What the hell is a "traditional value"?

[grenadier32]

I have a problem with advocacy for "traditional values".

It's not because I think what the phrase describes are inherently bad. Nor is it simply because "times have changed", and that they're outdated, society isn't what it was before, etc. It's because the phrase has no meaning whatsoever. What does it mean

Comments

[roosacoffeejew]

I concur.

But wouldn't it have been more prudent to bring up this point, say, during the (vice)presidential debates? Not that it's no longer a phrase people use or something, but the idea of "traditional values" was practically Palin's platform.

[samjolnir]

I don't know you, but I love your icon.

[sniffnoy]

Also these people tend to have a noticeably *short* idea of "tradition"... it seems to just mean "whatever I'm used to".

[myopian8]

"Traditional values" means retaining positions on social issues that has been in practice for many years already. It's intentionally vague, because it's just meant to imply conservativism: saying that you have "traditional values" means that you have a conservative system of values probably based on the traditions that you were raised with. "Traditional" is a sort of sleight-of-hand. Rather than saying "stereotypically American," in other words racist and sexist, you can say "traditional." For most people, "traditional" will mean "racist and sexist" (though of course they wouldn't use those terms).

Really, it's honest for nearly anyone to say they have "traditional" values. A lot of your values come from the traditions in your family. As a result, you have many elements of traditional Jewish values and liberal social and political values; I have many conservative political values and liberal social ones that I learned from my parents and peers. And so on and so forth.

[grenadier32]

Unfortunately, that very vagueness, intentional or not, makes the term basically worthless when used to describe a wider societal context. Yes, I have my "traditional values" and you have yours, but because we wouldn't be able to agree on what they are, I see no point in bringing it up as a point to advocate.

[samjolnir]

I think it's Chomsky who makes a point very similar to this one when exploring how modern governing bodies use carefully-crafted and purposefully vague rhetoric in order to sway large unthinking groups of the populace towards their worldview. The example he gives is "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS," which works wonderfully.

Ask someone "Do you support the troops?" and they'll always answer in the affirmative (unless they're me), even though it's never actually clarified what kind of "support" is being given at all. That's why accusing someone of not "supporting the troops" was such an effective tactic in the run-up to Iraq II, as American culture lionizes the military and stresses military conquest as a virtue. By not lending your "support," you were placing OUR BOYS in danger - you know, as if Pvt. Cletus Bigot from Bumfuck, Alabama was directly affected by your lack of enthusiasm for American military operations.