Newton’s law of cultural change

Conventional wisdom about the cultural ideas which govern human life is that each slowly evolves from the last, adding some good new thinking and discarding the bad bits of others. A Darwinian form of progress in which we slowly, but inexorably, evolve towards a better set of attitudes and behaviors by which the world can work (even if not everybody is the immediate beneficiary of such improvement).

But in fact, cultural ideas and movements often seem to zig-zag back and forth rather than follow a straight linear path of progression. Like Newton’s third law, shifting in the completely opposite direction, with equal force, in response to the movement which preceded it.

And because of this phenomenon, people whose job it is to anticipate cultural shifts may in fact, be able to make more informed predictions as to what is coming next and use that knowledge to benefit society and/or gain competitive advantage.

Watching or reading American news media today, you’d be forgiven for thinking the country is becoming more bigoted, more intolerant, more right-wing. And yet, looking at the bigger picture around how how attitudes to race, sexuality, gender, disability have changed in the long term, you would argue, as this article in The Atlantic does, that the opposite is true.

On domestic policy — foreign policy is following a different trajectory, as it often does — the terms of the national debate will continue tilting to the left. The next Democratic president will be more liberal than Barack Obama. The next Republican president will be more liberal than George W. Bush.

So how did Donald Trump’s brand of nationalism get so popular given that, by and large, the US is becoming more liberal, and more outward-looking over time?

The potentially simple answer to that of course is, it hasn’t got that popular: that his supporters are in the minority and his popularity more a media phenomenon than a movement which signals a real change in the long-term socio-political direction of the country.

But whether or not he wins the presidency, it’s undeniable that there’s an alarming growth in anti-immigrant sentiment in much of the western world right now. A sentiment that is mirrored in post-Brexit Britain to ugly and violent effect and is evident across much of Europe too. A sentiment that runs contrary, and importantly, in direct response to the longer term prevailing growth of liberalism in those countries.

So far, so un-insightful.

But this idea — that the more one force exerts itself, the more another responds in equal kind — got me thinking. Could it explain not just a basic principle of motion, but a whole load of other cultural phenomena, from the very important to the seemingly insubstantial?

Back to politics for a second.

For many years in the UK until the 1990s, there was a clear choice between the two main parties: Conservatives, who supported traditional values, the middle and upper classes, individual pursuit of wealth and the interests of big business. And Labour, who supported the working class, social institutions and the interests of unions.

Then, with national disgruntlement with both, along came New Labour, led by Tony Blair — a centrist party which took elements of each whilst eschewing the more extreme ideals of both. Fast forward to today and, with the initial embrace (and success) of New Labour long forgotten and many left dismayed with its legacy, we are back to the most left-leaning Labour party since the 80s and a Conservative government that has flirted with a fringe, highly right-wing party in UKIP. The political landscape in Britain has, like Newton’s balls [stop it] in his eponymous cradle, clacked from divergence to centrism and back again.

In the US, a similar pattern has occurred with the comparative centrism (vs traditional party stances) of Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama leading us to the notable success of Trump and Sanders (notable, regardless of whether the more centrist ‘establishment’ candidate Clinton wins). More simply, there is the traditional swing between the successive election of Republican and Democratic Presidents too.

Meanwhile in much of South America, socialist governments dominate where once military juntas reigned. With socialism’s patchy record in many countries there (or rather, the record of corrupt socialist leaders), might we start see a lurch back to the center/center-right, as has happened in Argentina?

Another good example is how generational beliefs are often forged in response to preceding generational ideas, as examined in Strauss and Howe’s work on Generation Theory.

One of its underlying principles is that generational attitudes and behaviors tend to be developed as children in response to parental environment and the prevailing economic and socio-cultural forces of the time. On Millennials for example [and yes, like you, I am weary of the caricature], they observed how their upbeat and engaged outlook contrasted sharply with the downbeat and cynical worldview of the preceding Generation Xers.

Another key pillar of the thinking is the duality of periods of time called Crises and Awakenings with each a reaction to the other (albeit, interspersed as they are by transitional periods called Highs and Unravelings).

What their thinking sets out is not just how generations and corresponding cultural cycles create an opposing set of attitudes and behaviors with each consecutive era, but that these generations are cyclical and thus, can be predicted and planned for.

Less loftily, let’s consider gender roles and fashion.

In the 80s/early 90s we had ‘new man’ — a long-in-the-making reaction to traditional male roles and ideals where men embraced equality, happily talked about their emotions and unashamedly connected with their feminine side.

In the UK, there then followed ‘new lad’ — something of a counter-reaction to the perceived passivity (and emasculation) of new man but also, it is claimed, a reaction to third-wave feminism. New Lads didn’t completely turn the clock back though — whilst they celebrated beer, birds and booze, they were still moisturizing, learning how to cook a Thai Curry and freely hugging one another.

In a sort of parallel, look at one of the prevailing male styles of recent years (and marvel at its durability) — what some call the Lumbersexual. A kind of ur man whose embrace of beards, tattoos, checked shirts, boots and denim harked back to simpler times and simpler definitions of masculinity. While the origins of this trend lie in many places, one could argue it’s a trend that followed (and was something of a reaction to) metrosexuality and its much more clean-cut, dressed-up aesthetic.

Of course, interestingly, the look itself didn’t signal any deeper reversal in gender roles and attitudes (including the basic tenets of metrosexuality). Indeed, proponents of the look are, I’ll wager, as liberal and progressive as they come. But it is interesting how correctives arise every time a cultural idea or trend tips too far in one direction. And it shows that, as mentioned up front, even though some foundational cultural attitudes can be charted in one continuous direction, there can be repeated swings back and forth in how related behaviors manifest themselves.

Looking at the more tangible aspects of visual and entertainment culture, and further examples of new cultural forces seemingly occurring in direct opposition to preceding ones can be found:

• Does the adult coloring-in books craze represent a collective desire to be free of continual stimulation by technology?
• Is the fetish for vintage, color and patterns in interior design a response to austere minimalism?
• Have restaurants embraced simplicity and street food as a response to the endless tasting menus, daubs and statement plating of fine-dining?
• Is the current dominance of female singers a rejoinder to the previous dominance of male groups?
• Has the growth of authentic, relatable social media stars happened because they represent the opposite of the classical notion of unattainable celebrity?
• Is fashion’s current embrace of wide legs and oversized cuts a way of creating distance from years of skinny jeans and fitted looks?

You can probably think of many others. And a real sociologist/cultural anthropologist would no doubt be able to do so far less simplistically and far more profoundly than I’ve done here.

So what’s going on here then?

To be clear, this is more than just a long-winded description of countercultures. Countercultures certainly are direct responses to the mainstream cultural norms. But, by definition, they sit alongside such norms, rather than directly replace them.

To my unscientific eye, I think we are perhaps seeing some fundamental human truths at play.

Firstly, the grass is always greener. Here, we see that is not just an individual reality, but a cultural one too. Culture craves the new and constantly wants to change. Individually and collectively, we bore easily and continually require new stimulation— and what’s more new than an idea that’s the very opposite of what’s gone previously?

Of course, commerce too constantly requires the new. Companies need to continually stimulate their customers, the media and their own people with new products and new ideas in order to generate sales. Apple have inculcated a cultural expectation that all companies, regardless of category, constantly provide a stream of new innovation and upgrades.

Secondly, where substantive things like political and social movements are concerned, my hypothesis is this is partly because, as people who are biased for optimism (ref. Tali Sharot et al), we have grossly over-inflated expectations for how well and how quickly these ideas and movements will work out and then demand the opposite course of action when we are inevitably disappointed in the outcome. And, in an age of instant gratification, we are less patient today than ever before.

That’s why the change candidate always has a natural advantage over the status quo candidate because, regardless of the facts, we assume the change candidate will be better. Such a seductive fallacy partly explains the success of the Brexit vote and may well be the force that puts Trump into power — indeed, it’s hard to imagine a better (and more disconcerting) testament to the power of change for change’s sake were that to occur.

Similarly, it’s well known that if you take a senior position within an agency or other kind of company, you often look to prove your worth by quickly changing a process here, introducing a new initiative there. It doesn’t matter if the changes were necessary or better, it just matters you are seen as an agent of change.

What is also interesting is that the change impulse overrides a contradictory impulse we have as humans to take the easy way out and go along with the status quo. Perhaps the higher the stakes become, and the more that change is about others’ behaviour rather than our own, the greater the desire we have to see it happen?