The 17th Century Has Daddy Issues

The 17th Century Has Daddy Issues

The 17th century was the dad era, and the more you look into it, the more obvious this becomes. 

The 17th century itself heavily focused on fathers in their societies and kings themselves often depicted themselves as "father figures" for their kingdoms.

This focus is a direct contrast with the 20th century which had a theme of the death of the father where the character of the father figure, if not outright unceremoniously killed, is instead mocked and ridiculed rather than celebrated and redeemed.

I think this reflects a significant difference between the zeitgeist of the two eras.

The 17th century was the peak productivity whereas the 20th century was when the productivity was completely spent when the culture had run out of fuel. 

As I have mentioned the masculine coded eras were outward focused and the feminine coded eras were inward focused.

As such the 17th century was the most outward focused era. 

This is even critiqued in the Crucible which even takes place in the 17th century where one of the characters says “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”

“I cannot judge another, I have no tongue for it”

The Crucible is largely a critique of the 17th century culture and its superficiality.

Everything is surface level. A culture of nice breeches and flashy palaces. 

This is what people associate with the century.

When business was good and you could show off some extravagance.  

The 16th century being the old man who doesn't care anymore was much more crude and honest, and the 18th century with its teenage angst was also more truthful. 

But the 17th century could be thought of more as being the middle-aged man. One neither too old nor too young to care. 

One known to bend the truth and focus excessively on superficial appearances. Much like the stereotypes we associate with someone who is having a midlife crisis. 

This is why I consider it the dad era as well as the denial era. It all fits together too well. 

Ironically, one noticeable visual cue of this era is covering things up. 

Wigs are a stereotypical image associated with the 17th century. And I think this covering of the hair is deeply symbolic. 

We often use covering and hiding things as a metaphor for not being honest or not wanting to show things to others as in “you’re covering things up” or  “this is a cover up”. 

There seems to be a willing need to mask and hide and stay ignorant throughout 17th century culture, a choice to hide things away, a refusal to open up and show things.

The sentiment here is clear, “Don't look into things. Don't think too much. Don't worry about it. Don't question us.” 

And I believe this is a very 17th century mindset. Essentially equivalent to a dad saying “because I said so”. 

This is very different from the 18th century mindset, where it’s basically just “The 1st amendment: The Century”, 

“Everything is the government, everything is the rich, and you have to point it all out” is the mantra of the 18th century where everything is a conspiracy theory. 

But the 17th century mindset is far less skeptical and far more trusting and doesn't want or need to uncover everything. 

And I think this also fits the stereotypes people associate with the 17th century versus the stereotypes that people associate with the 18th century. 

The 17th century has a more apparent naivety whereas the 18th century is more eager to pull out their tinfoil hat.

And this also ties into the social cohesion of the 17th century. Everyone knew their place in a more uniform manner as everyone was more or less on the same page. 

They all believed in the same thing, the values of “the premodern world” and had the utmost faith and trust in this project.

Today in the 21st century, it is the exact opposite. Nobody is on the same page anymore. Everyone is splintered into various factions. 

All of them longing to replace the “top men” they no longer respect and can no longer tolerate. 

So, ironically, in a strange way, the 21st century mirrors the 17th century, but in reverse. 

In the 17th century, there was unanimous support for Western regimes and their rulers. 

And in the 21st century, there is unanimous opposition against Western regimes and everything associated with it.

The aesthetics of the 17th century also reflect its general attitude of outward superiority. 

The 17th century was full of strong masculine men like paintings of kings or any sort of war or colonization on the frontier.  It puts forth an image of strength. 

And perhaps at the time this portrayal was more accurate as regimes from Europe were a rather powerful global hegemony and in Europe, people were very much on board with their cultures and history and traditions. 

However, today people find it rather goofy and embarrassing.

I know the fashion looks feminine with the wigs and the breeches, but that is not actually feminine. It is, however, very gay. But that is not the same thing. 

If you looked at Louis XIV or Charles II or any of those shiny monarchs from the 17th century, you would never say that's feminine. You might, however, think it's suspiciously gay. 

It's the same thing with fashion. As I mentioned, the masculine is outward focused and the feminine is inward focused. 

Wigs and breeches, much like most things from the 17th century, are superficial and all about appearances. It's not feminine in any meaningful way.

If it were, you wouldn't see people wearing it while hunting or playing horse jockey. Now, by all means, you can scoff at these people all you want and say that they seem a bit gay, but again, that is not the same thing as them being feminine. 

This may seem like a random tangent to go on, but I feel the need to make this distinction.

But this does not refute anything. It is perfectly in line with everything I have said. The glam look is performative and exaggerated. It's just theater. It's like a male bird showing off its fancy feathers. 

As strange as it may seem, this is perfectly in line with conventionally masculine behavior.

Masculinity in excess can seem pretty gay. And the 17th century was excessively masculine, so it was really gay. 

And since I love having outrageous takes in my posts, I'm going to throw another crazy idea out there. 

The 21st century is the complete opposite. The 21st century may in fact be lesbian.

Instead of performative femininity, we now have performative masculinity. 

The 17th century’s London was flamboyant and gay, and the 21st century London’s is Butch London’s.

I have a theory that the centuries between shock and peace, 400 years apart, are each other's shadows or opposites.

The previous mother era was the 11th century. And the women’s fashion with the robes and white veil is quite the butch icon. 

The 11th century was a time where things were broken down and rebuilt. It was a transformative era. 

The 7th century was the opposite. It was stable and wanted to maintain its current status quo. 

And this shadow theme goes for every other century that's 400 years apart from another. 

The 12th century was an era that accepted that we cannot change things anymore. And its shadow, the 8th century, resented the status quo and wanted change.

The 13th century had stable community, and its shadow, the 9th century, had radical individualism.

And as I went over in the previous post, the 16th century had a surge of vitality and productive energy. And the 20th century was burnt out, depressed, and unmotivated.

Which brings us full circle. Much like the 11th century, we are in an era of transformation. A time when things are broken down and rebuilt.

The shadow of the 17th century, the mom era, as opposed to the dad era.

I think the reason people cling to viewpoints, aesthetics, media, and ways of being reminiscent of the 17th century is largely out of necessity. 

The 17th century wasn't productive for no reason. Sometimes we have to cover up our problems from the world around us in order to simply get things done. 

Sometimes it's better to not uncover things. 

Sometimes we have to take massive leaps of faith in order to get on with our day.

It's very easy to condemn this faulty father figure, especially in an age where everything is exposed and uncovered and has been pried open and we know far more than we can ever handle. 

But personally, I believe this father deserves both the criticism as well as his redemption.

This 10 centuries cycle and its corresponding stages of grief are various coping methods that we all employ. 

Denial is just one of them. Repressing the grief and keeping yourself busy so you don't have to dwell on things is necessary for some. 

Many people embody this way of life. And personally, I can't say that I envy them. 

But we all go through our own era and issues. 

And perhaps we get a little too comfortable in our own coping habits. Maybe the people of the 17th century would find our era’s way of living just as unappealing as we find theirs. 

The father era of the 17th century was very productive due to the hustle and bustle of the people of the time. 

But over the following centuries, the faith in this father figure waned. In the 20th century, the father's productivity was no longer felt. 

His influence lingering around like a zombie. Today, there is little fruit left to harvest from this productive era. But the seeds have been planted for something new to grow. 

The premodern world may be dead, but we can have a nice funeral for it and reminisce about all the good that it provided, not just the bad. 

If the 17th century was the peak of productivity, the 21st century is the peak of reflection.

It is the testing era where we must test new solutions instead of failing to revive what no longer functions. 

The 17th century was very black and white. Good and evil, right and wrong, sinful and not sinful. 

In the 21st century, it is finally time to try. These are trying times after all. It's in the name. 

There are other options besides the binary choices we have been presented with. 

One day something like the gay 17th century may reappear in the future, but for now we must contend with our own cringy non-binary era. 

Our modernity continues…