Your use of the creation of cultural market segmentation to approach this topic is interesting. You follow that up with concern about “lapses in logic” which aren’t discovered in an environment of “un-reflective freedom” – this is a rich vein for exploration – minding the culture store – do we do that, or does it self-organize around our behaviors and beliefs (including “personal cynicism masked by claims to ‘self fulfillment’” – great phrase)?

Something like that is the great question, really, of history – do we allow ourselves to be “led” by those who engage in this reflection while we thoughtlessly putter about our trivial self-interest, do we ascend to sovereignty only at the cost of investing in burdensome reflection about our culture and society, or do we leave things to the invisible hand of self interest trusting that it will do more good – both culturally and economically – than we could obtain from self-absorbed do-gooders? But, is the risk of its self-organizing into a monstrosity one we can afford to venture?

Or, does that largely unregulated cultural marketplace itself generate reflective whistle-blowers that we use as outriders, scouting for trouble ahead as we careen down the cultural rapids, serving as our conscience?

And what does all of that mean in the context of business and its management?

This is great stuff, Shaun – thanks!

Count me in as someone who knows that Evil certainly is real, but the last part of your post is the ballgame for me.

It’s what the mis-appropriation of language says about where we’re heading that really concerns me.

Yes, some people of the “Progressive” persuasion invoke Hitler (not Stalin, or Mao) as their exemplar of Evil – because they never want to miss a verbal opportunity to have this clear embodiment of right wing evil be generally, continually despised – as he should be, obviously.

But I’m more focused on cultural evolution, and my problem with what’s going on now includes the reality that freedom and free markets precisely favor “market differentiation,” as reflected in “passion,” and its perceived authenticity.

Too often, lapses in logic, lack of substance, and ultimate lack of authenticity are never quite tracked down, or unmasked, before the market (meaning us) “rewards” – yet again – careless use of language with Google hits, cash flow, and celebrity.

So, my concern is that un-reflective freedom, quarter by quarter income statements, personal cynicism masked by claims to “self fulfillment,” time accelerating at warp speed, all add up to fewer and fewer of us minding the “cultural” store. And yes, that would include firmly, but gently, reproaching people who utilize name-calling toward people with whom they disagree.

I wish students actually did look to adults for guidance, etc., but it seems more and more that they look only to their like-minded peers—which definitely falls under the ‘blind leading the blind’ category.

You’re right, of course – I misidentified the location of the link – thanks for catching that. The link to your guest – who posts periodically on your site – is in the “Today’s Tip” section at the end of the post, above. Thanks for putting it in again in your comment immediately above. Again, I hope visitors will click through.

I agree with your comment about putting the onus for learning on the student in this context. The student, after all, looks to us for guidance and example regarding what to learn and how to learn it. It is my impression that your guest’s concerns are that we are sacrificing our responsibilities in these areas to some ancillary views about society and development that may be proving counterproductive.

It may be interesting to hear the professor’s views on this commentary here on the post.

Thanks for stopping by Miki – and for clarifying the location of the link to the post.

Lee, are you really saying that your solution to the “excruciating problems of diversity” is to fire up the ovens and get rid of the diversity? Will you be basing the decision on color, religion or some new set of characteristics. Hitler didn’t regenerrate the economy. At that time the world economy was “war-based” as opposed to “consumer-based,” although it could be argued that the military is just another kind of consumer.

The ghostwriter, as you choose to call him, hasn’t confused anything. Yes, the system is dysfunctional, but to put the responsibility on children and teens is absurd. The most important thing any person acquires from school isn’t information, it’s learning how to learn.

Moreover, a lack of accountability while young does not translate to accountability upon achieving a certain status or age.

Thanks for your kind comments about the post – and, yes, of course, I wrote it, as I do all the posts.

I have always used the term “ideologue” to refer to someone who has a dogmatic – even a fanatical – attachment to an ideal, and “idealist” for someone who simply aspires to the realization of an ideal, but who is able to maintain a moral grip on the connection between means and ends. I think the term “progressive” can encompass both. Of course, so can terms like “conservative,” “libertarian,” or, even, “free-market capitalist!” I used “ideologue” here to refer to people, of any stripe, who go directly to the smear campaign as a way to deal with those who disagree with them.

I think a key thing to note about political leaders is that they are more a reflection of their societies than, truthfully, independent actors “leading” anyone. Certainly, there are degrees in this, but in the larger scheme – surely in Germany in the inter-war years as well – we get what we want, or what we will tolerate. While the dynamics, mechanics, and avenues available for recourse are different, I think the general idea applies to varying but meaningful degrees everywhere from the workplace to politics.

Your point about something turning out to be “good” or “evil” depending at least to some degree on the consequences is interesting in this context. It is precisely that ideologues (again, of all stripes) are more interested in the realization of ideals than in the personal and other consequences of their implementation that makes them so dangerous.

The guest author on Miki’s site makes a clear suggestion that certain abstract progressive ideas are being imposed in our school systems in a way that shunts aside family influence and even, as you indicate, personal responsibility, to a damaging degree on many levels. I’m glad you mentioned that post – I hope more visitors will take this as encouragement to click through to it from Miki’s comment – it is definitely worth a read.

Thanks again, Lee, for your visit, your kind comments, and your always thought-provoking observations!

That’s true, isn’t it! And yet, in a really interesting way, the peculiar course of the campaign does manage to reveal perhaps the most important thing we need to know about the candidates – their character. That’s also relevant to the post; and there’s certainly more there to talk about – thanks for resetting the discussion to that!

My pleasure to pointing to the post, which I agree is important, as well as your own writing on your blog!

Thanks as always for your visit!

Do you really want to deny us the rhetoric from our favorite ideologues? Since when do we Americans care more for substance than form?

And if, in fact not fiction, the desire for substance over form took root, what in the world will these same ideologues have to talk about?

Thanks for pointing your readers to CandidProf’s post yesterday. It’s important information.