Destroying in the Guise of Building

I think this idea of “destroying first, to build something new” is not that new idea. It is ancient and self-evident.

For example, whenever you want to build a new house on the same lot, you need to “destroy” everything on it to start building.

This is obvious regarding those tangible things like buildings, but it becomes more subtle when trying to “build” new societal norms and structures.

In an organization, whatever its nature is, it is necessary that you “destroy” the norms or structures that prevent the new structure from being in place.

This is done by pushing the narratives that a particular norm or rule is the cause of the problem.

While I was going to Hinigaran for some errands, I listened to a radio commentator interviewing the president of a national midwife organization.

The topic is the expected “boom” in the population due to the rise of pregnancies during the lockdown last March and April 2020.

The pattern in thinking of the interviewee is obvious.

Push the narrative of the “lockdown” pregnancies so that it becomes acceptable for minors to use artificial contraception to avoid pregnancy.

Another possible way to establish a new structure or policy is to study a particular problem in the guise of renewing it, but the goal is actually to abolish it.

This is done by highlighting a crisis and pushing the narratives of how much damage is done.

More reports of abuse are better because these will build a strong case in eradicating the structure you are pretending to protect.

Take marriage as an example. I want to quote from the book “Culture Wars” of James Davison Hunter (1991, p. 178), where he mentioned that the various consultations and conferences to strengthen the “family” became the very reason for the "family" to be redefined and practically destroyed.

Hunter wrote, “in 1973, for example, the United States Senate held hearings on ‘American Families: Trends and Pressures.’ ‘Family experts’ offered their views of the problems faced by the family and how the government might deal with it.”

This seems to be a noble aim.

The 1977 report of the Carnegie Council for Children claimed that “our nation professed in the belief of the importance of the family has not been matched by actions designed to protect the family’s integrity and vitality. Although the sanctity of the family is a favorite subject of Fourth of July orators, legislators rarely address the question of how to best to support family life or child development” (Hunter, p. 179).

So far, so good!

One would expect that this collaboration among experts in the public and private sectors would create programs that will strengthen the families.

However, the results are the opposite.

It destroyed the integrity and vitality of what was considered during that time as “family,” now being called as “traditional families” by replacing it with various definitions of “families.”

Hunter wrote, “rather than viewing families that were not nuclear, patriarchal, or self-sustaining as somehow deviant ... public policy would now recognize a diversity of families.”

So, what started as a program to help “families” (composed of a father, mother, and children) facing the pressures that tend to destroy it, ended by replacing the concept of family as “father, mother and children” with varieties of “families.”

Hunter observed that “it was generally recognized that families differed in size, economic status, national origin and custom” but NOT in terms of “structure and composition.”

The initiative, which initially started to tackle the threats against the traditional family, ended by reducing it to the margins, calling it derogatorily “traditional,” while those “deviations” that threatened the family were pushed to the mainstream and became acceptable as various forms of families when before these were considered "deviants."

It is inevitable that there would be leaders and advocates who would try and test the tenacity of social structures in their quest to advance their advocacies and agenda.

These advocates would hide their true intentions under a veil of “renewal” or “development " to avoid suspicions and doubt.

When I was in “high school,” the “golden kuhol” became a fad.

Farmers were made to believe that the “golden kuhol” would help them earn more. Especially during “off-seasons.”

They were convinced by “experts” that the “golden kuhol” is extra money.

Many farmers started culturing golden kuhols in their rice paddies.

Then, it turned out that the “golden kuhol” are actually “pests” that destroy the rice plants.

The “extra money” was more money farmers would spend buying pesticides.

It is also “extra money” to line the pockets of the pesticide industry.

Beware of those who offer golden opportunities for change or renewal, many of these are actually "golden kuhols," and ends in destroying that which it promises to help.