Down with Culture!
The concept of “culture” permeates many aspects of our lives. A ‘culture’ search for recent articles on Google News returned no less than 70,000 hits. One hears of high-brow culture (or used to), low-brow culture, American culture, black culture, white culture, gay culture, cultural homogeneity, cultural wars, and, more recently because of immigration, cultural assimilation.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that without a “common culture and a single society…, the republic would be in serious trouble.” Neoconservative Sean Hannity argues that immigrants should “adapt to our culture” and be “assimilated into the culture.” Rudolph Giuliani (depending on what office he’s running for) has maintained that immigrants “infuse our…culture.” And the Hudson Institute even has a Center for American Common Culture, which “provides analysis and policy advice on issues of citizenship, patriotism, civic education, the assimilation of immigrants, and American common culture.”
But do we have a common culture? What is culture? Does it denote anything of importance? And if so, how do we preserve it? Isn’t, after all, the fundamental meaning of ‘conservatism’ to conserve?
The word ‘culture’ is at best ambiguous. For something as central to our battles today--the “culture wars"--it is interesting that this word is a relatively new creation, at least in its modern meaning. Until recent times, the primary meaning of ‘culture’, based on its Latin etymology (colere--to cultivate, till), was the cultivation of soil or the raising of plants or animals. Slowly, the extended meaning of “the training, development, and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners” had begun to take hold in the 19th century, which in the 20th century eclipsed the original meaning. Dictionaries today might define ‘culture’ as “the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.”
Matthew Arnold, who defined culture as “the best which has been thought and said,” sought to use high culture as an antidote to the rising barbarism of industrial 19th-century England. Institutions, he believed, could instill high culture, and thus raise the general level of civility. He favored the “transformation of [barbarians, Philistines, and the populace] according to the law of perfection.” Unfortunately, institutions, such as universal public education, did not produce such perfection, and state-sponsored programs, which briefly were committed to disseminating high culture, were later transformed into spawning grounds for Marxism and multiculturalism.
The contemporary guardians of the status of culture (found in Cultural Studies departments, Critical Theory studies, et al.), are post-Marxists intent on undermining Western Civilization. Culture has proved a useful tool for change, and the left’s (and neoconservatives’) latching onto culture probably resides in culture’s facility for change. Culture presupposes deracination and lack of rootedness. “The culture is changing,” we hear. Liberal newspapers indicate that groups A, B, or C, on a whim, can adopt culture P, Q, or R, as they see fit, and, when this is no longer trendy, they will opt for cultures X, Y and Z. As John Derbyshire recently wrote, proponents of a theory of culture hold that human nature is infinitely resilient, “like a water-filled balloon. Any of its characteristics can be pushed into almost any shape by ‘cultural’ forces..., but will submit to radical re-shaping if different forces are applied.”
Culture, presupposing man is infinitely resilient, facilitates radical reshaping, but does it actually exist? Any proponent of culture must first prove its ontological status. Does culture really exist or is it only a façon de parler? We speak of many things, which prove important for how we see ourselves, although there is not a shred of empirical evidence for their actual existence, e.g. the subconscious, Attention Deficit Disorder, etc. And if it is only a façon de parler, what is it? If culture is a property of certain things in the world and what they share in common, what is it that underlies culture that makes it meaningful? Is ‘culture’ a substitute for something else?
Is culture a theory how the world operates? If one were to ask a proponent of a theory culture to articulate its criterion of falsification, could he? In other words, what would need to be true in the world for culture inadequately to explain the reality of our experiences? If any such piece of evidence cannot be found, or only turns out to be further proof for the existence of a theory of culture (as Popper showed was the case for Marxism or Freudianism), then this idea of culture might better be thought of as a modern ideology. And ideological it probably is, especially in light of its replacing older forms of understanding.
John Lukacs (in “To Hell with Culture,” Chronicles, Sept. 1994) made the case for the primacy of civilization over culture, criticizing the modern widely held belief that culture supersedes civilization. Although civilization, the antithesis of barbarism, is the older concept, culture, a recent creation, has held the upper hand since nearly 200 years of intellectual support. Such a shift, Lukacs notes, has resulted in our present state of affairs where “one can have culture without civilization.” The liberal narrative thus runs that we have advanced from a state of primitiveness to civilization to culture. Today, culture (often a very crass culture) trumps all.
One must stop to ask himself: If culture is a recent creation, how did we get along without it for so long? From the ancient Greeks to Renaissance Europeans, civilization continued without any modern notion of culture. In fact, it could be argued that the pre-Moderns got along better without it. If one were to graph the rise of the popularity of culture, one would chart a negative correlation to the decline of Western countries. The more deracinated a people becomes, the more it requires culture.
How did “pre-culture” countries survive? Prior to the Enlightenment, people spoke in more concrete terms. One would hear of Celts, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Dutch, etc., but rarely would description dissipate into the abstraction of culture. The ascension of culture only occurs after the elevation of the abstraction of man, after the belief in the malleability of man, which De Maistre famously rebuked, “I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians…but man I have never met.”
The moral implications from such a change are profound. As culture entails deracination, so pre-culture civilizations emphasized the ancestral. For example, the role that genealogy plays in ancient morality cannot be understated. The Greeks believed in inherited guilt, and crimes committed by ancestors would be paid by the offspring. Greek tragedy contains countless characters whose destiny is determined by the wrongdoings of their forefathers. Although such a belief may seem unfair to modern sensibilities, it exemplifies the time-tested truth that the apple often does not fall far from the tree.
Pre-culture civilizations spoke on concrete terms, not in abstractions such as “culture.” These societies were rooted blood and soil, kith and kin, kin networks, and blood ties. Both Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism were predicated upon tribal systems, and classical political terms (e.g. nation) often imply link by blood. Aeneas was to found the gens Romana (Roman race), not invent or spread “Roman culture.”
Whereas modern morality seems to presuppose abstractions such as culture to transform, ancient morality was rooted in the ancestral. Even classical natural law, although equated with the mind of God, still manifests itself, as Cicero noted, in the mos maiorum, the tradition of one’s ancestors. Ancient morality, in other words, involved not simply a set of ideas, but the acting in accordance with the customary, time-tested ways of one’s forbearers. Unlike the modern phenomenon of choosing one’s culture, one was born into a set of ancestral traditions to which he was expected to conform.
Elements of the ancestral sill survive today, and what one means when he speaks of culture often overlaps with a classical understanding of the ancestral. When one speaks of assimilation and immigration, he inevitably he speaks of culture, but something deeper lingers. Patruck J. Buchanan once stated, “If we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them up in Virginia, what group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?” Such inquiries demonstrate the shallowness of culture and the naïve belief that one can simply assimilate people into a culture, as one would record data onto a CD.
People possess ancestral loyalties, which persist regardless of attempted cultural assimilation. Third-generation, well “assimilated” Americans desire to learn their roots. Quite often, Asian Americans want to learn of Asia; African Americans, of Africa; and European Americans, of Europe. They want to learn about their ancestral traditions. Is this wrong? No. It demonstrates the call of the ancestral.
But regardless of the power of the ancestral, culture’s luster will continue to dazzle and deracinate. Only when Westerners put aside such ideological pretensions and again take seriously the ancestral will any hope of recovery seem possible.
Matthew A. Roberts writes from Parkville, MO.
Comments
Mr. Roberts writes: “The Greeks believed in inherited guilt, and crimes committed by ancestors would be paid by the offspring.” and “such a belief may seem unfair to modern sensibilities”.
Affirmative action and gender quotas and such are attempts to correct past injustices. Any one who believes that such quota practices are just, ipso facto believes in inherited guilt of the white male.
He should not take the rhetoric of those he considers his enemies at face value. Then he wouldn’t have to construct abstract theories of the concreteness of ancestry versus the abstractness of culture.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m reminded of Sam Huntington’s “Who Are We?” where he argues that Anglo-American culture is important, and can and should be propagated, whereas actual Anglo-American _people_ are unimportant and can be left to die out.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Matt Roberts has written a fine, perceptive essay.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“...the role that genealogy plays in ancient morality cannot be understated. The Greeks believed in inherited guilt, and crimes committed by ancestors would be paid by the offspring. ...Although such a belief may seem unfair to modern sensibilities, it exemplifies the time-tested truth that the apple often does not fall far from the tree.”
And, of course, not only did the ancient Greeks believe this but it is the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“People possess ancestral loyalties, which persist regardless of attempted cultural assimilation.”
Does this explain Hispanics and Jews voting overwhelmingly for the non-white candidate, Obama?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
While I am all in favor of preserving the ancestral, a word like “culture” doesn’t make me reach for my pistol. “Culture” as well as “civilization” at this point in history seem equally useful and equally problematic. Each term could be defined as open or closed to other peoples, identities; one could emphasize universalism or tribal particularity as much as the other. Cultures and civilizations can include and exclude in equal numbers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Very good essay, although I object to the assertion that there is no empirical evidence of Attention Deficit Disorder. It can be demonstrated on testing. It can be somewhat demonstrated with imaging. It can be demonstrated by a predictable response to treatment. It can be demonstrated by asking anyone (teacher, Sunday School teacher, Little League coach, etc.) who works with an adequate sample of kids. There are clearly outliers.
The problem with ADD as it is currently conceived is that it is almost certainly not one thing. It is likely a final common (and not even all that common) pathway representing multiple different upstream defects.
Now back to the subject at hand, culture. People want to detach culture from the people who gave rise to it. One does not have to be a total genetic determinist to understand this is a foolish endeavor. It is felt necessary only because liberal ideology demands it. It is so because it MUST be so. It CAN”T be otherwise.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
An example of the Real Loss of Western Culture.
“A judge in Spain has ruled that crucifixes hung on classroom walls contravene the secular and neutral nature of the country’s constitution.
The Macias Picavea state school in Valladolid must now remove the religious symbols from classrooms and public spaces. The case was sparked by a 2005 complaint from a parent and a local secular association.
The judgement is said to be the first of its kind in the country’s history: “What you have to realise is that the content of this ruling corresponds exactly with the provisions of the constitution and the secular character of the State,” said Mercedes Cabrera, Spain’s Education Minister.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The word culture simply means “behavior” usually in the context of a population. Humans have culture, Elephants have culture, and even ants have culture.
Just replace the word “culture” with “behavior” and you’ll see past the BS. You’re right that word “culture” is used to obfuscate but that’s on the low level of obfuscation. Try the words “Liberal”, “Conservative”, or “Western” for higher level obfuscation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The word culture simply means “behavior” usually in the context of a population. Humans have culture, Elephants have culture, and even ants have culture.”
BWAAAHHAAAH !!!!!!!!!!!!
Cult, Cultivate, Culture = Behavior, Ants, Elephants ???
Please, this is a waste of time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have no problem with the word “culture” in America. I do have problems with it used elsewhere, where it usually stands for leftist doctrine. But in America we could use more culture as well as “culture.”
“Civilization” is a little too lofty. From there we go to “Western civilization"- something we are a part of historically but that’s larger than us. Then we see ourselves as the West’s epitome and launch crusades in the Middle East, or some such non-sense. Suddenly no one else is Western, only us and we have to fight all enemies.
“Culture” on the other hand I see as a successor to the Greek concept of paideia. Our pragmatic education-in-order-to-get-a-job is the corruption that you end up with when you remove culture from paideia. We don’t practice enculturation (paideia) of the young, instead we teach them practical skills- at best. Hence, the graduates from our fine (read: expensive) educational institutions are the biggest crooks, liars, cheaters, and misanthropes around.
Americans don’t like the term “culture” because they don’t see themselves as having culture. Or they silenty admit that the culture they have (hot dogs, burgers, baseball caps, etc) is inferior to other cultures. Which is true, but there’s more to culture than bad food and bad taste. At the same time while culture is usually confined to a people, American culture, usually in its bad aspects, is one of our biggest and most succesful exports. What teenager everywhere in the world doesn’t want to talk, dress, appear like a cool American- free of the old fashioned cultural characteristics of the parents.
American culture does have its positive aspects, but it’s getting lost in a generation of kids who grew up like wild animals eating McDonald’s and worshipping MTV rappers (anyone still surprised that young people voted for Baruch Obama?) and who were raised by foreign nannies who don’t speak English.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am reminded that Spengler wrote that “Civilization” was the level of a “Great Culture” in its terminal phase. Oh well.
In recent years, researchers have posed the existence of a “Field” similar to Jungian Collective Subconscious, Hayekian Spontaneous Order, and the Remote Viewing Matrix. Whether in these configurations or something entirely different, it would appear that NL2C (non-linear, non-local communication) governs much of our lives, i..e., the Madness of Crowds, herding instinct, etc.
The thought is that reception of NL2C is enhanced by DNA similarity, much like a “tuned” antenna receives information out of the cacophony of noise. This would explain why “culture” develops among genetically related groups even when separated in time and distance. I go into this in more detail in FINDING WAVES, Traders Press.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Piatak calls this essay persuasive. I mean no disrespect to him or to Mr. Roberts in saying that it is by no means clear to me what readers are to be persuaded of. Far from considering all cultures fungible (let alone of equal worth), the point of those who hate and attack Buchanan for saying what he said is surely that assimilation is a base and wicked goal. The adaptability of culture--and whether it maintains or even cares about ancestral connections--matters not to those who wish to fragment American society, even in its present debased post-Christian phase. Rather, the displacing of what remains of a common culture (however this now worsened word is understood) by a million pieces of figuratively broken glass, each of which cuts, chafes, and distracts its neighbors, is the aim of our masters (who they are is too well known to require belaboring). There is far more to be said on this topic than time or space or my own learning permits, however.
I must admit to disappointment over Mr. Roberts’s failure to examine the inflationary pressures that have made the word culture so cheap as to be hardly worth the using. He cites John Lukacs’s preference for civilization to culture; I wonder whether he knows that the late Bede Griffiths preferred things the other way round (Griffiths’s ruminations on culture [viewed as a high concept, à la Arnold] and civilization were expressed in his 1954 autobiography The Golden String, a book written before he went to India and, sadly, went totally native). Of course, had “culture” had as little intrinsic worth in the fifties as it had come to have in the nineties, perhaps Lukacs and Arnold would have been on the same page.
John Bosco (who happens to be the patron saint of editors; his cultus here at Takimag is clearly at a low ebb) viewed real culture as a critical element in the Christianizing of the young. I do not hesitate to assert that were he alive today, he would repudiate his own words and impose a severe corporal penance upon himself for ever having uttered them. The one sure thing I am persuaded of, with or without Mr. Roberts’s essay, is that both words, “culture” and “civilization,” need to undergo a refining fire before they are used without accompanying sneer quotes.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
That is, “. . . perhaps Lukacs and Griffiths would have been on the same page.” Mea culpa.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am surprised to see “custom” barely mentioned in this piece. Early ethnographers were enthusiasts for detailing all the customs of various tribes and peoples.
Original Post: “Unfortunately, institutions, such as universal public education, did not produce such perfection, and state-sponsored programs, which briefly were committed to disseminating high culture, were later transformed into spawning grounds for Marxism and multiculturalism. “
In the later pages of Louis Menand’s The Metaphysical Club, he notes that early 20th-century US progressives emphasized immigrants’ and blacks’ “traditional cultures” in hopes of ameliorating the leveling and corrosive effects of mass culture. So it seems a rejection of US low culture, not a rejection of Euro-American high culture, began the multicultural trend.
Click to flag this comment as abusive