Mediaboss Marketing

The bitter culture wars over the teaching of evolution in public schools dominated headlines throughout the 2000s, in large part because ofthe Bush administration's coziness with evangelicals who rejected the science on evolution. Yet flash forward to 2021 when the acrimonious battle over science has shifted from evolution to pandemic public health and few youngsters are apt to have any ideawhat "intelligent design" even means.Curiously, despite the right seizing on face mask science and immunologyas new battlegrounds in the culture war, the fight over evolutionis all but forgotten. In fact, for many Americans, it is completely forgotten.

Though it might seem hard to believe,Americans are more scientifically literate than ever in 2021 so much so thatcreationism has become a minority opinion. And Americans are likewise been able to identify intelligent design and other forms of creationism as the inherently religious theoriesthat they are.

We know this thanks to anew study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science, one which analyzed surveys of public opinion since 1985 and noticed a trend in attitudes about evolution. As more Americans became highly educated obtaining university degrees, taking college science courses, displaying rising levels of civi science literacy acceptance of evolution grew accordingly.

From 1985 until 2010, there had been a statistical dead heat among Americans who wereasked if they agreedthat "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Acceptance then began to increase, becoming a majority position in 2016 and reaching54 percent in 2019. Even 32 percent of religious fundamentalists accepted evolution as of 2019, a stark contrast from the mere 8 percent who did so in 1988. Eighty-three percent of liberal Democrats said they accept evolution, compared to only 34 percent of conservative Republicans.

"Almost twice as many Americans held a college degree in 2018 as in 1988," Dr. Mark Ackerman, a researcher atthe University of Michigan,said in a statement."It's hard to earn a college degree without acquiring at least a little respect for the success of science."

The shift in attitudes towards evolution is particularly surprising given that the teaching of evolution was a major aspect of the culture wars of the late from the 1980s through the 2000s, particularly during the Bush Era in which the evangelical right was ascendant.Back in 2005, the then-raging culture war involved the so-called theory of "intelligent design," and, specifically, a textbook called "Of Pandas and People."

In a defining moment for the 1990s and 2000sculture wars, the board forPennsylvania's Dover Area School District hadinstructed its ninth grade biology teachers to refer their students to "Of Pandas and People"because it promotedintelligent design. By 1997, the strategy of using intelligent design as a Trojan horse for creationism had picked up enough steam towind up at theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Once there,however, theschool district was told that their philosophywas indeed a form of "creation science" and just as scientifically invalid. When the Dover case was heard bytheU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2005, a judge appointed by President George W. Bush sided with the plaintiffs and noted the irony of people who claim to be religious dishonestly claiming that they did not admit to having a religious agenda.

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID [intelligent design]Policy," the judge noted in his decision.

Even though the Supreme Court had banned teaching creationism in the 1968 caseEpperson v. Arkansas,nine other prominent legal cases occurred between 1981 and 2005 (including the ones in Louisiana and Pennsylvania that were mentioned earlier).Legal setbacks notwithstanding, the teaching of evolution remaineda hot button issue bythe time of the 2000 presidential election.In 2005,Bush even legitimized the intelligent design movement by telling reporters that"both sides ought to be properly taught" and that "part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." Hisscientific adviser later added, although he did not want evolution taught as an alternative to evolution, "I think to ignore [ID] in the classroom is a mistake." As recently as 2014, popular science entertainer Bill Nye held a high-profiledebate with young-earth creationist Ken Ham.

There is a long history of evolution being rejected in the United States, although a generation of Americansdid not even know they had a theory to be potentially scandalized about.While Charles Darwin's classic book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" made waves in his native Great Britain upon its release in 1859, the book did not arouse widespread ire in the United States until the late 19th century. The issue was particularly contentious among American Protestants, who at that time were splitting into modernist and evangelical camps. By the 1920s, the theory of evolution had been tied in the public mind to other "modern" intellectual trends that they found distasteful, from Marxism to psychology. Fundamentalists pushed to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools since as former Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan put it the theory would convince future generations that the Bible was simply "a collection of myths."

Bryan had a chance to test his views in court during the Scopes Trial, when he squared off as an expert witness on the Bible against legendary attorney Clarence Darrow.American journalist H. L. Mencken famously wrote with contempt about the inevitability of Darrow's defeat and the massive support for anti-scientific theories,howlingthat"such obscenities as the forthcoming trial of the Tennessee evolutionist, if they serve no other purpose, at least call attention dramatically to the fact that enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed."

That exchange, dramatized in the play "Inherit the Wind," turned public opinion against Bryan, but ultimately did not curb the anti-evolution movements, which won further successes after it was bannedin Arkansas and Mississippi. A turning point did not occur until the 1940s, when scientists in the United States had reached a consensus that natural selection drove evolution and explained the rise of human beings.

By1947, the Supreme Court had ruled inEverson v. Board of Educationthat the First Amendment's clause banning the establishment of religion applied to state governments, not just the federal government. As Justice Hugo Black wrote, teaching an explicitly theological doctrine like creationism meant citizens were being taxed to back a religious point of view.

"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion," Black said.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

The 1947 decision, which was reinforced in a series of other cases over subsequent decades, made it clear to opponents of evolution that they had to adopt a different tactic. By the 1980s a University of California, Berkeley law professor named Phillip E. Johnsoncame up with a concept known as "intelligent design." It holds that the complexity of life on this planet is so precise that strictly naturalistic explanations cannot rationally account for them, and that scientists need to acknowledge possible religious or supernatural causes. This movement, though rejected by most scientists as merely a spruced upattempt to teach creationism, gathered enough steam that by the 21st century many states were pushing for laws to allow intelligent design to be taught in public school.

While it is welcome to scientists that acceptance of evolution continues to spread, fundamentalists still pose a threat to America's overall scientific literacy.

"Such beliefs are not only tenacious but also, increasingly, politicized,"lead researcher Jon D. Miller of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan said in a statement, pointing to the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans on basic science literacy.

Originally posted here:
Science quietly wins one of the right's longstanding culture wars - Salon

Whatever stage of life it hit you at, the pandemic has accentuated the process of ageing. Whether youre seventeen or seventy-one, there is a sense that irretrievable time has been snatched. Blank pages have been inserted at an essentially random point in billions of biographies.

Youd think that sympathy towards the youngest, for whom time passes more slowly and novelty recurs daily, would be well established (at thirty-four, I think of the careless freedom of my own seventeenth year and it remains fundamental to all that I am). But there is also a virulent strain of thought that responds to any crisis by relentlessly othering the young just at the moment when demographics has squeezed what little voice they might have had to the margins of public life.

Despair at youthful decadence might reach back to antiquity, but there is a strange variation on this tendency today. We are blessed with unprecedented life-spans and the great gift of more people living longer, but we have yet to seriously think about how we might adapt to the cultural implications of this trend.

Because the elderly today are also the first generation to experience mass popular culture, and the youth subcultures that arrived with it, this entirely unique moment in human history is doubly confusing.

The first cohort to embrace youth as a meaningful identity, rather than a fleeting phase, are now moving into their seventies and eighties. This means that they act as both patrician elders and the original radical non-conformists: careering around social media with largely fictional claims about storming the Normandy beaches and embracing free love in Haight-Ashbury.

This glut of popular memory will only grow in the coming decades. Already, punk is a term deployed by crabbit auld gits around bar room tables. They still ponder their own generations battle cry: is it better to burn out than to fade away? Theyllnever know now.

These attitudes remind us that thekids are often held to an impossibly high and contradictory set of standards both too disobedient and too compliant, too square and too rebellious, too skittish and too rigid, snowflakes and social justice warriors.

This has profound consequences for politics. As David Runciman argues in How Democracy Ends, twentieth-century radicalism, particularly on the far right, emerged in societies that are far younger than our own, amongst generations that had lived through the trauma of total wars and demobilisations.

Therefore, even in a country like Greece which has seen a recent decline in living standards comparable to that of the Great Depression (we could add parts of post-2008 America too) violent overthrow of democratic governments has never been a serious proposition.

Some enthusiasts of fascist militancy may gather to cosplay rebellion from time to time, but they are essentially decrepit, unable to command mass appeal or topple democratic institutions. This is partly because older societies are less prone to political violence there is a relative shortage in the global north of young male cannon fodder the base ingredient of insurrection.

But the angry young men of yesteryear still flock to the frontlines of the culture wars. By some measures rates of violent crime have plummeted in recent decades. However, it often feels like the ambient hostility and aggression of political discourse, enabled by social media, is unprecedented. So much of life is now mediated that abuse too has often become immaterial. Unlike previous zealotries, the cost of entry is minimal and you dont even have to look your opponent in the eye.

Some of our anxietiesabout division are ahistorical. For example, despite its new pervasiveness and intensity, polarisation in the contemporary United States can hardly be said to be any greater than when protestors raised the Vietcong flag in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention. In Britain, we could say the same of the bitterness of the Miners Strike.

But the culture war is more insidious because it is bound up with the way media now operate. Increasingly, legacy media, mindful of their ageing audiences, demonstrate a willingness to channel reactionary currents. Thus the mainstream press can publish op-eds decrying the rise of cultural Marxism a key concept within the manifesto published by the far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, and fear no risk to their reputation.

Increasing sections of the press are dedicated to regurgitating tropes from the culture war genre. Nick Srnicek recently noted that were 2,983 mentions o the word woke in the Daily Telegraph. The Herald ran a front-page story today on an apparent rash of wokeism within the Scottish educational establishment.

The fog of the culture war often makes it difficult to distinguish whether such claims have any coherent point to make in good faith, or whether they are simply written to perpetuate the engagement and discussion that the genre often brings.

Like political correctness, woke is often simply a dog-whistle to console those who feel discomfort about the assimilation of minority identities into mainstream society. Remarkably, this has led some of the least oppressed groups of people on the planet to fantasise that they are excluded by society because language and etiquette has changed; but no one asked their permission.

What separates out this discomfort from a dislike of other changed social habits such as say, wearing hats indoors is its capacity to be weaponised within the attention economy.

This may reach a tipping point. Online culture wars about trans rights, for example, can cross over into real life, red in tooth and claw, because of the emotional pull of certain issues. Some topics have an innate capacity to polarise and are particularly well incubated in the closed systems that are now often used to consume and distribute content.

The knock-on effect as recently shown by both the BBC and Ofcom is to equivocate. The BBC remains true to form in its impossible attempts to achieve impartiality against a mendacious reactionary press, and ending up suggesting that issues related to fundamental human rights are up for debate.

This capacity of emotive content to thrive and expand within networks feeds off social isolation and loneliness issues that can intensify with ageing and retirement. There is no form of loneliness more crippling than the variety defined by paranoia. Based on often legitimate reasons, a generation brought up to trust public institutions have been re-educated to trust no one; whilst many lack the skills to navigate a hazardous digital realm. In the race for attention, we risk creating a desolation devoid of the community of readers, viewers and listeners that could offer some form of continuity and comfort in the face of the confusion and chaos of modernity.

We therefore have a situation where lonely, vulnerable, people, who are often also gifted with wealth, time and knowledge, are increasingly drip-fed narratives that instill a kind of collective trauma about the future. There is nothing inevitable about their journey into the cesspools of online extremism but they are undoubtedly sped along the way by a late-capitalism that sees in the lonely only another market, that deifies youthful beauty to the exclusion of all else, that turns our regrets and nostalgia into revenue streams.

In response to the vast and novel demographic changes we are living through, Runciman impishly suggests that children ought to be allowed to vote in order to re-balance the scales.

Another no less radical approach is to understand that the connective tissue of our complex societies civic institutions like the press and places to grow genuine associational cultures need to be restored, expanded and revived. Perhaps the greatest thief of our time on this earth is not the pandemic, but the keyboard itself: we need a whole new set of cultural norms that frees us to step away from it and become more human again.

View original post here:
To move beyond the culture wars we must end the loneliness of capitalism - bellacaledonia.org.uk

Not long ago, few people had heard of critical race theory. Then, all of a sudden, the relatively obscure legal theory was leading cable news stories and ripping through school board meetings. Its been a particularly hot topic on conservative channels: Fox News commentators mentioned critical race theory close to 2,000 times this year, according to Media Matters.

Critical race theory isnt new; it is a 40-year-old academic concept that explores the ways racism is woven into our legal and social institutions. But conservatives are using critical race theory, misleadingly, as an umbrella term to describe and demonize efforts to combat racismsuch as anti-bias training in the workplace and anti-racism curriculum in schoolsmany of which have been in place for a very long time.

The New York Times 1619 Project, created by Nikole Hannah-Jones, has become a target because it places slavery at the center of U.S. history and challenges the assumptions and heroes that have always dominated the American origin story.

Conservative politicians and commentators describe critical race theory (CRT) in feverish terms, deriding it as racist, anti-white, anti-American, and Marxist, and arguing that its goal is to foment racial tensions and make white students feel bad. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis tweeted: Critical Race Theory teaches kids to hate our country and to hate each other. It is state-sanctioned racism and has no place in Florida schools.

If it were merely a media or social media phenomenon, it would be perhaps less concerning. But the panic is leading to state legislation that makes school districts and educators vulnerable at a time when they are already struggling to stay ahead of the COVID-19 resurgence. Its also connected to broader legislative attacks on multi-racial democracy.

As in the case of so many public policies and the discourse that informs them, philanthropy and nonprofits are playing a key role, but funding has been lopsided, with conservative donors fueling the uproar and most progressive funders keeping their distance, according to media investigations and nonprofit sources we spoke with. Many of those advocates enmeshed in the CRT fight and broader efforts to defend anti-racism work find themselves wishing they had more extensive financial backing.

Understanding the frenzy

This new spin on critical race theory was first introduced by Christopher Rufo, a documentarian and senior fellow at conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute; he was also a fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Rufo unveiled the term on Tucker Carlsons show last summer, which brought it to the attention of then-President Donald Trump. The battle took off after that, inflaming conservative pundits, state legislators, and parents across the country.

Whipping up grievance is the goal, as columnist Eugene Robinson argued in the Washington Post: This manufactured controversy has nothing to do with actual critical race theory, which, frankly, is the dry and arcane stuff of graduate school seminars, he wrote. It is all about alarming white voters into believing that they are somehow threatened if our educational system makes any meaningful attempt to teach the facts of the nations long struggle with race.

Rufo himself is frank about this objective, tweeting: The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think critical race theory. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

Rufo and his allies have been successful, as the widespread hysteria over critical race theory demonstrates. Around the country, conservative legislators are jumping all over the issue, rushing to craft bills restricting what teachers can teach. As of August 26, according to Education Week, 27 states have introduced bills or other measures that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism. Twelve states have enacted bans. (To learn more about state legislation, see this analysis by Education Week).

Water balloons vs. bazookas

Conservative philanthropists and nonprofits are major players in the campaign against critical race theory and anti-racism efforts, although it can be difficult to tell who, exactly, is directing funding specifically to the cause.

On the nonprofit side, some of the names behind the movement are familiar, including conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and its advocacy arm, Heritage Action for America. Disclosure laws dont require Heritage to reveal the donors funding its activities, but in a Politico report, a representative for Heritage Action said that there is huge donor interest in this. While funding is often not earmarked, the organization has been a frequent grantee of leading conservative funders, including the Koch network, the Bradley Foundation, and through DAF platform DonorsTrust. The same can be said of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which designs model legislation on conservative issues and is also championing anti-CRT activities.

Political scientist Isaac Kamola took a close-up look at members of the 1776 Commission, which the Trump Administration created in response to the 1619 Project, in a recent article published in Inside Higher Ed. Kamola draws links between commission members and think tanks and funders, including The Heritage Foundation, the Bradley Foundation and the Koch network. Some lesser-known conservative philanthropies are involved as well, including the Thomas W. Smith Foundation, as Judd Legums Popular Information recently reported.

These conservative funders and advocates occupy a small world: Some of the same names figure prominently in efforts to undermine public education, as IP reported. The New Yorkers Jane Mayer identified that some of the same funders, including the Bradley Foundation, are also bankrolling efforts by Trump and his allies to discredit the results of the 2020 election. Earlier this year, Mayer also reported on the Koch Networks opposition to voting rights legislation, HR1, also known as the For the People Act.

If conservative activists and their funders are fueling the anti-critical-race-theory fires, progressive philanthropy has been slow to respond. In a recent opinion piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Alvin Starks, who leads the Open Society-U.S. Equality Team at the Open Society Foundations, and Pamela Shifman, former executive director of the NoVo Foundation, pushed philanthropy to take a stronger stand.

Pointing to conservatives well-orchestrated efforts and deep pockets, Starks and Shifman wrote, In progressive philanthropy, there simply has not been the same long-term, trust-based commitment to racial justice work. We are, bluntly speaking, playing catch-up, and the defenders of white supremacy have a head start.

Nat Chioke Williams, the executive director of the Hill-Snowdon Foundation, agrees, pointing to the wealthy interests and powerful conservative media that are backing anti-CRT efforts.

The myth out there is that this is Regular Joes fighting for Regular Joes, but what we are up against is so well funded and so well organized. They have ALEC rolling out bills, they have conservative state legislators introducing the bills, and they have the echo chamber of Fox News and other conservative mediaits chilling, and we dont have anything like that. Its like bringing water balloons to a bazooka fight.

Pushing back

There has been opposition to anti-CRT campaigns, of course. Americas powerful teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), for example, have both vowed to defend teachers from anti-CRT attacks, according to a report by The 74. Mark my words: Our union will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history, AFT President Randi Weingarten said at a recent union conference. We have a legal defense fund ready to go.

If funders do decide to push back, there are several progressive organizations taking steps to counter the anti-CRT blitz. The African American Policy Forum (AAPF), for example, launched a platform called #TruthBeTold, which provides information and resources to counter anti-CRT disinformation, and tracks legislation.

Last year, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU both opposed then-President Trumps Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, a frontal attack on diversity training. (The order would become the prototype for many of the state bans.) These and other organizations are keeping a close eye on the new anti-CRT state laws and exploring possible litigation.

The Partnership for the Future of Learning, a diverse network of education and social justice organizations that support public education, has created a messaging guide called Truth in Our Classrooms Bridges Divides. The guide counters anti-CRT information and underscores the value of culturally responsive education.

Texas state Rep. Mary Gonzlez, who is associate director of the partnership, helped create the guide. Gonzlez has observed the on-the-ground fallout of anti-CRT campaigns in Texas. One bill that was recently passed by the Texas Senate, for example, would end rules requiring public schools to include writings on womens suffrage and the civil rights movementworks by Susan B. Anthony, Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King Jr., among othersin social studies classes.

I think the outcome of this struggle will impact the health of our democracy, she said. In El Paso, in my district, students and teachers have had a year of trauma. Having this CRT fight only adds additional traumawe need to be having conversations, not telling kids they cant talk about issues that affect their lives. We need avenues for less trauma, not more.

Gonzlez believes funders need to work together to develop a counter strategy. Philanthropy cant shy away from this conversation because it is political in nature. That isnt stopping the funders behind this effort.

Chris Westcott, political educator at the Solidaire Network, agrees. The idea that philanthropic and charitable work isnt politicaleverything has political choices tied to it. Now isnt a time to hang back. This is a time for us to show up in the work and make bold commitments to change.

Showing up means not necessarily firing off short-term, CRT-specific grants, but making deeper commitments to organizations pushing for racial justice and doing advocacy work. The Solidaire Network has raised money to help the African American Policy Forum respond to CRT attacks, and also supports racial justice efforts through two giving vehicles, the Movement Infrastructure Fund and the Black Liberation Pooled Fund. The Hill-Snowdon Foundation, which Chioke Williams heads, explicitly funds Black-led organizing and movement infrastructure under its Meeting the Moment: Black Movement Infrastructure for Racial Justice program.

Chioke Williams believes philanthropy needs to listen and be in relationship with those on the front lines. We need to be in service to the folks doing this work, not in service of our own interests. One of the opportunities philanthropy might offer, for example, is providing support for research. And providing spaces for folks to come together to strategize. Because that is what happens on the right. They have spaces, they have conferences all the time. So loosening the reins and recognizing that this is a deep battle and we are way, way, way, behind.

Midtermsand beyond

In the short-term, anti-CRT efforts are part of a midterm election strategy: a tool to galvanize conservative voters and get them to the polls. But the broader agenda of those attacking CRT has to do with far more than education.

Schools are only one front in this battle, Chioke Williams said. Yes, its about education, and opposition to multicultural education, but if you just look at education, you are missing the larger power and threat that this represents.

Chioke Williams draws a link between new laws banning CRT and other items on the conservative agendaincluding laws restricting voter access that are sprouting up around the country.

Nikole Hannah-Jones made this connection in a recent interview with Ezra Klein, pointing out that attacks on CRT and the 1619 Project are particularly virulent in states where laws restricting voting have been introduced:

It is the narrative that you guys are under attack, you are losing your demographic advantage, Black people and other people of color are not legitimate citizens, they never have been, they want to steal your history, they want to make you feel like you are less than themit is that narrative that then justifies these anti-democratic policies that are being passed.

Indeed, the head of Heritage Foundations advocacy arm told Politico that critical race theory is one of the top two issues her group is working on alongside efforts to tighten voting laws.

For Alvin Starks of OSF, the anti-CRT crusade is an obvious reaction to the power of last years drive for racial justice. But it is also a measure of that movements success.

We saw amazing energy behind the concept of building a more inclusive society, Starks told me. The right had to figure out how to take the wind out of the sails of that movement. So this is really a distraction. The opposition has learned how effective a disinformation campaign can be. And so the attacks on critical race theory are part of a disinformation campaign to incite fear and create divisions to hold back the promise of an inclusive and just society.

Read more:
As Conservatives Stoke the Critical Race Theory Culture Wars, Where is Philanthropy? - Inside Philanthropy

Erik J. Chaput| Guest columnist

Erik J. Chaput teaches in the School of Continuing Education at Providence College and at Western Reserve Academy. He is the author of "The Peoples Martyr: Thomas Wilson Dorr and His 1842 Rhode Island Rebellion" (2013).

Over the last 30 years, the politics that surrounds the teaching of American history has from time to time burst into the mainstream. For U.S. History teachers preparing to work with students in the classroom in the coming weeks, there will be no shortage of political minefields to navigate.

As historian Matthew Karp noted recently in Harper's magazine, the study of history is a battleground where we must meet the vast demands of the ever-living now. Our culture wars are not only about the rough and tumble surface of cultural life. They also deal with the clash over public symbols, discourse, and the enduring myths of society. Though todays warring political factions are guilty of flattening multidimensional stories, often about race in America, each side believes that they have a hotline to Clio, the muse of History, making the teachers job that much more challenging.

As a nation, sitting on knifes edge, we have been here before. The debate over how to teach, to celebrate, and be critical of American history has been a perennial part of the culture wars. The question of whether the chronicles of the American past in textbooks should fall on the celebratory or condemnatory spectrum is nothing new. In 1993, a public battle was waged over new national history standards.

Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities, led a charge against historical standards drafted by the late historian Gary B. Nash and several others. According to Cheney, the end product lacked a patriotic element that was necessary in the classroom. Of course, one can find similar sentiments expressed as far back as the 1920s. Recently this debate has played out in controversies surrounding the New York Times 1619 Project and the Trump administrations counter-effort, the 1776 Commission and its connected report.

Sociologist James Davidson Hunters landmark study, "Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America," should be required reading for teachers as they prepare for the fall semester. Hunters work, which is enjoying its 30th anniversary this year, remains a must read for those looking to further their understanding of the fault lines that have developed in modern America.

Hunters "Culture Wars" chronicles the fundamental alterations in America since the 1960s and how they have led to a greater level of division. According to Hunter, by the end of the 20th century, a battle was raging between conservatives who were committed to an external, definable, and transcendent authority, and liberals who were defined by the spirit of the modern age, of rationalism and subjectivism. The competing visions, and the rhetoric that sustains them were threatening to become the defining forces of public life.

In one of his last major essays in The New Republic in the early 1990s, Irving Howe, the prominent literary critic, noted that a serious education must assume, in part, an adversarial stance toward the very society that sustains it … But if that criticism loses touch with the heritage of the past, it becomes weightless, a mere compendium of momentary complaints.

This is indeed the balancing act that classroom teachers must perform. If teachers paper-over complexity and nuance, if they shut down debate and dismiss opposing views, they lose the ability to explain anything that happens over time, relying on weak and ineffectual metaphors. We must not be, as the abolitionist Frederick Douglass noted after the Civil War, apostles of forgetfulness.

View post:
Opinion/Chaput: The culture wars and the politics of history - The Providence Journal

We have developed an expansive understanding of trauma, from acute to childhood to systemic and intergenerational.

Each knowledge base validates the existence of distinct, human developmental needs and reminds us we cant discount the needs of identity or group belonging any more than an infants need for a secure attachment to a caregiver. When we neglect to understand and support authentic experience, identity and story, the evidence of harm is compelling. So where does this leave us in the quagmire of identity politics and culture wars?

After teaching on these subjects for many years, I have developed some ideas about the culture wars not commonly found in our literature.

Decades ago, I learned about the right-wrong impasse from relationship expert Harville Hendrix. This term refers to a mindset in which people disagree and lock up, and relationships break down. Realizing this happens on every relational level between friends, families, communities and nations was a revelation, but it did not account for the importance of power dynamics. Simply put, it isnt enough to strive for mutual respect in our differences where power differences or abuses go unacknowledged and unchanged.

Understanding the need to address power inequities is critical, but we must also strive to support basic human developmental tasks beyond ego fulfillment. Consider a child who develops a sense of mastery or competence in a talent or skill. If that child does not also learn strategies for self-care, how to serve on a team or how to apply their ability for the greater good, they are left with an ego-based sense of achievement. Similarly, when we foster personal or group identity without a broader sense of social conscience and awareness, we can only empower our identities to an ego-based degree. From this place, we are more apt to reap the negative consequences of ego-based relations, such as tribalism, culture divides and culture wars.

On ExpressNews.com:Commentary: History justifies fears of voter suppression

So, what can we do?

There is no need to associate with oppressive groups and people, but if we are not encouraged to actively develop relationships with people from outside groups, these culture wars are no great spiritual mystery. We are actively creating our dilemmas. And while its easy at times to point a finger at the toxic activism in others, what really matters is the ability to discern this kind of exploitation from our own.

Some good questions to ask oneself are: Do my community members and leaders speak truth without disparaging remarks? Do they engage in polarization or dehumanizing language and tactics? And most importantly, do they encourage us toward relationships with outsiders, not to be confused with acts to convert or control them?

One lie of the culture wars is that we cannot co-exist. Another is that we will be stripped of our identities and values through exposure to those who are different. These lies can feel real because those who operate from ego-based group promotion can willfully drive the divide. Often, they encourage us to focus solely on negative people or encounters in order to rationalize our negative stereotypes, while neglecting to encourage a deeper understanding from the perspective of the outsiders.

Using discernment, we can remove ourselves from ego-based infighting without ceasing to support our disenfranchised groups. We can also remind ourselves that ego-based victories are short-lived. More often they act like a pendulum, creating a negative force of momentum that hurts or knocks out the opposition, but in time, they swing back to harm our own.

One of the best things we can do to foster diversity free of ego is to look inward for change within ourselves. In my classes, students are tasked to conduct scholarly, empirical investigations on the histories of unfamiliar groups, but they are also tasked to interview aspirational members and leaders, and to connect with those members in the safety of their respective communities. Through activities like these, they form a realistic optimism and deeper understanding of human relations, where so many others remain stagnant.

On ExpressNews.com:Commentary: Our mental health system is overwhelmed

Direct experience can teach us that our different identities cultural, political, sexual, national or religious are often not the heart of these issues. Regardless of background or belief, there is no unsafe person to connect with or learn from who commits to engage from a higher place. Some describe that place as one of higher intention, conscience or consciousness. In my words, it combines the highest wisdom of our soul with the purest love in our heart. The research shows this is where diversity thrives, and where those with divergent identities find solutions and common ground.

Lamar Muro is an associate professor of counseling and development at Texas Womans University in Denton.

Go here to read the rest:
Commentary: Reaching beyond the front lines of the culture wars - San Antonio Express-News