Ever since time immemorial, every human society had established traditions regulating the relations between men and women because the laissez-faire approach to relationships the West has adopted at the behest of the Sexual Revolution is completely unhuman and dysfunctional.
Humans do not have the constitution to be anarchic, free associating, atomic individuals. Humans are intrinsically social animals born with a psychological profile expectant of being subjected to a societal order that regulates the harmful excesses of our instinctual behaviours.
So much of what we think constitutes a given civilisation is substantially the array of impositions that have been enshrined as traditions for the purpose of curating the social conditions that are most conducive of producing healthy and well-rounded human beings.
This is not to say that every culture’s given set of traditions are infallible or never harmful; humans are not perfect, so naturally the social orders they produce can be flawed in observing traditions that ultimately harm its members.
But before any critical address of these sorts of traditions can be undertaken, it is vital that the cause for why such regulatory traditions were established in the first place is vitally understood and kept consciously central to the address.
The postmodernist critical method responsible for birthing many of this and the last century’s corrosive forces that have caused the rapid breakdown of many established social norms approaches tradition through a doctrinal belief that tradition’s utility is always legitimation.
Any tradition that could be interpreted as defining any sort of power relation between one person and another was immediately identified as a target. No tradition is really given a particular critique because judgement and conclusion is made prior to considering any particular.
Thus traditions concerning sex and relationships were targeted and destroyed, manifest in the Sexual Revolution.
This is not to claim that those norms were without systemic issues, but instead I mean to delineate postmodernism’s critical method from a holistic critical approach.
Though the sex and relational norms we received from the 19th century were not ideal, they nonetheless served their purpose in providing a mostly functional social framework through which men and women could constructively engage that was compliant with our psychology.
By design, postmodernism’s legitimation a priori forces its every criticism to be disinterested in the substance and utility of any particular tradition, instead always criticising traditions and norms in general for being caused by an intention it invented and assigned to them.
As a consequence, application of postmodernist critique will by necessity always be destructive. Its assumptions regarding legitimation makes it fundamentally impossible for postmodernism to produce critiques that don’t conclude in the total dismissal of the subject matter.
This anti-human doctrine reframed the corpus of norms and traditions that had hitherto been essential to providing humans subject to them a constitution compliant with their psychical needs into being the source of all social ills upon no basis but its own mystical assertions.
Social norms and traditions can have flaws that give rise to social ills not because they suppress the ‘natural human’ (it an unconsciously presumed postmodern dialectical a priori that the natural state is the best state), but because they are the product of natural humans.
As already said, the cultural matrix of traditions and norms serve to order the animal into a social person that has their biological and psychical needs accounted for. This means often regulating and structuring the manner by which we relate to others within our societies.
In cases, this matrix may absorb certain harmful characteristics owing to its being the product of the animal it is attempting to organise into order. This can cause it to have excesses of instinct that have been externalised into traditional institutions.
These ills are not the product of having “too much” tradition, but on the contrary, derive from the lack of developed tradition. They are primitive excesses of the natural human, causal of social ills because tradition has stalled in its development towards addressing it.
The postmodernist’s race towards destroying tradition for sake of bringing us back to the natural human doesn’t lead to remedying latent social ills, but instead exacerbates them. No more clearly can the truth of this be found than in the state of relations between men and women.
The effective total eradication of every traditional norm that once existed to regulate relationships between men and women makes contemporary dating a postmodern ideal: all mutual obligations are gone, expectations are self-originated, every relationship must self-organise.
This chaotic environment is totally alien to the human. As already stated, humans as a social animal are not psychically wired to self-originate its own social conduct, but rather to receive from society the manner of its social conduct.
Forcing humans to fall back onto their instinct has given rise to behaviours in both men and women that are significantly dysfunctional and unconducive of healthy relationships. The base human simply does not possess intrinsic the means to self-originate healthy behaviours alone.
By drawing their behavioural approach to relationships and sex from instinct, men and women often adopt an inherently solipsistic view that invariably attracts harm to themselves or does harm upon others they engage with.
Lacking anything to bridge the inherent experiential chasm between the sexes that gives rise to so much misunderstanding and harm, negative attitudes run rampant and cynicism towards the opposite sex easily takes hold. Success in this environment is made rarer and rarer.
The contemporary idea of needing to become “experienced” and “mature” within the context of dating is a product of this. It is only through the painful and often traumatic forge of failed relationships that anyone properly begins to learn what tradition should have told them.
Hence the compounding deficit of successful relationships, the collapse in births, the aging demographic of singles, the treadmill of heartbreaks so many suffer, and the catastrophic state of relations between the sexes.