Hi folks, I trust you are doing ok, This week we are meeting in the Enigma Tap at 7.30, it would be great to see you if you are able to join us. This week we have another guest blog from Martin.
It seems that organisations like the church, unions, uniformed youth organisations have diminished in their influence in society; and that many people are as likely to be influenced by random blogs as by traditional authority-figures. Opinions and beliefs have tended towards an eclectic pick-and-mix, rather than a receiving of inherited tradition.
A ‘massive subjective turn of modern culture’ (1) has been observed in the last few decades, which ‘turn’ is a:
turn away from life lived in terms of external or ‘objective’ roles, duties, and obligations, and a turn towards life lived by reference to one’s own subjective experiences (relational as much as individualistic). (2)
Such a shift or turn is away from one’s identity as being part of (a member of) a larger, given, organisation/ transcendent-group, like nation, class, religion. This is life-as being in a particular role.
The shift or turn is towards subjective-life, wherein significance comes from one’s own experiences, emotions, memories, feeling and inner conscience; the goal becomes improving owns one quality of life; and shifting from deferring to a higher authority to becoming ones own authority. (3)
Does this imply:
A freeing from oppressive societal thought-structures, or,
A descent into TikTok-esque chaos?! …or,
A more nuanced acceptance that in a multi-cultural society where ideas can be freely shared a challenged, inherited-norms will not be accepted in the way they perhaps were in earlier centuries.
So, what works for you?
Do you accept inherited/ traditional belief systems and authorities, and support the structures that uphold them?
Or, are you more content to explore, do what seems best for you, and ‘consume’ what seems ‘right’?
Or a bit of both?
And if the second, then what ‘data’ or ‘evidence’ or ‘feeling’ to you use to decide..?
All this is a challenge to existing organisations, including the church, and other faith-organisations.
Do organisations satisfy both the need for stability that life-as people might wish-for, as well as provide the freedom for subjective-life flourishing?
And how can meaningful dialogue/ sharing/ exploring happen when, say, one person holds Biblical authority and church doctrine as privileged norms, where the other person regards such as mere opinions amongst many..?
When I was doing some voluntary eye-examining in Africa, it was not uncommon for the locals to have consulted the trusted witch-doctor for treatment. Sometimes this included the (taken) advise to wash the affected eye with cow’s urine. ( I’m not making this up). Imagine the cultural clash. That is not too dissimilar from the suggested authority-clash scenario above.
Or, consider if/ how 2 + 2 = 11 might be considered correct….
Happy wondering. Martin.
Some Questions
- If you could only get life advice from one source for a month, which would you choose: a grandparent, a best friend, a famous TikToker, a teacher, or an AI? Why?
- The passage describes a “subjective turn” in modern culture. Do you think people today are more likely to decide what is true for themselves than previous generations? What examples can you think of?
- Is moving away from traditional authorities (such as churches, unions, or community organisations) mostly a gain in personal freedom, or does it come with significant costs? Explain your view.
- When deciding what to believe about important issues, what do you personally trust most: evidence, expert opinion, tradition, personal experience, intuition, or something else? Why?
- Can a society function well if everyone treats all opinions as equally valid? Are there some beliefs or authorities that should carry more weight than others?
- How can meaningful conversations take place between people whose sources of authority are completely different, for example one person who sees the Bible and church teaching as authoritative, and another who sees them as simply one set of opinions among many?
- The text asks, “What works for you?” Is that a good way to decide what is true, or only a good way to decide what is personally meaningful? What’s the difference between the two?
Notes
1. Charles Taylor, 1991, The Ethics of Authenticity, Harvard U.P., p. 26.
2. Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead, 2005,The Spiritual Revolution: why religion is giving way to spirituality, Blackwell, p.2.
3. Ibid, p.3-4.
Photo: Rob Wylie
This post is written by one of our many friends. At BeachcomberFX we love to hear what others have to say and are always on the lookout for people who want to share their thoughts or stories with us.