Originally Posted by mafoofan
In other words: when norms are tossed out for new norms, but without good reason, I think the old norms should be restored since they, at least, rest on experience and less risky magnitudes of change. I think, we have come, as a society, to value change in and of itself (thank you, Mr. President)--I view this as a sort of intellectual disease because it is costly (destabilizing norms that don't necessarily need destabilizing), and it distracts us from changing norms for good reasons.
Originally Posted by Fuuma
What you are lamenting isn't the variation in the nature of the changes but the acceleration of hypermodernity. Too much info is making us loose control and some find it a cause of anguish while others think it is exhilarating.
Originally Posted by voxsartoria
Well, then, back to what I found interesting, back on pages 10 and 13.
It is at least arguable that this idea of accelerating change is wrong. There were far bigger changes in the 50 years from 1900-1950 then from 1950-2000, including the dissolution of a 400 year old world empire and the electrification of cities. The last fifty years have been relatively stable in everything but computers and population.
I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea that somewhere in the 1930's were year 0 in Sartorialist History. Perhaps when the world found its ground shifting under their feet it latched onto the myth of the Upperclass and the images of the AA crystalize this aspirational idea.
I'm also fascinated by the idea that Ralph Lauren capitalized (literally) on this in the Purple Label line.