In recent years, cultural commentators have observed what many call a “nostalgia epidemic” sweeping through Western societies. We see it in the revival of 80s and 90s aesthetics, the endless cycle of media reboots, the resurgence of vinyl records and film photography, and marketing campaigns designed to trigger millennial memories of childhood cereals and Saturday morning cartoons. This backward gaze has intensified following global disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic, as people sought comfort in familiar cultural touchstones during periods of isolation and uncertainty.
On the surface, this trend appears to be a simple emotional response to present difficulties—a retreat into the rose-tinted comfort of remembered pasts when faced with economic precarity, technological acceleration, and social fragmentation. Yet this explanation, while partially valid, misses a deeper truth about our relationship with the past.
To understand what truly drives our current nostalgia fixation, we must first recognize that our modern conception of “nostalgia” would be unrecognizable to most of human history. What we casually label as nostalgia—a sentimental longing for periods just decades behind us—bears little resemblance to how pre-industrial societies related to their pasts.
For countless generations before modernity, cultural continuity wasn’t an optional aesthetic or emotional indulgence—it was the foundation of collective identity and survival. The myths, rituals, customs, and traditions that persisted across centuries or millennia weren’t “old things” occasionally revisited for comfort or amusement. They were living systems that transmitted practical knowledge across generations, reinforced social cohesion, provided frameworks for understanding the world, and connected individuals to their ancestors and their place in a cosmic order.
When individuals in traditional societies engaged with inherited practices, they weren’t experiencing “nostalgia” as we understand it today. They were participating in tradition—an unbroken chain of cultural transmission that provided stability, meaning, and identity. The durability of these cultural elements wasn’t measured in decades but in centuries. The past wasn’t something separate from the present, to be visited through consumer products or media; it was woven into the fabric of daily life.
This perspective reveals what might be driving our current nostalgia epidemic: not simply a fondness for the aesthetic styles of recent decades, but a deeper hunger for the kind of cultural continuity that modernity has largely severed. We find ourselves unmoored from traditions that span generations, disconnected from practices that once gave life coherence and meaning. In response, we grasp at the nearest available substitutes—the popular culture of our youth, the aesthetic styles of previous decades, the shared references of a common media landscape.
But these objects of modern nostalgia are poor substitutes for true tradition. They lack the depth, durability, and social embeddedness that characterized pre-industrial cultural practices. While traditional societies maintained cultural continuity over centuries through living practices that evolved organically while maintaining their core functions, our nostalgic fixations typically center on commercial products, media properties, and fashion trends deliberately designed for planned obsolescence.
The impermanence of these cultural artifacts reveals a crucial distinction: traditional societies weren’t “clinging to the past” as we might characterize nostalgic behavior today. They were living within ongoing cultural currents that flowed from deep historical wellsprings. Their orientation wasn’t backward but continuous—they stood within traditions that extended both before and after their individual lifespans.
Our “nostalgia epidemic” might therefore be better understood not as excessive sentimentality about the past, but as the symptom of a culture that has lost its capacity for meaningful continuity. We cycle rapidly through aesthetic revivals and reboots precisely because we lack the stabilizing force of genuine traditions that connect generations.
The solution, then, isn’t to reject nostalgia outright as regressive or escapist, but to recognize its limitations as a substitute for deeper forms of cultural continuity. Perhaps what we truly seek isn’t the ephemeral commercial culture of decades past, but the sense of belonging, meaning, and intergenerational connection that traditional cultural practices once provided.
This doesn’t mean uncritically reviving pre-modern traditions or rejecting the genuine advances of modernity. Rather, it suggests that addressing our nostalgia epidemic requires more than new consumer products draped in the aesthetics of the past. It demands the cultivation of practices, communities, and institutions capable of providing meaningful continuity across generations—not just reminders of what we’ve lost, but living connections to what endures.
Balductum Musings 