We see in the book “The Outsiders” the divide of Left and Right, poor and rich, plebeian and the ruling class. And I wish to compare the influencers of the modern world and climate to which this book is being written and how it actually transcribes and represents those events and how they represented things within the book. The principles of the hegemonic challenge, the ideas of anti-war sentiment and how these events changed a generation.
To which we see, always the geo-political and socio-economic world changing, we see also the change of culture through the ideas of mass media and communication. Means that cultural and political ideas are always adaptive to each part of the population. We see the common ideas of the Parisian Parlement of the First and Second French Republic, those who promised liberty, egalitarianism and Fraternity but did it through violence, (The poor common Parisians) and those who wanted to maintain the status quo as they know that they can govern and use economic and political hegemony to enable successful society. I believe to though novels of the time of American liberalism, take from that of the Parisian revolution and the First French republic. In the book, “The Outsiders) we see the cultural and economic divide of socials and greasers or (the elite and the pauvre). And so I feel as though S.E Hilton was trying to describe the Jacobin happenings of the Midwest and Southern United State. Of class division, antiestablishmentarianism, and hegemonic challenge, this is described from the very first page.
“We’re poorer than the Socs and the middle class. I reckon we’re wilder, too. Not like the Socs, who jump greasers and wreck houses and throw beer blasts for kicks, and get editorials in the paper for being a public disgrace one day and an asset to society the next. Greasers are almost like hoods; we steal things and drive old souped-up cars and hold up gas stations and have a gang fight once in a while. “
This gives us an insight of the mentality of the greaser-soc life, the “they” dichotomy.
And to which the later half of the book. It looked as though they were trying to mimic the troubles of the IRA and Southern Irish governments. To which they realize they are the same, yet they still act upon violence towards each other.
To which the war sentiment of Jingoism, long dead after the days of imperialism, brought the next conflict of the world with the great opposition of the growing left, to which was a subset of the political spectrum of those who believe in free trade, now shift their views towards pacifism. We see the transition to political correctness. But for the short time, during the war. The populist, pacifist left had the power over the outcome of the war. Randy giving his resignation of violence and a move to pacifism gained the consciousness to realize that he indeed, was fighting for a social system and for the likeness of imperialism territorial or turf conflicts of the upper-class socs. And that both sides were correct but misguided. Just like many of those effected by Korea and World War 2 and was tired of the “Xhosa” like wars, that said that the Vietnam war and the supposed “imperialism” of the United States was incorrect and immoral. And so, I believe that this correlates with the Randy incident to which he says as such:
“And tonight… people get hurt in rumbles, maybe killed. I’m sick of it because it doesn’t do any good. You can’t win, you know that, don’t you?”
“You can’t win, even if you whip us. You’ll still be where you were before— at the bottom. And we’ll still be the lucky ones with all the breaks. So it doesn’t do any good, the fighting and the killing. It doesn’t prove a thing. We’ll forget it if you win, or if you don’t. Greasers will still be greasers and Socs will still be Socs. Sometimes I think it’s the ones in the middle that are really the lucky stiffs…”
These statements just express the endless cycle of a dominance and violence to achieve revolution and equality and to challenge the status quo and hegemony of the economic upper class.
3. Fighting a war is a honourable profession and task. However, war is hell and mankind’s greatest necessary shame. Men no older than 20, dig holes far away from their homeland to which they know that they shall one day fall into them as a final resting place. Men charge over the graves into the Maxim guns and barbed wire all is the same on the French front. War and life were hell, a norm that has become over the Four years. Now I mean no disrespect, I’m definitely not comparing the plight of the soldier towards, the plight of a hoodlum. But, we can see every generation has a moment that makes them lose their collective innocence, World War 1, October revolution, the Vietnam war etc… the Hippie movement and Gang happenings were the events that wiped consciousness of the men and women on the domestic front. PonyBoy lives hell everyday, waiting, hoping that the superior enemy doesn’t attack him and that he may not lose his life, his life doesn’t know the norm, and when presented the face of anxiety, hell and hopelessness he continues. This is analogous with the soldier of the first world war.
The jumping of Jerry, was the invasion of Belgium, that led to Darry’s gang to act as an expeditionary force to become more involved i the Soc-Greaser conflict or the French-German conflict.
The Cherry Valance incident was the Italian breach of 1880 triple alliance to the Central power to become Neutral rather than join the Allies.
The murder of Bob was the battle of Verdun. Where men lost innocence.
The Randy incident was the 1914 Christmas truce.
The Rumble was the final battle, the Battle of the Sambre.
And the trying, desperately to return to a normal life without fighting and the loss of one’s friend. Was the depression and Weimar revolutions after World War One. And of course, the men of the World seldom learned during the first world war. As a second one commenced shortly after.
Men die in trenches, and men die in gang fights, because of course conflict, violence, war, and aggression is mankind’s greatest necessary shame.
And so this book just represents the violence inherent to man from thy forefather, to which ideas of the old-world can change. At the expense of violence. And to which ideas change, division grows. “The Outsiders” the divide of Left and Right, poor and rich, plebeian and the ruling class. And in The Outsiders, it gives us a view, of how the common people of the 60s thought about the expression of the old world, and how to which they constantly wanted further change.
Note: And if I may, I wish to talk about the future of this divide. Feel free to ignore it if you wish. The baby-boomer generation and Millennials are too dependent upon the welfare state that was pushed too far by the baby-boomers, now please forgive me, I appreciate the Welfare state, but the rampant entitlement of Millennials and those whom call themselves “Advocates of Social Justice (ASJ)” or SJW pejoratively has created a state of political change and rebirth even greater than that of the 1960s, one of the clash of modernism and traditionalism, rather than Liberalism and Conservatism. And this constant need to be a glorified rebel or warrior for a cause has created the death or the illness of the Western world. Whilst it was once fine to promote or advocate nearly any idea to the forum of ideas, commerce, politics etc… It has now been halted, literature and public speaking has been subjugated and must conform to the ASJ’s worldview. Or else violence, protest, and de-staging take place. And this has created a society of both extremes and a rebirth of classical or traditional ideas for example:
Radical Feminists and MGTOWS
ANTIFA and Fascism
ASJ’s and “The Alt-Right”
Now you may wonder what do you mean, the renaissance of political thought? To which I would reply:
Welcome to political thought and discussion of the twenty-first century, I feel as though the contemporary age shall be the rebirth of thoughts of long ago, the ideals of anarchism and nationalism beats through the heart of the youth and the next generation will see the rise of Antiestablishmentarianism and the revitalisation of the right in radical traditionalist forms, from years of suppression and cultural subjugation these two groups will define our political future. However, if this is a good thing is yet to be seen.
And now with nationalism, traditionalism and “The right” growing. We see figures like Trump and Le Pen start to rise. In response to the ASJs.
This has caused a modern reactionary movement to push back to the time of pre-radical leftists.
And because we live in (what in my opinion is) the rebirth of said ideas, the members of groups from these two factions and the establishment shall use the primary source to support the status quo or to push for an evangelical push to either extreme. Nationalism/Fascism and Social Left popularism.
And to those of the radical left who complain, cavil and protest about the rise of nationalism. I remark the following.
In such ways, you all doth create this movement. And In such ways, both movements are analogous to one another. But, the disparity between the two, is that the right is winning. Whilst the Left consumes itself.