What Should We Call This Era?
January 10, 2006
It was today's show -- Talk of the Nation -- on NPR which caught my ear this morning. Richard Haass was helping to field suggestions by callers as to what we should call this current age we are in.
We came through the "Cold War" era, and some have used the term "Post-Cold War" era -- but Haass and others think that we have yet to experience the definining "thing" which will end up designating this era we are currently living in.
Any suggestions?
(Note: an "era" here is understood to be a span of time encompassing, let's say, 3,4,5 decades)
eh. I like 'The Last Days'. Of course, we've been living in them since the time of Christ.
LOL
LYB
Seraphim
Posted by: Seraphim | January 10, 2006 at 06:53 PM
Islamist revival?
Posted by: Carlos | January 11, 2006 at 12:50 AM
Partisan Era.
Something that communicates the extreme and widening differences in our world: rich v. poor; Red v. Blue; reactionists v. progressivists; etc.
Posted by: Bald Man | January 11, 2006 at 06:44 AM
One of the events that truly has influenced this time is the rise of the “East” or as the Scriptures predicted the “Kings of The East”.
Many studies and news reports center on the influence of China. Their economic power. The challenge to future energy resources. The standing army that is larger then the population of the US (if I remember correctly). The India and other countries of the Sub - continent are among the largest influences upon the tech industries. Southeast Asia, and other places in the South China Sea hold great influence upon the world economy.
The spiritual and philosophic influences from the East are engulfing thinking worldwide. The largest population of people who follow Islam are in Malaysia.
I would say it is the time of the “Raising of The Kings of the East”!
Pastor Art
Posted by: Pastor Art | January 11, 2006 at 07:03 AM
Interesting ideas so far. I'm particularly interested in Bald Man's contribution: The Partisan Era.
Although I too can think of polarizing/defining differences which characterize our era(e.g. North - South; Citizen - (Illegal)Imigrant; Fringe - Centrist; Gay - Straight; etc), I'm at the same time wondering "why isn't postmodernity a greater influence here?"
Posted by: Chris | January 11, 2006 at 03:21 PM
...in wondering about postmodernity, in particular, I'm curios as to why its "both-and" means of viewing things in the world isn't a greater influence -- more of a corrective if you will.
Any ideas?
Posted by: Chris | January 11, 2006 at 03:23 PM
Chris, what was the majority view of what it should be called on the show? I am assuming we are primarily referring to America?
Besides postmodern, I can think of adjectives more than nouns. Creative, intuitive, emerging, etc. Besides, isn't it too early to come up with a name?
Posted by: Benjy | January 11, 2006 at 11:01 PM
Chris,
Thinking out loud: Postmodernity's tolerance is derivative. The source is postmodernity's hyper-specialization. Each individual can form their own "reality," populated only with what they want: their values, their RSS feeds, their likes, etc. since no two people share the same "reality," we must be tolerant.
Postmodernity's "both/and" butts heads with human nature and its tendancy to "other-ify." Everything is an "other."
I think Walsh touches on this in the first couple chapters of Colossians Remixed.
Posted by: Bald Man | January 12, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Benjy,
Good point about it being too early to label this era. In fact, that was one of the significant points that the show's guest -- Richard Haass -- was making. Nonetheless, thinkers and idealogues out there are talking about it more and more.
Posted by: Chris | January 12, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Bald Man -
Hmmm. As you describe it, postmodernity's hyper-specialization sounds (in part) an awful lot like hyper-egalitarianism, don't you think?
I'll think out loud with you as well, okay? How is it that postmodernity's both-and thinking butts heads with human nature? Can you help me get my mind around that a bit more?
Posted by: Chris | January 12, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Chris,
Isn't it rather modern to want to 'label' the era?
LYB
Seraphim
Posted by: Seraphim | January 12, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Chris,
(Had to look up "egalitarianism" to make sure I knew what you were saying.) They do sound alike. They have clear common roots in the relativism that is wont to let all postitions stand on equal footing.
The noble (For the moment let's acknowledge the merits without getting into the obvious shortcomings.) aims of the both-and run counter to the inherent selfishness of fallen human nature, which wants to elevate the self above the other. The both-and can be summed up with, "It's all good;" fallen human nature can be expressed as, "me first."
Whadya think? It seems like there are real opportunity for the Gospel to speak into this situation.
PS - Interestingly, it also runs counter to capitalism, which is predicated on motivated self-interest.
Posted by: Bald Man | January 16, 2006 at 11:33 AM