I was recently doing a little research on the extent to which Humanist values are reflected in the mass media and modern culture. I came across a number of sources commenting that we are currently engaged in culture wars and - gasp - THE OTHER SIDE IS WINNING!
What I found interesting is that these commentaries came from widely disparate sources. Both the progressive left and the conservative religious right (for lack of better terms) strongly urge that they are embroiled in a culture war. Moreover, both sides maintain that their “opponent” has been winning as a result of their organized efforts and government support, and bemoan that their forces have been inadequately cognizant of the dangers they face. I have read stirring calls to battle issued by both the conservative and progressive camps.
Another fact I found interesting is that I have found such arguments in various forms dating back decades – even to the 19th century.
My questions for debate are: -Are we currently engaged in a culture war?
-If so, who are the participants?
-Is one side or the other winning?
(Tho I live in the US, I have no objection to “we” being defined however the participants in this debate feel most suitable.)
Clarification: while the term “culture war” is used to describe a political dispute, my interest (and my intent in writing the OP) concerns the way values are portrayed in art, mass media, etc. But, do with it what you wish.
All seems a bit vague, there, sport. Can I get come kind of idea, like, which kind of ‘cultures’ we’re talking about here? Religions? Media? Economic systems? CART vs. Formula 1? What?
If it is the latter, I believe the scales may be starting to tip our way.
How can you have a culture ‘war’? Two artists standing across a room, throwing buckets of paint at each other? Hell, that’s not war, that’s art!
Perhaps two snobs arguing which country produced the best artists? That’s not war, that’s chavinism!
Seriously, there may be some ‘friendly’ competetion between two cultures over who is best, but in the end, especially in the case of art, cultures influence each other. One artist borrows some elements from one culture, another mixes it with a dab of a third culture, and you end up with something unique.
…
Ok, I just reread the OP, and I guess you mean something else. What you and those articles call a culture war is just another form of an ideological conflict. Perhaps you could provide some links? I would like to read these positions.
I guess I ought to adopt a position that you can either support or attack.
Borrowing heavily from Patrick Iniss, I suggest we are currently engaged in a culture war with respect to the most essential principals that ought to guide our major institutions. This conflict is evidenced by the frequency and fervency with which conservative and religious elements attack any aspect of our society which they view as liberal or opposing their dogma.
In this “war”, liberal freethinkers are at a disadvantage, if for no reason other than that they are less organized and less focused than their opposition. Ideas are marketed like any other product, and religious groups are masters of marketing. A few examples of recent skirmishes in the culture wars include conservatives attacking the NEA, criticizing individual art exhibits, sponsoring TV networks, and attempting to insert their beliefs into the public school system and public libraries.
Ah, I think I see what the deal is here. Whether it’s a far rightist, a fundamentalist Christian, a warrior for Islam or a fan of Star Trek: the Original Series, anyone with a rigidly-defined worldview can only become more and more annoyed with the way that conflicting viewpoints keep coming at them and coming at them ever more furiously, by all these here modern media that keep sprouting like weeds around us.
Certain of us here in the US-European-East Asian axis states (and sure, some other places as well) enjoy the privilege of constantly having a firehose of ideas being sprayed at us, without any particular guidance as to what to do with it. Damn, I certainly like that.
I can see, however, that this constant background noise, much of which is utterly irrelevant to one’s personal situation, makes it difficult for someone who believes that there is only one correct set of rules for living, to keep his or her eye on the ball, so to speak.
“Culture”, whatever that is, along with advertising, its now-permanent shadow, keeps seeping under the door and up through the drains, and it just won’t let you concentrate.
Yeah, to some extent there is a “culture war” going on. It’s between fixed doctrines and pretty much everything else. I guess I’ll take up sides with “everything else”, thank you.
Of course, I’m probably overlooking something fundamental. It’s hard to keep track with all of this stuff going on.
This is an claim that should not be presented without supporting evidence. (For what reason would “religious groups” be better masters of marketing than secular ones?)
This gets to the heart of the reason why each side feels the other is winning. Each is measuring success and failure by comparison to the way things “should be” - the reality will depart from both.
In the above quote, a liberal seems to consider attempts by conservatives to influence the culture to their liking as examples of conservatives winning through marketing. IOW, if the schools and libraries reflect liberal beliefs, this is simply how it should be - the natural state of affairs. But the conservatives are attempting to insert their beliefs? Help! They’re winning!
Anybody who thinks liberal freethinkers lack a cohesive organization hasn’t been on a college campus lately…
Also, the scientifically refined tactics of marketing are far superior to any bible-thumping televangelist. There are research facilities and entire companies dedicated to the discovery of which color, noise is more likely to catch the eye of the consumer. These same discoveries are put to use in the service of the new religion, Commercialism. In order to disassociate the mind of the subject from anything beyond the immediate need to consume some product or service, it is necessary to promote moral relavitism. This increases the bandwidth, as it were, for people to absorb messages from sources they would ordinarily ignore, thus increasing the efficiency of the programming.
For anyone who wants an example of the above, see “The Blair Witch Project”.
No cites here. Basically thinking out loud. Perhaps religious groups are more effective because they have a narrower agenda, and a more defined product?
For example, public access TV is open to essentially anyone. Commercial TV serves many masters - a need to generate advertising revenue, perhaps a desire to inform or entertain. All the while trying to avoid ideologically offending large groups of people.
As opposed to a religious channel which sends a consistent message. Religious broadcasting has the sole goal of “spreading the word.” In that manner, it is more akin to infomercials.
Religious organizations have centuries of experience as missionaries, attempting to convert nonbelievers. Up until relatively recently, much art (painting, sculpture, music, architecture) was commissioned by the church, or religious in theme. What is the most famous early printing job? The Bible.
Kind of comparing a shotgun to a bullet. Which gives you more bang for your buck in a particular situation depends on many factors.
The Raven brings up some interesting points. As catchy as it sounds, do you believe it is accurate to characterize “commercialism” as “the new religion”? Is commercialism the message, or the medium?
And you say “moral relativism” like it’s “a bad thing”!
Bear in mind that both sides have an obvious interest in exaggerating the danger from the other side. If your troops think your side is winning by a wide margin, they’re likely to start slacking off. But if you can get them to believe the Visigoths are about to overrun the empire, they’re a lot more likely to supply money, time and energy for the Cause. It pays to listen to both sides, but it pays even more to listen to both sides with a good deal of skepticism.
Building from that, it’s safe to say that the “sides” in the “Culture War” are actually 1)Those who seek to change the culture, versus 2)The culture itself.
Culture is an organic thing, and will go wherever the bulk of a society wants it to go. You’ve got agitators trying to pull it in various directions, but Culture has a lot of interia.
Additionally, agitators view their failures to move the Culture as an attack by agitators of inverse orientation. For example, when anti-gay groups fail at the polls to restrict the rights of homosexuals, they see this defeat as a win for the “Gay Agenda.” Conversely, when gay groups fail to win the right to marry, they blame anti-gays. Both should be blaming the Culture at large.
Cultures can and do change. Agitators want to drive that change in a desired direction. Their mistake is thinking that a “war” can change a culture. Culture will go where it will, and it will never get there as fast as you want it.
Even if culture change is viewed as “evolutionary”, it responds to stimuli. And isn’t it appropriate that at least part of the stimulus comes from partisan agitation?
Is, say, the developer of a new technology a partisan in the culture wars because his tech will effect the future course of culture?
Can you assign relative merit to alternative positions of, say, trying to change the culture in a desired direction, as opposed to encouraging the “culture” to be open to as wide a range of stimuli as possible?
Traditionally, Western religion has offered a contract of sorts whereby the subject sustains the religious body in the temporal world, in exchange for a reward to be enjoyed in an eternal Paradise. This requires subjugation to a belief system that espouses the need for patience in waiting for one’s reward, and denies that reward to those who attempt to accelerate the process.
Commercialism uses a similar contract with the omission of that burdensome waiting period. According to the tacit agreement that modern consumers are offered, all that is necessary to achieve paradise on Earth is to spend enough money. Note that it is not necessary to acquire goods specifically, this actually is less than desirable since the goods have a lifespan of their own. To spend, to consume, to require more, to spend… This is the optimal execution of a good consumer.
The marketing techniques of the mid-20[sup]th[/sup] century laid the foundation for the modern-day programming of the populace. The psychological manipulation that is evident in marketing, advertising and public relations is frighteningly efficient when properly delivered. The power of the manipulation surpasses that of all but the most highly focused religious operators. The religious programming is usually so tightly focused to be heard over the omnipresent buzz of marketers that it cannot affect a wide enough audience to be of any real consequence versus a McDonalds, Nike, AOL/TIME/Warner/Turner/WhoeverIsNext, etc.
As far as moral relativism is concerned, I’ll again offer you a very simple definition: NAMBLA. In a world that respects the rights of innocent children to be free of predatory monsters, this organization could not exist. The very fact that it does exist offers a beacon of hope to the afflicted that there are others like him, therefore allowing him to think that society must permit the exercise of his perversion. Tolerance and moral bankruptcy for the sake of propping up the self-esteem of people that do evil are not equivalent.
I would like to refine the idea of culture rather considerably for the purposes of this discussion. I would restrict it to the production of “art”. While social institutions are certainly a part of American culture, I don’t think they are what culture warriors are really talking about, at least with respect to the NEA, NEH, etc.
They are talking about the presence of political and social ideology in the production of art, the interpretation thereof, and in the interpretation of human history. Both how one reads a painting and how one views the course of human history are rife with possibility for ideological conflict.
I believe there is a stark, irreconcilable divide between so-called liberals and conservatives. These categories may or may not be consonant with an individual’s strictly political beliefs, but consonance seems common and logical. I characterize the “culture war”, in its current manifestation, as a contest between modernism, espoused by cultural conservatives, and postmodernism. Both sides recognize the tremendous power culture wields in shaping our thoughts, speech, and daily lives. Humans think in symbol and metaphor: whoever seizes the language of our minds is in a powerful position indeed.
To my mind, despite inroads and outcries, the cultural liberals are clearly winning, perhaps to a damaging extent. The idea of the American Dream, defined as achieving financial success on a level playing field by means of luck, pluck, and decency, has been all but demolished. Objective standards of decency and technique in art are largely ignored. Interpretations of our literary and artistic past are examined and interpreted with a great deal of awareness of the bias of the interpreter. Artists and critics are self-conscious about the reception of culture, not just the culture itself.
Evolutionary and teleological models have fallen by the wayside. Hence culture is no longer talked about in terms of its objective greatness; rather, critics are concerned about the reasons why cultural products are so well loved and what the power relationships were surrounding their production and reception. I believe the real battle between conservatives and liberals has been fought and lost. It remains to the liberals to make sure that conservative modernism never rears its ugly head again.
Give me a bit to try to figure out which parts are deep,and which parts are deep BS (also applies to my posts!)
Thanks for your responses.
I have no problem restricting this discussion to art. How do you wish to define art? Do we include film, literature, TV, architecture, clothing?
I’m serious, I’ll check back in a bit. Might be a day or two tho. I don’t want to insult your well thought out responses with some off-the-cuff comments.
The breakdown standards of quality appears commensurate with a breakdown of genres of art. Hence television, clothing, and pulp movies can certainly be included in the discussion right up there with the old hats of cultural production.
I find that my post was rather elliptical on the re-read. I mean, I don’t exactly say what I mean by postmodernism, evolutionary teleology, etc. It all sounds like craptacular jargon. Which it is to a certain extent. But if people are interested in pursuing some of the issues I raised, I would be more than happy to go into more detail. I just don’t want to waste my time or give offense.
