Scattered liberally across the United States of America is a web of petty tribal conflicts: East Coast v. West Coast, Red State v. Blue State, Yankees v. Red Sox. To chart them all would be to map the cultural genome of the country.
Growing up in the San Francisco area, I had my own exposure to a geographic rivalry. Most Americans are probably vaguely aware of the intra-state rivalry that divides California, crystallized in the jingoistic abbreviations "Nor-Cal" and "So-Cal." The ideological foundations of the conflict are less commonly discussed - perhaps because Southern Californians lack the vocabulary. I hope to enlighten my readers as to the underpinnings of this conflict.
The usual prerequisites for bellicosity are a sense of moral superiority and a notion (real or imaginary) of being "under siege." Each half of the state of California manifests both of these qualities. Southern Californians feel besieged by external condescension: "northerners," be they from the northeast or the west coast, label them as classless, ostentatious, nouveau riche airheads. Indeed, for a city of its size, cultural and economic significance, Los Angeles doesn't get a whole lot of respect from outside.
Northern California, on the other hand, cultivates the air of a prideful elder sibling overshadowed by an obnoxious younger brother. San Francisco is an older, more sophisticated place than Los Angeles. Less sprawling and overwhelming, more compact and European-feeling, it nevertheless remains the state's number two city. L.A. is certainly far ahead of its older brother in cultural exports. Consequently, the popular notion of "California culture" has come to be more reflective of the southern half of the state. When a young person overseas conjures a mental image of California, she is probably picturing Santa Monica beachgoers, or the Hollywood sign. This is a source of major consternation for San Franciscans.
The North, moreover, has a general sense of moral and intellectual superiority. The Bay Area sees itself as a citadel of liberal enlightenment. So-Cal liberals are tainted by their superficiality and their right-wing neighbors in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties; their fancy cars are on credit, their breasts are augmented and their politics are dilettantish.
But Southern California's criticisms of the North are equally withering. Earthily scornful of intellectual pretense, Southern California claims warmer weather, the entertainment industry, and that unique beach culture that makes the North seem prim and drab by comparison.
Northern Californians try to paint Southern California as short on substance, a land of lotus-eaters, who look like they're having more fun than they really are. This is partly accurate; Southern Californians are indeed obsessed with appearances. They diet and alter themselves surgically. Even their preferred sports seem chosen as part of an aesthetic: surfing, skateboarding, beach volleyball.
But maybe they're on to something. Maybe that vapidity is really intellectual austerity; maybe that superficiality is a kind of wisdom. Wouldn't life be easier if we didn't have to have nuanced opinions? I mean, Bush sucks, but the important thing is to go catch a wave, dude.
Perhaps the best defense of So-Cal culture is found in Nietzsche. The philosopher writes in "The Gay Science," "Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live. What is required for that is to stop courageously at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearance, to believe in forms, tones, words, in the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were superficial - out of profundity."
Matt Prewitt '08 also justifies his own behavior with nihilism.
