Prospect Magazine ran an article where they asked 100 writers and thinkers to answer the following question. Left versus Right defined the 20th Century. What’s next? With a question like that hanging in the air, how can one ignore it?

I might as well come out and admit it at this point. I’m a futurist wannabe. For as much busting as I do on other people’s predictions, I’m still compelled to write my own. Wrong though they may be, other people’s speculations on the future fascinate me, and of course I can’t stop thinking about it, either. I suppose you’ve all recognized this already; I’m just now officially throwing my fedora in the ring.

It’s tempting to go with the first answer that pops into ones head. Clearly we can see a major split coming between atheism and religion. There is—there always has been—a struggle between global and local, retaining a unique cultural identity in the homogeneity of the world market. There is ongoing contrast between rural and urban, individual and group, privacy and publicity. These things will all be continuing struggles in the future, but there is one theme that underlies all of these. It is what I believe, ultimately, will be the cultural conflict within the next few decades. It is the distinction between widespread validation and traditionalism.

Firstly, let me say that I do not believe the terms will hold. They don’t exactly roll off the tongue. But whatever they eventually do come to be called, I think the distinction will be unmistakable. Secondly, by using the term “traditionalism”, I run the risk of the reader initiating a reflex action of imagining religions, unwavering faith, and outmoded beliefs. This is not my intent; rather, the word “traditionalism” is meant to imply the way things have always believed to be. Sometimes the way things have been believed is correct—and sometimes it goes against “common sense”. Either way, traditionalism refers to the norms from yesteryear.

I first started thinking about this contract back around 2002 when I noticed that “fashion” had all but disappeared. Certainly fashion is still around, but it has become the bastion of the shallow minded. With the advent of the internet, anyone can indulge their likes in a variety of products, and we’ve begun to see an influx into the market of personalized T-shirts, furniture, computer cases, and so forth. That’s not to say that everything is truly personalized to the point of being one-of-a-kind, but in many things, the more unique, the better. Gone are the cookie-cutter, sensible ranch homes of the 1950’s. Notice how people go out of their collective ways to decorate their home in an individual style. Nowhere is this more clear than during Christmas, where the most unique setup rules the block. Likewise, with the objects which fill one’s living environment. To have someone ask, “where did you find that?” is (in addition to possibly being an insult), something of which to be proud.

If there was one thing the modern art movement did that was a benefit to the rest of the world as a whole, it was that it challenged people as to what art was. You could no longer say with impunity that something wasn’t art—because it may very well be art. To be sure, the vast majority of people couldn’t have cared less in miscategorizing some object as art—some delighted in it. But the fallout from this was that now nobody can really criticize anyone’s conscious choice in anything because it could be their art. The best of us have learned to express our personal opinions disguised as a critique, but to be perfectly honest, even the stuff you hate still has merit. After all, it’s probably making money, right? (Much to my chagrin.)

This has extended, now, into realms besides art. The more we learn about the brain, the more we understand how it affects choices and behaviors in individuals and groups. The more we learn about the universe, the more we understand how it works and the mechanisms that govern it. With this new understanding comes the paring of incorrect beliefs from the gastalt.

The “widespread validation” I mentioned at the beginning of this article is recognizing that the greater range of subjects—music, art, fashion, literature, psychology, physics, biology, philosophy—have “made valid” a larger number of lifestyle choices and personal preferences. As we learn more about each of these things, the only option we have left is to accept that some things which were previously “weird” or simply “unusual” are now just on the low end of the bell curve, but not unexpected. It is the inevitable end result of learning more about the way things work. It’s also the inevitable result of a greater variety of choices, as the internet has given us. See The Long Tail by Chris Anderson.

The flip side to this is the difficulty many people have in accepting how the world has changed. This is traditionalism in action. The reason science has been so championed recently is, I believe, due to the fact that it’s methodology makes it very difficult for anyone who takes it seriously to hang on to beliefs which have been definitively proven wrong. Richard Dawkins is fond of telling the story of a zoologist who believed that some bit of the cell was not real, but an illusion under the microscope. This he believed for many years, but upon hearing a lecture by a cell biologist that unequivocally proved this structure to exist, the zoologist went to the front of the room and told everyone how he’d been wrong for all those years. In practice, not all scientists are this way, but those who steadfastly hold to beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence will find that they have lost credit in the eyes of many of their peers.

The trick is getting people who are not scientists, who don’t think like scientists—and who may very well find scientists highly suspect in everything they do—to act like scientists. In short, it doesn’t happen. But there is a growing population that recognizes the validity (widespread validation) of admitting when the world is larger and more complex than they might think and changing their view—whether this is in response to human rights for terrorists, or the design of a friend’s sofa.

And so we’ve reached the split that will drive politics into the 21st Century. Yes, the issue is partially religious: are homosexuals wired that way, or just terrible sinners? If they are wired that way, wouldn’t it be inhumane to force change? For that matter, if homosexuals are hardwired to be gay, might not some people be hardwired to be responsive to any manner of sexuality? Or for that matter, maybe some people are hardwired to feel God and some are hard wired to be atheists; some are hard wired to run for public office, or run a large company, or—heaven forbid we should elevate anyone above anyone else—but perhaps some people are hard wired to draw and paint really well, or play an instrument really well, or make snap decisions in the middle of a football game.

The point is, once you give science an inch, it takes a mile, and there are plenty of people in the world who won’t stand for that sort of thing. After all, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, and so some people will never believe the lies of psychologists and seek to reform, or at least outlaw, gayness.

That is but one example of the 21st Century struggle. It will be a struggle between those which accept a broader range of valid viewpoints or positions in a given discipline, and those which adhere to traditional beliefs—which may or may not be correct. I believe we’ve seen the beginnings of this struggle in many forms from the early to mid 90’s to the present day. It’s not going away and it will need to get worse before it gets worked out. That being said, I do believe humanity will be better off after it sorts itself out. Unfortunately, I think that’ll be past my lifetime.

Hopefully what’s not past my lifetime is finding out whether or not I was right about this prediction. How many of these do I have to do to be a futurist? Can I call myself one now?

I need to update my business cards. (A valid lifestyle choice, by the way.)

-Ted