Monday, July 13, 2015

Hypothesis on Spreading Deviancy

Weimerica is a pretty weird place. Even the liberals who write "Family Guy" have caught on as after some latest gay event they had a character touch his son, and when his son stopped him, the father said, "I don't know what's right anymore". How do things catch on though? How does S&M move from the dungeons, unspoken parlors and clubs to commonplace discussion amongst friends? Deviancy makes its way from the top of the status chain down with the help of the media.

Any person's status is made up of a basket of items: wealth, looks, job, education level, home, geographic location, religious affiliation, etc. A sexually deviant behavior is by definition a behavior that is not normal. It deviates from the norm. Being abnormal, especially in the bedroom would be a hit to one's status. In order to secure your spot in the status range of your desired class, you better have great measures for all other status inputs. To be openly deviant, one must have a great status aggregate to sustain the status hit by coming out as gay, trans*, an S&M enthusiast, etc.

This plays into the media's wheelhouse as when needed, it can discuss a high status person, remark that they are gay/trans/poly and then declare that this is okay. It must be okay because the media would not risk scolding the wealthy or high status. For example, Elton John coming out in the late '80s was not going to get a tsk-tsking despite HIV/AIDS raging all around the gay community because the media still needed him to sell records. Any deviant behavior can be treated the same (think Bruce Jenner and trans*), and the high status first adopter is required. The high status person then can serve as a symbol for others to emulate, and for the behavior to translate down, a person must have enough status for lower status people to want to emulate. The New York Times did this with 50 Shades of Grey several years ago. Note that big city metro houswives couldn't get enough of it, ahem, higher status ladies love it, so you should too. Universities help spread the acceptance, and if one looks at opinion polls, college educated voters support gay issues far more than those who avoided college. The college educated set supports it, the media will blast, and college credentialed citizens are high status.

One pretty good example of this top down sexual deviancy drift is lesbianism or female sapphic experimentation. The elite might have had a lesbian or two in their network, especially if they had Jewish friends, decades ago. MTV and good old Madonna helped it out in the early '90s, but it was still weird. Madonna went too far then, but do not dismiss the power of the Real World having a cute lesbian or bisexual girl on every other year. Even if you went off to college in the '90s, you heard of LUGs or BUGs. Those lesbians until graduation types though were going to private colleges (Sarah Lawrence, Haverford, Middlebury, etc) and from higher socioeconomic homes for anyone in their family to discuss it. Your prole friends would look at those girls as lame or weird, especially the prole girls. Angelina Jolie talking about being bisexual helped it along, but eventually, the same sex experimentation found its way down market. Now if you have a female relative go off to college the default assumption is that she'd hook up once with a girl or even have a short fling with a woman.

In contrast to this, you can destroy or stop something by associating it with low status people. This is the progressive media method. If the reality of gays and their behavior were shown, no one would support it, but alas, it is not. Going on offense aganst the poly push, one could set up a secular sounding institute, "Civilization Research and Security". This institute could spend some cash and commission some surveys of people about their views of poly behavior and even try to get a decent sample of poly people (might be a good thing to seek out). Due to the mass ignorance about percentages, weight and whatnot, you could present poly people as overweight, middle to lower earners, smokers (of what we would not say) and anything that in our current culture is considered low status. Associate poly with low status, note that no brownie points will be earned by supporting such uncouth individuals, and you will not get the big swing to supporting poly acceptance. "Who wants to support those losers" is what the single women will think.

Over time, the status ding evaporates, allowing lower status people to openly flaunt a deviancy without the fear of sliding down the status ladder. Someone higher status must exhibit the behavior in order for them to claim that X does it too, so why can't I? Some movements are ground up, and other movements are top down. America is a supposedly classless society yet it still does have classes, and no one wants to fall down the totem pole. Humans are a social animal, and few want to be the prime mover and risk the diminished rank in the herd. If you want to know where deviancy is heading, do not look to the masses, look at the Lifestyle section of the New York Times and the "Science of Us" in New York Magazine.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting post. Cigarettes, up until 15, even 10 years ago was acceptable. 20-30 years ago it was the coolest thing in the world. Now, it is associated with very low status people, whereas back in the very near past, everyone did it, from the highest to the lowest status.

Anonymous said...

you are overthinking all this.

wealth + stability = decay.

The absence of a meaningful conflict or challenge leads to a focus on entertainment and novelty. all of this can be understood as one step up in the novelty chain - things that were once novel and shocking are no longer so, and so the next thing must arise.

ancient rome had a trans* emperor, just so you understand how far this can go. cycle continues until the society is destroyed, or an external challenge great enough to stave off the decay. but i don't think there's ever going to be a society that just stays the same for 1,000 years or even 100.

never has happened, never will happen.

deconstructingleftism said...

My theory is that the upper classes have always engaged in more deviant behavior, much more probably, than the lower classes. Deviant behavior offers pleasure to the behaver but is expensive, so of course the affluent can afford it best.

The shift to more moralistic behavior came in England in the early 1800's, as the business class gained enough money and influence to start to replace the aristocracy. Business people- then, maybe not so much now- needed to be seen and known as being trustworthy and reliable, and vices don't help this image. The idea of an elite that was moral instead of just powerful by birth came to be promoted.

By the early 20th century, especially after WWI, the old elite was gone. The new elite wanted to engage in vice, but still felt the need to be seen as moral. So elite deviant behavior came to be portrayed as moral. Homosexuality, a favorite elite vice, started to be promoted at this time.

This accelerated in the 60's. Marijuana was a low-class vice, but idiot upper middle class college students heard jazz musicians liked it, so they tried it. Then they got busted and got the serious penalties imposed for low class vice, and went boohooing to mom and dad, who pushed for a reduction in penalties. Marijuana became cool, because affluent people wanted to do it.

Lower class people are perfectly willing to accept that the powerful do things they can't, and don't even want to do, like engage in sodomy at expensive private schools and eat at French restaurants. But the elite doesn't want to be sniggered at for these silly proclivities, so they have to make them normal for everybody.

Dan said...

When the elite left pushes stuff, they often are not actually users.

Examples:
(1) Traditionalist marriage arrangements are higher with higher Socioeconomic status. Includes in-wedlock childbearing; being married at all; staying married.
(2) Church attendance is higher with higher SES.
(3) Marijuana smoking inversely related to SES.
(4) Promiscuity is inversely related to SES.
(5) LGBTs are actually considerably lower in SES. This is something most people wouldn't believe, but here it is (look at income):
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf

The point is, elites push things that they abstain from. If you want to be elite, do as they do, not as they say. Barack Obama is Ward Cleaver to Michelle's June Cleaver in real life. What is her zone of responsibility? That the kids eat healthy. And to stand quietly next to her man. And to stay thin, and look good. Of course.

Portlander said...

In contrast to this, you can destroy or stop something by associating it with low status people.

Yep. That's a whole 'nuther blog post right there. It's guilt by association. Sheeple in general, and SWPL in particular, by virtue of their insecurity are very sensitive to anything that might mark them in the "wrong" group. So, when the media wants to go after something near and dear to red-state America they trot out the most obese, ill-spoken, racist, clowns they can find and use them to "brand" the item in question.

Look no further than the Confederate Flag controversy. Progs have hated Southern Nationalism for years, about the only nationalism they do hate, so one 20 yo. nut-case goes Postal and it's time to rewrite the history books. Never let a crisis go to waste, indeed.

PA said...

The "morality load" across core society is probably a set quantity; so a replacement of, for example, the sanctity of marriage with tolerance of homosexuality is a one-for-one swap, in a sense. Same with replacing responsibility for one's community for racial tolerance.

However, traditional conservative values are adaptive to their adherents, while politically correct values are a maladaptive liability in the longer run.

Corn said...

Dan's post reminds me of what Charles Murray said: America's elites fail to preach what they practice.

Also, going back to Anon's comment, what is the deal with our societal view of smoking? Smoking tobacco is increasingly presented as low class, but the marijuana legalization train keeps rolling. I don't get it. Unless TPTB want us all stoned and complacent.

Corn said...

Portlander: Progs don't just hate Southern nationalism, they seem down on American nationalism in general.

Portlander said...

American nationalism? Where!?! :)

Southern nationalism is about the last vestige of any source of white nationalism, which is to say I think we agree.

Glengarry said...

Yeah, smoking is filthy and low class, and getting drunk is sad and low-class. However, getting stoned smoking weed is funny and everyone on TV jokes about it and wants to do it.

(The part I like even less is when the joke is about fooling someone into taking drugs. Whooops, those were the special brownies! Heehahaw how they laugh.)

Corn said...

Actually I do see where you are coming from Portlander and do agree. Glengarry expressed it succinctly. Heck, anyone remember the Harold and Kumar movies? Smoking tobacco is low class, immoderate use of alcohol is sad and dysfunctional, but wanna spend half of your adulthood in a cloud of pot smoke? Oh well, he he.
I don't know why tobacco is taboo but cannabis is trendy.

tonsplace said...

Tobacco is taboo because it's
Mostly grown in the South by us most evil of evil White men, Southern White men
Most commonly enjoyed by the second most evil of evil White men, the masculine kind, which means rural and most likely Southern

It's not about tobacco per say it's about what tobacco represents and who profits from growing it etc

Anonymous said...

i get it, yall just wanna eat beets in ya room and love ya wives.