The New Puritans

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

In my recent thread Erik the Red Barfs in Valhalla, Anita made the following remarks:

"I haven't received any E-mail regarding W.'s administration YET, but I sure received a flood during the impeachment hearings of Clinton. Folks in Norway just didn't understand why sex was such a big deal in the U.S. The King of Norway is EXPECTED to have a mistress on his arm, even at public events. Much like circumcision, this puritanical thinking is strictly a phenomenon of the U.S.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

That last statement was a misnomer. Actually, the Middle East is MUCH more puritanical than the U.S., but European countries find the whole thing quite silly.

n Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001."

I don't claim any in-depth knowledge of the historic phenomenon of Puritanism but I think that most would agree that, in modern usage, the word describes those who are self-righteous, uptight, narrow-minded, bigoted and pathologically against behavior that is "fun" (especially sex, food and drugs).

The word has often been used by the political Left to club Conservatives and/or Christians. Such usage is often successful---after all, no one wants to be categorized as a fuddy-duddy.

But IMO, the killjoys are now showing up more often on the Left. Of course they would not admit to being puritanical. Instead they are "politically correct" or "militant". Examples are rife. Anti-smoking zealots campaign for total prohibition with all the moral indignation of Carrie Nation. Animal rights-ism, environmentalism, radical feminism, affirmative action (except in the NBA), gay rights, etc, etc.

IMO, all of these efforts are "puritanical", at least in their most extreme forms. They all spawn busy-body leaders that want to enforce their self-defined morality on the general population. The zealots align with cynical pols who see opportunities for power by making new rules, managing new bureaucracies, collecting more taxes and spending more money (after taking their own pound of flesh) in order to micro-manage the lives of the great unwashed. (ie, most of us).

Use the word puritanical any way you want but don't be surprised if it bites you in the ass.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001

Answers

Good post Lars.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

Lars: "Anti-smoking zealots campaign for total prohibition with all the moral indignation of Carrie Nation. Animal rights-ism, environmentalism, radical feminism, affirmative action (except in the NBA), gay rights, etc, etc."

The anti-smoking crowd and the PETA-style animal rights crowd both clearly earn the title of puritanical. You are right on in your description of them. But have to wonder how many of those anti-smoking zealots are Mormons, Adventists and other religious types, rather than "liberals". A fair percentage, I would guess.

There are some odd corners of the environmental movement whose philosophical aim is to destroy material civilization and return us to Rousseau-ian happy savagery (although they are less than 1% of people who might identify themselves as "environmentalists"). That tiny fraction would deserve the characterization, but to me they are so unrepresentative of environmentalism that it is unfair to tar the vast majority of them with that brush.

I have met a few radical feminists whose ideas were colored by extreme anger at all men, to the extent that they could be called puritans. Again, though, you are taking the least representative portion of feminists as representative. I don't buy it.

As for "affirmative action" being puritanical, I don't get it. That one was comepletely out of the blue. How does that issue inspire a desire among its proponents to control or destroy the instinct to indulge in pleasure? Very strange assertion. Tell me more.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 28, 2001.


LN--

Fair question. I included affirmative-action not because it is anti-fun but because its advocates often come off as self-righteous babbits (and dishonest ones at that).

Please don't misinterpet me. I believe that a just society is obliged to legally protect its citizens from discrimination.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.


I am afraid that I cannot figure out how discrimination became such a horrible thing. How far does a just society need to go in order to protect it's citizens from discrimination?

I would not fall in love with a woman who has three eyes and is only four feet tall, thus I would be discriminating against her because of my idea of what constitutes physical beauty. I enjoy merlot wine, but I cannot stand to drink vermouth, thus I discriminate against vermouth. At what point does society need to step in? If I run a health club I do not think I want to have a grossly obese receptionist, should I be forced to hire one in order to satisfy justice?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.


I guess what I am doing is expanding my defintion of puritanism to include coercion.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.


Lars, if righteousness is all you were talking about, then why did you fix on the term "puritan" to anchor your whole point? You said it yourself (emphasis mine):

"...in modern usage, the word describes those who are self-righteous, uptight, narrow-minded, bigoted and pathologically against behavior that is "fun" (especially sex, food and drugs)."

First, you start out with a detailed definition, then you immediately misapply it. If you want to talk about overweaning righteousness making some political positions unattractive and tedious to us ordinary, middling folks, then say so. But that's just repeating a truism. Zealots who take up fringe issues are boring, whether they are food faddists who call white flour a poison, or right-to-lifers who cannot form two consecutive sentences without saying "baby killers" three times. What else is new?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 28, 2001.


Lars,

What did you mean when you said "Erik the Red" and "barfs"?

What does this have to do with Clinton's speech?

If it is humor, it isn't very funny, so it must be some kind of twisted attempt at criticism. If true, you are worse than puritanical, you are a Nazi.

-- new fundamentalist nazis (obsessive @ clinton-hating. psychopaths), April 28, 2001.


Lars: First off, I'm sorry that folks are "ragging" you on your opinions on this. Second off, MY use of Puritanism only applied to sexuality. It didn't take long for me to notice that the culture in which I was raised was not shared by some Americans. Small children in Norway dash naked through public fountains. No one thinks anything of it. When my children played naked in our backyard [surrounded by a 6' fence], a neighbor lifted himself up and said, "Don't you have bathing suits to wear?" Even as a young child, I remember being at the beach with my parents wearing just a pair of shorts. I remember a friend of my brother [3 years older than I] saying, "*I* see your nipples!". I was like 4 or 5 at the time.

I think this form of thinking has provided a preoccupation with bodily forms and sexual functions. I grew up to believe, and passed on a belief that sexuality and the human form were not to be associated with shame.

I really don't know how this correlates to anti-smoking campaigns or anything else you mentioned. YOU may see it all as the same thing, and whatever floats your boat is okay with me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.


Well unc: Perhaps a glass of merlot then in Florida? I too enjoy a good glass of wine, but blended is nice.

Anita, ahh, remember when? It 'used' to be okay to run around naked. Not no more.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 28, 2001.


I really don't know how this correlates to anti-smoking campaigns or anything else you mentioned. YOU may see it all as the same thing, and whatever floats your boat is okay with me.

Well that was my point Anita--- IMO sexual puritanism is only one type of puritanism.

Kids in Norway dash naked through fountains? That may be due to the pure relief that occurs during the 3 months of the year when it is possible to go outside naked without freezing vital parts.

NFN--you take yourself too seriously. Are you a Puritan?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.



Unk, if I close the extra eye and stand on a ladder, will you go out with me?

-- helen (winking@you.unk), April 28, 2001.

Lars: I think I understand what you're saying, but I think you're equating Puritanical with Zealous. Perhaps I'm just naive, but I thought that Erik Hoffer's True Believer dealt with this concept nicely. There's no Christian who believes as strongly as a Christian who has been "saved" from a previous life of atheism. There's no non-smoker who believes as strongly as a smoker who has decided that this habit is no longer desirable. Those who once held a belief on ONE side will develop a belief on the OTHER side that is just as strong or stronger.

It's an interesting phenomenon to observe, and it's not at all clear to me that these personality types have a choice in the matter.

I think [although I don't know] that I'm about as liberal as one can get without entering the fringe. I didn't have bad experiences attending public schools in Chicago, so I don't tend to blame the public school experience for the ills of society, although I DO enjoy watching how the programs change during periods of "renewal" in Education. I've noticed my children losing a "taste" for meat throughout the years, but I haven't noticed these taste changes associated with a desire to save animals. I've even noticed my OWN tastes in food choices leaning toward alternatives, again not having anything to do with animal rights. I still suffer the Hannibal Lecter moments, whether they be once/week or once/month, and I don't consider that an aberration. Heh. After discussing with #2 daughter at some length the soy alternative to protein intake, I question whether the flatulence involved is something I'd want to live with.

Gay rights are something I've not thought much about. I've always been heterosexual, but my feelings are that they should have the same rights to practice what their bodies desire, as long as their partner is consenting. It just isn't MY job to judge them. I would agree with SO in that he feels uncomfortable listening to the details of a preference he doesn't share, but I enjoy hearing my children freely discuss their sexual/drug experiences, whether I share them or not. I still want them to know that I'm their mother and I'll love them and even learn from them, regardless of my personal opinions on a subject. In addition, I really want to know who they REALLY are.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 29, 2001.


Anita--

Thanks for the thoughts. I never read True Believer but I had no illusion that my thesis in this thread was original.

There are so many competing zealotries these days that I sometimes amuse myself by imagining ridiculous conflicts. I was still doing cartoons in the early 90s and one that I remember had two groups screaming at each other---PETA and gays. PETA was incensed at gays for cruelty to gerbils and gays were incensed at PETA for homophobia.

And I am incensed at how a wonderfully poetic word like "gay" can be co-opted by a special interest group.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.


LOL helen!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.

LSHIABBOFN Helen!

-- Laffin' so Hard (that@it.hurts), April 29, 2001.


Lars: And I am incensed at how a wonderfully poetic word like "gay" can be co-opted by a special interest group.

It could be interesting to look into the history of how that word got co-opted to to reflect homosexuality. I think I mentioned that movie, Gideon recently. Gideon was a retarded man of 30 or 40 who entered a retirement home because his Aunt Edna's new husband had a pain in his butt when Gideon was around. In addition to Gideon's lack of ability, he had leukemia.

One of the more amusing things, IMO, about the film was the "play" on words. The social director encouraged the patrons to think of new activities. The social director suggested another arts and crafts class. The residents wanted something new and different. In his innocence, Gideon said, "I wanta play." Not realizing that Gideon had simpler things in mind, the social director said, "A play...that's a good idea. We can do Romeo and Juliet and I think you'd make a great Romeo, Gideon."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, one of the owners of the place had been enamored by the social director but was fearful of letting his emotions be known. One day he saw the social director give Gideon a kiss on his cheek, so he approached him and said, "Are you making a play for her?" Gideon said, "Yes, I am." He went on to say, "I'd like to make a play for you, too, or the three of us could engage in this together." Needless to say, the guy went away with the wrong impression, as no one at that time [except the social director] actually knew that Gideon was "slow."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 29, 2001.


Anita--

Turnsd out that there are more references to the word "gay" than I can cite.

Here are two:

from Link 1

I am writing a paper on the "power of language" and I would really like to trace the change in common use, over the last 50 years, of the word gay. It is quite a contrast between Maria in West Side Story singing sweetly, "I feel pretty, witty and gay!" to "gay bashing." Do you have any ideas or reference points as to when this word changed connotations? or why, how or who?

Bill Bryson, again in Made in America, notes that prostitutes were known as gay women or gays in the 19th century. It is not known how gay later came to refer to homosexuals; this usage appeared in the late 1960's. Another source attributes the homosexual sense of the word to gay's older meaning, `excellent, gallant, fair,' and it gives the date of origin of the homosexual meaning as 1971. Gay `merry' likely came from Frankish via Old French gai `merry.' The original meaning in English, in around 1300, was `spelndid or beautiful.'

One reader notes that Cary Grant, in the film Bringing Up Baby, has an interesting scene in which, while wearing a woman's frilly robe, he says, "I'm feeling gay today."

Link 2

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 29, 2001.


If it helps to shed any light on the changing use of the word gay, I will share my memory of how that change looked to me. It probably looked about the same to you.

As I recall, the homosexual community started a militant campaign for their rights some time in the early to mid 1970s. Their movement seemed to be modelled on the anti-war movement, which had added some new wrinkles (like theatrics and hoopla) to the more staid and dignified black civil rights movement. As anyone could predict, the media ate it up like ice cream. They were meant to. That was the whole point.

It appears that the word gay was already in use as a jargon or code word, back when the homosexual community kept scrupulously out of sight and underground. Just being homosexual was a crime in many states, so the gay community was rich in slang and code words as a way of being able to identify who was on the inside and who could be trusted.

When the homosexual rights movement started, they used the old PR trick of launching a euphemism that could replace the old, nasty terms like queer, homo, dyke and faggot. Gay was right handy and ready made for that purpose, so they grabbed it and ran with it.

Since it made for such good copy, the media gave them a lot of attention and the planting of the word gay in the public mind took very little time. Probably most Americans became aware of the movement's existance and the new euphemistic use of the word gay at the same moment. Those two pieces of information travelled together. Successful propaganda works like a dream.

Gay has proved very durable for its purpose, probably because the word has such a deep background of pleasant associations that it proved difficult to turn it into a slur, like queer. Most euphemisms wear out much faster. I guess this proves that the gay community chose very wisely and well, if perhaps accidentally so.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 01, 2001.


LN,

That rings true to me. I still think that the English language has been deprived of a good word. There is no way to use "gay" as it was used by "pretty, witty and gay" Maria without garnering snickers.

An irony is that militant homosexuals chose to use the word "queer" as an in-your-face term, much like some blacks use the N-word.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 01, 2001.


If I recall correctly, the Cary Grant line goes something like: "I've decided to go gay." It's an exasperated resposne to the raised eyebrows of a character when Grant comes on scene wearing Katherine Hepburn's robe because she is sewing a rip in his pants. A lot of people date the usage to that line, since dressing drag was equated with homosexuality in those days.

The more public use dates to the 1970s, and one reason it caught on so quickly is that it was an easy word to use in newspaper headlines. Fit much easier than "homosexual" and most newspapers wouldn't allow use of "queer" or other slang.

-- Movie fan (Old@movie.fan), May 01, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ