IV

The Attraction of the New and Polarization of the Old

Some might ask, after reading the discussion of oral and written tradition, why did people make the switch?  Why, for that matter, did ancient peoples convert to Christianity?  There is an odd idea called progress that is attached to the modern era, but is also fundamental to one interpretation of history.  Progress, in this context, means the acceptance of the new as necessarily better than the old.  Needless to say, it is a problematic notion at best, and at worst wrong.  This way of understanding history, commonly called the Whig interpretation, frames the stretch of human development from the agricultural revolution twelve thousand years ago onward in terms of continual progress.  This view is inviting mainly because it is a satisfying illusion of recent history – since in the past century the forces supporting progress have overwhelmed those that emphasized and defended tradition.  Thankfully, it is no longer believed without qualification, but there will always be a Whig undercurrent in the study of history.  The new has always fascinated people.  It draws some people towards it, while inspiring both rational and irrational fear in others.  If there seems to be some sort of progress to history, it is because the proponents of progress emphasize the former and dismiss the rational element in the latter.  There has consistently been some pressure towards the novelty, putting strain on those who, in opposition to this, are attempting to learn or preserve either the spirituality or ideas of older times.  At times, the defense of the old is successful, or even too successful.

We see this everywhere, and in both organized religion and alternative spirituality, with the struggle causing no end of trouble.  The way to avoid getting caught by this dynamic is to reject being polarized into one side or the other of the duality.  It is too easy to make older ideas absurd by reinventing them as the complete opposite of anything new.  In recent times, the new has not had to defend itself, but people can take to absurd extremes simply by trusting every new idea – or product – that comes along wholeheartedly.  Each side attacks the other, and tries to restrict the freedom of choice.  This ends up being destructive on both sides, because the traditional is not allowed to absorb the best of the new ideas, making it unsuited to the changing cultural context, and the new ways are not tempered by the wisdom of the old.

To show that this dynamic is nothing new, I will begin by making observations about the conversion of the classical world to Christianity.  By the time of Christ, Rome had in its possession all of the land surrounding the Mediterranean.  The Empire was notoriously tolerant of different religions, but Christianity posed a special problem.  Christians actively sought to convert others, and they defied Caesar by refusing to pledge allegiance to him.  The Jews also did not swear allegiance to Caesar, and for the same reason – the Bible’s teachings dictate that humans should swear allegiance only to God, but they kept to themselves and certainly did not attempt to convert.  To the Roman leadership, which after the fall of the Republic was rarely stable, Christianity was a new phenomenon deliberately designed to undermine the authority of the emperor.

The response to Christianity included sporadic persecution and occasional acceptance, a complicated response due to the fact that some senators, and more aristocratic wives, had converted to the new religion.  Their interest in it mostly rested in its novelty, and the secrecy with which its most important tenets were kept.  If there is anything more compelling than something fresh and new, it is a mystery.  Ultimately, of course, the emperor Constantine himself converted – albeit on his deathbed – signaling the end of the old Roman religion.

This may seem a coarse and simplistic way to discuss the initial triumph of the world’s largest religion, but it is precisely what occurred, with no more complex motive necessary.  There were no underlying struggles that led people to flock to Christianity, except perhaps for individual dissatisfaction.  Roman religious beliefs had Greek backing – the highest authority available – and faced only the normal philosophical issues theist systems face.  Besides, the many festivals and benefits coming out of the Roman pantheon regularly reminded people of the state belief system, probably even more frequently than every seven days.  It is safe to say that, until the individual reaches the ultimate in self-development, he will always be dissatisfied.  So, it should come as no surprise that, if old ways have not produced satisfaction, or if new ways claim to do so more quickly and efficiently, people move on to the new.  This is not the only reason the new tends to be attractive, but it certainly applies to the Romans.

When Christians sought to proselytize outside the core of the Roman Empire, though, they faced unique problems in each area.  In general, the early Christians adapted their message to each new culture.  Open-mindedness was necessary, because outside of Rome, cultures had much more rigid systems of belief and took a great deal of convincing.  For instance, to those tribes who still employed sacrifices to appease the gods, the Christians explained that Christ was a great and honorable man who made the ultimate self-sacrifice so that no more sacrifices would be required.  This, then, made sense to the tribes.  All their attempts had not helped them against the Romans, so they had an interest in new ways.  And frankly speaking, though they might not have thought this way, sacrifices were a ghastly business, while the idea of Christ’s self-sacrifice had a unique beauty to it.

The conversions did not happen overnight, but considering the bloodless way it was managed in the early years, the spread of Christianity is striking, but not after considering the way society is managed today.  Consumer culture itself depends on novelty to sell.  Fashions might be the most obvious example of this, but every new subculture that has developed since the late Sixties has been absorbed into the mainstream because it is something new that can be sold.  Aside from fashions and subcultures, computer technology shows the same trend.  There is a push to upgrade to new versions even when the older technology is actually more stable.  And since the attraction of the new is required for the creation of wealth, there is an active attempt to promote the idea that newer is better.  It can be seen in advertisements all the time, while there are very few ads that use the test of time as a selling point.  We have been through over a century of ‘newer is better’ in America and, though recently the defense of tradition has grown much more fierce, there is no sign that the business tactic is any less successful.

The prevalence of this message – conveyed by all the new forms of visual media – has generated an irrational disregard for old ideas in industrial nations and within all cities.  The trend within cities dates back all the way to Rome.  Port cities are notorious for their ability to pick up any and every idea that comes along, as was true of the port town which fed Rome, which was actually more receptive to odd ideas than the great city itself.  The sheer mass of people living in close quarters demands that each person distinguish him or herself, to outline individuality.  There is an old German saying to the effect that city air makes men free.  In a way, the propensity for every new idea to be picked up ensures nonconformity and a sense of freedom. 

The typical contrast is the small town or village, in which everyone knows each other and there is only the countryside around.  In the small rural town, peer pressure stifles attempts at novelty and people are expected to obey the dominant norms.  There is nothing so impossible as pursuing alternative spirituality in a small town that is adamantly obeying a major religion.  On the other hand, a small town with similar spiritual interests to a person can be a boon, providing a helpful, supportive environment completely unlike the alien and aloof atmosphere of the city and suburbs.  It should be noted that American schools, especially high school, can behave somewhat like small towns, so that many people living in the cities have some idea of what rural towns are like.  Each environment has its benefits and weaknesses.

The increasing emphasis on progress is very much related to the city’s need for novelty and increasing city population.  Urban population surpassed rural in the United Stated in 1920.  Not surprisingly, what we now call consumer culture – characterized by massive advertising and use of credit – began in the twenties.  It took some time before a reaction to this developed – mainly thanks to the Great Depression and the Second World War.  This allowed the idea of progress to gain significant ground among the middle class, which had recovered by 1950.  In that time, scientists became authorities for everything, science could solve all problems, and every technological advance was a triumph against communism.  The fight against communism provided the vehicle for traditionalist reactions – everything against the norm was dubbed “communist” and the nation dipped into an uncharacteristic conformity.  The two polarized sides battled in the Sixties, and it seemed like new cultural values, like racial equality and gender equality, won out.  Under the aegis of Ronald Reagan, though, the eighties allowed traditionalists to gain some voice.  By the turn of the century the two sides have become polarized beyond anything the nation has ever seen, and the dialogue is explicitly about traditional religious values and the need to defend them.

This polarization is destructive because it prevents people from seeing the gray areas, where compromises can be made.  The population is actually encouraged not to be reasonable.  In any given situation, there are more than two points of view, more than two options, and the best course lies somewhere between the extremes.  An ‘either you’re with us or against us’ attitude is certainly not one that is compatible with enlightened spiritual values, and has caused nations and organized religions no end of trouble.

The key, then, is to try to avoid the mistake on an individual level.  This is easier said than done, but it is not necessary to keep a perfect balance.  Consider not forcing your own views on others a minimum requirement.  The champions of the new and defenders of the old are either trumpeting their views for personal gain or caught up in a dynamic they do not understand.  The loudest voices coalesce around a few key public issues that are, on the whole, not the most pressing matters that need to be addressed.  For the individual on a spiritual path, these can easily be ignored in favor of more productive pursuits and deeper thought.  Such issues are mainly there to distract.

Aside from that, the next simple step an individual can take is to avoid being afraid.  Don’t shy away from analyzing ancient texts, and don’t miss the chance to put useful tools like computers to work.  In the hands of people with a constructive purpose, ancient wisdom and modern technology can come together magnificently.  How this is managed, and to what extent, is purely a matter of individual preference.  The key is making sure that everything contributes to personal development and do not take time away from it.  Judging which balance is best can sometimes be frustrating, which is why people attempt to go one way or the other – focusing on traditional methods or newer ones.  As long as a person makes this choice as a result of active thought and careful consideration, instead of being swept up in some larger dynamic that can result in destructive attitudes, the stress created from wasting time on distractions will be minimized.