So what do you think of "traditional" values?

I am using the definition of "Hates change" and "Loves Change".

Spoken like a true wishy-washy moderate.

edited 10th Nov '11 5:38:52 PM by PinkHeartChainsaw

Some of our traditional values are idiotic, shortsighted, and/or don't work after certain social structures changed out from under us. Some of the ones we threw out were good and what we replaced them with was idiotic, shortsighted, and/or plain doesn't work.

In general I challenge, then reject or accept a value wholesale. I haven't really expresed myself on this yet.

I don't even know what traditional values are supposed to be. (I'm most used to the phrase as a code word for heterosexuality.)

edited 10th Nov '11 7:05:12 PM by feotakahari

“And that’s what’s wrong with Bart’s generation. Now, as for your generation . ..

edited 10th Nov '11 9:31:54 PM by joeyjojo

Pinkheart: Keep the jabs to yourself.

Like everything else about our civilization even our values have to change. This includes tradition. Do we follow the traditional values of our most distant ancestors? God I hope not. Hell we don't even follow the traditions of the colonists who founded the nation. We retain fragments of traditions that have been modified or altered.

The value of any tradition is ultimately up to the individuals who have to uphold them.

edited 11th Nov '11 12:25:05 PM by TuefelHundenIV

@Pink Heart Chainsaw

Oh yes, being a moderate is such a politically correct stance nowadays, we should replace it with hard core conservatism and liberalism.

And yes, I am a moderate and I would preferred not to be called "wishy washy"

"Tradition," in sociology, gradually gives way to rationality (as per Max Weber) as time goes on and society progresses, and things begin to be seen as good or bad based on the merit of the action rather than the concept of "this is how it was always done, and therefore it must not be done."

Are there good "traditional" values? Yes. There are also bad ones. The ideal society would keep the good ones and discard the bad ones.

Time will tell if we get that far.

This one does not think that any value is good just because it is "traditional" - or that it is automatically bad for the same reason.

Some of the "traditional" values, such as dominance of one religion, "traditional" concept of family and anything to do with gender roles, for example, this one would rather not teach her (hypothetical) children. Funniest thing is, to avoid that sort of traditional values, turning off the TV would also help.

And some of so-called traditional values this one is rather fond of

edited 10th Nov '11 10:16:39 PM by Beholderess

"Some of the 'traditional' values, such as dominance of one religion, 'traditional' concept of family and anything to do with gender roles, for example, this one would rather not teach her (hypothetical) children."

Bah! Except for our monogamous nuclear families (patrilocal and matrilocal houses, polygyny and brother-polyandry being known alternatives), these are human universals. I'm too much of a humanist to want to oppose permanent human values.

Well, humans are bastards (shrugs). Just because something is universal does not mean it is worth keeping

Traditions are like pimples, something you should try and clear up as quickly as possible.

[[quoteblock]]comments[[/quoteblocks]]

Why you're bothering to read them is beyond me.

That's a bit too radical. Without any sort of continuity, no understanding is possible

I feel this discussion has become to esoteric to be of any value.

Just what are we arguing about?

edited 10th Nov '11 11:07:46 PM by joeyjojo

The phrase "traditional values" does not make me think of generic guidelines that most everyone can agree with. Rather, it makes me think of God-fearing, sexually repressive, homophobic, racist, classist, authoritarian lock-and-chain moralism. Well, that's what it brings to mind anyway.

What if you lived somewhere else?

If it's kept around for traditions sake, it's not worth keeping around. If it's kept around as an arbitrary decision that needed to be made but only provides utility through a decision being made, there's no value in keeping it the way it is, but negative value in changing it. (ie: which side of the road you drive on)

Traditional values are mealy the "agreed" ideals that are passed down each generation. Some are good, others are... not good. A good tradition is the sense of charity that is encourage on Christmas for example. Inefficient traditions include gender roles and the monarchy.

We must keep some traditions but we must push forward. One mistake we must not make is the quest to “a society as polite as old” for that may lead us backwards. This mistake has been made by the British Conservative Party whose “crusade against broken society” is useless for society is not broken and they are trying to impose their Victorian attitude.

Traditions are also not as old as they may seem. We all know that “In God we trust” in the American Pledge of Allegiance was a cosmetic alteration added to commence a Take That! against the “godless” communists, let it somehow is seen as old as the USA itself by many.

I should also add a sociological observation: can traditions be invented to link to a status quo? I shall comment on the now infamous comment on Cracked that influenced the creation of this thread. TV is both of and against tradition. The later might be fear of “dumping down” but it is also the former for spreading “traditional notions” and being seen as a part of everyday life. As for “working hard is all needed to get well, so those protesters are naive fools” this is a mythical notion for it is not of reality. Like the Soviets the Capitalists have failed to actually commence a system of reward for effort. Vital labours like healthcare, teaching and instructor is granted less pay then sports figure AKA people who kick plastic and pig skin. Here in Britain we are greatly concerned with company executives increasing their pay while we have missives cuts in our public services which we treasure. This is why a “Robin Hood Tax” became a popular notion of talk here in the now bank-hating Great Britain. In summery effort is not recognised as it should be but the myth via the tradition of teaching it.

As a final observation... traditions may be used as a means of a tool in short term aims. Observe gender roles: the birth process is a central notion to traditional gender roles for it is the labour of increasing the population, especially in “those days of old” where life spams are very short for many new born. Alas this has been finally challenges with the rise of medicine and the development of the liberal ideology was many parts of that which lead to the suffragettes. Let why in spite of us moving forward are gender roles still placed upon us? Well the birth process is still of notion here, I like to point out one of the reasons for traditions: old habits die hard.

Christmas is an over-the-top commercialist extravaganza which encourages reckless overspending. It's also responsible for a great number of suicides.

True... I was trying to think of Charles Dickens's notion.

edited 11th Nov '11 12:45:47 AM by Ailedhoo

I think "hates change" is a rather crude definition, it's a bit like defining someone who opposes socialism as "hates equality", or a socialist as someone who "hates freedom". Maybe these would be true for the extreme ends, (like communism, anarchism), but the ideology itself is mostly just a vague direction that these people tend to see as more effective.

In case of conservativism, this "hates change" extreme would be a reactionist. But the generic direction of conservativism, could be best described, as putting an emphasis on stability as opposed to radical ideologically-fueled forceful changes. Many conservative philosophers are even describing it as not another ideology, but the opposite of ideology, the anti-ideology. In the classic parable, if you imagine society as an old building, then the conservative is the one who would carefully try to expand it, and fix it's faults while causing as little commotion as possible, while the ideologist would demolish the whole thing, and build a new one based on the blueprints of their own ideology. (whether it is, communism, liberalism, libertarianism, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, globalism, or etc.).

From this point of view, the problem of tradition isn't how to sort out good and bad traditions, and "end" the bad ones: you just can't forcefully end traditions, at least not without tearing down that building in the above example, that would always cause more problems than solve, so just stay calm, and carefully, slowly, try to fix the problems without noticeably messing too much with the status quo.

edited 11th Nov '11 3:36:04 AM by Ever9

I don't know what to think of traditional values. If somebody asked me what "traditional values" entail, I'd probably list qualities like honesty, toleration, hard-work, self-respect and so on. However, when "traditional values" is used in current political discourse, it often seems to mean something else.

Sorry, that is a rather extreme way to put it. I guess I more meant conservative as "someone who generally wants things to stay the way they are and/or wants things to change back to an older status quo." It was aimed at the person who said "old people are all conservatives" and was asking them to clarify if they meant conservative in a general sense or in the sense of "supports the American Republican party."

As for the general topic, I guess I'd see traditional values as varying by individual societies. What are seen as traditional values in the US would probably be different in at least some ways from traditional values in Japan, for example. In the way I see it often used, at least in US culture, it tends to mean a return to things that were the way things were before the Civil Rights movements and other countercultural revolutions of the 1960s and 70s. So, as some people have said, wanting older gender and racial roles to still be around.

edited 11th Nov '11 5:57:43 AM by Rainbow

To be honest I don't think that "traditional values" is a thing. It's an empty phrase that can mean whatever the holder wants it to mean. Generally, it's just a means for social conservatives to Appeal to Tradition (or in some cases, perhaps, a tradition reinvented and idealized by modern people).

In terms of "traditional values" as commonly espoused: two-parent households are good, monogamy is good unless you get lucky like Mikael Blomkvist, and repression isn't always good, but it's severely underrated. Everything else has a stench of bigotry to it.

As for the OP: hell yes, I would raise my children without television. The things are about the worst medium for conveying information; they reduce attention spans; they're difficult to argue with; without them, you are forced to take part in actually raising your child instead of sticking them in front of the zombification machine... look up the Notel experiment, just as an opener into this stuff. Televisions are horrid, and besides, any child of mine would be unpopular no matter what I did - and better off for it, I think.

edited 11th Nov '11 9:21:06 AM by DomaDoma