything again--we don't have anywhere near a majority, or even large minority, to watch the same three networks, listen to a common Top 40 countdown, or define Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
I know there are some out there who think of this as freedom of choice and radical individuality, but lets see how far that gets us when we need to agree to build berms to hold back the rising seas in New York Harbor, or adopt regulations for vaccinations to stop rampaging disease.
It takes, and we need, a village.
98
@Glenn Ribotsky
My concerns precisely--just better stated. :-) All throughout Brooks' piece, which I applaud in many ways, I kept thinking: Yes, but what happens when the very notion of norms is rejected? I fear this is where our country is now: In many quarters, to suggest that there are compelling norms of conduct or thought to which individuals should subordinate themselves is seen as positively immoral. Relativistic thinking, arising from the post-modern or poststructuralist critiques of Western civilization and culture, may seem liberating, but the words of Nietzsche come to mind: "What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?" I also appreciated your reference to Yeats. Certainly, we are living in a time when "the best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." Like President Trump--although he may be the rough beast of that poem's concluding question. He has done much himself to help undermine the very notion of norms. Sadly, I doubt he has read "Ozymandias"--though he, of all people, should.
27
@Glenn Ribotsky
Well thought out, clear and penetrating comment. Thank you.
2
David Brooks writes: "But we all have the power to create cultural microclimates around us, through the way we act and communicate. When a small group of people shift the way they show approval and disapproval..."
Let's get real. We need to vote out Trump, we need to vote Trump-enabling Republicans out of the Congress, we need to vote Republicans out of state government who are attempting to prevent anyone from voting who might cast ballots for Democrats.
The survival of our democracy depends on Americans' voting Republicans out of office.
It's that simple.
298
@Sean ...and that requires /nominating/ Democrats who can connect with, and convert, millions of people who knowingly voted for Trump.
8
@Sean
Nothing is ever that simple.
.
First, you need to succeed in ousting the people you don't like from office. Anger isn't enough to accomplish this. You must show a new, better way to live and govern. The old ways were clearly inadequate, as they led to those Republicans getting elected in the first place.
.
Next, you need to govern well, so that your time in office is long, and so that your opponents feel the need to emulate you so that they can contest you politically. Real change happens only when the Republican party changes too. They are in office now, and they will be back in office after the next Democratic stay. That's how it works.
.
So don't waste your time with your anger and virtue signalling. Calm down and start living your life in a way that you would like the people around you to live their lives. Be a better person; help others. Change yourself and inspire others to change. Start now while the opposition is in power so that you are ready for when they are out of power. If we arrive in power next time with nothing but righteous indignation fueling our efforts, we will fail.
.
Above all, don't believe that voting for a better president is the only way you can change society. Society changes when norms change; when a new consensus arrives. Don't wait for some president to change your world. Start changing it yourself, today.
20
@Sean and we need to stop reading - and protest against - those enablers like Brooks who cloak their words in philosophy all while maintaining the status quo ante.
14
I think the foundations for positive changes in social norms--e.g. civil rights, acceptance of LGBT people, challenging patriarchal abuses, increasing embrace of cultural diversity--is rooted in an inherent respect for the dignity of all human beings and our capacity for empathy in light of our shared humanity. Negatively, the increasing incivility online, in the rise of hate groups, and, tragically, by the shocking changes in normative presidential behavior by President Trump, threaten to promote acceptance of discriminatory, degrading behavior and comments as "normative." We are at a crossroads. Let's hope increasing civility leads to increasing acceptance and love as "normative" human behavior.
29
@Steven Dunn
Not sure how you can embrace cultural diversity and challenge patriarchal cultures at the same time.
Embracing cultural diversity that does not allow women equal footing is more than foolish. It is dangerous.
It's interesting that Sunstein is introduced in an anecdote that casts him as the hero. I always find it interesting when people cast themselves as heroes. Here is my reality: I knew a person who had actually been a hero in useful, important ways (as spontaneously documented by other people). But when he related those instances, he always ascribed the heroic or otherwise admirable act to another (fictional) person to keep from putting themself at the center of the story. That person became my hero and role model.
12
"But we all have the power to create cultural micro climates around us through the way we act and communicate." I'm willing to admit I'm wrong but, in the spirit of that sentence, I have done just that. I have divested myself of most, if not all, of the Trump supporters I know. Hair guy, money guy, pot guy, bar friends, job friends and family. I was stressed out during the Bush years and talking to my Republican friends gave me a perspective I could appreciate, if not fully agree with. Trump's election, however, became a bridge too far. I felt different from other Americans for the first time in my life. As Tom Friedman said in his first op-ed after the election "I feel homeless". I knew I could make things bearable if I limited my exposure to what I considered toxic personalities and I slowly but surely lifted the drawbridge around myself. I regret that this might manifest itself as being, generally, chilly but I live in a part of Florida where the "social norms" mean open carry. I also regret the fraying of ties with my family, but I tell them it's not them, it's the people they're standing with. Mom (the M in MAGA) is a big problem but I know she would want me to defend the country, it's people, it's institutions, it's interests, it's principles, it's soul and it's honor because that's what she taught me to do. If she can turn her back on everything she taught me about being a good man, a good Christian and a good citizen, then I should be able to turn my back on her.
186
@Rick Gage, My parents also support trump. While I miss the frequency of the political conversations we used to have, we still wade into that water, but in a new way. When they complain about environmentalists, progressives, or people who have a more compassionate belief in immigration than they do, I remind them that I am one of those folks they are dis-ing and that I love our country and care about the future we're leaving for the next generation too. I remind them that as trumpsters, they don't believe or act out the worst of what those on that side of the aisle do. We talk about media literacy. Some times my dad will ask me to research an issue for him. I may never change their minds or their future votes, but on one or two issues, I know our conversations and the research have changed their hearts. If I turned my back on them, there would be no chance of that...
65
@Rick Gage Thank you for expressing my feelings exactly...these are the actions I have taken as well. It is a relief to diminish the chaos of those conversations...
14
Sad that it's come to this, I guess, but it's always been there, just under the surface. Maybe pulling off the band-aid has to be suffered.
Even so, neither success nor even improvement are guaranteed. Good luck!
6
We all see this from our unique perspective. Of course the #metoo movement has thankfully begun the process of breaking some terrible old norms, just as the civil rights movement broke norms of egregious social injustice. I personally also thought of how some norms were regrettably broken by Donald Trump, like the expectation that President could speak intelligently or compassionately about substantive issues. I see candidates like Andrew Yang and Mayor Pete gaining popularity and respect for reintroducing and rehabilitating some valuable norms, like basic human decency, respect for all people even if they have different beliefs, and true public service.
103
Thank you, David, for using the example of the professor stroking the woman's hair. Because the #MeToo movement exemplifies all of these categories. We will name, confront, illuminate, convene and accept the influence of celebrities who also say: no more.
19
@Anne: I realize someone will likely respond to my comment that "hair stroking is not sexual assault." I'll agree with that statement; however it the type of behavior (feeling entitled to touch women and invade their space) that--if it goes unchecked--often becomes more flagrant as the man determines what he can get away with. If he touches a woman's hair and she smiles nervously (because he's her professor) and his colleagues shrug, then he may next accidentally brush against her breast or put his hand on her bum. There are levels of predation and many predators will keep escalating their behavior as long as they think they can get away with it. If he touches her hair in a hallway, he likely tries to touch more when he has her alone in his office. It's a difference of degree, but not of kind.
@Anne: because the largest problem facing society today....is an old geezer who touches a student's hair briefly. And it can't be handled by A. the student speaking up or B. the other professor (Dr. Sunstein) addressing his fellow teacher and warning him off.
And as we all know...no female professor (or leader or boss) has EVER touched a male subordinate inappropriately.
It seems to me that technology has taken a megaphone to what you describe here. People make money being "influencers" to sell this or that trendy new thing. Social media has posts that "go viral" and become the latest chatter. In boosting the superficial, the roots, or heart, of a matter, often go unrecognized or unremarked due to this hype. Here's hoping that real community, face-to-face, isn't somehow monetized by technology.
12
Mr Brooks makes some excellent points, but unfortunately technology and mass/social media will limit any attempt to revive social norms or good taste and confine those efforts to a very small scale. Why such a cynical outlook? Twitter, Facebook and TV will do anything required to create controversies that gain attention for their advertisers or individual(s) attempting to get attention. As long as breaking social norms regularly for the shock value gets people and organizations whatever they are motivated by (all the way to individual wants), the genie isn't going back in the bottle and society will continue to buffeted around like the occupants of a life boat. Recommendations: Since religion, personal and group ethics, and other restrictions that reinforce following social norms don't look like they are ascending and discussion is largely yelling, I am thinking that there is no re-capture of norms unless we have a technology collapse and have to retreat back to caves in small groups.
14
There will always be norms and social progress is achieved when old norms are replaced by new ones. A leading example is how norms are changing concerning men touching women without the consent of those women, as illustrated by the female law student speaking up about the professor repeatedly touching her hair.
Another example is both women and men speaking up about sexual assault instead of silently suffering.
10
@Holly Hart Small but some consequential victories, but the overall trend isn't great. I don't see the portrayal of women in rap and hip hop videos changing this week, and unless people get tired of the Khardasians, they would crawl out of the rubble after a nuclear winter. Athletes still get at least a half dozen chances if they make money for their owners and any progress in those and other areas is moving like a glacier.
Don't forget the most important one.
Influencers. These are physically alluring individuals who have the power to affect the raison d'être of our society - purchase decisions. It is important to note that these individuals are not simply marketing tools, but rather social relationship assets with which brands can collaborate to achieve their marketing objectives in this era of privation on a scale comparable to that of the Gilded Age.
17
@Remarque,
Known as 'The Art of Persuasion', some are born in the cradle with an abundance of charm and charisma in their make-up. But in order to be effective, the person has to believe in the product or asset he is selling. When hearing that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, chances are that it has been sold many times.
In writing that the whole school of fish can shift course of a sudden, David Brooks might make some of us feel rather sheepish and in need of one strong shepherd.
2