Buenos dias! I’ve gotten really into this book called The Cultural Creatives recently, by Paul H. Ray, Ph.D. and Sherry Ruth Anderson, Ph.D., a husband-and-wife team in northern California. They have a lot of ways of describing and dividing American society and how it is changing right now that I think are insightful and inspiring. If I haven’t already mentioned the book to you or discussed it in some depth, then I want to! I am super interested in your responses, and would love to discuss anything here, or the book itself if you’re inclined to read it!
So here goes (I just spent about an hour and a half writing this, more than I anticipated, but I think it’ll be worth it!): The authors identify three main groups of people in American society: Modernists, Traditionalists, and Cultural Creatives, roughly comprising 50%, 25%, and 25% of the population respectively. This new description of the groups of American society is one of the most interesting parts of the book, as our society is almost always divided up on the political lines of left and right (courtesy CNN’s Crossfire or other similar shows), and then, of course, there are all the other demographic indicators which can be used: income, race, educational level, etc. But the authors of The Cultural Creatives aim to describe groups, particularly the Cultural Creatives, in American society as defined by their values and lifestyle goals, instead of more typical demographic devisions.
Here’s how they define the three groups:
Moderns:
The modern age has a familiar and illustrious history. An example of a key moment in the development of Modernism, for example, would be when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses which began a movement challenging the authority of the church over all aspects of an individual’s life and faith. Modernism has given us the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom, justice, civil rights, democracy, etc. The project of modernism, Cultural Creatives authors say, has been carried onto become a very secular culture, which is mostly concerned with progress in every area, science, business and governmental systems, material wealth, individual status, events instead of complete stories (on the news), style, being in control, treating your body as a machine, and taking things apart for analysis instead of taking a more integrated approach.
Moderns, the authors say, are the dominant group in American society, roughly 50% of folks are moderns. Their culture is best represented by mainstream television, which both minority groups, the Traditionals and Cultural Creatives criticize, as it does not represent them or their values.
Traditionals:
Social conservatives include both Republicans and Democrats. While these people include folks of all income levels, on average traditionalists are of lower income than Moderns and Cultural Creatives, as they have a tendency to live in more rural areas. Say the authors: “Traditionals’ views do not translate cleanly into the political positions laid out by the press and the politicians. They can be culturally conservative on some issues and liberal or centrist on others. They are just as likely to disagree as they are to agree. Many observers are surprised to find that large numbers of Traditionals are strongly pro-environment, for example. Some are even pro-choice but are culturally conservative in other ways.” The authors point out that Traditionals and Cultural Creatives make many of the same criticisms of Modern culture — its lack of faith or interest in most things other than progress, money, technology, styles, or which Hollywood personalities are either getting together or breaking up. Cultural Creatives and Traditionals differ in their values in many different ways, in many cases less so than one might think (for example, the environment). But a very clear and stark difference between the two groups is their beliefs about women and families. Traditionalists, like Moderns, tend to reject emotional ways of understanding, which they would determine are traditionally “female.” They believe that “patriarchs should again dominate family life.”
Wendell Berry would be an excellent example of a traditionalist agrarian environmentalist. People really loved him in the Inscape/Landscape class I took at HSU (See my Inscape/Landscape blog), but after a while I found myself criticizing Berry, and defending the much more modern E.O. Wilson.
Cultural Creatives:
This group has emerged and grown since the 1960’s in U.S. Society. They are overwhelmingly green, and the ecological health of the planet is the most widely held concern among all members of this demographic group. There are many other widely held concerns, values, and interests among the Cultural Creatives, however. They tend to go to less-traveled to vacation spots and are concerned about social justice in a globalized world. They are interested in health food, eastern or new-age spirituality (though most practice a traditional western religion in a church). They are concerned about violence against women and children, and believe relationships are more important than other groups. So, this should seem like a pretty familiar story in Humboldt County… blah, blah, blah.
What’s interesting is the history of the cultural creatives the authors give. This group has come from several wellsprings over the past decades but they are more and more flowing into the same lake of interests, values, culture, and lifestyle. This group and their interests have arise from the women’s movement, civil rights movement, peace movement, environmental movement, gay liberation movement, and the movements for organic and natural foods and alternative health care. Not only have people of the different movements, interest groups, or “moral publics” mixed among each other, but folks have realized how many of these issues are parts of the same rubix cube we’re trying to solve. For example, there is a widespread recognition today, that social and environmental justice are most often inextricably inked issues, and the environmental is becoming a more general interest and less a upper-middle-class urban white interest, as folks from different places and walks of life work to change it, and as its earlier leaders learn (one random example: Indigenous Environmental Network).
This list of movements emphasizes the social and political activism of many Cultural Creatives, but the authors say again and again that some of the most important work Cultural Creatives have been doing is more private personal and cultural experimentation. For some, at times, this has meant drug-soaked experiences, false gurus, self-indulgent hot spring retreats, or laughable new-age bullshit that we’ve all seen made fun of plenty of times. But the authors emphasize that very few of Cultural Creatives are new agers, that most live apparently very normal lives, but that the extremes of experimentation are necessary in our culture to invent and explore. They cite the phenomenally rapid growth of movements (nay, industries) like yoga and ecotourism (both, once fringe, are now practically mainstream) within the last decade as evidence of the rising prominence of the Cultural Creatives. Cultural Creatives are not to the left or the right, the authors say, but out in front.
Many of previously-mentioned political movements seem to have simmered-down, as the people in them have turned away from working as actively toward political, and have embarked to create social innovation in their lives and others’. Since they are not represented in the media, and don’t really see themselves as a group, and yet, the authors claim, there are more people who classify as cultural creatives in the U.S. than who voted for Clinton, they are a large and potentially influential group. However, Cultural Creatives have grown distrustful of large political movements and direct mail and all that, as they prefer social movements they can be involved in and understand directly. The most powerful parts of the book, for me, are the the numerous personal stories of Cultural Creatives, ranging from young people, to many older people like Ray Andersen, CEO of Interface Carpet, who in ripe middle age had a disruptive epiphany that made him see himself and his business as a plunderer. He aggressively changed Interface Carpet a dramatically more efficient and sustainable (and successful!) company, and has become an evangelist and expert on sustainable business.
I think the project of the authors, to identify the Cultural Creatives as a potentially powerful group in American society, and to better explain where we are in history, as well as offer examples and inspiration for people to think about where they are personally is a worthwhile project, one I’m trying to continue here, with this summary / discussion. Hope you enjoyed.
Namasté,
Aaron
aaron :: Sep.06.2006 ::
U.S. Politics, Sustainability ::
No Comments »
