Humanities & Classics 3270
|
|
Sixties Forum
Humanities & Classics 3270 |
    |
|
In Reply to: the "big chill" posted by shannon theisen on May 12, 1998 at 18:32:23:
I think that shannon had some very valid points. Does society pressure us into being someone that we don't want to be, even if we have completely different beliefs and value systems? Why would we want to live in a society where everyone is identical? Part of what separates us from the animals is our ability to think and reason beyond just mere existence. If everyone lived in the same type of houses, went to the same schools, and had the same types of jobs just to fit into society, we would be incredibly dull. We would stunt our own advancement, be it good or bad.
Perhaps those who felt that they "blew it" felt like this. They saw that humanity needs some diversity to make us well-rounded. Sort of like survival of the fittest. Those who are best adapted to the changes, survive. Those who don't bend, break. Maybe part of the revolution of the 60s was to recognize the immense diversity between each individual, instead of repressing it. They may have felt that they failed because enough people did not react positively and start a movement.
Each of the characters in the big chill had great expectations while they were young, in college, and had the world ahead of them. And then reality set in. Some of them started families and gained an enormous amount of responsibility. No longer did their actions affect just themselves, but their spouses and children, as well. They had to conform to society's norms to be accepted as decent parents and human beings. If others heard about their earlier drinking and smoking pot days, they might label them as rotten individuals. They could potentially lose their jobs, their children, etc. So they had to do what was expected of them to be accepted into society, even if it went against their beliefs.
As an example of some who go against the grain, my friend and i babysat recently for some very different parents. They had no rules. They children were two, four and ten. There was no bedtime set. The older boy just put himself to bed when he was tired. The two little girls stayed up until after one in the morning, and that was an early night for them. They all dressed themselves in whatever they wanted to wear, matching or not. They ate as many cookies as they wanted (which actually was hardly any, surprisingly) and watched what they wanted to watch on tv. Which turned out to be Anastasia. Not the violent movies that might be expected, by some. None of the kids misbehaved. they had fun and were outgoing, but they didn't abuse their freedom. I told my sister about the "no rules" rule and she was appalled. "Weren't they spoiled monsters?" No. Actually they were three decent kids who didn't grow up in a traditional home, but could get along just fine in society. They were polite and shared everything with each other, even their cookies. I didn't feel that there was anything wrong with the way they were being raised. It was different, but not bad. Maybe more people should extend themselves and be a little more open to other possibilities, not just in childcare, but in all aspects of their life.
Maybe those in the movie felt that they had to conform because that was tried and true. I don't have an answer. But they weren't true to themselves and very rather unhappy for their efforts. I think that's a bigger crime than letting your kids watch what they want on tv. They might surprise you, and not turn in to the little gremlins that you might expect.