America’s 21st Century Cultural Crisis
Just as World War I exposed the vulnerabilities of the old international order before the tumultuous Crisis era of the Great Depression and World War II, the 9/11 attacks and the dot-com recession in 2001 revealed cracks in America’s foundations of national security and economic stability. These came on top of the “Culture War” battles of the 1980s and 1990s, which had already stirred debates over the country’s values. The surge of patriotism after 9/11 was accompanied by a rise in xenophobia, challenging the nation’s “melting pot” traditions. At the same time, increased government and private surveillance in the name of homeland security challenged longstanding principles of individual liberty.
During this end of the Unraveling from 2001 and 2007, the economy appeared robust, driven by rapid housing market growth and easy credit, which many saw as signs of prosperity. However, these developments masked underlying economic vulnerabilities. The ongoing War on Terror fueled a rise in xenophobia and nationalism, as fears of terrorism and economic instability led to a resurgence of conservative movements advocating for stricter immigration policies and a more isolationist foreign stance.
Like the Crisis period that led to WWII, our current Crisis period was entered through an economic collapse, which unfolded into the Great Recession. Amid widespread financial distress, a wave of discontent propelled voters to abandon the incumbent Republican Party, resulting in the election of Barack Obama. Obama’s victory, emblematic of a desire for change and hope, also amplified the nation’s partisan tensions. As his administration implemented sweeping reforms, such as the Affordable Care Act and financial regulatory measures, it faced vehement opposition from conservative factions. This resistance crystallized in movements like the Tea Party, which opposed what they perceived as government overreach and championed nationalist and fiscally conservative values. The resulting polarization not only exacerbated societal divides but also set the stage for the intense political conflicts that would define the following decade.
The rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009 epitomized a growing frustration with the perceived expansion of government and its fiscal irresponsibility, rallying against issues like health care reform, tax increases, and federal bailouts. These tensions became more pronounced during the Obama administration’s second term, which brought fierce battles over immigration, gun control, and the role of government in socio-economic inequalities.
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 further magnified these divides; his populist, nationalist rhetoric resonated with many who felt left behind by globalization and economic shifts, but it also sparked fierce resistance from progressive factions.
As is the societal nature of a Crisis stage, from the nation’s entry into this Crisis period, political polarization has continually increased, with debates over immigration, race and racial justice, climate change and the integrity of democratic institutions remaining highly contentious.
Society at an Impasse
In a nation that has passed through an Awakening phase that undermined the old values, and an Unraveling phase that eroded the institutions built on those values, all contemporary ideologies about what should define the nation’s singular mainstream dominant culture come to meet at an impasse with intense levels of partisan conflict.
Strauss and Howe’s “Turnings” model of history tells us that this impasse has only ever been resolved through a socially engulfing event that forces a change in priorities and values for everyone.
For example, midway through the 19th century, a 22 year “Unraveling” period had split the country into a highly partisan north/south divide with irresolvable differences over the legacies of the past, the economics of the present and the values needed for the future. An event of brief but intense self-destruction erupted to force a new majority and mainstream (though still deeply contested) consensus about the direction society would take.
Midway through the second decade of the 21st century, we have once again moved from a long societal Unraveling into the beginning of a Crisis stage with hyper-partisan entrenchment around deeply divergent views of America’s legacy, present governance, and the nation’s future.
Today, in the concentration of ideologies at the poles, we have a “left” pole that stands for secular ethics governing meritocratic institutions, guiding a progressive and pluralist nation with collective and cooperative aims for a globally involved society. And we have a “right” pole that stands for a diminished “establishment” of government and specialists, with Christian morals governing individual rights within a nationalist society guided by traditionalist and nativist priorities advanced through individualistic and competitive values. There are many individuals who overlap in some areas between these poles, but there is also a persistent sense that society must choose a side.
A Social Crisis Squared
For many people, their entrenched partisan points of view are part of their personal identities. In some part, what they believe is essential to who they understand themselves to be. This is obviously true of personal religious faith, but it is also true of political philosophical beliefs in the value question of unregulated markets or consumer protections. Or in the question of unregulated industry or environmental protections. Or of reduced personal taxes or public social programs. Or of unquestioning patriotic loyalty to the institutions of traditional law and order or an examination of the potential for systematic biases in justice. Or in whether buying a higher education should be required to afford the traditional middle class life.
Personal belief systems have always informed identity. But in this social Crisis, a revolution in the sharing and reinforcement of personal opinions has been gasoline to the fire.
Since the launch of Facebook and Twitter in 2007, algorithms have ensured that individuals predominantly encounter information that engages them by either getting them upset, or by reinforcing their existing beliefs, reinforcing partisan divides. These algorithms were initially designed to increase user engagement but inadvertently came to foster echo chambers that isolate users from diverse viewpoints.
Because it has no editorial checks, social media has played a pivotal role in the propagation of disinformation on a wide range of critical topics, shaping public perception and policy debates in profound ways.
One significant area of disinformation has fed the growing appeal of authoritarian governance. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been used to paint a rosy picture of authoritarian regimes, emphasizing their supposed efficiency, economic growth, and stability while conveniently ignoring human rights abuses and the suppression of dissent. Kremlin-backed media outlets and Russian trolls have been particularly active in promoting the attractiveness of strongman leadership, aiming to undermine democratic institutions and promote authoritarianism as a viable alternative. This concerted effort has been instrumental in eroding trust in democratic processes and institutions globally.
Social media posts and shared articles dismissing the scientific consensus contribute to public skepticism about the urgency of addressing climate change. Additionally, misleading posts and conspiracy theories have suggested that natural disasters like droughts, floods, and superstorms are either exaggerated or manipulated events designed to push specific political agendas. These narratives create confusion about the real and present dangers posed by climate change. The resulting public ambivalence hampers the implementation of necessary policies to mitigate the growing frequency and severity of catastrophic weather events.
The COVID-19 pandemic was another focal point for rampant disinformation on social media. From the onset of the crisis, platforms were flooded with false information regarding the origins of the virus, the efficacy of preventive measures like masks and social distancing, and the safety of vaccines. Conspiracy theories, such as the idea that COVID-19 was deliberately created or spread by certain governments for geopolitical gain, have sowed mistrust and hesitancy. These narratives, often propagated by individuals with large followings or by coordinated bot networks, have significantly impacted public health efforts, resulting in lower vaccination rates and the perpetuation of the pandemic.
The Dream of Technological Escape From A Social Nightmare
These topics that engender such deep feeling and active engagement in social media do so because they could all lead to the critical event that marks the climax of our societal crisis.
We have seen the potential for disease to spread into a global pandemic, and a disease or biological agent far more deadly than COVID-19 could be out there looking for its chance to incapacitate and perhaps kill a large portion of the global population. There is the ever-present threat that wars in Ukraine and the Middle East could escalate into Nuclear Winter. There are an increasing number of catastrophic weather events, from droughts to floods to superstorms taking their toll on more and larger geographic areas. There is the rapid emergence of Artificial Intelligence, and an increasing reliance on digital technology and networks, which makes us prone to harm from our own advances in technology. And there is a growing appeal of authoritarian governance, which coupled with increasing disinformation, could lead to declaration of hostilities against enemies of the governing ideology, and/or an entrenchment of an autocratic system of governance through power versus democratic consent.
If the seed of a social crisis event resides in one of these, could our American ingenuity engineer it away before it reaches the impact of another World War?
Technologists celebrate humanity’s long history of engineering solutions to the issues of the past, and see in this a certainty that we are now too smart and too advanced to succumb to a socially upending crisis before we engineer a solution. And it is indeed likely that many of the threats listed above will be addressed by investment in technology and engineering ingenuity. Engineering and economic investment will certainly find ways to continue to make life better, more convenient and more comfortable for increasing numbers of the global population.
But that is no guarantee that we can avoid a societally upending crisis. In the 1930s, humanity was engineering technologies that radically changed the way we had lived for thousands of years before then. This era saw remarkable advancements in various fields including transportation, communication, medicine, and electronics.
For example, the discovery and mass production of antibiotics, such as penicillin, set the stage for a revolution in healthcare, drastically reducing mortality rates from bacterial infections. Additionally, advancements in medical imaging and surgical techniques began to expand the horizons of what was medically possible.
The widespread implementation of electrification and indoor plumbing transformed daily life for millions. Rural electrification programs brought electric power to isolated areas, allowing for the use of electrical appliances that simplified household chores, improved farm productivity, and enhanced overall quality of life. Similarly, the expansion of indoor plumbing provided cleaner and more reliable water sources, as well as modern sanitation facilities, which had a profound impact on public health and convenience.
These medical and technological advancements laid the groundwork for the modern infrastructure we rely on today. And yet, despite technology’s incredible advances, the decade of the 1930s ended with an unforeseen stock market crash, a critical environmental disaster (the dust bowl), and an ensuring economic depression that shattered the lives of millions and upended society, and that all the prior advances in technology could do nothing to avoid.
Like an economic bubble that pops to cause a crash, the very nature of a crisis is that we do not see it coming, and thus can not avoid it. This is exactly what makes it a crisis. If Strauss and Howe are correct in their evaluation of history’s patterns, our current societal crisis requires a catalyzing event to move through to the rebuilding of a new culture. We can only hope that the event we can’t exactly anticipate does not involve the physical destruction of our world beyond our imagination.
