The Great Silent Shrug

Second in a Series

The post-modern mind, we suggested, holds that Reality consists of the Self and the Unpatterned Cosmos. In such a world, no objective standards are real (for the Self creates truth, structure, meaning, and values; and, further, the Unpatterned is beyond-values, beyond-truth, beyond-structure).

THE SEARCH FOR SECURITY

How then should we act? One possible answer is: act so that the Self gains security.

One way to this is to act so that the Self is accepted by a Group and therefore feels emotionally secure (or is enabled to create emotional security for itself). If this version of the post-modern mind is influencing large numbers of people (particularly the post-war generation), we would expect a behavior pattern dedicated to Group conformity. For in terms of the post-modern mind’s definition of Reality, such behavior makes “good sense.”

From the point of view of someone holding to the modern mind (with its Patterned Universe and Rational Goals)—or, indeed, to someone holding that Reality is, ultimately, the Triune God—such behavior does not make good sense, but is both puzzling and alarming. For if we act to conform (for the sake of emotional security), and this alone is how and why we act, then many goals and aims and interests of the modern mind (and no less of the Christian mind) become irrelevant. Why should the post-modern Conformist be interested in political freedom, or in politics in general, or in learning, or in romance? All these imply a different view of Reality, and indeed thus become difficult for the post-modern mind to understand. One recalls Arthur Koestler’s picture of Europe’s teen-agers: “Their typical gesture is a great silent shrug” (Time, Oct. 5, 1959).

THE WORLD OF SEX

Consider romance, or rather the whole relationship between the sexes. For the post-modern Conformist, the whole realm (if our suggestion is correct) becomes a means to emotional security through approval by the Group. Some recent news items and evaluations are pertinent.

Charles Cole, President of Amherst, speaks of “a revolution which has dramatically altered the folkways of American youth and created a new and strange chasm between my generation and the next.… Going steady is a stylized relationship … the new ways may also be related to the search for security. The boy or girl who goes steady is secure” (Harper’s Magazine, March, 1957).

Professor J. A. Gengerelli, University of California, asserts: “Adjustment … takes many forms, but among college students in recent years … the general business of going steady … is considered a sign of emotional security and indicates that you are psychologically okay.… Thus we witness the frequent spectacle of the marriage of two persons motivated not by romance or passion, but by sheer orthodoxy” (Saturday Review, Mar. 23, 1957).

In a 1951 survey of “The Younger Generation,” Time Magazine (Nov. 5, 1951) reports: “Youth’s ambitions have shrunk.… There is the feeling that it is neither desirable nor practical to do things that are different from what the other fellow is doing … (as one girl put it) ‘the individual is almost dead today, but the young people are unaware of it … they are not individuals but parts of groups. They are unhappy outside of groups. They date in foursomes and sixsomes.’ ”

About half of the women getting married today, current figures show, are teen-agers. Sociologist Kingsley Davis comments that the trend shows a “widespread movement towards anti-intellectualism and anti-effort (emphasizing) group conformity rather than individual initiative, security rather than achievement” (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 18, 1958).

The number of married students in Dallas high schools is seven times what it was in 1953. Two thirds of them are below 18. The total is nearly 500, and present high-schoolers now have 72 children (Time Magazine, May 25, 1959).

Dr. R. E. Lentz, addressing the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches, warned that clergymen must be prepared to cope with eight and nine-year-olds going steady (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Feb. 11, 1958).

VANISHING POLITICAL IDEALS

Or, consider political ideals and even interest in politics. For the post-modern Conformist, politics becomes simply a means towards emotional security. Any government the Group approves would fulfill this role; beyond that, no reason for interest remains. The modern mind’s sustained interest in politics and political ideals would be enigmatic to the post-modern temperament.

A French Institute of Public Opinion poll revealed that a majority of young people (18–30) were not sure whether a Communist regime would change their personal lives. Only 20 per cent thought that they had any real influence on events (New York Times, Dec. 9, 1957).

A questionnaire revealed that 55 per cent of 359 students at a large southern university could not identify Woodrow Wilson (New Republic, Aug. 12, 1957).

Nearly two thirds of teen-agers polled in West Germany said they have no interest in politics (Time Magazine, Oct. 5, 1959).

Reports from a meeting of 25 West Berlin religious and political leaders which was held to consider recent anti-Semitic outbreaks in West Germany say that there was “despair” about democracy as a way of life, because the younger generation is “completely indifferent” to politics (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1960).

A poll at the (Communist) University of Warsaw, Poland, showed that most students believe vaguely in some sort of socialism and in Catholicism. Asked to identify the highest moral authority, 347 out of 387 said their own consciences, 14 said religion, and only six said socialism (New York Times, Oct. 6, 1958).

Political Scientist M. Klain, after extensive polling, characterized the attitudes of Western Reserve students towards politics as “decidedly cold” and “fortified by ignorance” (Antioch Review, 1957).

THE YEN FOR CONFORMITY

A summary of general attitudes is given by William H. Whyte, an editor of Fortune, who characterizes the emerging outlook in this manner:

The New Illiteracy is nourished by several simple articles of faith. The essence of them is this: First, the individual exists only as a member of a group. He fulfills himself only as he works with others: of himself he is nothing. His tensions, his frustrations … are penalties for his failure at adjustment, and they should be excused.… Above all, he must get along (with people).… The belief is growing that the health of our society depends on increasing adjustment of the individual to the consensus of the group; and this is not simply an unwitting yen for conformity, but a philosophy, a philosophy advocated by a sizeable proportion of the leadership in each sector of society.… Their doctrine is now orthodoxy (Saturday Review, Oct. 31, 1953).

Or, to quote a review of Whyte’s book, The Organization Man: the new outlook’s “major propositions are three: a belief in the group as the source of creativity; a belief in ‘belongingness’ as the ultimate need of the individual; and a belief in the application of science to achieve the belongingness” (Time Magazine, Jan. 21, 1957; cf. New York Times, Dec. 14, 1956). A similar analysis is given by David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd. Time summarizes Riesman’s views:

The new middle class—bureaucrats, salaried business employees—is largely other-directed.… Youngsters rate many popular entertainers as ‘sincere,’ which evades the issue of whether their performance was good or bad; the child is afraid to make a judgment that will turn out wrong (i.e., unpopular).… They will be tolerant because they do not much care, not because they understand the value of difference and individuality.… They will be compulsively gregarious—and lonely. Their play will be deadened by compulsive groupness.… The younger generation contains many new-style indifferents, who know enough about politics to reject it … enough about their political responsibilities to evade them (Time Magazine, Sept. 27, 1954).

SOCIOLOGICAL SUPPORT

Sociological investigations through polls and interviews give some support to this analysis. A five year “depth study” by T. W. Adorno and other University of California sociologists produced the appraisal of a general population cross-section (not confined specifically to the post-war generation):

It can be said that about 10 per cent of the population of the United States consists of ‘authoritarian’ men and women, while as many as another 20 per cent have within them the seeds.… The Authoritarian Man conforms to the nth degree to middle class ideas and ideals, and to authority. But conforming is no voluntary act for him; it is compulsive and irrational. It is an attempt to find security by merging into the herd (New York Times Magazine, Apr. 23, 1950).

The study in depth supervised by Sociologist S. A. Stouffer of Harvard, to determine how much attachment remains to the ideal of freedom (one of the key ideals of the modern mind), disclosed that nearly a third of the sample interviewed would deny freedom of speech to anyone favoring government ownership of big industry, and nearly two-thirds would deny it to atheists (Look, Apr. 15, 1955). Another set of experiments was conducted by S. E. Asch and other Harvard psychologists, their subjects being 123 students from five different colleges. Each subject was put into a controlled experimental situation involving a group of six to eight helpers who have been tipped off beforehand. The subject was asked to tell, during a series of trials, which of three lines was the longest. The “group” (the helpers) consistently and unanimously gave wrong answers. The subject was less and less sure of his (correct) answer, and as the trials proceeded, 38.6 per cent conformed to the majority, despite the clear evidence of their senses (Scientific American, Nov., 1955).

A lengthy report on college students, written for the American Council on Education by Dr. W. M. Wise of Columbia University, reports that students are interested in “the grades that will give them an advantage on the job market. Some of them are even prepared to cheat.… They want to enter upon a business or professional career, and they want to find security.… (They fear) rejection by the group.… (They feel) that everyone is entitled to his opinion, and even that one opinion is probably as valid as another.… (There is) little belief that by joining political groups he can change things” (Time, Sept. 12, 1958).

We Quote:

MAN-MADE RELIGION: “The Book of Proverbs describes the risk of private opinion in spiritual matters: ‘There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death’ (Prov. 16:25). The religion of the man who ‘thinks for himself’ is usually filled with subtle assumptions: that there is no exclusive way for a man to get his eternal reward; that all avenues plotted at any time in the course of human history are potentially valid.… Latent in the phrase, ‘I believe that every man should think for himself,’ is the notion that a different way exists for each individual.… The next step is: ‘I believe that every man should think for himself—as a god.’ … The religion of the freethinker may be sincere, but it is also subtle and subjective.… The way he takes is right in his own eyes, but not in the eyes of God. And the divine verdict upon such man-made religion is inevitable: ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord’ (Isa. 55).… It was the Lord Jesus who affirmed: ‘I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ ”—The Rev. R. RICHARD SEARLE, Oak Park, Illinois, in a message on “The Religion of the Man Who Thinks for Himself.”

THE VIEW OF REALITY

If our evaluation is correct, such attitudes reflect a view of Reality characteristic of the post-modern mind, and if this view of Reality is correct, the attitudes are eminently sensible. From the viewpoint of the modern mind (or indeed the Christian mind), such attitudes are unrealistic.

An illuminating example of the confrontation between modern mind and post-modern mind turns up in a survey of college teachers on 16 campuses recently conducted by the Nation (Mar. 9, 1957). Its purpose was to learn what literary and artistic influences predominate among today’s students. But the side remarks were so striking that the original purpose was sidetracked. Here is the modern mind looking at the post-modern mind.

Queens College, New York: “The mass of college students live lives of quiet enervation.… They come to college because a degree increases earning power and enhances social prestige.… Barely literate … wanting above all to buy security for themselves in the full knowledge that the price is conformity.”

Stanford University: “Many acknowledge no heroes, profess only lukewarm admirations, shun causes … flinch from commitments.… (The attitude) has its own moral basis, which comes less from single leaders than from the Zeitgeist.”

Yale: “Skeptical … indifferent … solemn … most of them are company men.”

University of Minnesota: “Today’s students sit and listen … less animated … detached … only a tiny fraction subject to intellectual influences of any kind.”

University of the South: “The real influences … are the makers and sponsors of such mass media as TV and the weekly slicks.… Accommodating.… Standardized.…”

University of Washington: “Strong intellectual or aesthetic allegiances scarcely exist among the present college generation here. The first interest … is to get on with their technical training.… Conformism and timidity.”

University of Michigan: “Touching submissiveness.… Eager to break into the accepted social pattern of marriage and a career. Since these are the accepted social patterns, he naturally believes they are the right ones.… Hardly any background.… Find simple prose almost illegible.… General conformity.… Earnest but dull.”

University of Louisville: “Existentialism is the philosophy they trust most. Freud … is the psychologist—a guide to adjustment that is not mere acquiescence.”

University of Nebraska: “Brainwashed generation.… Passivity.… Chamber of Commerce morality.… Their minds are as quiet as mice.… The blood runs cold.… Indifference.”

University of California: “Timid, unadventurous and conforming.… Accept the opinions of their professors.”

University of Denver: “Dull.… World-weary … skeptical … unimaginative.”

University of Rochester: “They whisper their hopes.… Temporizing.… Low-pressure doubt.… They want to learn how men learn to care.… They are suspicious of the lack of conviction in themselves.”

Wayne University: “Dull conformity.… Indifferent.… Bound together by their aloneness.… The majority come to college because it is the only thing to do … accepting what their teachers tell them.… Unenthusiastic … pepless lives of cynicism and tolerance.”

Columbia University: “Conservative and conformist.… Curious mixture of rebellion and conventionalism.”

Centenary College: “Not particularly interested.… Comfortably patterned.…”

Princeton: “Wait-and-see.… Conservative … sensitive to the accusation they are conformists.”

DENIAL OF BASIC IDEALS

So far, we have covered the post-modern Conformist who conforms to the “values” of a Group, which still holds to many of the forms of modern society, while denying the ideas which lie behind these forms. The Cheshire Cat slowly disappears; only his smile lingers on, the body having vanished.

There might be, however, a Group also which increasingly denies even the forms of modern society, and which is even more alien to the modern mind. And, as we shall see, there is some evidence that such may exist.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.