Rating: 
Summary: Correction to review by Steele
Review: Steele believes that 50 million Cultural Creatives can not be 26% of all Americans, and that's right. They're 26% of ADULT Americans. The data is from 14 years of surveys on the values and lifestyles of adults. You cannot do values surveys on children, so we don't make any generalizations about them. 26% of 193 million adults, at the time of surveys really is 50 million people, just over one in four adults.Believe me, the evidence is not overstated. :-) Paul H. Ray, co-author of The Cultural Creatives.
Rating:
Summary: Correction to review by Steele
Review: Steele believes that Cultural Creatives are not 26% of Americans, and that's right. They're 26% of ADULT Americans. The data is from 14 years of surveys on the values and lifestyles of adults. You cannot do surveys on children. 26% of 193 million adults, at the time of surveys really is 50 million people, just over one in four adults. Believe me, the evidence is not overstated. :-) Paul H. Ray, co-author of The Cultural Creatives.
Rating: 
Summary: Destroy the World with the best of intentions?
Review: The authors posit that "cultural creatives" are those "progressive/tolerant of all but intolerance" saints with the best of intentions that merely need to gather all together to usher in a new age of near-perfection on earth. I shudder in fear at the prospect. Social "creativity" in the abstract works two possible ways: 1) when we expand notions of freedom for the individual choosing how or how not to participate in society; and 2) when we expand the "freedom" of that society to act on individuals for the public's (or their own?) good. Have "culturally creative" people made mistakes, sometimes dreadful, in both areas? Absolutely. "Soviet Culture", "Maoist Culture", Margaret Mead's "finding" (completely phony) joyous innocence and freedom in primitive cultures, "serial" "music", Freudian dream analysis, and abstract expressionism are but a few examples of once-creative individual ventures now largely deemed 20th century intellectual dead-ends. "The great Soviet social experiment", Mao's "Cultural" Revolution, ad nauseum, were in fact "socially creative experiments" so profoundly immoral that hundreds of millions of human lives were ended...or merely wasted. In contrast, Albert Schweitzer was a genuine cultural creative, who believed one should both teach and serve, yet NEVER interfere with how people, families, tribes, and nations of all races and levels of technology lived their individual and collective lives. He was not one who believes any society has an absolute right to mandate tolerance, to be intolerant of intolerance...and to make all people play nice all together. Schweitzer had a personal view OF the world, not a new "world-view" for ALL to "share". One should always remember NO writer has ever used the phrase "world-view"...as much as Hitler. Now, when one thinks about "cultural creatives" in the 21st century, one can hardly imagine them NOT eventually taking the children of the authors' so-called "Traditionalists" away (by societal force if necessary) to prevent them from being taught any "spiritual inauthenticity" (a.k.a. "hateful intolerance") at home. They would probably identify such kidnappings as "pre-emptive social justice", so their "social consciences" might then rest easy. Are such cultural creatives really possessors of any notable ETERNAL values?...Sorry, no saints here!
Rating:
Summary: There's danger on the edge of town....
Review: The authors posit that millions of "fellow travelers" could, in essence, take control of social development in the United States simply by recognizing they "are all in it together". I hate to remind folks, but this is exactly the same mantra (scripted by Stalin himself) the CPUSA used in the 30s. "Fellow travelers", indeed! What the authors seem to have forgotten is that basic human needs often fundamentally conflict. MOST people want to: 1) excel in one area or another of life; 2) contribute to society; AND 3) live free. MOST "cultural creatives" seem perfectly happy to limit the third, essential freedom in all areas of life, if it does not coincide with the first two. For example, should a 21st century parent be "permitted" to teach their OWN kids "racism", "abuse of the environment", "gun use", "meat-eating", religious "intolerance", "homophobia", etc.? Most cultural creatives would say "No, of course not! Forbid under penalty of imprisonment home schooling that doesn't follow approved curricula!...WE will educate THEIR children properly", "forbid at the point of a gun (or a spear or a court order!) hate speech"...and so on. Consider that in Unholy Mother Russia, anyone who wanted to could indeed have: 1) excelled in one area of life or another; AND 2) contributed to society. What a glorious place!...But what they could NOT do was live free, free fundamentally of the crass "concerns" of any so-called "cultural creatives"!!
Rating: 
Summary: Cultural Creative Overreach
Review: The authors, through surveys and interviews conducted over a number of years, have identified three primary subcultures in the U.S.: Traditionals, Moderns, and Cultural Creatives. The authors focus on the Creatives: who they are, and their current and hoped-for potential impacts on the broader culture. Of particular interest to the authors is the impact of Creatives on the issue of ecological sustainability. The authors regard half of adults in America (100 million) as Moderns. They generally accept the constantly changing, materialistic culture operated and promoted by big business. Much of modern culture seems to be value-free as it revolves around science, technology, growth, speed, and efficiency. The marketplace has largely taken over the lives of moderns: it unabashedly breaks community ties and, in essence, defines people through their consumption and employment. Moderns range from advantaged business executives to the lower middle class adversely affected by globalizing business strategies. Traditionals, on the other hand, have been largely bypassed by modernism. The 48 million traditionals tend to be older and rural-based with low incomes and limited education and are a group in decline. Their culture is based on time-worn, shared community values and is often orally transmitted to future generations. Traditionals are appealed to by affluent elements of both business and social conservatives, although many traditionals are not pro-business or anti-environment. The principal contention of the authors is that since the 1960s, 50 million Americans have shifted their "worldview, values, and way of life" sufficiently to form a distinct subculture: the Cultural Creatives. They are defined by both disenchantment with the materialism and fragmentation of modernism and an interest in personal growth, authenticity, and experience. A "core" element of 24 million adults dominated by women and consisting of a variety of artists, professionals, alternative health-care providers, and feminists are oriented toward personal growth and spirituality. Creatives, more broadly, have only an average interest in spirituality and person-centered values and are more focused on the environment and broader social issues. The authors suggest that the Creatives arose from the civil rights and anti-war movement of the 60s and such movements as feminism and environmentalism. Those movements succeeded partly because Americans were forced to confront the fact that American "principles of general equality, personal freedom, justice, civil rights, and representative democracy" were being unfairly applied. The authors contend that those movements are having an impact far beyond visible leaders and supporters by feeding the longings and hopes of the greater population. More recent Creatives reject large institutions, both social and political, and have turned to New Ageism, holistic approaches, and developing and understanding one's self. A primary agenda of the authors, beyond identification of social groups, is to press for the need of redirecting the economy and the broader culture in directions that will sustain the environment. The recommendations of several environmental experts include such measures as increasing efficiency, decreasing waste, recycling both natural and man-made materials, and stopping the destruction of Nature. One of the more interesting ideas is the recycling of durable products, where durable products are leased, instead of being owned, with businesses being required to take back and recycle their products. Of course, current reality is for businesses to pass the consequences of environmental destruction onto the public. Interestingly, businesses have arisen to supply the alternative needs of Cultural Creatives in such areas as organic foods, various self-help or experiential endeavors, etc. Of course, some resent the intrusion of business principles in a movement that rejects greed and profit. Resentment or not, these businesses have had an imperceptible impact on the general direction of the business community. The authors are optimistic that the advent of Cultural Creatives bodes well for "an evolutionary surge to a new level" of cultural development and economic transformation where ecological sustainability has become a reality. However, the authors acknowledge that the growth of the Creative subculture is barely recognized, even among themselves. The various media underreport their activities and their social influence. For one, as stated, many Creatives are simply unseen. Secondly, the successes of earlier movements in integrating schools, registering voters, limiting nuclear arms, and setting environmental standards have made those agendas old news. And thirdly, as the authors indicate, advertiser-driven bias is a factor in news coverage. It's hard to conceive of a group flying below the radar having much public influence. In addition, the authors applaud the eschewing of politics and pressure groups by Creatives. They point out that involvement in the political process often involves compromises or the watering down of agendas, which is anathema to Creatives. But the authors do concede that many activists believe that "political protest is what really counts in changing society." The authors also contend that Creatives "are no more liberal or conservative than most Americans." Yet it is acknowledged that the Creatives "reject the intolerance and narrowness of social conservatives and the Religious Rights." It would seem that any group that would attempt to limit the prerogatives of big business would have to do so from the left. Of course, a central view of the authors is that the Creatives will infiltrate the hearts and minds of Americans and thereby indirectly achieve their agenda: "concerns for the planet, for ecology, and for spirituality will become as normal and natural as motherhood and apple pie." There seems to be a lot to question about this book. There is really no hard-core evidence presented that convinces the reader that there are 50 million Cultural Creatives. And even if so, their inward turn, their individual pursuits, and their apolitical stance make society-wide transformations, led by Creatives, seem unlikely. The U.S. culture and politics have made a rightward turn over the last decade. Again, where are the Creatives and what is their political influence? Despite their optimism, in the end, the authors see the U.S. as "muddling through" the excesses of modernism. It may even be that instead of shifting towards the Creatives, Moderns need to develop sharper and more critical insight into their material and business dominated world.
Rating:
Summary: A divisive belief system with weak supporting arguments
Review: The book is interesting, but obviously superficial. I'm always underwhelmed when people make categorical lists that always add up to 3, 7, 10 or 11. Why are there never 23 categories, for example? I can think of/make up another ten (or 7 or 3 or 11) categories to place other people into and this book doesn't even touch them. The thesis of the book, therefore, is a classic straw man argument - in other words, it avoids difficult questions and deeper analysis in favor of the easily digestible dish that is this book. Some of us might read this only to be amused at the authors' ignorance of cultural anthropology. The authors ignore the conditions and motives that result in the deep drives of all of humanity; motives and conditions that are common to all people throughout the world, in favor of their own weakly supported categorical definitions. In short, the book ignores the big picture and ironically ignores the motives behind making such a book in the first place, which would have been deeply relevant to the topic of the book, and inescapable to a more serious author. I won't go into detail on the fact that the book is clearly US centric and therefore highly limited in geographical, societal and cultural scopes as well, since, with such a lightweight and superficial thesis, one could hardly expect such a scope to unfold from these pages. Alternatively, I recommend reading Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death" and "Escape from Evil" to gain access to a greater and deeper perspective on the human condition. His synthesis of Rank, Freud and Brown, along with his own deep research on the human condition will make this book appear laughable.
Rating: 
Summary: Hope for a Brighter Future
Review: The Cultural Creatives describes the great social transformation that has already started and the people who are making it happen (a majority of whom are women, no surprise to me!) I'm definitely a CC. What is astonishing is that so many people share the new values and new way of life without realizing there are millions of others who are like us. This is a truly fascinating and enlightening study of American culture in the process of change.
You will come away with hope for a brighter future as we cope with this difficult transition to a saner, wiser culture. We women must lead the way.
Rating: 
Summary: Advocacy, not sociology
Review: This book claims to be an objective piece of sociology, but it's actually an infomercial for the authors' positions. It's a smug, self-congratulatory recruiting tract.
Rating:
Summary: Informative, but stops short
Review: This book is a great step in establishing this segment of our society as a legitimate, thriving, and influential subculture.
Their opinion research provides the most informative information about three major segments of our culture. As a Cultural Creative, I found I knew most of what they discussed already, except that there are more of us out there than I thought. This is inspiring and hopeful. In my opinion, the authors could have stopped after the first eight chapters, as after that it lacked depth, and overemphasized an overview format coupled with what some people might see as "woo wooey" ways of describing the transition to becoming a CC. Not that creative and spiritual descriptions and parallels can't be effective--in this book the authors just seemed to try too hard to do this, thus they lost their impact. I also wanted to learn about regular people who have made the transition (e.g., how have people really left the Modernist camp --for good?). The authors only described a few accomplished people they knew personally. If they had taken us into the lives of more everyday people, they could have made this part of the book more accessible more to "joe" readers inside and outside the CC camp. Overall it is a descriptive piece, and not one that takes on solutions to more powerfully integrating this segment into our culture. Also--I would like to know what the book is made of--how much, if any, recycled content is there in the cover and pages in the trade paper and hardback? Soy based inks? In the production of this work, did they walk their own talk? In my observation, many people want to be CC's, and might describe their attitudes as such, but in the end, actions (no matter how small) speak louder than words.
Rating:
Summary: Changing the Dream of Success
Review: This book is a must read for anyone attempting to be a conscious traveller on this journey we call life. Especially if you ever have questioned the definition of success in America (more money, material goods, etc.) and wondered if the tradeoffs were worth it (stress, time starvation, lack of work/life balance), this book is for you. Modernism laid out a dream that most of us have bought, at some point or another. If you follow the formula society provides, you will end up with "the good life": get the college diploma; land the corporate job; buy the suburban home and the two nice cars; acquire multiple promotions/titles and ever-appreciating stock options; save a bundle for retirement and put your kids through college and you will be HAPPY. While this promise may have worked well at one point in our history (during the era of the "organization man") we live in a different and ever changing world today. We are literally as a society re-creating our blueprint for work, and therefore the blueprint for our lives...except most of us don't realize it yet. Work has lost its meaning and satisfaction for over 50% of Americans today. The majority of our illnesses are "lifestyle" illnesses, with direct or indirect linkages to stress. And, simply put, people are just plain worn out-- physically tired and tired of missing their families, their free time, their community involvement and their creative expression (art, music, hobbies, etc.) The ways we live and work in America are not healthy or sustainable, and as Dan Pink shows so eloquently in a book called Free Agent Nation, millions have already opted to recreate their work and lives in ways that work for THEM. Tossing out the "formula", people are choosing the freedom that comes with being the leaders of their own lives, based on their own personal definitions of success and the good life. Ray and Anderson make a significant contribution in that they take what can (on the surface level) be viewed as a very individualistic trend and bring us up a level to a broader social lens. While the kind of job/life that a young unmarried, no children, entrepreneur is creating for herself may look very different from a middle-age, married with kids, telecommuting executive, perhaps at the core of our humanity, we are actually pursuing similar things. If we are Cultural Creatives, it is likely that we are both seeking our unique paths to similar goals, such as: a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives; doing work that makes a difference in the world; creating a personal connection to the natural world and protecting its resources as a society; valuing and celebrating diverse cultures and perspectives; and pursuing deep personal and even spirtual growth. Ray and Anderson's gift is that they provide in one text and in a relatively accessible way a true gold-mine of information regarding our evolution as human beings(at both sociological and psychological levels)and the world we are creating as a result. Back when I taught Introductory Sociology, we often used an overview text book to allow students to see the new landscape we were trying to help them discover. The Cultural Creatives is just such a book -- I highly recommend it as a jumping off point for any of us seeking to recreate our lives and work. I rated the book 4 stars because it is so packed with information, the density and style of writing requires you to work a bit to absorb it all (though it is well worth the time and energy). For those who want to graduate from this overview book to reading directly the work of the some of the key thought leaders in human development, I highly recommend Peter Russell's Waking Up in Time or A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilbur.
|
