The move of millions of farm and ranch families to the cities after World War II coincided with the ready availability of affordable automobiles. The new families moving in thought nothing of traveling twenty minutes to a store. On the contrary, it was a big improvement over the day-long trip to the state fair and the expense of finding lodging for a night or two. The nice new cars made it more comfortable and easier than ever before. Moreover, the new arrivals were accustomed to living in quiet surroundings and not seeing their neighbors any more often than they cared to. The increasingly ubiquitous cars allowed developers to plan the burgeoning neighborhoods in the cities and suburbs to replicate the country lifestyle up to a point. Zoning ordinances, curving streets, and large lots recreated the quiet ambiance of the ranch, with neighbors at a comfortable remove and no commercial buildings or activities within sight, except at the fringes of the developments, where duplexes and other less desirable housing was placed.
People often comment hyperbolically that no one knows the neighbors any more. At first, in the new post-war situation, people often came with food to greet new arrivals and arranged “poundings”, events in which each settled family gave a small appliance or other useful household item to help the new family get started. Little by little this practice has faded, relegated primarily and sporadically to church groups. If the hypothesis of slow cultural change is correct, all the preceding is easily explained: people really want their space and the presence of too many neighbors nearby feels uncomfortable and intrusive.
In rural areas, especially in small towns, although people usually did not have to deal with neighbors any more than they cared to, they all knew each other. This meant that nearly everyone was aware of what nearly everyone else did, through observation, gossip, or deduction. They held each other to an ethic of commonly accepted values and as a result violations of the code were usually well hidden to avoid social censure. This societal control broke down when people moved to the cities. These larger societies are not subject to control in the same way, so people can do more of what they please more easily and without social disapproval. The first generation that moved to town maintained the values they had grown up with and many participated actively in church. The next generation, however, was not prepared by their parents to operate in an urban context. They were just expected to continue behaving as their parents had without the relatively benevolent oversight of a community where everyone knows everyone else.
Of course the US has always had cities and is full of people who live in cities and none of whose forbears lived anywhere other than a city. However, the overwhelming experience of American culture was rural until the middle of the twentieth century. At present we have several generations of Americans who have grown up in cities but whose families come from a culture that does not match the new situation because culture changes slowly. Some families have made the transition successfully and are thriving. Some are holding together but feel with profound malaise that the America they knew growing up is inexorably slipping away. Others have fallen completely apart. People moved to the cities primarily for the manufacturing jobs which paid well and did not require a college education. Several of my uncles did exactly that. When I came to college, it was still a viable option for those who did not wish or who could not afford to get a university education. We are all aware that since then, most of the old manufacturing has moved overseas or has been entrusted to robots.
The American economy was built on agriculture and its culture was rural for three hundred fifty years, from the early seventeenth century to the middle of the twentieth. No wonder that it is a cultural theme that runs deep in our subconscious and continues to affect our lives. We now live in an economy based on consumerism and finance and reside in the cities and their suburbs. Our rural past, which until recently informed and maintained a widely accepted way of behaving based on shared assumptions of what is ethical and desirable does not match our new lifestyle, but we have not developed a culture to replace it. As a result we live with competing ethics and assumptions, our political identities are splintered, and, as we no longer have a recognizable cultural identity, people have tried to contrive one: mods and rockers, goths and skinheads, emos and hipsters, kickers and metrosexuals, and so on. We identify by sports teams, whether college or professional, by religious affiliation or non-affiliation, by political party faction, by profession, or in any other of a number of ways. Gangs were never a factor in rural America, but they are one way, albeit tragic, to gain an identity and a community for those who live in the cities and have no culture they belong to and whose families are not strong. The cultural theme of a rural America explains much of how we behave and its breakdown accounts for many of the social ills we see now, not because cities are bad, but because cultures change slowly and we are at a loss. Not understanding this matter is dangerous but becoming aware of it is the first step in seeking a solution.
It is not to be wondered at, then, that when in the 50s and 60s, young people asked why they should not have sex before marriage or take drugs or engage in other behaviors not sanctioned by society, most parents had nothing to answer because they had never needed to think it through. So they said: “Because I said so, that’s why. And don’t question me.” Of course that sort of answer, while understandable, did nothing to provide any guidance to the young people. That is a recipe for trouble. If teenagers ask an important and searching question, we need to have a solid, studied answer or be willing to say, “I’m sorry but I don’t know.” That is the only way to keep their respect.
As a result, the 60s were a time of revolt, anger, and lostness on the part of many young adults. I was unusually fortunate in having parents who answered my questions, no matter how embarrassing, fully and objectively. Living in two cultures promotes a thought process that helps in such situations, but my parents’ upbringing in the best of American traditions had much to do with it as well. At least what I have discussed will help explain the various different outcomes occurring in different families. Note, however, that it was family by family and not social.
Rural life was a major theme of US culture all through its history until recently. The persistence of the theme and the behaviors and assumptions it drives explain much of what happens at present. They drive the goals, desires, and assumptions of a large portion of the society without most people being fully aware of them or their power. This chapter attempts to show how powerful cultural themes can be and illustrate the idea by using one important theme that most people will recognize when brought to their attention. Some of the effects of the cultural theme are positive, others not so much, primarily because of the incompatibility between what life used to be like and what it has become now. In the remaining chapters I will try to discuss some of our other cultural themes with the same purpose in mind.
II. The Business of America is Business
An important feature of congregationally-governed Baptist churches is the monthly business conference. A moderator calls the meeting to order and all the members of the church who so desire are present to vote on recommendations brought by the various committees and teams. The members have the opportunity to ask questions and to voice opposition or support of the recommendations before the voting takes place.
At one such meeting a month or two after I arrived for college, a certain man had been nominated for a church position of some kind, which I now forget. One of the members stood and said,
“I support the nomination of brother Smith. He is a good choice because he owns his own business and is therefore trustworthy.”
I had never heard that before, but I was to hear it again many times. It became quickly apparent that, not only did people consider business owners stabler and more trustworthy than other people, but that they generally also deferred to their opinions. Indeed, it was difficult to get anyone who was not a business person elected to anything. This was new to me. In Argentina business owners are looked upon with the same suspicion reserved for politicians: the bigger the business, the stronger the suspicion, all in spite of the fact that business of all kinds, including slick advertising, makes the Argentine economy tick, and that small business permeates the life of the country.
It was not long before I heard another expression