Modern, Forward-Thinking, in the Wind – Folha de S. Paulo, October 24, 1981
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Being modern, forward-thinking, and ‘in the wind’ refer simultaneously to states of mind, ways of being, and courses of action.
All three terms are commonly used, but which one is the most current? The answer isn’t simple. Certainly, ‘modern’ is the oldest of the three — I have heard it used for as long as I can remember, which is to say, for a very long time. Over the years, styles, fashions, ideological movements, political processes, propaganda forms, and personality traits have all been labeled ‘modern,’ only to fade into obscurity. Yet, as a standard of judgment, ‘modernity’ has stood above these many wrecks. Whenever something or someone described as modern declined, their successors claimed an even greater modernity. To borrow an old metaphor, modernity was like a torch passed from those worn down by time or misfortune to their successors, who carried it forward.
However, torches burn out as they go. I saw so-called modernity shining brightly in a torch called liberal democracy, economic liberalism, Hollywood, sports, airplanes, jazz, Ford Model T cars, bungalows, and more.
This torch was made of opposing elements: remnants of Christian tradition and forerunners of a future world that was approaching… and is now arriving in 1981.
The course of events was shaping the new world even as it was destroying the old one. In 1917, a bombshell exploded: the communists seized power in Russia. The “modern” crowd, increasingly hostile to tradition, was somewhat frightened by the sinister grimace of the approaching world. At the same time, they saw it as a child born of their unconfessed inclinations, as a relentless enemy, as a tragic Spanish aphorism warns: “Cria cuervos y te sacarán los ojos” (Raise crows and they will peck out your eyes).
* * *
Modern people chose not to pay special attention to this melodramatic child, and the Western world continued its joyful farandole as the torch slowly consumed. Many things changed in the West gradually, gently, and joyfully from 1917 to 1939, the twenty years “between the wars.” Overall, these changes only weakened, diminished, and eroded what the Free World had that set it apart from the communist world, which remained unchanged.
In the 1940s, another upheaval occurred: free countries bordering Russia fell under communist rule. China became communist. During this second and much longer “entre deux guerres,” the West continues its merry-go-round, symbolized, for example, by two figures with broad, cheerful, and optimistic smiles: F.D. Roosevelt and J.F. Kennedy. While modernity shone from Europe and the United States between 1917 and 1939, Americanism became the quintessence of modernity from 1945 to 1981.
This lasted until the United States allowed itself to be defeated in Vietnam—a catastrophe which, in fact, was merely a sign of a much deeper general transformation.
Indeed, at an ever-increasing pace, mentalities, human types, lifestyles, culture, and art in the West continued the process of disfigurement that World War II had failed to halt. Meanwhile, Russian imperialism expanded the communist world’s frontiers. In the West, anticommunism lacked ideological consistency, effectiveness, or drive, and took on a merely folkloric appearance. American modernity certainly remained a key criterion. However, many felt that it seemed exhausted.
* * *
In a related development, another catastrophe exploded in France: The May 1968 Sorbonne revolution.
If I am not mistaken, it was around this time that the expression “pra-frente” (forward) appeared. Modernity had come to a halt. It had become conservative. A new term was needed to describe, not revolutionary transformations on the surface of the entire Earth, but cracks that allowed the flames of an infernal underground combustion to escape. The hippie wave spread across the world. “Temporarily,” a superficial reader might add. “Who is still a hippie today?” they might ask. I’ll give you a slightly exaggerated answer: Who isn’t a hippie today? As it dissipates, the classic mushroom cloud from nuclear explosions spreads its radiation throughout the atmosphere. Hippiedom has disintegrated. It exists nowhere, but is everywhere. Is being a hippie being modern? To say so would sound a little false. Much more accurately, being a hippie, or being imbued with the hippie mentality, is “being in the wind.”
What is the difference between “being forward-thinking” and “being in the wind”? If the reader pays close attention, they will notice that “being forward-thinking” is more often used in relation to ideas or attitudes in socio-economic matters. It perhaps more commonly refers to people who see themselves as at the forefront of anti-traditional protest because they fight for a crypto-communist advance. The less veiled it is, the more “forward-thinking” it will seem. “Being in the wind” seems a bit different. It is primarily an internal state in which all restraints are loosened, and all senses and whims are unleashed. It is about practicing total and absolute relaxation, followed by total and absolute anarchy. But anarchy that progresses through a kind of hypnosis, which, in turn, generates a “sui generis” chaos in which nothing makes sense. However, in some respects, nothing clashes with anything, but everything seems about to explode at any moment.
Don’t mistake this new and mysterious outcome for the communist regime. It is anarchism in the etymological sense of the word (“an”: without, no; “arch”: government).
* * *
What about modernity? Is it dead? No. “Forward-thinking” and “in the wind” are generally positions taken by minorities who want to be even more modern than modernity itself.
The “modern” is what truly exists. I don’t know of any advertising medium that states this so clearly, but that’s how it is. I don’t like the “modern,” I am completely opposed to it, but I must admit it.
What I do like is another fact that the Brazilian public is unaware of. In the United States, tradition is thriving admirably.
