The pillarisation was a reaction to the secularisation of Dutch society.People realized that by grouping and unblocking others they could form a power block against secularisation.
The togetherness therefore consisted mainly of the identification with the group to which one belonged.
The ontzuiling, decades later, is nothing else as the result of the further passing secularization.Existing “pillars” appear too small and fragile to sustain, which means that what people bind (religion, social class) is not enough to keep the group together.
The togetherness changed and therefore the pillars fall away, not the other way around.
No, not really.It has shaken up the power ratios.
In the years 50/60 it was still so that Jan met his forehead with the cap as the mayor or notary of the village of Langslept.These gentlemen were of course as fine as dolls on the front bench in the church.
But well, in the 30s of the last century you didn’t have to look up when you saw a family living in a plaggenhut.Tam held by the gentleman farmer and the church. Especially the church.
The coherence was also a practical one.Narrow streets, on Monday washing windows. Housewives at the same time working on a private bucket of water. That went over the street, and also got a scrub. The streets were wider, cars became commonplace in the street View. The scrub moment disappeared.
The television associations were still endeavored to maintain the status quo, but that was done from the 90 package bite.Now these are unnecessary institutes (as Lubach has demonstrated delicles)
But the pride for the three color, and what we have achieved with all of them has not become much less.
Coherence though, by subsidized de-stabilization foundations such as greylag century, and so. Cherry pickers first class whose sole purpose is to internationally scale all forms of culture to help cold.But well, the younger generation wants this, I’m a little ready with it.
It is all a bit fragmented, and saying that you are proud of what we have made of the Netherlands is rewarded with an unrefreshed label.But we have made it a beautiful country, and it has provided tremendous financial effort. If this is so, at the end of the century, I dare to doubt.
The pillarisation had the purpose of autonomy in its own circle and no purpose in relation to any state unity or togetherness.
The basis of my question is the following, which I could not briefly show in the question:
I would not only want to see the pillarisation as a response to the secularisation.Also in the social and emancipatory sphere arose pillars. The shielding of the own group of others, of course, has something to be stressed, but it also provides safety, one knows where one is, what group one belongs to, and that oppresive security is both social cohesion and social control, but also A form of togetherness.
Now I have the feeling that by the drop of the pillars the society is going to hang up as loose sand, become more superficial, which means less cohesion. This could, among other things, have the effect of focusing more on themselves and that e.g.Associations attract less and fewer members, the trade unions lose members and during the elections the attendance becomes ever smaller.