I posted this on another thread, but it may be appropriate:
Culture embeds our values in customs and objects. Not only does it reflect values, but it also supports them or fails to do so. Especially in matters involving central characters and institutions, or a high degree of publicity, we must suppose that there are some who take their cue from the way matters play out. Do we support "human values"? Then our culture reflects a reverence for those qualities that distinguish humanity from animals. We value speculative intelligence, creativity, constructive ability: we have a particular respect for literature and art, and a preference for the town over the countryside.(I do not mean to exclude an appreciation of nature "in its place"). In argument, we seek to maintain a certain degree of dignity, assuming both the weightiness of the matters in contention, and the serious privilege of reasonable discourse. Even so, there may be a sense of exuberance that lightens our countenance. At play, we put down some of the burden, and can feel free to let off steam. Yet even when being humorous, there is a certain finesse that should maintain the compatibility of play with our more serious moments. Our culture should neither be ponderous nor frivolous, but dignified and good-humored. Normally, we should be dignified but not grim, playful but not antic. This urbanity should function as an ideal for those in public life, especially in positions of responsibility. One of the ways in which President Reagan had a positive influence on our national life was by the force of his personality, which represented a kind of ideal for a leader in a republic. By contrast, Bill Clinton has demeaned his office, and set a demogogic example as president, playing the part of the bad boy who counts on his smarminess to get by...... |
