Who says modernity can’t be considered through song, dance and jazz hands?

Modernity experiences the world as composed of discrete, fragmented and separable units whereby social groups are formed based on levels of abstractions. In this, considerations of biological or real relationships are no longer seen as imperative in the formation or longevity of social groups.

HMMM! Ok, so tradition is being lost. The meaningful social groups and relationships formulated solely on the basis of sex, race, class, corporation and not our ancestors, forefathers, and all those who shaped the lives we are now privileged to be living. Is this problematic? If so, what is problematic about this loss of importance on tradition and biological relationships to something more socially constructed? A quote that may be relevant to this is from Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy which reads “Tradition means giving a vote to the obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead”

Ah, so perhaps it is dangerous to place importance in the hands of those who are no longer physically present. However by the same token we see memberships in social groups to be both unstable and transitory. Stability comes in the form of tradition and though a mundane and somewhat frivolous example, Fiddler on the Roof exemplifies this stability.

“And how do we keep our balance? I can tell you in one word! TRADITION. Because of our traditions, we've kept our balance for many, many years. Here in Anatevka we have traditions for everything... how to eat, how to sleep, even, how to wear clothes. For instance, we always keep our heads covered and always wear a little prayer shawl... This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition start? I'll tell you - I don't know. But it's a tradition... Because of our traditions, everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do."

The instability of social group relationship forming can be seen through the consideration of a vast array of pop cultural sites. The musical Wicked shows the abstract level of relationship forming seen through modernity when they consider the notion of being “popular.” Popularity is not based on our past, traditions or ancestry, but instead is a socially constructed ideal which is constantly transitory and ever changing.

“When I see depressing creatures/ With unprepossessing features / I remind them on their own behalf / To think of celebrated heads of state or / Specially great communicators / Did they have brains or knowledge? Don't make me laugh! / They were popular! Please - It's all about popular! / It's not about aptitude /It's the way you're viewed….”

In considering the dichotomies of the rigid and predictable structuration of tradition versus the instable and transitory notion of “modern” social relationships… which are more valuable? Should we fuse the two? Can the two ever be truly separated?