Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    and anyway the question was did you see the programme. if you didnt piss off (language you understand)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Of course Oswy will say its all bourgeois fears, not watch the program, quote a book by a Marxist, and dismiss everything everything it says with impunity. Its just the bourgeois looking down on the lower classes, stupid :eek:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Of course Oswy will say its all bourgeois fears, not watch the program, quote a book by a Marxist, and dismiss everything everything it says with impunity. Its just the bourgeois looking down on the lower classes, stupid :eek:
    It's what he always does.

    Whenever anyone critisises that vast cultural changes of the last half century, he tells that it is "all natural" or that "cultures evolve, get over it", completely ignoring the fact the majority of these changes are not natural in any way and have been managed and engineered by the detached political elites.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    It's what he always does.

    Whenever anyone critisises that vast cultural changes of the last half century, he tells that it is "all natural" or that "cultures evolve, get over it", completely ignoring the fact the majority of these changes are not natural in any way and have been managed and engineered by the detached political elites.
    Amen - someone should change the record.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by L i b)
    I find a lot of your views to be incompatible therewith too. Clearly we have rather different interpretations of the matter.
    Not at all. My views that we differ on are based on Christian values of equality for all mankind regardless of religious affiliation.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Yeah, but has there really been a 'surge of lawlessness'? Pearson's book does a good job of arguing that things like lawlessness, drunkeness and anti-social behaviour aren't really anything new at all in large urban societies (or rural ones for that matter)
    I accept that fully, but...

    and instead he argues that what actually happens is that each generation among the genteel classes 'discovers' all this stuff anew - it is thus a sense of discovery of, and sensitivity to, bad behaviour and crime which is the actual phenomenon.
    Why would they re-discover it, rather than acknowledge it as a constant social force? If indeed people grow up the same level of disorder as a backdrop - and indeed have parents and other generations above them who have experienced the same - surely they would realise it is in fact not remotely new?

    I appreciate I am perhaps requesting a very short summary of a very broad idea. Feel free to ignore the question if that is the case.

    (Original post by yawn)
    Not at all. My views that we differ on are based on Christian values of equality for all mankind regardless of religious affiliation.
    Which, as I've said, we likely have different interpretations on. Since you acknowledge that we have very different political views, I don't see why you would think that we'd share a great deal of theological views.

    To have a theological discussion would be pretty inappropriate here, so I will simply repeat the point that I believe this 'death of respect' is actually a good thing, since it demonstrates our move away from dependence on strict (and often overbearing) social hierarchies and a replacement of 'forced respect' with that which is earned.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by L i b)
    ...

    Why would they re-discover it, rather than acknowledge it as a constant social force? If indeed people grow up the same level of disorder as a backdrop - and indeed have parents and other generations above them who have experienced the same - surely they would realise it is in fact not remotely new?
    Well, it's complicated. While there is always disorder, drunkenness and anti-social behaviour it appears that cyclical sensitivity has a wave-like quality seemingly generated by periods of wider social and political uncertainty or as a result of media intensity on specific issues (and easily both). In other words, other forces periodically make us - more centrally the middle class - suddenly more aware and more concerned about things that are always going on. Pearson's argument isn't as simple as it's coming across here and in his conclusion he does recognise that there are going to be some real changes in behaviour and values in societies over time to some extent, but the thrust of his argument is that history shows a) 'bad behaviour' to be a more-or-less constant in human societies and b) repeated peaks of anxiety about it do seem to occur as if such 'bad behaviour' is a new phenomenon.

    EDIT: I also think it's worth suggesting that decreases in 'bad behaviour' can, paradoxically, actually create greater sensitivity in some situations. Across nineteenth-century London the sight of barefoot and ragged children roaming the streets as gangs of 'urchins' or 'Arabs' was pretty common and often represented rather romantically in images and poetry. But with the introduction of compulsory education for all youngsters (from 1880 onwards) children on the streets was suddenly a 'more visible' and shocking phenomenon because there weren't as many of them and they weren't supposed to be there. Another example: it's not that long ago that spitting was an everyday occurance, so much so that busses used have little signs on board saying "NO SPITTING" (these signs were still around in the 1970s); spitting in the street hasn't disappeared but I think it's become less acceptable than it once was and thus there's more sensitivity to it when observed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ect_Episode_2/

    That's the second episode for all who are interested. I'm just about to watch it before bed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The 'death of respect' is a consequence of the rise of individualism.
    To a degree I agree, when there were rights to work marches, unions set up to aid the workers (don't jump on this as a union debate, as this was their aim when they were set up) and the poorest communities had some form of collectivism and was self policing to a greater degree. The move towards individualism has gotten rid of some of this, most specifically the self policing aspect. The poorest are now feeling abandoned and realistically have little scope for any aspirations they have to be realised.

    I would also say to a degree the removal from individualism at work specifically has also had an impact. For example small business owners, especially shop owners are rarer to be seen, the local shops were once locally owned, as were many other local businesses, and children could see the results of work, now we have cloned chain stores filled with people on the minimum wage, the symbols of aspiration in local communities has been replaced by McJobs.

    The removal of consequence from their actions, both the positive and negative ones, has lead to a loss of respect and general disillusionment of some of the poorest people in our society. Having said all that the problem is still only in a tiny minority of youths and is not as wide spread as some elements of the media make out.

    In regards to the documentary itself it was poor and biased, within the first couple of minutes it already showed itself to lean towards the conservatives, showing negative images as Brown praised Britain whilst Cameron called it broken, making Brown look out of touch thus favouring Cameron. The BBC had obviously decided to forget impartiality for this documentary, and the part where he's talking about off licenses and the under 25 ban on alcohol summed it up, praising some for 'sacrifcing profits for the good of the wider community' whilst effectively criticising those which refused, ignoring the impact of the ban on the majority of responsible drinkers under 25 whose rights would have been ignored because of a minority. If any ban should be implemented, it should be against those who abuse it, not a blanket ban on all, whether responsible or not.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.