The OP’s topic implies that we have “lost” something that was once there. I’d like to revisit a discussion I introduced awhile back entitled: “Does Anyone Else Remember the Golden Age of Audio Insults and Product Degradation?” This was a short walk down memory lane to the fiercely competitive world of “specialty audio” of the late 60’s and early 70’s where nuanced and respectful references to manufacturer’s brand names were bent, folded and mutilated (USPS terms) and replaced with “creative” terminologies designed to deliver maximum damage to the brand. I can also recall my visits to the local audio stores as a young audio enthusiast where one dealer was referred to by another as “Crazy Herb.” I was told by another that my Sansui speakers weren’t worth the postage it took to get them here from Japan. And, how could I forget? “Yeah, that’s a good speaker. As long as you don’t try to play music through it!!” It seems each generation has a strong compulsion to own something. Our generation was pretty good at slinging insults at our adversaries.
But, I do believe we’ve reached another level of intensity where “light and airy” have been replaced by something so much more substantive and kinetic that their effects can be measured on the Richter Scale. How we got from “there” to “here” is complex.
Back in the 60s, we were introduced to “ideologies.” These were how we felt about certain things. We may have disagreed with someone quite emphatically. But at the end of the day, we still liked each other. It’s been said that we reached an intellectual peak during this period. Very smart people saying very smart things. Statements that appealed to the goodness within us and challenged us to take ourselves, and our society to a higher place. Logical arguments were presented by logical people. And, challenged by logical people. And there was some agreement to try to actually solve the problems of the day.
Fast forward to today and, yes, “ideology” is still an active part of our vocabularies. But, “ideology” has been demoted, and upgraded to “identity”. While “ideology” may describe how we feel about something, “identity” is who we ARE. So, it’s no longer fashionable to be “passionate” or “highly committed”. Now we must be all in on a position. Deeply vested. 100% saturated. Unshakable. “IT” equals “US.” No wiggle room, or variations in translation. This all seems fine and good on the surface. Until we look at the “other side.” It’s no longer just an “ideology” for them, either. It is their “identity”, through and through. Whatever “IT” is, we don’t like it. And we don’t like them – because “they” ARE the “thing” we despise. This is the textbook definition of “division” where we have little interest in recognizing those differences, extending courtesy, opening a dialog, respecting other viewpoints, finding common ground, or acknowledging the humanity sitting across from us.
Back in the 50’s, a gentleman introduced the concept of “The Theorem of Stable Datum.” In essence: If you want to rock someone’s world, take those unshakable “truths” that they hold dear and destroy them. When their world collapses beneath their feet, they literally don’t have a leg to stand on and can’t present much of an argument to defend themselves. Right, or wrong, we’ve become quite good at this. The price of admission here is that we turned each other into punching bags, where an “opinion” becomes an “ideology” and “ideology” becomes “identity”, and someone’s value as a human being is invalidated because they don’t think like “us.” So, you’re not challenging their ideas. You’re challenging them. And it gets very personal. We don’t always show our best side under these circumstances.
I used to attend technical training sessions in different parts of the country. Invariable, when group discussions started there was always a race to establish who is the SGR (Smartest Guy in the Room). Then there were those who wanted to “hold class”. “Hey, you guys. Let’s gather over here, and I’ll tell you what you need to know about <subject>.” Its no coincidence that when discussions on forums become “lively” the “SGRs” come out to play. They say “you can’t blame a compass for pointing north”. And you can’t blame an SGR for trying to be … well … the SGR.
So, I would say lack of “civility” has been an integral part of the audiophile community since Day One. It’s just gotten a lot more personal, which raises the stakes a lot higher. Being on the losing end of a conversation isn’t much fun these days.
