The mainstream of society: Is there such an entity in today's Brave New World?

[Aemma]

It used to be that being part of (a) certain group(s) defined the mainstream of Western society for instance being married, being a male in a traditional male occupation, having a traditional nuclear family. Yet the mainstream appears to no longer be present. Or perhaps it never really existed?

Is there such a thing as "the mainstream" of society in today's world? If so, what does it look like in this Brave New World? What groups make up its component parts?

[Psychonaut]

An interesting question!

Perhaps we could distinguish between the old mainstream and the new in the following way. Previously, there tended to exist a dichotomy between low and high culture. The low, or folk, culture and the high culture that we associate with the development and production of Western art, music and architecture. We can chart a clear development of high culture in the West from its Carolingian roots, on through the ensuing feudalism of Continental Europe on through the Renaissance and beyond. Existing both in the same time and place, however, was what Spengler called the "eternal peasant,"[1] who was largely unaffected by the developing cultural soul around him. Spengler likens the peasant to a plant—rooted to the soil and having a folk culture resultant from that which was mostly separate from the high culture of the aristocratic city dwellers.

However, with the gradual dissolution of high culture that we've seen happening since the end of the Romantic period—the ensuing rise of egalitarian and democratic philosophies have become the dominating force in Western societies. What this, combined with Industrialization, has done is transplant the majority of Westerners from their rural homesteads into the hearts of the sprawling cities. What happens when you transplant a peasant into the heart of a dying high culture? The plant-like peasant adapts to his surroundings. He assimilates into the degenerative cultural-feeling of the city and creates a hybrid of his own folk culture wrapped in the vestiges of the near-dead high culture. It is this gruesome beast that I would identify as mainstream culture in the modern world. Regarding this outcome, Spengler said:

With the formed state having finished its course, high history also lays itself down to weary sleep...In the midst of the land lie the old world-cities, empty receptacles of an extinguished soul, in which a historyless mankind slowly nests itself. Men live from hand to mouth, with petty thrifts and petty fortunes, and endure. Masses are trampled in the conflicts of the conquerers who contend for the power and the spoil of this world, but the survivors fill up the gaps with a primitive fertility and suffer on. And while in the high places there is eternal alternance of victory and defeat, those in the depths pray, pray with that mighty piety of the Second Religiousness that has overcome all doubts forever...[2]

Some might disagree, but, although Spengler wrote his opus just after WWI, he's provided us with an accurate picture of the current situation in the West (and in America in particular).

Notes:
1. Oswald Spengler, eds. Helmut Werner and Arthur Helps, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson. The Decline of the West. (USA: Vintage Books, 1990), 245.
2. Ibid., 381.

[Absinthe]

Yes, there is a mainstream of society but it's quite different from what it used to be.

[Rusalka]

Or perhaps it never really existed?

Or maybe it's just really flexible and responds to economic vagaries.

In the case of America, cigarrete factories pushed really hard to make "flappers" fashionable. But after WWII (post "Rosie the Riveter") it was back into the kitchen for the ladies. Men as the sole "bacon-winners" might also be a modern invention: we all know women worked just as hard during the Industrial Revolution.

Some women are still living on the vestiges of the Prince Charming complex and still desire men who represent the image of the proverbial macho, strengh included. Unnecessarily, really, since there's not much he can defend you from nowadays, and knowing the domestic violence rates, there's a bigger possibility that he will use his strengh against you rather than to protect you.

Previously, there tended to exist a dichotomy between low and high culture. The low, or folk, culture and the high culture that we associate with the development and production of Western art, music and architecture

Interesting. In the case of music, it is argued that the collapse of tonality is what set off a number of tendencies. Back in the day, the listener was presupposed to be knowledgeable of the codes of music as a language. But with all the tendencies floating around and the massification of music, there is no referential point,and the reception of music becomes a contrived event with akward results.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It used to be that being part of (a) certain group(s) defined the mainstream of Western society for instance being married, being a male in a traditional male occupation, having a traditional nuclear family. Yet the mainstream appears to no longer be present. Or perhaps it never really existed?

Is there such a thing as "the mainstream" of society in today's world? If so, what does it look like in this Brave New World? What groups make up its component parts?

To me there is no mainstream,if one accepts that than we should accept the endless quote:" The average man"

[SwordoftheVistula]

Hard to say. Society seems a lot more culturally diverse than it used to, just within white culture that is. A lot of it has to do with more media choices, at least in the US, instead of just the 3 broadcast TV networks, now there is a whole bunch of cable channels plus the internet. So you have a lot more ways to communicate and meet with people who don't make up as large a portion of the total population.

It used to be that being part of (a) certain group(s) defined the mainstream of Western society for instance being married, being a male in a traditional male occupation, having a traditional nuclear family.

Dunno if that's 'mainstream', more like traditional values. That's certainly not 'mainstream' or even 'the norm' anymore. Fewer people want to get married, and when they do, it's often to someone who has been married before or has kids from a prior relationship.

Is there such a thing as "the mainstream" of society in today's world? If so, what does it look like in this Brave New World? What groups make up its component parts?

Cable TV channels would make a good estimate. There's a certain type of people who watch the Sci-Fi Channel for example, a certain type who watches Discovery and History channels, a certain type which watches Fox News, and so on.

[Aemma]

Yes, there is a mainstream of society but it's quite different from what it used to be.

What defines it now though? What was the Then and what is the Now in your view Absinthe?

To me there is no mainstream,if one accepts that than we should accept the endless quote:" The average man"

Is there no such entity as "the average man", Sacred Lunatic? It seems that today's society is especially hard at work in trying to make us swallow that such an animal exists. Everywhere from the public school system to marketing strategies to that wonderful profession of "bean counting"-- statistics and probabilities are used in such a way as to pidgeonhole individuals into recognizable groups in an effort I can only assume to reach a certain peak efficiency in dealing with the sheer quantity of individuals present in any given system. Why deal with each and every individual as a unique entity when individuals can offer enough overlap in the form of similarities with one another and create a "meta-individual" based more so on intangible qualifiers than the more tangible ones, as it were.

On the contrary, I do believe that there IS a mainstream. The question is now: who determines what the mainstream is? Does the individual have any power (ie., some autonomy and control) in the process of creating the mainstream or is the mainstream created for us?

Dunno if that's 'mainstream', more like traditional values. That's certainly not 'mainstream' or even 'the norm' anymore. Fewer people want to get married, and when they do, it's often to someone who has been married before or has kids from a prior relationship.

Yes! And therein lies the problem: This scenario *used to be* the mainstream ie., norm. People from my generation would more readily recognise this as what was the norm as opposed to a person from your generation would let's say. My question to you now Sword would be the following: given that you and I do come from different generations (which yes presupposes an entire gamut of significantly different sources of acquiring information and then processing such into one's conscience and creating one's own worldview) was the above scenario of a 'traditional' society ever a concept of what the mainstream was for you? It might not have been. But I am curious to see if it was or not.

[Loxias]

As obvious as different subcultures and other fragmentations of society have become, and as how much those often seem to replace national identity in many hearts. I still think there is a definite mainstream society, which in the west is quite well embodied by consumer, tv-fed society.

[SwordoftheVistula]

My question to you now Sword would be the following: given that you and I do come from different generations...was the above scenario of a 'traditional' society ever a concept of what the mainstream was for you? It might not have been. But I am curious to see if it was or not.

When I was younger it was, but then I come from a very traditional family background and a conservative rural part of the country. As time went on, I realized more and more that this was simply not achievable in today's society. It's somewhat difficult to seperate my own awakening to become more aware of how society is, and during that same time society was changing to make it less & less possible to achieve that.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Is there no such entity as "the average man", Sacred Lunatic? It seems that today's society is especially hard at work in trying to make us swallow that such an animal exists. Everywhere from the public school system to marketing strategies to that wonderful profession of "bean counting"-- statistics and probabilities are used in such a way as to pidgeonhole individuals into recognizable groups in an effort I can only assume to reach a certain peak efficiency in dealing with the sheer quantity of individuals present in any given system. Why deal with each and every individual as a unique entity when individuals can offer enough overlap in the form of similarities with one another and create a "meta-individual" based more so on intangible qualifiers than the more tangible ones, as it were.

Look at the Avatars of the members here.
You may want to pigeonhole the individuals in Avatars of women-men-dragons-animals etc,yet none are the same there is this 'unloved' (by psychologists-teachers-politicians-medical-retail-science etc) nuance in every Avatar. take any 2 women Avatar and see if there is any total likeness.
The beauty is the uniqueness in the intangible(the feeling you get when reading a post) and the tangible(the actual post.)
Compare us with a society of 100 years ago,and it is comparing an era of obsolescence(us) with unique and strong individuals

On the contrary, I do believe that there IS a mainstream. The question is now: who determines what the mainstream is? Does the individual have any power (ie., some autonomy and control) in the process of creating the mainstream or is the mainstream created for us?

Mainstream means to me the 'power' of the masses in thought and expression,a colorless "follow" the leader concept.
When the leader changes the masses change, a fickle substandard life of the faceless morons.
In this' mainstream' you have the disobedient ones.
They oppose the pressure to conform to a society's norm(flower power-whale slaughter-going green etc).

The individual usually starts a mainstream fad.
First a few,than a lot, than the majority, slowing down to a lot than a few than fading away.