Yes, I think the current trend is a continuation of what has been happening since the Enlightenment, and especially since the 60s.
First they rejected religious authority, then they rejected a lot of the "accepted wisdom" about preordained social roles for women and visible minorities, then they began to reject the rest of traditional moral teachings regarding marriage, homosexuality, the value of a tight-knit rural community, etc.
Now I think the authority-rejecting spree has reached the state as well. The state has been secularized, but it continues to reserve for itself many of the powers that medieval monarchs claimed to have been granted by God -- and more. A ripe target indeed.
Unlike racism and sexism, I'm pretty sure the state will survive the scrutiny in some form or another. We can't afford anarchy. The question is, what will it look like when it re-emerges on the other side of the century?
Bigotry aren't institutions to themselves, though. They're traits of society, of the state, of culture. However, maybe cultures in of itself are being rejected alongside traits such as bigotry. The baby with the bathwater.
First they rejected religious authority, then they rejected a lot of the "accepted wisdom" about preordained social roles for women and visible minorities, then they began to reject the rest of traditional moral teachings regarding marriage, homosexuality, the value of a tight-knit rural community, etc.
Now I think the authority-rejecting spree has reached the state as well. The state has been secularized, but it continues to reserve for itself many of the powers that medieval monarchs claimed to have been granted by God -- and more. A ripe target indeed.
Unlike racism and sexism, I'm pretty sure the state will survive the scrutiny in some form or another. We can't afford anarchy. The question is, what will it look like when it re-emerges on the other side of the century?