The Proclamation: A Call for a Cultural Course Correction
Posted by Michael on June 10th, 2007
Culture communicated by various media – theater, movies, music, television, internet, video games – not only reflects society but has a powerful altering effect on it by promoting a vision of normalcy. The portrayals on the stage or screen are an invitation to pattern our lives and our society according to that depiction. Further, they are an invitation to accept these as the normal or unavoidable aspects of life. These depictions, if viewed frequently enough, even if initially aberrant and revolting, can become familiar and inviting.
From my experience as a viewer, the structure of the family is often promoted as having many variables none of which is preferable. The simple existence of happy families seems to be fading from the world of entertainment. Plays and musicals explore gender roles and portray them as oppressive, irrelevant, obscured, or meaningless. TV and movies regularly depict sexual relationships as casual encounters or simply the automatic response to attraction. Sex is ubiquitously portrayed as appropriate before marriage.
What does the society look like that our culture is inviting us, the viewers and participants, to create?
I worry that it is a society free of interpersonal obligations and commitments with ever-broadening opportunities for social experimentation and gratification – a world of obscure boundaries, a shifting sense of decency, and a fading respect for life.
In the midst of this ongoing redirection of society, the modern apostles and prophets have published a proclamation that reminds us of the key importance of certain disregarded ideals. They proclaim:
The structure of the family has been established by God namely – a husband, a wife, and children – who live together in mutual respect and love. Families should figure prominently in our society and be a central focus of our lives. Not only do familial roles matter but gender matters. Gender roles are essential and gender identity has an eternal purpose. Life is sacred and the powers that engender life are sacred. The family should be built upon love, mutual respect, compassion, and forgiveness. Compulsion and dominance should be unknown in families. Commitment and fidelity should be a given and inviolable.
What does a society look like based on these principles? What kind of society is the proclamation inviting us to create? I believe one with people with a strong sense of self-respect and respect for others. A society built on stable and strong family life which provides a vast source of support for individuals – a society with a strong regard for the sanctity of life and the concomitant dedication to helping others.
Culture appears to be shepherding society away from this vision. We must remember that the images and portrayals of media are really never harmless entertainments, leaving the audience unaffected, but have an effect on the audience either in terms of making those portrayals familiar and comfortable or inviting behavior and perceptions to conform with the concepts presented. The implication of this is the need to continually be on our guard regarding media just as the church leaders have counseled as well as the need for all responsible citizens to create and support culture that promotes the ideals of the Proclamation.
Michael,
I really like this perspective on the way the Proclamation can help protect us from cultural forces as portrayed in the media. Nice write-up. Thanks!
Comment # 1 left by Michelle on June 10th, 2007
Reminds me of the following quote by Elder Maxwell:
Comment # 2 left by Connor on June 10th, 2007
The thing is, I don’t see the course correction happening even with members of the Church. As we see on this very topic all this week many are furrowing the brow at the very thought of changing to (or rather maintaining) the basic family structure and morals. Once those who are under the Covenenat break the bonds of eternal law and order, there is no turning back from the destructions of a people without spiritual guidance. The question is, are we as Mormons and society past the point of no return?
I think at the least those of us who still believe in the standards as set by scriptures, prophets, and God need to be more careful. After all, if we don’t live and remain “on our guard regarding media” or act as “responsible citizens to create and support culture that promotes the ideals” of divinely taught family values, then there is no hope. Forget what other people do or say. We should stand up, shout out, and never get down! Anything less than this will bring the sins of this generation on our individual heads.
Comment # 3 left by Jettboy on June 10th, 2007
I get the feeling that most Latter-day Saints (or maybe most people in general) throw around the word ‘gender’ without having any idea as to what gender is. There is an especially strong misuse of this term in Mormonism as there is a tendency to use this term as if it is synonomous with ’sex’, because S-E-X is a potty word.
Comment # 4 left by the narrator on June 10th, 2007
Thanks Michelle.
Conner and Jettboy, your comments bring two things to mind.
First, I have caught myself laughing at ironic situations in tv shows where the irony arose due to a situation that, from the perspective of the proclamation and the church, is immoral. Afterwards I have had to wonder at myself and whether I am consenting to that behavior by being entertained by it and participating with it by laughing. Further, if I tell people at work that such and such was a great episode or that such and such is a wonderful tv series I am probably communicating that I also consent to the behavior exhibited by the characters and situations in those shows.
Second, the church members (and those with similar values) need to start making better and more brilliant inroads into the creation of culture. There have been some starts and some progress but we have a long way to go (particularly on the LDS end). In this vein, way back in 1977, President Kimball authored a first presidency message entitled “The Gospel Vision of the Arts.” In it President Kimball stated:
We should decry the current moral ground on which culture appears to stand. The ideals of the proclamation would be even more effectively promoted by that decry coupled with truly brilliant works of art, theater, music, drama, and literature.
Comment # 5 left by Michael on June 10th, 2007
Nice work Michael:
Changing culture sounds a lot easier than it really is. I read a book a few years ago called ‘Hollywood Vs. America’ by Michael Medved which revealed some of the motives behind Hollywood types.
Most of us think that Hollywood is driven by money. This is not their primary motive. In many cases it is not even a secondary motive. PG movies in general are more financially successful than R movies. They are also more likely to not ‘flop’ as movies. If Hollywood were primarily interested in money they would make almost entirely family friendly PG movies.
Medved suggests that the primary motive of the folks in Hollywood is to be considered series artists. And in their culture you cant make nice little family movies and be considered a serious artist.
The secondary motive of Hollywood is to be an instrument for social change. They WANT to lead the cultrue somewhere. ‘Anywhere but here’.
So for us as consumers it will be difficult to vote with our wallets since money is not a primary motive of established players in Hollywood.
Comment # 6 left by Eric Nielson on June 11th, 2007