- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Quake42 said:I do know what you mean but the reason I and others keep coming back to historical examples is that people have gone through periods of feeling this for centuries and each time they are convinced that this time it's the real deal, that society is about to implode, etc. With the benefit of hindsight, we realise that it wasn't. I suspect that in 20, 50, 100 years people will look back on current moral panics and see them very differently.
But surely the point here is that historically there have been good reasons for the existence of violence and criminality - behaviour born of poverty, undiagnosed mental problems, lack of welfare provision, terrible working conditions, genuine class division, children growing up without either parent and so on and so on? These problems don't exist to anything like the same extent anymore. Of course, there are new problems but they seem to me to be explained best in psychological terms.
Also, whilst it might be accurate to say that some people currently perceive levels of violence as indicative of something apocalyptic it seems to ignore the point that many people simply feel the current level of violence and anti-social behaviour (and for that matter the levels of the last 25 or so years) to be unacceptable. Generally their perception is accurate - that violent crime and anti-social behaviour, whilst not neccessarily higher now than a decade or so ago is, is considerably higher than it was in the living memory of about half of the country's population. Those of a generation old enough to remember otherwise, I suspect, probably balk when they see what's available to children nowadays and hear about they have nothing to do. Of course, they themselves grew up in far more favourable circumstances than their grandparent's generation from whom they'll have heard of even greater deprivation.