When I was an agnostic, I had a strong sense of morality, but I never bothered (or maybe just never dared) to think about where it came from, and so often in the same breath that I affirmed the subjectivity of truth, especially moral truth, I used terms like “good” and “evil,” expecting that my own subjective sense of these terms would be universally understandable. That’s a contradiction that fellow agnostics and atheists never called me out on because, I’m convinced, they simply weren’t aware of it. And this contradiction is not a trivial one because the whole edifice of postmodernism/multiculturalism is built on it: The claim–that all truth is confined to its own social and historical context and is therefore subjective–is itself a truth claim. Maybe it’s easier to paraphrase a conversation from the classroom:
Professor: There is no such thing as absolute truth!
Student: Really? Is that true?
Professor: Absolutely!
This fundamental contradiction inherent to postmodernism shows why it’s frankly incompatible with civilization. If I point to a color and say “That’s blue,” and you point to the same color and say “That’s red,” it doesn’t mean that all viewpoints are equally valid; it just means that we can’t have a meaningful conversation about color. And if we can’t agree on any truths of our common existence (isn’t that what those “coexist” bumper stickers are about?) we simply can’t have a civilization, the most fundamental unit of which is the family. That’s why when people say, “I don’t know how I’m going to talk to my family this year at Thanksgiving dinner because I don’t even know what pronouns to use,” I could say we’re likely witnessing the collapse of our civilization. Because it’s not merely a new postmodern variation of the age-old holiday dinner awkwardness that we can’t even agree on something as fundamental as gender.
And another clear sign of civilizational collapse, one related to gender, is what’s happening to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). When I became an Eagle Scout in the early ’90s, an older Eagle Scout in his late middle age grumbled that “Back in our day, you REALLY had to earn it.” I was somewhat offended by that but over the years, as I’ve witnessed a continuing degradation of the BSA’s standards and the concurrent abasement of masculinity (another important redoubt of civilization) in the Western world, I’m forced to agree with older scouts. In contrasting today’s BSA with the BSA of the early 20th century, Dr. Steve Turley notes:
“… rather than shape the boy into an objective vision of moral manliness and masculine virtue, the modern Boy Scout vision is a therapeutic vision that seeks to cultivate the self in highly personal and private and subjective terms. Indeed, while the first handbook began with a lengthy introduction exhorting boys to embrace their journey towards manhood, the modern version actually begins with a section on victimization and how to protect your children from child abuse. The original Boy Scout sought to foster virtue while the modern Boy Scout is encouraged to think of himself as a potential victim.” (Emphasis mine)
I’m saddened by this, of course, and not surprised that the BSA may soon be filing for bankruptcy, but I’m also hopeful that the original spirit of the scouting movement, which you can read more about at The Art of Manliness, seems to be continuing in a few promising new organizations: Trail Life USA, and the Royal Rangers. I’m also encouraged that for every civilization-friendly institution that’s under attack, there seems to be a corresponding pushback or instance of what Turley calls retraditionalization:
“In the face of threats to a sense of place, identity, and security so often posed by globalization, populations tend to reassert historic identity and security markers, like their religion, custom, and tradition as mechanisms of resistance against secular globalization’s anti-cultural, anti-traditional dynamics. Scholars are increasingly noting that as people feel vulnerable, it’s not uncommon for them to reassert their customs, traditions, culture, language, ethnicity, as bulwarks against threats to their sense of existential security.”
I would count Trail Life USA and the Royal Rangers as potential examples of retraditionalism, and while Turley doesn’t use the term “retraditionalization” in a pejorative way (as I assume most scholars would), I still have to take issue somewhat with his language here. Maybe it’s just a misperception on my part, but Turley seems to be characterizing retraditionalization mainly as a visceral, fear-based reaction; yet I think proponents of retraditionalization actually have a very soundly reasoned justification that globalists/postmodernists have either not heard or have carelessly dismissed. And it’s really not a difficult argument to make. Ravi Zacharias simply points out that even moral subjectivists lock their doors at night:
“I don’t think the question is fairly stated as, ‘What are you afraid of?’ I’m just saying it is basically unlivable. I didn’t conclude that. Atheists like Jean-Paul Sartre have concluded it.”
Knowing this, that even honest atheists and agnostics (and not just the survivors of Eastern and Central European Communist autocracy) have concluded that the ever shifting moral relativism of the postmodern/globalist world is not viable, I have good reason to hope that there might be more to our future than Rod Dreher’s despairing Benedict Option or passive assimilation into a doomed civilization.