America’s Future: Major Social Changes

By Jose Martinez

Large-scale social changes are taking place in American society, often even without technological change. America’s Future examines these transformations. An introduction lays the groundwork for five of the most significant areas where social changes are occurring: population, politics, education, economics, and media. An underlying theme emphasizes what is specifically driving these changes. There are reasons why what is transpiring today is very different than before and what such portends for the future. Our lives are notably changing, though most are unaware how.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academica Press
• Release date: Sep 7, 2023
• ISBN: 9781680538427

Book preview

Cover: America’s Future, Major Social Changes by Jose Martinez, Ph.D.

America’s Future: Major Social Changes

Jose Martinez, Ph.D.

Academica Press

Washington~London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.

Names: Martinez, Jose (author)

Title: America’s future : major social changes | Martinez, Jose.

Description: Washington : Academica Press, 2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2023940846 | ISBN 9781680538410 (hardcover) | 9781680538427 (ebook)

Copyright 2023 Jose Martinez

Dedicated to

Chuy,

Exemplifying the Best in Life

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1

Population

Chapter 2

Politics

Chapter 3

Education

Chapter 4

Economic Factors

Chapter 5

The Media

Conclusion

Index

Introduction

Some of the major social changes which are occurring will be examined. The focus is on what American society is experiencing, though references will be made as needed to social changes which are occurring throughout much of the world. Very significantly, all this will shed light on the future of society.

My background is extensive in regard to social change and related factors. I have written other books on topics with hundreds of sources cited in those writings. This book is in a way a distillation of my studies, of what I have previously written and documented extensively already for over three decades in academia. My full academic majors comprise history, education, psychology, and sociology up through the doctorate and I have taught in such fields at various universities up to and including at the graduate level.

The reason it is incumbent upon us to know what is going on and to know what to expect tomorrow is because we need to understand ourselves and others. This is in the social sense and not strictly the personal one. Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Greg Abbott, and Ron DeSantis were not on everybody’s lips twenty years ago and likely will not be in another twenty. However, their base was there already and evolving, and will evolve again in some other way in twenty or more years and even more energetically so, the greater the desperation and anxiety increases as it has and will continue to do so.

Some judicial decisions in Florida and elsewhere nevertheless demarcate the limits of such a political base, and the eventual failure of the latter. This signals an upcoming future social change which will become clearer in society as a logical outcome to much of what has been going on recently.

What is clear now, as an example, is that the ubiquitous Marjorie Taylor Greene was not on any radar of any significance even three years ago. In her case she is a creation of the media for her foibles and idiosyncrasies in order to sell soap, so to speak, or more crassly, make a profit, at the public’s expense and the public’s loss.

For the moment, the above personalizations illustrate the cherished Great Man theory (notice that this has not been referred to in everyday history books as the Great Woman or Person, notwithstanding Time magazine’s Person of the Year award). Supposedly Winston Churchill or John Kennedy made all the difference in the world and supposedly the world would be very different without them, not to mention Hitler or Saddam making an impact later on in the negative sense, but still individualizing.

The fact of the matter is that others in their stead then or before or now may have been a little worse or a little better, but there would be someone in their stead and the world still be turning as it always does. Someone, as another example would have been in the place of Caesar or Plato, then or later. The Great Man theory loses plausibility as soon as the individual emphasis deflates. Basically, these individuals and others, including women other than the Great Men, would not quite have been able to lead or whatever else without their base.

In other words, it is not pleasant to point out that Hitler was the problem in World War II, but the fact of the matter is that the German people were themselves more directly responsible for what transpired. It is likewise a fact that the Japanese at the time supported Hirohito and were responsible more than him for what happened.

There is almost no one person who can force millions to do what he or she wants. Even Jim Jones did not force the hundreds of his sect to commit suicide who had gone to South America . In the latter case there were a number of his followers who did not do as he said and there were some of his followers who had to shoot other followers who were not doing as Jones commanded them. Of those who poisoned themselves, many have done so reluctantly, particularly when they poisoned their own children (thus the young children didn’t commit suicide per se).

While some cult leaders may be more likely to command many of their followers to follow them, the cult followers have numbered a whole lot less than millions in numbers. Even the cult leader Reverend Moon did not command all his followers to marry those he designated, as is thought, and these also numbered much less than millions in his Unification Church.

The media currently uses the term influencers as if these make all that much difference in the world. Come back in ten years or even less and they likely will not be around. It is a catchy term, though, individualizing the influencers instead of looking at the base or followers who were there ready for the pickings.

Even Oprah is almost nonexistent now in the news, but was splashed everywhere in the media not long. She still tries to keep relevant with an interview of the British Royals (who are no longer all that Royal anymore), for example, while the latter have declined in being splashed by the media everywhere one turned recently. More on Oprah later.

Great Man theorization is a problem because of society’s focus on them and not on the forces at work in society at the time (people in general in a number of ways), or before or now. It is easier and takes less effort and resources to focus on an individual or two or three. Schools in particular memorialize the individualistic Great Men/Women. Of those who supposedly are successful, particularly in the economic sense, it is underscored that if a person (individual) tries hard enough like such individuals did, one can be successful, too. If not, it is your own fault and don’t look at the circumstances around you. That is termed blaming the victim, and more on that later as well. Blaming the victim serves a purpose, as will be examined.

This book wrote itself because of what is already out there in plain sight, but i obfuscated on purpose. Namely, there are many who seek to maintain their privilege, pretending that they have earned it, at the expense of others in order not to help others.

It should be clear to Christians that Christianity emphasizes doing for others in society (especially the poor) and by that measure alone the great majority in society are not too Christian, including many of the poor who do not emphasize doing for others, the message they learn from society. Those who individualize others therefore do not follow the person when it comes to Christ, or they too would be following that particular individual in, say, overturning the tables of the moneychangers.

Furthermore, ministers and priests on Sundays and every day in following Christ would be emphasizing that it is more likely that a camel go through the eye of a needle than a rich man go to heaven. The ministers and priests should articulate what Jesus said was the second most important thing of all (other than worshipping God): to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If they focused on that, pastors would lose their congregations along and their monies.

Most interesting is that so-called Christians do everything else but the only two most important things that Jesus as a singular person commanded them to do. The reason they do everything else is simple: the circumstances determine what they do much more so than any one person per se in general does, notwithstanding who that individual is.

Likewise in other religions, such as what Buddha emphasized. It is unlikely that Buddhists around the world will be doing only or even primarily that what he said, namely that they want to possess what their desires, even though Buddha said we should de-emphasize such desires.

The promulgation of renouncing the world that some individual religious leader commands is unlikely to be followed by even one percent of those who supposedly follow that leader of a major religion. Christ and other religious leaders have said that congregants renounce the material world, to get rid of it or make it secondary, and to follow the religious leader.

That is one of the main reasons why cults are small. Simply put, there is always an outside possibility that relatively very few in society might adhere to what a cult leader states.

The concept of individualism, from any angle, disintegrates in reality. In fact, no one person is born on his or her own. There are always others, at least one, there. Obviously, there are others around from then on, determining the directions taken in life, with the so-called personal choices basically predetermined by the agents of socialization that everyone experiences: parents, schools, peers, and the media. Even siblings who are born to the same parents turn out differently because of their differentiated experiences with the various agents of socialization. If there would be a situation where two siblings have the exact same experiences with the same agents of socialization, the two might still turn out differently just for the heck of it, so to speak. Practically no one wants to be a duplicate of another one, but to distinguish himself or herself from the other or others. Identical twins emphasize some sort of distinction as well from each other.

No one dies on his or her own either, there are generally others or at least one other there. Even suicide itself is a death not determined at birth for anyone, but it occurs later on. There are social circumstances which determine it, particularly when and if it does occur, or what is termed completed suicide in contrast to attempted suicide. Almost no one entirely blames the dead person for what he or she completed; if anything, quite often they blame themselves for what they could have done to prevent the completion.

That is why it is referred to as completed, because it is a process where others are in the picture up to the culmination, the completion. Most are not completions, but attempts at suicide, again involving social circumstances, with the attempts being a call for help (for help from others, that is). Just how social the factors are is shown by the fact that women are more likely to attempt suicide, since society expects them to ask for help, while men are more likely to be completers, due to the unmanly image supposedly portrayed to others in having failed in an incomplete attempt. Decisiveness is more so expected of men than it is of women by society, per the norms. In the future all of that may change if there is more equality between men and women, with more women renouncing the crying for help and more men renouncing decisiveness.

The expected standards of behavior are referred to as norms in a given society or even a subset of society, such as teenagers, motor cycle gangs, or accountants. Such norms change in particular times in history. What was expected of teenagers in 1940 is different than in 2020. The agents of socialization shape what a person thinks and does. Such agents change as well.

Not only that, the roles a person plays do not necessarily allow a given person to think and do as he or she truly wants. The role of a ten year old is going to change when he or she becomes a forty year old, with the latter playing various roles such as that of parent, brother, son, podiatrist, shopper, husband, and so forth. Then again roles are going to be different for a given female or male. Many behavior patterns within roles are modeled by others, not dictated or even discussed. When to engage in eye contact and for how long will differ for a woman or a man, for example, and differ today versus years ago, often depending on a culture.

All of this is not taking into account status. A person may have the status that society has imposed on him as a brother, though the person may not play the role of being a brother. Simply put, the person may have acted in accordance with the expectations of the status of a brother, but may no longer want to be one and to follow such expectations. Many people know of siblings who no longer talk with each other and may not even want to see each other anymore.

The bewildering situations may determine what he or she does today but not tomorrow. That is in reference to what people think about things as well, with many changing their minds.

Yet this is not that surprising, given that lately since the 1980s until recently there was what was called postmodern theory. Among theorists it is no longer of any great import, but throughout those years it was articulated by many theorists, and to this day the general public still articulates, not even knowing the origins of pomo, as it is known for short by the theorists themselves.

Basically, pomo refers to that which is post or after modernism. Modernist theories, and there are many (as there are variations of postmodernism), had significantly focused on the macro or large scale aspects of society. Pomo sought to divert that to the micro, or small scale aspects, in fact individualistic ones, by a focus on a person’s experience and thus one’s