Most of us enter college with the intention to change society for the better. College students are natural catalysts for change — we organize protests, debate in our classrooms and then return home to antagonize our more traditional parents.
As Woodrow Wilson said, “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” Should we ever question this modern trend? Could there really be such a thing as too much change?
In the last 100 years, the Western world has undergone more cultural and societal upheaval than in the previous 900. The oldest among us have seen two world wars, the rise and fall of communism, the civil rights movement, the sexual revolution and the rise of both consumer capitalism and socialism.
Superpowers have risen and been struck down. National borders have been erased and then redrawn. The previous definitions of marriage, sex and pregnancy have been shredded. The Internet, the most potent invention of all, has forced itself into our lives, fundamentally changing the way human beings communicate.
All of this occurred in less time than it took the early Christian Church to debate the nature of the Trinity.
These constant, exponential societal transitions are the result of the post-industrial age in which we live. We are conditioned to believe that the new is always better than the old in the same way a computer is better than a typewriter or the iPhone 4 is better than the iPhone 3. Calling something “archaic” has become an insult when it could just as easily be a compliment.
Consider the slogans of President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign — “change we can believe in” and “yes we can.” Can what? It did not appear to matter what sort of change occurred as long as we were changing.
Norms and customs exist for a reason: They calm the wicked hearts of mankind, allowing us to live together in peace. Common culture forms a rich, interwoven tapestry that maintains humankind. Sometimes, it should be modified to resolve flagrant injustice. However, one can pull too many strings, and it appears that we take the existence of human civilization for granted these days. As of late, the Western world has yanked on its own cultural threads with unrestrained glee in the belief that change is always superior to the status quo. It is easy to destroy a work of artistry. It is much more difficult to restore it.
I propose we chill for a few hundred years — that we stop pulling on strings and instead step back to reflect on what has been created. No new laws, no new patents, no new products. We should allow our existing institutions to adapt to the new climate rather than constantly gasping for air. Imagine what thoughtful discourse could occur if our churches, government and schools could spend a century to reflect rather than simply react.
Yet this could never happen because the modern paradigm has already been created. We do not simply desire change, we are addicted to it like a fish to water. After all, how could organizations like MoveOn.org survive without traditions to burn down? How could academics get funding without new and exotic theses, regardless of their validity?
Most of all, how could the consumer-capitalist machine keep churning without new shiny products to placate the masses, making them less human and less free? We no longer only alter our culture when alterations are needed. We now change for the sake of change, and that is a scary thing indeed.
Luke Bailey is a history junior at UF. His column appears on Wednesdays.
