Is it an obstacle to progress? Or a necessary societal bulwark?
This is a position which my opinion has changed over time. I think I’ve mentioned before that I grew up as a Socialist. I was pretty liberal in some of my views – but pretty conservative in others. Believe it or not, I still am.
You can probably gather I no longer am hard-left in my views, but I’m not wedded to right-wing views either. One thing I try to do is weigh things on a case-by-case basis – and my perspective on tradition is no different.
Whilst on Twitter I play up certain positions I hold, and will often use outgroups to provide a contradicting view to whatever point I’m trying to make, in real-life I’m pretty relaxed about people’s political beliefs. I have positions which I believe to be preferable and/or more positive, but if someone doesn’t agree with me on them I’m not gonna pull them up on it.
That’s called social skills.
Unless people have some deep underlying issues which I can see are negatively influencing their perspectives (self-loathing, misanthropy, bitterness etc.) I will give them a pass. I judge on their character and behaviour, far more than their political beliefs.
Most people are generally good, they may not realise what the second-order effects of their beliefs entail, and I l try to make them aware of this. However, I do this amicably. Raging at someone for being an idiot is not how you convince them otherwise (I’m talking to you, Liberals [hypocritical? You’ll see what I did…]).
Offline Vs Online
Online, however, is a whole different ball game. Twitter accounts are, to some extent, caricatures of real people – the views I espouse I believe, but I play up to the extreme ends of them in order to make my points more poignant, or entertaining. Although I talk about deep topics and societal trends, I still want people to enjoy reading my Tweets beyond the ‘depth’ of content.
This is a paradox that some people struggle to understand, but remember we must all act within the constraints of the medium we are in.
There are a different set of social values online, compared to the real world. It’s therefore up to us to act differently in each. This is the wise and mature perspective (and why you shouldn’t become too immersed in the Internet. It’s pretty common to see people transfer the online values to the offline – and the negative effects this entails).
Tradition
Back to the point.
One issue I’ve changed my take on is tradition. I’ve talked about this in the past (see above) – particularly in the light of traditions being rational answers to questions humanity has already faced. This is my general perspective on the tradition of monogamy (see here). And, whilst I agree with one-man-one-woman relationships, this doesn’t mean we can stick entirely with ALL traditions. No, that is an oversimplification.
We have to adapt with the times, whilst also understanding WHY these traditions came about – in order to prevent problems re-arising.
We can neither mindlessly tear down all traditions as ‘old-fashioned and dated’, nor maintain each and every one.
Only by investigating what caused traditions, what problems they solved and whether they would still be effective at solving them will we be able to merge the past with the present, in order to create a brighter future.
Obstacle for Progress
There are some perspectives that see traditions as dated affairs which limit individuals and act as an obstacle for progress. Indeed, this was a view I used to hold. Those who still hold this view see traditions as a prescribed formula which removes the need to think for individuals. And, like all criticism, there is an element of truth to this.
Some traditions are rooted in reason, but their importance to the present is in the ease of following them.
As a result, we should question the utility of them. However, starting with the base position that traditions are ‘more likely to be wrong, than right’ is a form of social conditioning which, if not questioned, can itself be harmful.
This is because traditions are often solutions to problems. If people unquestioningly question them – in the hope of their removal – they can cause serious problems.
I can think of many examples of this in modernity – particularly in relation to sex, gender dynamics and relationships. I’m not going to go into that in too much detail, as I have covered it previously – and I’m sure I will again – so instead I’m going to give a religious example.
I have some unusual feelings on religion and believe we have to move forward into a faith-based, but less tribalistic pattern of behaviour with regards to it.
This is (another) view of mine which has developed over time and with experience.
Bali and Rice Growing
To make the point tying religious problem solving to traditions, I’m going to refer to a place known as ‘The Last Paradise’ – Bali. Bali is a (relatively) small island in Indonesia. Unlike most of that country, which is predominantly Muslim, Balinese people are Hindu. In their religious practice, the Balinese tie their calendar in with religious practices and rice production – their staple food source.
Through doing this, the Balinese rice farmers used religion as a proto-scientific model for increasing yields. Combining spiritual practices with ‘scientific’ observation, they developed a wonderfully efficient system.
And then, in the 1970s, the Indonesian government mandated a (well-intentioned) science driven ’Green Revolution’ in order to throw off Balinese religious practices which were acting as an ‘obstacle to progress’.
As a result, pests overwhelmed the crops and rice harvests plummeted. Fortunately, this decision was reversed, but it serves as a reminder that we may not understand the second-order effects of seemingly good ideas (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all) as well as traditions being more than simple patterns of behaviour which we’re stuck adhering to.
If you’d like to read more about this fascinating topic, check out the article below.
False Equivalency
Whilst researching this piece, I was reading blog articles and some academic papers which argue against the role of tradition.
One thing I was struck by is the amount which simply listed pretty obviously meaningless traditions. One article questioned why you wouldn’t eat sushi for thanksgiving. Beyond the fact that this was obviously impossible before globalisation (and – I’m guessing here as I’m not American – that turkey hunting season probably aligns with Thanksgiving) this is patently a tradition which holds no real weight.
Investigating and questioning the idea of tradition based on eating certain foods at certain times – or carving pumpkins from the bottom, rather than the top as another article suggests – is an unbelievably contrived position. Willfully taking a trivial matter and conflating it with far deeper belief systems genuinely hurts my intellectual sensibilities.
Yet, this is convincing as it seems undeniably true. But be careful, dear reader. I would advise you not to get drawn to into a fallacy of false equivalency.
Bad Traditions
I mentioned previously that we probably should question each individual tradition, as some are undeniably negative. For example, where I live farmers burn their green waste in order to generate wood ash; they then subsequently place this on their fields in order to increase fertility. This is a scientifically proven method which is also rooted in tradition.
However, as the population has increased – and food production in line with that – it’s now lead to the point where a heavy haze of smog pollutes the land (see photo below and this article) for several months a year. This adversely affects the population beyond whatever positives are gained from increased yield.
As a result, based on changes to circumstance, this tradition should be re-examined and new methods developed (or more truthfully, adopted. Composting is a fine alternative).
So we can see by looking purely at traditional farming practices – here and in Bali – that there is variance in how we need to view tradition. A dogmatic view that tradition is either always bad, or always good is inherently flawed. We have to view them on a case by case basis.
An Ideal World
Unfortunately, this takes real consideration and a deep level of thought on an uncounted level of topics; something which, likely, isn’t particularly sustainable – particularly in modern life where hot-takes abound and deep consideration of a topic is virtually unheard of.
So, in an ideal world that is what I would preach.
However, an ideal world is one that does not exist – and never will. We have to work within the boundaries we exist.
As such, I err on the side of caution in believing we should maintain traditions, rather than subvert them unless there is undeniable harm being caused as a result of them. In this sense, I’m a ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ kind of guy.
This is purely a cautionary approach – and, I’m aware it’s not ideal.
But in reality, pragmatism trumps idealism.
Role of Technology
One thing which must be considered when discussing the tradition and whether it should maintain primacy is the role of technology.
Technology is very disruptive. I’ve discussed in previous articles how technology is a form of magic, and as a result of its’ sorcery, patterns of behaviour get broken due to it lifting biological constraints. I said I wasn’t going to talk about gender earlier, but contraceptives are the most obvious example of this. Smartphones and Google are another. Their ability lies in releasing the constraints of memory, allowing us to search for answers to things which, 20 years ago, would have been kept in the memory banks of our brain.
Technology’s impact on culture shouldn’t come as a surprise, from the printing press, to print journalism, to social media, these are long-term trends. Hell, you can see cultural changes in the difference between the stone-age and the iron-age.
And, as much as I dislike some trends technology has led to, it’s not going away and we must look forwards as opposed to backwards (although we can learn from the past, particularly in architecture as @wrathofgnon eloquently points out).
So we should look to embrace technology, but be cautious in adopting it.
Complexity
One of the areas I would argue we should be particularly careful with technology is when it messes with complexity systems which are resistant to change. I add that last caveat, as society is a complexity system, but is in a constant state of flux. Whether or not this is a positive is up for debate, but I’ll try not to get side tracked.
The example which really springs to mind is biological organisms. When we start using technology to play with the underlying chemistry – as contraceptives (sorry!) and food nutrition ‘technology’ does – then the second order effects can be devastating. Frankly, we do not understand these systems well enough.
This is a great pitfall of science, particularly one which views things in a purely mechanistic light. We cannot measure x and just the outcome it has y, because it may have outcomes on a, b and c. The likelihood is we are not measuring these three variables and as a result the effects on them will not become clear until after the fact.
Even when they do become obvious, these technologies can become too entrenched to change, as we see with contraception (sorry, again). The side-effects are terrible, yet institutions (both cultural and economic) hold them in place.
Religious, spiritual and non-rational models are far better at encompassing the entire modality of human existence. And through these models, we develop traditions.
So, yes, it’s imperative that society adapts to changes that come.
But we must be cautious.
We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.