All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Chapter 6
Ok, so I’m going to catch up. I’m going to do this by picking out only one little tangent that Myers went on and not summarizing or responding to the whole chapter, which was primarily a discussion of Lewis’ Experiment in Criticism, which is on my “must read very soon” list anyway.
Chapter Six: Better to Receive
So, jumping into the middle of the chapter, Myers establishes that pop culture is a culture founded on moral autonomy (a false ideology) that promotes selfishness. It’s not that people wouldn’t be selfish if it weren’t for popular culture; it is that the populace is selfish (aren’t we all?), so our culture reflects our priorities. One aspect of the worldview of moral autonomy is relativism and subjectivism (there is no standard of truth, goodness, and beauty, only differing tastes). So, Myers argues:
The subjectivism of popular culture renders null and void any concept of propriety. In social behavior, propriety refers to actions that are appropriate or fitting to the circumstances. At root, the word refers to the true nature of things, their properties. Today how we behave in the presence of others is often said to be a wholly subjective matter. There is no true nature of things: all significance is defined by the self. Therefore, any action in any setting is justified, as long as it is “authentic.”
This reminded me of something Matt said a couple years ago. When in high school, Matt knew he wanted to marry me and I thought he was a highly eligible young man. However, I certainly wasn’t going to be the first to start anything and he didn’t say anything directly. Sure, I could tell he preferred me. Sure, he could tell his suit would not be scorned. But he never let one word of affection or of his intent out until he asked my dad (without my knowledge) if he could court me. He’d never even read I Kissed Dating Goodbye, much less any “how to court” book. So, finally, after we had been married for several years, it occurred to me to ask him why he never said anything to me before that. His response: “It just didn’t seem proper to do so.” Matt has a keen sense for propriety, and it is something I admire in him and want to pass on to our children.
The subject of propriety also relates to a subject frequently on my mind of late, which is propriety of dress. I am meandering my way towards a principled (rather than intuitive, which I currently use, or legalist, which I want to avoid) approach to clothing. What is proper dress? Our culture doesn’t want there to be any such thing, so any move toward propriety is going to be counter-cultural. Yet that doesn’t have to an anti-cultural rejection of denim or heels nor an embrace of all things or anything as long as it is currently out of vogue. I desire propriety and modesty and loveliness, yet I’m pretty sure that doesn’t mean I have to give up jeans. Moreover, housework and mothering babies and small children is not very conducive work to always dressing “pretty,” which is something I’ve always had an affinity for, anyway (when little I would wear my Sunday shoes every day and even outside, as often as mom would let me). Anyway, I’ve been noodling this one sporadically for at least a year, and it will probably be another year or more before I’m ready to blog about it. :)
Of course, propriety is not simply a category for aesthetics. Could it be that one of the causes of the decline of attention to manners, those habits of behavior that allow us to demonstrate respect and honor those to whom it is due (a Christian duty), is the triumph of popular culture’s ways?
Manners and social grace are high on the Winckler list of priorities for the education of our children.
Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:4
In word, in dress, and in deed.
