Life in the Rear-view Mirror

Moral Values on the Run

As I discussed in the previous chapter, society changed a lot in the last fifty years. Through it all, I felt that television was the most influential agent of change. It wasn’t only the advertising, but also the programming. I had the gnawing feeling that television was leading societal changes rather than representing them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The family is the most important social unit of any community, so family values are reflected in society as a whole. When I was growing up, they were reflected in television programs such as Father Knows Best, Leave it Beaver, and Dennis the Menace. They reflected the traditional family values taught in schools and reinforced in church. In those early days, I thought they reflected what I saw around me, but the Church had a lot of censorship power then, and it wasn’t uncommon for it to be used. So, it’s also correct to say that the Church dictated the family values shown on television programming.

Traditional family values changed gradually throughout my lifetime, at least as evidenced by the changes in television, which has the power to pick up small emerging trends and magnify them at the national level, so that they soon become the new norms. When Father Knows Best no longer represented the family values of the time, All In The Family, featuring Archie Bunker, a raving racist and bigot, replaced it. Archie’s ranting was intended to bring attention to the unacceptable discrimination of visible minorities. Was Archie reflecting what was already happening, or was he leading a social revolution? In any case, All In The Family was more than just an outcry against discrimination; it was also about the changing family roles. For the first time, father didn’t know best. His dominant role in the family was challenged and taken over by the mother. Eventually, sitcoms like Maude and Married With Children made the father the laughing stock of the family. The latter was also the first representation of a dysfunctional family on national television – something that would become the norm.

Soon, the traditional family of parents and children was out and young people living together as one happy family was in. Friends, like no other sitcom, put the spotlight on young people living together and enjoying life without family responsibilities. It became an international success. No matter where I traveled in the world, people watched Friends. While some are still watching reruns, others have tuned in to Big Bang Theory, another sitcom featuring a group of young people living together, in an academic environment. The message is the same: traditional family is out, modern family is in; and Modern Family is the new sitcom featuring homosexual partners and ones with large age differences. They are the new family norm.

As family life changed, television screens across the country were portraying the changing social values in real time. Or, were the television programs leading fledgling trends, rather than merely reflecting them? It might have been a bit of both, but it also depended on the observer, at least to some extent. Viewers with liberal values saw themselves being reflected on the sitcoms, while those with conservative ones saw themselves being dragged into a new world kicking and screaming. However, regardless of one’s values, television held, and still holds, immense power as an agent of change: a power that can be used for good or evil. More and more, that power has been concentrated in the hands of a few rich families, which leaves the population more exposed and vulnerable to their capitalistic pursuits.

Those were some of the social changes that television networks helped to shape in the last fifty years. Political life was not immune, and not far behind. Yes Minister was the single, most important political satire of the period. It highlighted how governments really work, in contrast to how they should. Imbedded in the concept of democracy was the principle that those running for political office should be people of outstanding ability and moral character that can be good role models for society. Of course, nobody is perfect, and being human means that we have moral failings. It seemed that most elected representatives during my youth age were decent, law-abiding citizens, and some were people of integrity and strong moral values.

At least, that’s the way it appeared to me at the time. Perhaps I was too naïve, but I followed politics avidly in those days. It fascinated me. There were always shady characters in politics, but they were the exception rather than the rule. The people who entered politics during my middle age were no longer good role models for the country, and they set the tone for the rest of us. Most people in society are kind, trusting, religious, and respectful; some are of outstanding moral character and integrity, and some are rogues. Nowadays there is a greater fraction of rogues in politics than in the country as a whole. Political office has now become a magnet for people with shady characters.

When I was growing up, if I did something that I wasn't supposed to do I would be punished. Discipline and accountability were stressed both at home and at school. Disobedience wasn’t tolerated. Those were the days when misbehaving in school and at home was punished. Typical punishments at school included: standing in the corner, a form of isolation; additional homework, such as writing lines of I shall not ....., where the number of lines assigned depended on the severity of the offence, usually in the hundreds; detentions after class, not being able to play with your friends after school; corporal punishment, such as the strap, usually meted out by the vice-principal for the most serious offences; and last, but not least, suspensions or expulsions, for the really serious misbehaving. The idea behind the punishment was plain common sense: schools, and society in general, need rules to function properly; and if those rules are broken, people need to be held accountable. Those bold enough to break them will be punished. That's how my wife and I were brought up, and that's how we raised our children.

Spanking was rare, but we didn’t shy away from it when it was necessary. Of course, all that has changed. People of my children’s generation don’t know what spanking is, don’t know what discipline is, and don’t know what accountability is. Things started changing in the 1970s. The new philosophy of the time was that children should not be restrained in any way. Discipline and punishment ran against this new, enlightened approach, and everybody jumped on the bandwagon.

The result is that now we have a more laissez-faire society – one that doesn't give a damn! We see that all around us. Respect for others has almost disappeared. Young people rarely say hello or good morning when we meet them on the street: they don’t even make eye contact. They ignore everyone they encounter. There are exceptions, of course, but courtesy has generally disappeared. As seniors, we see very little of the respect and deference we paid seniors when we were young.

Something else happened in schools as part of this new approach to education: the policy that no child should fail. Regardless how bad a student did in class he had to be promoted: he could not be failed. The message to students was loud and clear – don’t put yourselves out, just do what you can. The responsibility for pushing students to stretch themselves and excel was left solely to the parents; and some parents, for various reasons, didn’t care. The promoted failures, the ones who needed the extra push, didn’t get it. Rather than being helped, the system left them behind. That school policy sowed the seeds for mediocrity, and now we’re reaping its fruit. Society is a reflection of the values taught at home and at school. As those values changed, so did society, and the media did its part in reinforcing the changing societal values.

We now complain about corruption in government, big business, and society in general, but the seeds of corruption were sown many years ago, when we stopped teaching discipline and accountability at home and at school. It seems that, in life, we always get what we deserve! School boards should not be the only ones to be blamed for introducing bad policy. We also need to blame ourselves for letting them adopt it. We just stood by and let it happen, even though some of us knew better. On the other hand, it’s possible that most of us wanted it to happen, and that’s why it did. A pendulum in motion always swings from one side to the other. Is it time for it to swing back?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even today, there are a lot of good people in politics, but there can be no denying that we have seen some major changes in the institution known as Government. This is the subject of the next chapter.