A number of recent events in the United Kingdom, as well as the United States of America, seem to suggest that a generally high level of material prosperity does not necessarily go hand in hand with human happiness, but, more disturbingly, that at least sometimes it seems to produce conditions that actually undermine happiness among people.
The events in question include those reported (in last week’s Sunday Times and in the latest Time magazine) on the alarming recent developments in Britain concerning a growing culture of violence among the country’s youth — developments that point to widespread disaffection and social as well as generational alienation among the young. And I mean “young”; sometimes horrifically violent attacks on people have been carried out by individuals in their early teens.
The fatal shootings of fellow students and staff at Virginia Tech in the US, by who appeared to be a “troubled” student recently — and some time ago by two teenagers at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, of a number of their peers and a teacher, as well as a shooting spree by a disgruntled broker in Atlanta after he had killed his wife and children — also suggest that something is amiss in these relatively prosperous societies. One may well ask what these events have to do with the broad question of human happiness.
Are there not always those few unfortunate souls among the vast majority of relatively happy human beings who, for reasons of coincidence that concern their particular circumstances, meet a tragic end? What grounds are there to read these as symptoms of some deeper and more widespread social malaise? And moreover, what does this have to do with symptoms of social alienation among the youth of largely prosperous countries?
The premise of my tentative argument is that most people today associate happiness with material or economic well-being. The fact that, as Gerd Behrens pointed out some time ago in Time magazine (“Healthy, wealthy and unhappy”; Time, July 19 1999, p60), the current scale of human development — the United Nations Human Development Index — which rates countries according to literacy, life expectancy and per capita income, indicates that a typically Western, materialistically biased set of values is customarily used to assess what I here call human happiness in a broad sense.
Development, the assumption states, equals economic prosperity; and this, in turn, is assumed to bring happiness. In the same article Behrens shows, however, that this equation is contradicted by empirical as well as anecdotal evidence. As he says: “Visit Europe and be mystified by the unsmiling faces and furrowed brows in the most affluent countries. Visit Africa and marvel at the laughter and general merriment, even in the most impoverished ones.”
Opinion polls confirm these impressions: in the 1980s polls showed that, in Western Europe, the most affluent — the Germans — were the least contented, while the poorest — the Portuguese and the Irish — were generally the happiest. Why is this so? And even if one could answer this question, is there a connection between these views on general “happiness’ and the alarming events and tendencies referred above — events which appear to reflect a kind of social dysfunctionality?
At an intuitive level the first question — why the economically least prosperous nations seem to be the most contented — is not difficult to answer. The anecdote retold by Behrens about the Mexican fisherman who tells the American businessman that he is quite happy with a small catch because it allows him to have a siesta with his wife, play with his children and play the guitar with his friends, captures the essential reasons for the dis-junction between enjoyment of life and prosperity accurately.
For the American businessman, it stands to reason that a concerted effort to bring in more fish would mean more profit, greater investment in fishing equipment, expansion of business interests, greater wealth and eventually retirement to enjoy the fruits of one’s labour, which would, ironically, take the form of exactly those things that the fisherman is already doing anyway. And he is doing them without the unavoidable withdrawal from family and friends for extended periods, without the worry and the anxiety that the risk involved in business expansion and capital accumulation brings.
In short, the fisherman, who does his day’s work alongside his day’s enjoyment, is living a happy and fulfilling life.
But, most Westerners would ask, is that a fulfilling life?
The answer has to be that, for some people — and perhaps this has a lot to do with the kind of culture in which one lives — this would be fulfilling, even if, for others, it would not. There does seem to be an inverse correlation, however, between the degree of one’s wealth and the ease with which one is able to enjoy life in a thoroughgoing fashion (provided — and this is an important proviso — that one’s basic needs such as shelter, clothing, food and so on, are satisfied), as opposed to intermittent enjoyments in the form of vacations that one works towards over long months.
In short: economic prosperity brings the need for constant vigilance and concomitant uncertainty (if not “unhappiness”) regarding one’s wealth, lest it dwindle, if unattended to, while, on the other hand, the poorest of the poor cannot possibly be said to be happy, either. In the kind of world in which one lives today, a basic level of material means is required, not as a guarantee, but as prerequisite, for happiness.
Regarding the question, what all of this has to do with the issue of disaffected and sometimes violent youth, I believe there is a connection between these considerations of happiness, material wealth and the events that are symptomatic of teenagers’ social alienation. I shall try to establish this connection by way of linking the so-called “gutterpunks” in American cities and a remark made by an acquaintance of mine some time ago.
The remark in question — made by a professor of material history at Middlesex University (UK) — was that American society is “in an advanced state of disintegration”. At the time I was puzzled by his remark — don’t most people think of the United States as one of the most economically prosperous and politically stable democracies today? But gradually, as my own preoccupations with questions concerning cultural philosophy and the arts, especially film and film reception, took me into areas pertinent to the relationship between cultural practice and social behaviour, I gained some insight into possible ways in which his observation could be construed.
Then, in 1999, I happened to see an American television programme in which the presenter and a studio audience had a number of young people, so-called gutterpunks, as their guests, together with movie director Penelope Spheeris (Wayne’s World II; The Decline of Western Civilization III).
From the exchanges between the presenter and her guests it was apparent that these young people, who invariably came from materially wealthy, (upper-middle class?) homes, voluntarily live on the streets of cities like Los Angeles — “in the gutter”, so to speak — under what most people would probably describe as conditions of deprivation. Voluntarily! (To the poverty-stricken shack-dwellers of South Africa this would probably be totally incomprehensible … until they grasp what it is that these young people don’t have.) Why?
Although they spoke English fluently, and making allowances for a certain reluctance or sulkiness on their part, none of them struck me as being very articulate about the reasons for their departure from (rejection of?) their parental homes, but a few symptomatic statements and phrases did emerge, if not from the studio guests, then from the gutterpunks interviewed by Spheeris in her film, The Decline of Western Civilization III, excerpts of which were shown in the course of the television programme. These included remarks like “My Mom and Dad were hippies during the Sixties, and look at them now — the picture of respectability!”; and “I like it on the streets — I can do what I want. It’s freedom, man”.
The last statement may sound like a tired rerun of a thousand groping expressions of counter-cultural ideals during the 1960s, but in the context of the late 1990s in an economically booming US, it assumed a different significance.
Think about it — what did the hippie movement signify? Beyond the craving for “freedom”, it signified a rejection, by virtually an entire generation, of an older generation’s value system, especially as this rejection was captured in the slogan, “Make love, not war!” (remember Vietnam, The Graduate, Hair?) This is precisely what seemed to be at stake in the late 1990s — a rejection of a value system, but this time I had the impression that it was an entire nation’s values that were being rejected by these rebels without a cause.
The 1980s, as everyone knows, saw the rise of the yuppie — the young, upwardly mobile professionals with only one thing in mind — to get rich. Gone were the ideals of freedom — however misguided — of the hippies. What counted was whether you drove a BMW, wore a Rolex, had a cellphone (initially known as a Sandton Earring in South Africa) and wore designer clothes.
And the yuppie mentality of the 1980s has continued through the 1990s and into the 21st century — a value system that has even alienated other cultures from what used to be different ways of living. (Witness South Africa, where the carrot of development promotes and justifies the most blatantly materialistic lifestyles amid the most abject poverty, and without any necessary or desirable connection being posited between the acquisition of certain “skills” — to use the fashionable jargon — and an income that would enable one to live this kind of lifestyle; much less a justification in terms of certain “human” values, which are somehow connected with material wealth.)
My guess is that the gutterpunks, without another Vietnam to make their rallying cause, are rebelling against what may superficially be described as an axiologically (value-related) empty, materialistic way of life.
But again: why? Isn’t that what everyone the world over desires? Material wealth, anyway. Isn’t that what the “ideology of development” (Lyotard) promotes daily as the ultimate justification of life?
But the question is: Is this justification itself justified? My own answer would be consonant with the sentiments that the fictional Mr Keating — the unorthodox English teacher in Peter Weir’s film, Dead Poets’ Society — shares with the boys in his senior English class, when he reminds them that accounting, engineering, medicine and the like are “noble professions”, and necessary to sustain life.
But, he then points out, they are not what we live for. According to Keating, what we live for are “beauty, poetry, love …”
The point is that all human beings need humanly sustaining values; that is, values which — whether they have been given or satisfied, or at least (preferably, I would say) been identified as values to be cherished or continually actualised in one’s life — have the uncanny capacity to impart meaning and value to the rest of one’s life as well. Without them, one’s life would be what the Germans call aussichtslos — without hope or prospect, blind, misguided.
Materialistic values (that is, values which are predicated on the belief that material things are all there is, with nothing which transcends them) are like that — aussichtslos. Without being embedded in the cradle — a very fragile one at that — of human values like love, charity, interpersonal fulfilment, valuing nature, the cultivation of democracy or a sense of obligation to one’s fellow humans, material wealth would be empty, without purpose, even if it seems to be so obvious that it is self-justifying, self-sufficient.
The gutterpunks of big American cities have sensed — intuitively and in a not too articulate manner — that there is something missing from their parents’ wealthy homes. And just like Benjamin, the central character in that epoch-making movie of the 1960s, The Graduate, who escapes from the banal materialism of his parents’ friends (“Textiles, Benjamin, textiles!”) by donning his graduation present, a scuba outfit, and descending to the bottom of the swimming pool, the gutterpunks are opting for the dirt, exposure, hunger and “freedom” of the city streets in preference to the empty comfort of their materialistic parents’ homes.
But surely their parents love them? A mother of one of the gutterpunks, who was in the studio audience, affirmed as much.
It is not a matter, by and large, of lack of affection for their children on the part of parents; it is rather a question, I believe, of a certain helplessness in the face of their children’s unfathomable needs — the kind of helplessness that is the result of deeply ingrained consumer habits combined with a world view constructed largely on the basis of the most banal “television culture” — sitcoms, studio audience talk shows and the like. What these young people are sensing gropingly and obscurely, but irresistibly, is the directionlessness of their culture — a culture of addiction, as Aronofsky so persuasively showed in his eye-opener film, Requiem for a Dream.
The “dream” which is here the subject of a funerary song, is the Enlightenment dream of a “happy” society, and Aronofsky exposes, in brutally graphic detail, how this dream has degenerated, in the lives of his four protagonists, to the level of hopeless, self-destructive addictions of various kinds.
In the 18th and 19th centuries the Enlightenment belief in progress was at least coupled with an idea of what that progress entailed, namely progressive freedom from scarcity, from nature’s tyranny, and from political dictatorship.
Today, the ideology of development, reduced to the material emptiness of bare economic and technological development, is unsustained by anything other than development itself — it is proffered to “developing” nations like a truncated mantra, as if it is entirely self-justifying.
Penelope Spheeris, the film director who had worked with the gutterpunks in the making of The Decline of Western Civilization III, said that, although she had had little financial support for the production and the distribution of her film, she was determined to screen it as widely as possible, because there seems to be an incomprehensible blindness to the growing phenomenon of the gutterpunk subculture in the United States and to its significance.
On the other side of the spectrum, it must be admitted, there are (still?) numerous young people who live full, and fulfilling, lives, like those who discover the joy of the outdoors, of giving their time to worthy causes such as welfare organisations (for humans as well as animals), or the fulfilment of disciplines like philosophy, literature, physics or the arts at university.
I get to know many of these individuals in the course of teaching philosophy — the kind of philosophy that is predicated on the belief that philosophy is more than just the assessment of the technical correctness of arguments — and I am always struck by the fact that those who do not struggle with what I would broadly call nihilism (the uncanniest of guests, as Nietzsche remarked, and the one, I believe, behind the growth of gutterpunkdom and of the growing social alienation of British teens, too), are the ones who have found a means to get to grips creatively with their own questions and problems.
And, frankly, I don’t count “churchy” students among these — it is true that the growth in fundamentalist religions the world over could be ascribed to the emptiness (and nihilism) of a global, mono-dimensional materialistic culture, on the one hand, and to the increasing inability of people to cope with the complexity of this culture, on the other.
But I don’t believe that the attempt to find refuge in the church — orthodox or fundamentalist — is an adequate way to deal with the problem. It corresponds to what Nietzsche called “incomplete” (or passive) nihilism, as opposed to “complete” (or active) nihilism. “Incomplete”, because, while it acknowledges the collapse of the old, Platonic-Christian value system, it shrinks back from the yawning abyss that remains, and runs straight back into the arms of the priests which serve this sterile, anachronistic system as if nothing has changed.
The “complete” or active nihilist, in contrast, similarly acknowledges the disintegration of the old constellation of values, but instead of shrinking back from the abyss of nothingness, she or he actively creates (or discovers), that is, LIVES, new and other values.
The students that I am talking about count among the latter kind of “active” nihilists — those who actively engage in generating something valuable, which, in turn, reinforces their subsequent attempts. It is an axiological case of “nothing succeeds like success”.
I suspect that, as long as the axiological emptiness, which manifests itself as vacuous materialism (development’s bedfellow) does not make way for a critically creative cultural practice that is consonant with the “immaterial” complexity of post-modern culture across a broad spectrum, the ranks of disaffected, violent youth and of the gutterpunks will continue swelling, and tragic occurrences like the ones in Britain where mere kids kick adults to death (“just for kicks”), and at Virginia Tech, at Jamesboro and at Columbine High School in Colorado in the United States, will continue.
Societies have to rediscover, and infuse their education practices with, what the fictional Mr Keating tried to teach his students in Dead Poets’ Society, namely that professions such as medicine, engineering, accounting and law are “noble professions”, and they sustain society, but they are not “what we live for” — humans, as beings filled with passion, live for love; to love and to be loved, to care and be cared for. Without this, one’s life is empty, no matter how much one owns or has in the bank. The consolation for truly wealthy people is that they, too, may taste happiness of this sort, but only if they have love and learn to wear their wealth like their old clothes.
And although there are no fail-safe guarantees, children who grow up in homes — or other social contexts, even if these are institutions such as orphanages or other kinds of children’s homes — where they experience love and care, are far less likely to turn to violence and substance abuse, “just for kicks”, than those who are unfortunate enough never to experience any such source of human care and compassion.
A good read, thanks, Bert.
I must however take exception to your categorization of “philosophy, literature, physics or the arts” as disciplines that are enjoyable for their own sake and make the lives of those who study them worth living, whereas you suggest that “medicine, engineering, accounting and law” don’t make the cut.
As a professor I’m sure you know many professors and students in medical, engineering, accounting and law faculties who study these fields for the shere love and excitement of them, just as literature professors love literature, and enriches their lives. This extends beyond the academy too – many engineers practice engineering because they love doing so; they just so happen to also make a good living because society values what they can do. The love of engineering isn’t confined to work either. I can’t really say the same for most accountants or lawyers (where the lawyering and accounting ends at the end of the work day).
this is correct. i have lived in the UK myself. and as someone who deal with youth day in and out. i understand where the problem is.most european kids are frustrated. they don’t know what is the truth about life.They have been led to believe a lie that they are rich and they dont need the world.Generations before have tried to remove God out of thier life.But there is a time when Kids want to know what is the truth and what is a lie.Its very strange that european kids would respect me ( an african ) and open up to talk thier problems than to do the same to european adults.Contrary to what the people out there think, Europe is the darkest place in the world,Europe is not as rich as claimed, Europe have more problems than Africa.Europe needs Christ and i am glad that many of these Kids are beginning to see the truth.We need to pray for Europe, Britan in particular.
Point taken Joe – I did, however, say ‘disciplines like philosophy’, etc. But I agree that there is no reason why other disciplines may not be pursued for the sheer love of it – I know mathematicians who find great aesthetic enjoyment in doing maths, for example. This does not invalidate the fictional Mr Keating’s point, though, that (even if one ‘loves’ one’s profession), one still needs the love of other human beings, lest life be just that trifle empty. Thanks for your comment.
Steven Biddulph, an aussie family psychologist has done a bit of research into this, and is finding that daycare for under-threes might be a contributing factor to “gutterpunks” and “feral children”. essentially, he says that daycare (feeding and clothing and changing a baby) cannot replace the act of mothering as no love is involved. he cites studies that show how infants’ brains respond to love on MRI scans and how this builds the ability to eventually form close emotional relationships and other emotional skills.
(incidentally, all that stimulating your baby with the latest baby einstein malarky doesn’t contribute half as much as actually playing something as simple as pat-a-cake with your child, which involves love, you taking time for them and shoing them they’re valued, and then backing off sometimes so they can play unfettered by the need to be stimulated or reach a goal)
his argument is that mothering cannot be replaced by daycare and is essential to building a socially aware society; but that rampant materialism and spiralling house prices is making this more and more impossible. while mothers may want to stay at home they’re strangled by the need to earn an income,and also often face workplace discrimination (on returning to work)or societal disapproval for being stay-at-home mothers as this is deemed a “waste of a brain” or similar. working mothers alos get a bum deal. the US papers are full of the “mommy wars” which might make their way to SA shores soon anough if we keep following their growth model.
He also says that countries reporting the higher incidences of feral kids are those that don’t provide the amazing childcare leave the Nordic countries do, as they’ve recognised the importance of familial care – and taken into account families fragmenting leaving two parents alone to raise a child whereas previously extended families did.
this is a middle-class view of the problem; of course poorer countries still exhibit some sort of extended family and stay-at-home mom situation so maybe he’s got something going.
at the heart of materialism is family fragmentation and a dearth of meaningful social interaction; especially with the coming of individualistic tech-toys that make it possible for people to play with themselves in their own little me-first universes.
These kids are rebelling against a lack of love, and also being unable to love themselves.
A tgought provoking peace there Bert. The modernist belief in progress is now over I presume and we are now disillusioned post-modernists kicking against the pricks. Sounds a little bit self indulgent to me. ANyway I think you reject real religiosity and spirituality a bit flippantly. I suppose that is a prerequisite for getting a column on TL. No-one really doubts the phoniness of a lot of fundamentalism. In many ways they are typically post modern. There is no doubt that modern liberalism in it’s incessant quest for self fulfilment is at fault. As Charle Taylor points out there is a malaise at the heart of modernity. Self actualization without concomitant communitarianism leaves one hollow and empty. I suppose theidea of us being a human being through other human beings is what is needed to correct the overriding selfishness of modern society. However I think if you are expecting atheism to provide this spark then you are barking up the wrong tree.
Sam, I did not reject spirituality, only the role of the church today. It had its day, but that day is over. I am no atheist, but I agree with Nietzsche that the surest place not to find the divine is the church, which is nothing more than a power-hierarchy. The 19th-century romantics came closest to articulating my own feelings about the divine. I do a lot of mountain-climbing, and I never feel closer to the divine than when I’m climbing up the rocks with, sometimes, rock kestrels hovering in the wind near me, and the fog coming over the mountain in waves from the sea. This is the kind of thing that makes life worth living, and not being a couch potato in front of a TV set. In fact, I’m off to the mountains now.
Excellent article, Bert. As a South African who’s lived in the US for 8 years now I have seen examples of what you’re talking about, although I’m fortunate enough to live in a safe, beautiful area where young people are very “outdoorsy”. My personal theory, or take, on the matter, is that many young Americans leap into having children without considering the ramifications. People start having kids very young over here. US society glamourises having babies, raising kids and family life, thereby creating false conceptions and denying the harsh reality of it. Television is full of nauseating “family” sitcoms and, at the movies, films aimed at kids or families are taking over. If, like my husband and I, you’ve decided not to have kids, you’re looked at suspiciously – like there’s something wrong with you. As a result, many young Americans end up being pressured into reproducing when it’s not really what they want. The result of this is a lack of love and affection toward their children, the end result of which is the “gutterpunks” you mention. It’s simultaneously sad and infuriating!
Bert, a fascinating article and a subject close to heart and life!
Despite being a sometime-born-again, somewhat-professing Christian myself, I have a love-hate relationship with the Church. The comments above reminded me of Paulo Coelho’s Alchemist, in which the protagonist finds his treasure under the place (in a church!) he had slept in before he started his quest. The Church might be all but defunct but I believe that, as during the Middle Ages, and maybe even without knowing it, she still contains and protects the Truth.
That aside, I do struggle with meaning in this world and, as an Afrikaner South-African emigrant resident in Canada with two teenage children, I feel the validity of what you are saying acutely. North America, to us, is this vast spiritual wasteland. We live in one of the most beautiful places on earth, in an ordered, civilised society without razor wire – but, after three years, still without the life force of the friendships and blood ties and the connection to the local soil that animated our lives in South Africa. It’s the knowing – the being – of connections in the physical, social and spiritual realms (that most non-emigrants take for granted), that form the life blood of a rich, happy life – being of a place, of a people, of a God and nurturing that being.
Just like bush fires renew the plains of africa perhaps we need wars to renew ourselves. The west has not had one for a while now.
Bert, I enjoyed this article very much (although it was very long!)
I think western society has 2 problems (along these lines);
1. They cannot define the difference between enough and excess
2. They have forgotten how to have fun.
It always amazes me that when you get a group of say 40 year olds together and play like children (be it beach cricket, paint-balling, touchies..) the childlike enjoyment that people can experience, and just how long it usually is since they last did it.
Indeed there is too much focus on material goods in our culture but the suggestion that prosperity undermines happiness is underpinned by the very conflation of money and values you decry.
Although chasing money for the sake of money is nihilistic (like the will to truth no matter what), surely prosperity does not rule out the cultivation of values? I loathe to imagine there are some happy wealthy people out there!
Though a lot of teenagers have been killing each other in the UK lately, they tend to come from economically deprived communities.
Prosperous but depressed Swedes; poor but happy Africans? So the story goes, but I bet most happy township dwellers would trade a life exposed to murder, rape, hunger, disease and insecurity for some comfortable gloom.
You neglected to take into account the one thing that they were able to articulate about why they wish to live on the streets.
“I like it on the streets — I can do what I want. It’s freedom, man”.
What they seek is a life that demands nothing of them. And they will settle for having nothing, if they can do what they want, when they want, if they want. With the backstop of wealthy parents who will hopefully leave them enough funds for the rest of their lives to eat AND continue to do nothing.
The more difficult question to answer is WHY they choose to do nothing. The easy answer is laziness, no work ethic and no experience of discipline (which means the first time someone demands homework or chores from the average teenager, he responds in horror and fear).
However I think I have an alternative take as least for a few. I have seen a friend change from a workaholic to something similar to these children because of a draining of confidence. He is so afraid of failing – of not living up to the expectations required by his society, his family and most importantly himself – that he is too afraid to try anything, to take on responsibility of any description. He has gone from a fear of business risk, to today being afraid to choose a movie, or wash the dishes, or select his clothes each morning.
I think the “successful” children live what we would consider happy, healthy lives with “normal” perspectives. But small groups of children who have high expectations of themselves (perhaps from parents, perhaps from peers) simply choose an existence that is free from the fear of failure. Where the competition is negligible, and in a sense they can “not exist” within this terrifying world of ours. Where surviving each day is “success”, and failure might even be a relief since it means you don’t have to “fight” any more.
I am in my late 40′s, and a part of me is actually a little relieved that I won’t be around in 50 years to watch the chickens come home to roost – both here in SA and internationally. It is clear that the world cannot continue on its current course – our way of living must change and and yet we have no idea how to achieve that. I don’t think I want to face it either.
A fascinating and thought-provoking post.
Re: the rise of violence amongst youth
I’d like to mention another factor that I’ve recently become aware of. I’m reading a fascinating book called Remotely Controlled (by Dr. Aric Sigman) wherein he links the effects of television to the rise in violence, obesity, intellectual development, etc.
This is an area new to me and I’d like to learn more but just from this book and other research articles I’ve read, excess television watching seems to have an alarming effect on humans. Normal viewing is defined as a maximum of 2 hours a day for adults and 1 hour a day for children, if I remember correctly. Most people consider 4 hours a day to be average, without realising they are watching at least twice as much as is healthy.
Interestingly, Dr. Sigman theorises that the content of the programmes, while having some effect, do not matter as much as the actual process of watching television. He also references some interesting studies of the effects of television being introduced into societies that previously had no television.
It’s certainly food for thought.
Thanks Bert, a good read.
Joe, the love of law doesnt stop at 5pm, if anything it permeates ones life so thouroughly that pretty much everything is coloured by it!
I also agree with Rian and Sam, there is indeed a place for churches, not extremeist religious organisations, but those churches who are going back to basics, helping their congregation to “live for love; to love and to be loved, to care and be cared for” as Bert put it, they have a special place in society today. In particular I am thinking about the Methodist Church which actively engages with society and encourages its congregation to extend itself beyond the family and the church into society and to help, love and care for others.
Everybody needs to care and be cared for, these young people raised in such a selfish and materialistic manner feel themselves to be superfluous yet are unable to do anything about it as they have no social conscience either. They are looking for something that makes their blood stir, something that validates their existence and makes them feel worthwhile. I believe that what is required is a little adversity, some kind of hardship which they are required to endure, what with the dole in the UK and parental funding, so many young people don’t even have to earn a living.
In such circumstances and particularly in the SA situation, I do believe that mandatory 2 years community service especially in rural areas is worth considering. Some kind of “Community Corps” with a dollop of physical basic training thrown in!
Than you for the fascinating read Bert. I am currently wrestling in my own life with the battle between society’s (including loved one’s) belief in ongoing economic growth as the path to happiness, and my own intuition that this is a bottomless pit of misery that simply leads to the desire for more and more material wealth. The rewards offered in this kind of society are short lived and quickly forgotten.
I compare this to the teachings in certain traditional Asian philosophies which emphasize inward studies and selflessness as a road to happiness and enlightenment, and I feel as if the dominant western way of thought needs a complete overhaul.
I believe we will see a large scale generational rebellion against our empty, ‘stuff’ focused lifestyle very soon, particularly taking into account the effect this lifestyle has had, and continues to have, on our environment. This way of life not only threatens our psychological wellbeing, but also our continued survival as a species in a world we are rapidly destroying.
Put them in the bloody army. It will make men out of them. Blooming long haired layabouts
Happiness is based on the choices one makes in life. Material wealth for me means that you have the freedom to do a lot more than you would have had you been poor. This is were happy people turn to philanthropism. Giving while living which to me gives one more happiness than receiving.
There is a study, that has since become quite famous, that was done by a very liberal Harvard sociology professor. He wanted to show how multiculturalism contributed to people’s happiness. He was forced to conclude that mlti-ethnic neighbourhoods actually experienced high levels of distrust and very little social interaction. The rise in crime in Britain can at least be very directly attributed to the increasing presence of blacks and Muslims, but it also indirectly affects the mood in the host society, as people start losing their sense of community and common identity, being forced to work harder so that they can move to safer neighbourhoods.
I was a hippie in the 60s and am still a hippie now – to the embarrasment of my kids. It is natural. Kids always re-act against their parents and relate to their grandparents. Read Aristotle who complained about “the young” in a similar way.
Maybe we have lost the grandparents?
Well that didn’t take too long – Blacks (and now Muslims too) are to blame for all society’s ills. I assume Will was referring to Robert Putnam’s study on multiculturism and society.
The full study can be downloaded at:
http://137.99.31.42/CFIDE/roper/collectioninterest/webroot/registration.cfm?subject=SCC
(Free registration required)
Just for a different take on things, here are two extracts, with links, from reviews of Robert Putnam’s study.
Stanford Social Innovation Review
http://www.ssireview.org/opinion/entry/notes_on_robert_putnams_diversity_and_community_in_the_twenty_first_century/
“7. Putnam’s results will play handily to those conservatives who believe that self-segregation works with, rather than against, “the grain of human nature.” We hear this kind of argument in apologetics for “a conservatism comfortable with materialist self-interest.” These same conservatives will likely pass over in silence those sections of the article that review the many benefits of increased immigration and diversity, among them: greater creativity; better, faster problem-solving; and more rapid economic growth, among others. Putnam never argues that diversity is, on balance, a bad thing.
8. Putnam’s results discredit the idea that greater diversity is correlated with increased inter-ethnic hostility. He stresses that “[d]iversity seems to trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation.” To put it another way, “In more diverse settings, Americans distrust not merely people who do not look like them, but even people who do.” ”
Prospect Magazine
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9886
“This conclusion is itself distinctly uncomfortable for liberals. Perhaps multiculturalism just will not work? Putnam rejects such pessimism. The negative effects of diversity can be overcome by a mixture of positive social change and enlightened public policy. He provides a number of encouraging examples. For instance, a generation ago the US army was divided along racial lines, but today it has become a “colour-blind institution.” American soldiers today on average have many more inter-racial friendships than Americans as a whole.”
The agenda of government as an organisation is being passed to citizens. We are no longer simple human beings looking for simple things such as a family, food, shelter, friends, entertainment, and to show emotions.
Each one of us is a small economy with little if not, no emotion at all, working 24/7 in order to acquire all material wealth that we possibly can. Even on our sleep we are thinking about the position we want at work, the salaries and the privilege that comes with it, that we forget to be human beings, to connect with our families, neighbours, even co-workers on a simple human being-to-human being relationship. All we want is profit.
We need to fill that vacuum. There is little balance in today’s society. But then again, it starts with each and every one of us.
Very insightful Bert. Thank you.
I think however that happiness is a very relative abstract concept. Like someone having to explain what it means to be in love. For some to make an assumption like ‘after 50 years of economic development, people are no more content’ is very misleading and even dangerous, because before you know it we are making policy limiting material wealth and economic growth in favour of being ‘happy’
Human Psychology being what it is, the initial euphoria of more money/wealth soon wears off as the newly rich adjust to their new status in life. The new status is quickly perceived as ‘normal’. Any gain in happiness is transitory and after a short passage of time you will revert back to previous levels of ‘happiness’
There is no lasting relationship between material well being and perceived happiness. But as I said, happiness is an abstract concept and the minds inability to discount opportunity cost causes it to misconstrue the true meaning of happiness and it’s level of contentment.
R1,000,000 will make me happier than it will Warren Buffet. Above a certain level the utility of the next R1 decreases exponentially. It is not true for respect and self esteem however. Money gives you the respect of your peers. That is the ultimate currency of happiness. Where you are in the pecking order relative to your peers, the higher up the happier you will feel.
That is why I conclude that asking people how happy they are is a science as inexact as horoscopes. You have to have an absolute ‘happiness index’ that takes into account the transition from one level of ‘normal’ to the ‘next’. This index should be linked to measurable variables. People are biased and cannot be trusted to judge their own happiness relative to 50 years ago. More people have food every day, except in Zim..that makes the world a ‘happier’ place every day. Mortality rates are falling, and average life expectancy is increasing. So we have more people that might be ‘unhappy’, but at least they are alive. I always tend to go for the cup half full approach….
Is it not a well known fact that you don’t know what you have before you lose it…take away all American wealth and then ask them how happy they are…The Americans are by all measurable standards, discounting cognitive biases, one of the happiest nations on earth. I will take the published Index of Economic Freedom as a much better indicator of ‘happiness’.
The cross road is evident. If one doesn’t like the competition, creative destruction, inherent risk and uncertainty of our modern economy and 6 billion people shared that view, we would still be stuck in the middle ages. We would not have known any better and we would have been happy…
Gutterpunks (a minor phenomenon surely) sound suspiciously like the non-political kind of hippies, “Tune in, Turn on and Drop Out” and head for San Francisco to smoke dope, free love and dis The Establishment and lots of them were just “goin’ with the flow man” not serious political thought. Most of the gutterpunks will wise up as they start to age just like everybody else. I don’t know how many gutterpunks there are but most street people have mental or alcohol/drug problems and are certainly not fleeing affluence. Young people on the streets are mostly fleeing dysfunctional families and abuse not loving parents. Columbine and Virginia Tech are aberrations since school is about the safest place to be in the US and the VT guy wasn’t disaffected he was a seriously ill psychotic.
Homicide in the US is heavily weighted towards blacks and Hispanics and the poor in general and it is a family affair fueled by alcohol, drugs and financial worries to a large extent. Random violence is associated with gangs which are mostly made up of minorities who are neither from educated or affluent homes.
Overall violent crime including murder in the US is actually at the lowest it has been for the last 30 years but it’s sure to get worse as we head into recession and people get poorer.
Love your final point that people who grow up in positive circumstances are less likely to be violent than those with a miserable childhood. No s**t Sherlock.
Money may not buy happiness but it will buy you a BMW to go out and look for it.
Colin – according to Penelope Spheeris the gutterpunk phenomenon in the US is not minor; it is a symptom of some underlying disaffection with the materialistic mindset of mainstream America. Quite a few of the people who have commented on my piece seem to confirm this through experience. Dev. Economist – I can see you are an economist from your take on happiness, which is very different from mine, and well articulated – I’ll follow up this piece with another on the topic of happiness. Di – I think you’re wrong about it merely being a matter of laziness – if this were the case, it would be far easier to be lazy at home, in circumstances of luxury, than to suffer the exposure of the streets – some of the gutterpunks in the studio during the programme I referred to certainly looked as if they had been in the sun, without acess to bathing facilities, etc. No – everything points to a more serious reason for these developments regarding young people. They are like a barometer reading about the current state of society.
@Odette
“These same conservatives will likely pass over in silence those sections of the article that review the many benefits of increased immigration and diversity, among them: greater creativity; better, faster problem-solving; and more rapid economic growth, among other”
How on earth do you measure creativity and the speed of problem solving, much less posit a causal connection? The author seems to be clutching at straws. The blessing of “rapid economic growth” is also a chimera, as the recent collapse of the US bond market shows: the housing market was flooded with homes built on cheap immigrant labour while banks were forced by government to scrap ethnic background as a reliable indicator of risk when lending money.
“For instance, a generation ago the US army was divided along racial lines, but today it has become a “colour-blind institution.”
Yes, that is another great advantage of multi-culturalism: it provides the state with the perfect rationale to intrude upon society to run it like an army or panopticon. The great multicultural cities are all under 24/7 camera surveillance and the US government is seeking the right to tap telephone lines without judicial warrant. Multiculturalism has its upside – if you yearn to live in a society where human relationships are being administered by the state.
@ Will
“Multiculturalism has its upside – if you yearn to live in a society where human relationships are being administered by the state.”
I have to ask you – what world do you live in? Honestly. The entire world we live in governed by the state and big business. It doesn’t make a rat’s whisker of difference if the society is multicultural or monocultural. You based your argument on the Robert Putnam study and claimed that he thought multiculturlism is bad. He doesn’t hold that opinion – you do.
The entire gist of your argument seems to be based on one premise – Blacks and Muslims move in and trouble follows. Please. That shallow observation makes me leery of ascribing any value to anything you have to say.
“I have to ask you – what world do you live in? Honestly. The entire world we live in governed by the state and big business.”
Only because we allow them to. The maxim is that
people get the kind of geovernment they deserve.
“It doesn’t make a rat’s whisker of difference if the society is multicultural or monocultural.”
Putnam’s study showed that it actually does. This has since been confirmed by a study done in Sweden and as well as an international survey in which mono-ethnic countries came out tops in terms of citizens’ general contentedness.
“He doesn’t hold that opinion – you do.”
That only shows the fundamental dishonesty of the leftist clique. I can’t see how he can still hold that opinion if his survey disproved the very “benefit” he set out to prove.
“The entire gist of your argument seems to be based on one premise – Blacks and Muslims move in and trouble follows. Please. That shallow observation makes me leery of ascribing any value to anything you have to say.”
Just because it is shallow doesn’t mean it is untrue – rather that it is obvious. You seem to be guilty of the common prejudice against obvious truths: if even an idiot can understand it, then it can’t be true or, the only way that I can prove that I’m not an idiot is by steadfastly denying the obvious.
@ Will
“He was forced to conclude that mlti-ethnic neighbourhoods actually experienced high levels of distrust and very little social interaction.”
He wasn’t forced to conclude anything and in fact he specifically stated that levels of distrust and decreased social interaction occurred both inter and intra culturally. You conveniently glossed over that point.
Nothing you’ve written has convinced me that your point of view is valid. The ‘self-evident’ truths you speak of are in fact no more than your own prejudices posing as facts. The very fact that you think a shallow observation is somehow worthy of being accepted as gospel truth makes me laugh incredulously.
Odette, I use the word “forced” advisedly, in the sense that he got the opposite results to what he expected. The fact that people interact less with their own ethnic kin as well under conditions of multiculturalism is obviously an effect of the diminished trust, not its cause – multiculturalism being the primary cause. How does that make it more acceptable?
@ Will
That lack of trust is present in ALL cultures so I fail to see how you can blame Blacks and Muslims for all society’s ills. It’s a simplistic and erroneous conclusion. If that is your reasoning then Blacks and Muslims have every right to blame all Whites too. All we end up with is a situation of useless fingerpointing. Multiculturalism is a fact and it’s here to stay. Nothing you, I or anyone has to say is going to change that.
@Odette
Nobody claimed only certain cultures were likely to be distrustful of outsiders, though there are clearly differences of degree. Westerners seem to be far too trusting towards foreigners, to their own detriment. We could take a leaf from the book of the Arabs or the Asian nations, if we want to regain some social harmony.
You are wrong that multiculturalism is here to stay. It seems like you have been sleeping during the changes that have transpired over the past few years. Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn, the London subway bombings, the Asian riots in England. And not to forget that Nicolas Sarkozy came to power on a wave of discontent with Islamic street violence.
Of course we should never blame the actual perpetrators of crime and violence – especially not when they are Black or Muslim. What is undeniable though is that this situation only pertains because of the western elite’s deliberate imposition of multiculturalism on their unsuspecting citizens.
@Will
“Westerners seem to be far too trusting towards foreigners, to their own detriment. We could take a leaf from the book of the Arabs or the Asian nations, if we want to regain some social harmony.”
Are you serious? Westerners are far too trusting? I’m sorry Will but where do you come from? I have seen no evidence of your assertion. I was also not aware that Arab and Asian countries are bastions of harmony. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China…ring any bells?
You don’t seem to understand that my issue with you is that you are latching on to anything that seems to support your bias against Blacks and Muslims. You are not motivated by a desire to look at the root causes of anything. You are motivated by the desire to prove that Blacks and Muslims are in the wrong.
“Are you serious? Westerners are far too trusting? I’m sorry Will but where do you come from? I have seen no evidence of your assertion.”
Just compare the immigration rates. How many Brits have emigrated to Pakistan or French to Morocco compared to the other way around?
“I was also not aware that Arab and Asian countries are bastions of harmony. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Burma, Indonesia,…”
None of these are Arab countries, though the most problematic ones also happen to be the most multicultural…
“… Tibet, China…ring any bells?”
Yes, the bell is ringing loudest in Tibet, a further example of intercultural conflict. The Tibetans are demanding their right to be monocultural, a right which the Chinese afford for themselves in their own country.
“You are not motivated by a desire to look at the root causes of anything. You are motivated by the desire to prove that Blacks and Muslims are in the wrong.”
Actually, it is my contention that multiculturalism is the root cause. Blacks and Muslims are right to be angry with those who don’t conform to black and Muslim culture. But Europeans are also right to be angry with those who won’t conform to European culture. So, multiculturalism is a contraditctio in terminis with which western societies have manoeuvred themselves into a win-lose proposition – a recipe for violent conflict.
@ Will
What do emigration/immigration rates have to do with trust or lack thereof of other groups? Maybe trust is not the correct word and you mean something else.
Not Arab countries. Ok then. What about Saudi Arabia – where women are not allowed to drive, reports of abuse of foreign domestic workers are rife, children are arrested and tried as adults, sometimes without lawyers or gaurdians being present? Is that the example you mean?
The thing is, Will, there is an inexorable trend to inter-cultural mixing and nothing will change that. People from different cultures work together and live together and that will happen increasingly more often as time passes. For a country or region to attempt to remain monocultural is for that society to wither and die.
What is European culture? Europe is a continent of many countries. Are you saying that all European countries have the same culture? Do the English have the same culture as the Ukrainians, the French the same as the Turks, the Germans the same as the Spanish?
Humans by their very nature generally tend to gravitate to what they know, what is familiar and comfortable. That doesn’t mean that they can isolate themselves from outside influences. It’s such a cliche but we are part of the global village. Trying to remain aloof and separate is merely a delaying tactic that won’t work past the near future.
Odette
Judging by your lack of basic knowledge, it would be futile to try and educate you. First you mistake Asian countries for Arab ones and now you mistake Turkey for a European country. But let me try.
“What do emigration/immigration rates have to do with trust or lack thereof of other groups? Maybe trust is not the correct word and you mean something else.”
For trust read openness. I am assuming that a country’s willingness to accept immigrants is a reflection of the attitudes of its citizens. If people are generally xenophobic, like the Japanese, South Koreans or Arabs, say, their governments will have more restrictive policies in place.
“What about Saudi Arabia – where women are not allowed to drive, reports of abuse of foreign domestic workers are rife, children are arrested and tried as adults, sometimes without lawyers or gaurdians being present?”
As far as I can gather, women are quite content with the strictures under Sharia law. One of the Muslim contributors on TL recently supported the re-introduction of Sharia law into Turkey. The abuse of foreign domestic workers bolsters my own point about the conflictual nature of multiculturalism, of course.
“For a country or region to attempt to remain monocultural is for that society to wither and die.”
Apparently the Fins, Icelanders, Swiss, Japanese, Singaporeans and Hong Kong never got the memo on that one. These are all relentlessly mono-ethnic nations that have outperformed the rest of the world after having opted out of the multicultural embrace of their colonial masters.
To be monocultural, moreover, is not to same as isolationism. The problem with multiculturalism is that it dogmatically pretends that all cultures are equally worthy. It has now become a moral transgression to actually prefer some cultures over others, as a consequence of which the West has laid itself open to invasion by cultures that are actually in fierce opposition to traditional western values. Whereas Britain and many other countries have undoubtedly benefitted greatly from taking in Huguenots and Jews, it is difficult to see how Muslims benefit the host countries, especially since they refuse to integrate and are openly hostile to elements of European culture.
The problem with multiculturalism, which is where it differs from monoculturalism, is that ultimately it gives immigrants the right to refuse integration, which paves the way to social apartheid. Hence the Anglican Archbishop’s recent proposal that Muslims be allowed jurisdiction over their own affairs.
“What is European culture? Europe is a continent of many countries.”
The different European cultures have more in common with each other than with, say, Asian or African cultures. Yet, they still are distinct national (mono)cultures. (Since the Ottoman invasion Turkey has been cut off from European culture.)
@ Will
Turkey is a a Eurasian country that aspires to being part of the European Union, hence my inclusion of them in my previous comment.
“As far as I can gather, women are quite content with the strictures under Sharia law. One of the Muslim contributors on TL recently supported the re-introduction of Sharia law into Turkey. The abuse of foreign domestic workers bolsters my own point about the conflictual nature of multiculturalism, of course.”
So firstly, you know all women in Saudi Arabia and they all told you they’re very happy with being subjugated Congratulations. What an achievement. Secondly, according to your logic the foreign domestics must be to be blame for their abuse. I mean, what are they doing there in the first place? Looking for work to support their families? Those ingrates!
This discussion is getting us nowhere because you and I will never see eye to eye. You are fixed in your notion that multiculturalism is wrong because of the “pollution” of Blacks and Muslims into the Western world. And I happen to think a little more highly of people in general and don’t see everyone on the planet being as intolerant as you.
“Turkey is a a Eurasian country that aspires to being part of the European Union, hence my inclusion of them in my previous comment.”
You might then as well have mentioned China, who is also a Eurasian country and who would also love to have unfetterred access to the European market. Turkish culture is as radically different from French culture as is European from Asian culture.
“So firstly, you know all women in Saudi Arabia and they all told you they’re very happy with being subjugated Congratulations. What an achievement.”
That is a feature of Muslim culture, yet you scold me for pointing out that Muslim culture is at odds with western values.
“Secondly, according to your logic the foreign domestics must be to be blame for their abuse. I mean, what are they doing there in the first place? Looking for work to support their families? Those ingrates!”
I don’t know how you can make that inference. The point is that multiculturalism is usually an excuse to exploit people from poor countries. When the US state of Colorado recently acted on anti-immigrationist demands that migrant workers be paid the mandatory minimum wage, the state was emptied of Mexican immigrants almost overnight.
“You are fixed in your notion that multiculturalism is wrong because of the “pollution” of Blacks and Muslims into the Western world.”
Pollution is your term. The more serious issue is the ethno-cultural conflict, such as in France where the police are fighting street battles with immigrant youth who have been setting alight motor vehicles at the rate of 200 a night since riots first broke out two years ago. Or as in Sweden and Australia, where white women have been suffering an epidemic of rape for not adhering to Muslim dress codes.
@ Will
Just so you know…I come from a mixed Muslim/Catholic family (my immediate and extended family, on both my mother’s and father’s sides) and we are a better family for it. We are more tolerant of each other’s religions and cultures than many I know who come from a single religious/cultural background. Not once have I ever heard a word from either side against each other with regard to religion. We were always taught to respect each other’s beliefs.
All the Muslim women I know, including the ones in my family, do not accept being treated as second-class citizens. They love Islam and they love themselves. None of them want to live under Sharia law, even if there are aspects of it that they respect and appreciate.
Maybe you are the kind of person who cannot and does not want to live in a multicultural society and there are many who think as you do. I am grateful I live in a multicultural society because I believe I can learn something from all cultures. There are many who think as I do.
As I mentioned previously, you and I will never agree. So you can stop trying to convince me of your opinion and I’ll stop trying to convince you of mine and we can both walk away semi-satisfied.
Odette, that is very interesting. I have always wondered why SA Muslims are so much less likely to be radical than almost anywhere else on the planet, especially considering the legacy of apartheid. Or maybe apartheid did get some things right. Am I correct that apartheid granted Muslims a degree of autonomy regarding the application of Muslim legal precepts?
@ Will
I really couldn’t say whether they did or not. One thing I do know is that Muslim customary marriages were not legally recognised and I think they are now (I stand open to correction).
My personal experiences, both within and outside my family is that the Muslim community in Cape Town is largely tolerant and reasonable. I have a niece who is staunchly Muslim and she happily interacts with her non-Muslim family and her younger sister who is also Muslim, but not staunch as she is. Two of my brothers married Muslim women and have Muslim step-children. One of my brothers was Muslim for a time. Within my immediate family most of us have dated outside of our race and that was never an issue either. One of my nieces has a White father and a White half-sister.
We are happy with the influence of different cultures. As a child I was just as happy to visit my Muslim granny as I was to visit my Catholic granny. No matter what their religion or culture, grannies spoil their grandchildren. I suppose that was one of my first lessons in that we are all more alike than we think.
Odette
It isn’t possible for Roman Dutch law to recognize customary marriages, simply because the former prohibits polygamous unions. The apartheid government did, however, allow people to enter into customary marriages and to arbitrate divorces among themselves. The disadvantage is that women who get married under customary law cannot appeal to the official courts to protect their rights in case of divorce. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it a Muslim divorce is considered final as soon as a man tells his wife that he is divorcing her and he does not need even need to come to an agreement with her regarding alimony, etc.
It is interesting that you equate the Muslim religion to race, while there are people of many races that belong to the faith.
It is fascinating that your one parent was actually allowed to marry outside of the Muslim faith. I am assuming it was your father, as Muslim tradition require the killing of women who liaise with infidels. Was your mother required to convert? Are you yourself Muslim, Catholic or apostate?
I think a major problem with this issue is that most are too scared to confront this problem or rather want to remain ignorant of whats going on around them.
A solution could be that people just sit down in a friendly environment and listen. That’s what is a big problem: No one wants to listen anymore. I think if people just get out of their own little world take note of whats going on around them, many of these problems could have being averted.
@ Will
I didn’t mean to equate Muslims with race – that was unintentional. I do see cultural differences between Christians and Muslims in the Western Cape and even within the Muslim community, depending on whether they are of Indian or Malay descent.
My father converted from Islam to Catholicism in his late teens. He was from mixed religious parentage(Christian father and Muslim mother) even though his family was largely Muslim (his grandfather having emigrated from India at the age of 11). He became Anglican about 20 years ago when he remarried. As far as I know he did not encounter any resistance from his family when he converted.
My mother was and still is staunchly Catholic. She also has many Muslim relatives in her extended family.
I have a Catholic brother and sister, Protestant brother and sister, an Agnostic brother and I am Catholic (though I don’t see the inside of a church too often). My Protestant sister (who is sort of born-again) has two Muslim daughters. My Catholic brother has a Muslim daughter. I also have numerous Catholic, Protestant and Muslim cousins, uncles and aunts. We’re a right pick ‘n mix and we don’t think there is anything strange about that.
Odette
It seems apartheid had the effect of greatly ameliorating the more offensive aspects of Islam. Europe and Brittain might wish to come and learn from us on dealing with their radical Islamists.
I think to my side this issue is everywhere you find it. the best solution to my self is just be whatever you wan’t to be either a multicultural or not,because it is not possible to convience someone to accept something that doesn’t like.
This will help to get rid of the problems and could have been averted.
@ Will
Just when I thought there was a human being inside you go and say something like that. Yet another justification of Apartheid. Sometimes I wish that I could invent a machine that would take people like you back in time and make you live as a Black, Coloured or Indian person under Apartheid. You would be singing a very different tune. It seems impossible for you to put yourself in someone else’s place and try to imagine what life is like for that person. I’m sure that accounts for your lack of empathy for Blacks and Muslims.
I don’t know what you mean by the “more offensive aspects of Islam” but every religion has offensive aspects. It just depends what side of the fence you’re standing on.
This contrast between material wealth and happiness based on passion or love is adequately depicted in the film ‘I Heart Huckabees’.
The character portrayed by Jude Law, Brad Stand, undoubtedly represents the yuppie materialist. Not only does he use the ‘Open Spaces’ nature society as a means to gain corporate success, he also refuses to acknowledge his girlfriend and lover when she’s not dressed in the socially acceptable manner. Of course, he is completely shattered when the meaninglessness of his material existence dawns upon him.
In contrast to this, the character portrayed by Jason Schwartzman, Albert Markovski, is an environmentalist who uses poetry as a means to establish environmental consciousness in society. Although Albert experiences an existential crisis early in the film, and eventually becomes a nihilist, he deals with his nihilism in a far healthier and creative way than Brad.
The sad thing is that although that groups of youths such as the “gutterpunks” actively distance themselves from a meaningless existence based on materialism (whether this is done conciously or unknowingly on their behalf), they are still caught up in the status games of a materialistic society. For instance, although they may abandon their homes and material possesions (symbols of their societal level of prestige), they will still probably seek to acquire status through other means (informed by rampant Capitalism). So for example, the ywould conform to notions such as superior masculinity based on sexual prowess, etc.
Also, I believe that these types of groups operate within a “created antithesis” – A space in which they are allowed to act out against society is created for them, and resultantly, their act of rebellion cannot achieve any transgressive value.