From Lost Generation's Bourne: Virtue versus Duty
The question that I've been exploring for years is the the
relationship between Boomers and Gen-Xers, and how that relationship
was directly responsible for the massive fraud that led to the
financial crisis. I've been formulating that relationship as follows:
The nihilistic, greedy Gen-Xers working for incompetent, greedy
Boomers, cooperating to knowingly defraud the public in order to make
money. An important feature of that relationship is the
well-documented loathing and hatred that Gen-Xers have for Boomers
(or, perhaps more accurately, that the Gen-X culture has for the
Boomer culture).
This is OK as far as it goes, but it created problems because it
implied that Gen-Xers as a whole are dishonest, something that can't
be supported by evidence outside of financial institutions. However,
it now appears that the explanation is not that Gen-Xers are
dishonest, but that they refuse to recognize dishonesty in others. A
particularly dramatic example that I've previously given is to
contrast the 1980s savings and loan crisis with today's financial
crisis.
I admit that I'm totally baffled by the apparent lack of what might be
called an "ethical compass" by Gen-Xers, with the Breitling commercial
that I've previously described as an interesting example.
If we look back in history, it seems doubtless that the corresponding
generations of the early 1900s had a similar relationship. The
Lost Generation must have deeply loathed the Missionary Generation,
and that explains why ordinary Germans did nothing to stop the
Holocaust.
A book written in 1913 by Randolph Silliman Bourne of the Lost
Generation
The 1913 book Youth and Life by Randolph Silliman Bourne of the Lost
Generation explains the attitudes of his generation towards the
previous generations, and could have been written by a Gen-Xer in the
1990s.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924014520997
In Chapter III, The Virtues and the Seasons of Life, Bourne contrasts
the concepts of "duty," imposed by the repressed previous generations,
with "true morality," which provides an enjoyable "spiritual world of
ideals and feelings and qualities."
Here are some extracts:
Randolph Silliman Bourne wrote:
> Each season of life has its proper virtues, as each season of the
> year has its own climate and temperature. If virtue is the
> excellent working of the soul, then youth, middle age, and old
> age, all have their peculiar ways of working excellently.
> When we speak of a virtuous life, we should mean, not a life that
> has shown one single thread of motive and attitude running through
> it, but rather one that has varied with the seasons, as spring
> grows gently into summer and summer into autumn, each season
> working excellently in respect to the tilling and harvest of the
> soul. If it is a virtue to be contented in old age, it is no
> virtue to be contented in youth; if it is a virtue for youth to be
> bold and venturesome, it is the virtue of middle life to take heed
> and begin to gather up the lines and nets so daringly cast by
> youth into the sea of life. A virtuous life means a life
> responsive to its powers and its opportunities, a life not of
> inhibitions, but of a straining up to the limit of its
> strength. It means doing every year what is fitting to be done at
> that year to enhance or conserve one's own life or the happiness
> of those around one.
> Virtue is a word that abolishes duty. For duty has steadily
> fallen into worse and worse opprobrium; it has come to mean
> nothing but effort and stress. It implies something that is done
> rightly, but that cuts straight across the grain of all one's
> inclinations and motive forces. It is following the lines of
> greatest resistance; it is the working of the moral machine with
> the ut- most friction possible. Now there is no doubt that the
> moral life involves struggle and effort, but it should be the
> struggle of adequate choice, and not of painful inhibition. We are
> coming to see that the most effective things we do are those that
> have some idea of pleasure yoked up with them. In the interests of
> moral efficiency, the ideal must be the smooth and noiseless
> workings of the machine, and not the rough and grinding movements
> that we have come to associate with the word "duty." For the
> emphasis on the negative duty we must substitute emphasis on the
> positive virtue. For virtue is excellence of working, and all
> excellence is pleasing. When we know what are the virtues
> appropriate to each age of life, we can view the moral life in a
> new light. It becomes not a claim upon us of painful obligation,
> but a stimulus to excellent spontaneity and summons to
> self-expression. (pp. 55-57)
In today's terms, this would be a Gen-X attitude in a major break with
the Silent Generation, and to a lesser extent with the Boomers. The
Silents had a strong sense of duty, of painful obligation. Bourne
talks of a virtue that "abolishes duty." Thus, the Germans of the
Lost Generation had no duty to prevent the Holocaust, either passively
or actively, and today's Gen-Xers had no duty to stop the financial
crisis or, in the case of the Justice Department, even to prosecute
criminals who created the crisis.
In his book, Bourne then describes the correct way of raising children
- give them no moral values whatsoever:
Randolph Silliman Bourne wrote:
> We have imagined that we could give the child "the relish of right
> and wrong," as Montaigne calls it. The attempt has usually been
> made to train up the child in the moral life, by telling him from
> his earliest years what was right and what was wrong. It was
> supposed that in this way he absorbed right principles that would
> be the guiding springs of his youthful and later life. ...
> Now most moral ideas in a child's mind are exactly similai:
> [[similar]] to these suggestions. They seem to operate with in-
> fallible accuracy, and we say, — "What a good child!" As a fact
> the poor child is as much under an alien spell as the subject of
> the hypnotist. Now all this sort of hypnotized morality the
> younger generation wants to have done with. It demands a morality
> that is glowing with self -consciousness, that is healthy with
> intelligence. It refuses to call the "good" child moral at all; it
> views him as a poor little trained animal, that is doomed for the
> rest of his life to go through mechanical motions and moral tricks
> at the crack of the whip of a moral code or religious
> authority. From home and Sunday-school, children of a slightly
> timid disposition get moral wounds, the scars of which never
> heal. They enter a bondage from which they can never free
> themselves; their moral judgment in youth is warped and blighted
> in a thousand ways, and they pass through life, seemingly the most
> moral of men and women, but actually having never known the zest
> of true morality, the relish of right and wrong.
> The best intentions of parents and teachers have turned their
> characters into unnatural channels from which they cannot break,
> and fixed unwittingly upon them senseless inhibitions and cautions
> which they find they cannot dissolve, even when reason and common
> sense convince them that they are living under an alien
> code. Looked upon from this light, childish good- ness and
> childish conscientiousness is all unhealthy and even criminal
> forcing of the young plant, the hot-house bringing to maturity of
> a young soul whose sole business is to grow and learn. When moral
> instruction is given, a criminal advantage is taken of the child's
> suggestibility, and all possibility of an individual moral life,
> growing naturally and spontaneously as the young soul meets the
> real emergencies and problems that life will present to it, is
> lost. If, as we are coming more and more to realize, the
> justification of knowledge is that it helps us to get along with
> and enjoy and grapple with the world, so the justification of
> virtue is that it enables us to get along with and enjoy and
> grapple with the spiritual world of ideals and feelings and
> qualities. We should be as careful about giving a child moral
> ideas that will be of no practical use to him as we are in giving
> him learning that will be of no use to him. (pp 59-60)
So, carrying these concepts forward, we can imagine that Gen-X parents
are giving their own children no moral direction at all, since such
ideas "will be of no practical use to him."
We can assume that this is what happened in the 1920s and 1930s, so
that the GI and Silent generations were raised in this manner. After
they survived the Great Depression and WW II, they learned that their
parents' lack of ethics ended in disaster, and so they adopted highly
moral attitudes in their own lives.
And so the cycle continues.
Incidentally, Bourne's book was published in 1913, before WW I. He
became even more radical as a result of the war. He died in 1918 of
the Spanish Flu.
John