The cowardice of Culture for Collusive Consensus - 4 12/4/2024 9:48:35 AM
In The Cowardice of Culture for Collusive Consensus #4, Randy Gonzalez critiques what he perceives as a long-standing decline in American cultural courage, attributing it to collusion among various societal forces. He argues that this decline—described as "pussification"—manifests in a preference for safety, conformity, and mediocrity over intellectual adventure and individualism. Gonzalez targets multiple areas: academia, media, politics, and mainstream entertainment, claiming they foster intellectual cowardice and suppress independent thought. According to some more experienced observations of the American culture, the “pussification” has been a multi-decade collusion of variously purposed interactions. By neither demonic possession nor otherworldly deception, herded collusions of one sort or another desire the bland, safe mediocrity of a cowardly culture. Naturally, several inferences hide behind the blatant conjecture of certain keywords. To say coward, cowardly and better yet, the “cow-herd”, immediately gets attention. And that, in and of itself, might provoke a digression or perhaps a distraction. Nonetheless, the cowardice of culture for collusive consensus characterizes mainstream society. Not to forget, of course, the child-like, albeit juvenile, approaches to modern storytelling and movie making. Then again, what does that infer? Money-making and any movie-making moment? What is the morality tale? Or, where is the efficacy of the hero’s truth? No, wait, why bother? Younger generations probably will not get the undertones of innuendo.
Flashback for a moment, the term coward as it cuts across the many domains of pretentious intellectual attempts, from “academy awards” to presidential elections. From academia to the sports arena, for the sake of self-interests, material acquisition, and gluttonous consumerism, egocentric antics devolve into “juvenile carnality”. Additionally, the infotainment mainstream, including alleged news reporting and social media, boasts an array of idiotic conjectures on a daily basis in order to ensure thumb-sucking commonality. The cowardice of culture devolves to persistence in replacing courageous adventures with bolder expressions of individuality. Censorship, now more than ever, tramples upon the feel-good sensitivity of not being offended by anything. Likewise, historic struggles in the dominions of the “social studies arena” persist, as nothing conclusive defines the totality of human behavior in psychodynamic terms. Opinions vary and anecdotal citations redundantly spin the mantra of one school of thought or another.
Regarding the aforesaid conjuration of the “social studies arena”, a momentary diversion might be inescapable at this point. On the stage of academia, where performances in the realms of the liberal arts, the humanities, or other arts and crafts of “higher ed” reside, all manner of metaphysical contrivances abound. Of the “physics” outside the “physical”, there is the theoretical speculation of the surreal and supernatural. These are the pseudosciences. And, this only means here to be suggestive of that which is not absolutely known beyond any reasonable doubt as would be required in a court of law, proof by evidence beyond any question.
With regard to the mention of that which is abstract, non-material, or non-organic in the natural existence of nature, theoretical and philosophical, the “social studies arena” is that “bastion of higher learning”, aka academia, which includes fields such as criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology. These are, at best, conjectural and delve into many aspects of belief systems, some of which pursue inquiries into the ontological issues that explore the nature of being. From the abstract to the hypothetical and conjectural, studies about human nature in the corporeal manifestation become challenging speculation. As to this quest for understanding the ethereal disembodied spectrum of thought that translates into physical action, there is much debatable discourse. Here, pseudo means unknown. Attached to “science” means investigative processes are on the outside looking in toward the real world of hard-core science. Softcore is the social intercourse that never quite makes the full penetration into the communion of psychophysical enlightenment. There are far too many egos involved in the “social studies arena”.
Reality as to the vitality of the material realms concerns sciences such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics, to name a few. Philosophy attempts to discern reality as relegated to those exploring the philosophical aspects of human nature. Of these perspectives, the raging debates of any pretension to reality regard fields of supernatural adventures as those four previously mentioned. Particularly important to ideological discussion is the field of criminology. In the present contemporary devolving American culture, where anti-intellectualism fuels much contention toward real science, non-scientists in the many fields of psychology seem to have cornered the marketplace. The use of the term marketplace has many implications. Nonetheless, the conceptual framework of “cowardice of culture” relates significantly to the belief systems that translate into “collusive consensus”. No singular philosophic conjecture has the answers.
In the dominions of the pseudosciences, there is the challenge of intellectual adventure. And yet, surprise, upon achieving an alleged post-graduate degree in the social studies realm from an alleged institution of so-called higher learning, there is a supernatural aura of mystical proportions. Ghostly, a stream of consciousness, not necessarily one that reflects common sense, projects and provokes pseudo-intellect of some measure. Of the newly “doctoral” nobility, there is a presupposition of exceptional knowledge in a particular field of social studies. Mainstream media, social media, and gurus of this or that are very fond of such royal titles. With that, publish a few literary works, conduct some surveys and interviews, and suddenly, the pretense of “expertise” unfolds, and one might be referred to as an “expert”.
