It seems as though our values are constantly under siege, and our society is always on the verge of destroying itself. People reject what is good and choose what is evil, subsisting on a second-rate morality based on nothing but the satisfaction of their appetites. How can our culture be saved? Which institutions cultivate human flourishing, which suppress it, and what should be done about the bad ones? Should we fight either to reform these systems from within or attack them from without? Or, rather, is it possible to resist the cultural tides, remaining steadfast in the pursuit of truth and devoted to our first principles?
Perhaps it is time to fight fire with fire. If we are convinced that our vision of society is the correct one, there is no reason to be timid in imposing our beliefs. In the culture war, there are many battles being fought on many fronts. Most often, they are fought within institutions, and here our opponents seem to have the upper hand. How should we combat cultural degradation in the university? The news media? The entertainment industry? Perhaps we might take over these institutions from within, or erode their influence by creating healthy alternatives. Moreover, it is certainly true that culture influences politics. Many in the Party were thrilled by the recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which led to the end of legalized abortion in many states. But if we are to ensure that such political victories are long-lasting, we must change the hearts of the people as well as the laws of the land. Good laws have little effect in a nation of bad people, and a rightly ordered society requires that those institutions which most influence public opinion—news media, entertainment, education, and others—be likewise rightly ordered. If these institutions continue to operate at the command of those who confuse perversity with beauty and evil with good, then our culture will continue to reap what it sows. Ultimately, those in the affirmative should formulate a vision for the type of society in which they would like to live, and explain how “front-line warfare” would contribute meaningfully to achieving such a vision.
Those in the negative need not be indifferent about the society in which they live, but they might argue that we should only concern ourselves with the culture in order to better “recognize and resist the errors of the age.” Every epoch is subject to its particular vices; accordingly, we ought to be students of culture, but not necessarily soldiers on one side or the other. Perhaps the best way for us to guard against the corruption of society is by living virtuously in our private lives, loving first the particular institutions of which we are a part, and thus acting as an example for those in our small circles of influence. As Richard Neuhaus says in the attached article, “Culture is the way we live, and the way we live in argument with the way we think we ought to live.” If we have a clear conception of how we ought to live, it should be possible to do so steadfastly without swaying in the winds of cultural change. Even so, it seems inevitable that we will have to engage with the culture war in some capacity, especially as it penetrates our personal lives with increasing regularity. I suggest to the negative that total disengagement is an unrealistic goal, and challenge them to suggest a framework by which we might interact productively with the prevailing culture while staying off the front lines.
How do we balance a fervent desire for right order in society with a healthy apprehension of becoming absorbed in cultural issues? Should we meet the Left in action? Put them all in traction? Or should we abandon the front lines and observe from a distance, secure in our ability to live virtuously in spite of the culture?
