Rebuilding Culture in the Labour Movement: collaborations for the future and celebrations of the past.
Friday, 15 December 2017 02:41

Rebuilding Culture in the Labour Movement: collaborations for the future and celebrations of the past.

Published in Cultural Commentary

Dr Rebecca Hillman, University of Exeter, reflects on the importance of rebuilding the cultural wing of the labour movement.

Since 2013, a group of political artists, trade unionists and academics have been meeting to plan events to bring together people from across the UK left, to share information about ongoing industrial action, campaigns and organising drives - and artistic strategies which might strengthen those initiatives.

The idea was partly to provide a platform for a kind of cultural/political matchmaking, if you will. That is, the events would introduce people interested in integrating cultural practice into their day-to-day political work, and artists making politically conscious work that was not yet embedded in the broader movement, to seasoned organisers, activists and artists. The events would also provide space for artists from different backgrounds and with diverse approaches and expertise to exchange ideas, hone their practices and potentially form new collaborations. Furthermore, these events would celebrate and revivify some of the extremely rich histories of culture operating at the core of collective struggle, whose documentation is still relatively sparse.

The hope was that all this would galvanise incentive, provide orientation, and build skills across various cohorts on the left, and, in so doing, would weave strong and colourful cultural threads through broader political structures. The events would also provide space for crucial discussion on challenges and opportunities that the movement faces today, for example: changes in technology and the role of social media; challenges of an increasingly casualised and precarious workforce; the prospect of increased automation; significant shifts in policies and practices of trade unions, and of political parties, and so on.

The following text is a short speech I delivered at the Liberating Arts Festival earlier this month, the second and the largest of the two events that have taken place so far to the ends outlined above. There is so much the speech doesn’t cover in terms of processes, achievements, and areas for development/future plans. However, it marks the event, and begins to sketch some of the contexts and ideas that informed it. For now, the rest is for a longer publication, which will have to follow. 

Speech to participants at the Liberating Arts Festival, Roborough Studios, University of Exeter, 4th November, 2017.

Welcome to the University of Exeter. Thank you for being here today to share this space with us, as well as your rich ideas and contributions for creating, sustaining, remembering, and developing political culture. My name is Rebecca Hillman. I’m a lecturer in the Drama Department here, and have been working on a longer-term project, of which this event forms a part, with Banner Theatre, the General Federation of Trade Unions, Reel News and Townsend Productions, overall, over the course of about 4 years!

I’m thrilled that we’ve been brought together today, from locations across the UK and beyond, to discuss – and celebrate – how art and politics have intersected and functioned in political movements past and present… and, crucially, to build relationships with one another as we talk about, and even begin to practice the development of those relationships and intersections for the future.

Townsend We Are Lions

Townsend Productions, We Are The Lions, Mr Manager! at the Liberating Arts Festival 

I’m pleased, and proud, that we are gathered in the University of Exeter’s Drama Department. Exeter Drama has (for 50 years next year!) been the home of research and teaching with radical and progressive underpinnings. Our students, many of whom were helping out today, continue to undertake exciting political work with insight, passion and curiosity, through critical and practical experimentation in the department, and in the wider community.

As for this event and the overarching project, the aim has always been to strengthen and create new bridges between trade union organising and other left activism, art practice and educational work. It feels like a great achievement to be sharing this platform, and the activities today, with people from different occupations and walks of life, and to have representation across different generations of political artists and organisers. It’s been challenging but important to hold some of these different contingents at the core of the organisation of this project, as well as to reflect this, as far as possible, in the structure of the programme, which offers diverse expertise from those pushing the boundaries of cultural and political practice.

My own interest in these ideas stems from my work as a theatre maker and trade unionist, whose practice has been facilitated and enriched through intellectual exchange, financial support, and comradeship from trade unions and trade councils. Meanwhile, I consider my own most successful attempts at political organising to have happened in the rehearsal room, the performance, and the post-show discussion. That is, it’s happened when people have had the space and time to express themselves creatively and to work with others over a duration, and to discover ways to powerfully communicate their experiences. Many of us in this room will have used artistic forms to amplify our voices to speak back to power, and to communicate with one another. We understand that artistic processes can help us discover that we’re not alone; help us discover our strength as a chorus, or crew, company, or collective. I often think of director/playwright/agitator John McGrath’s words (in relation to theatre specifically), that ‘the basic imperative of solidarity – that what happens to other people matters: these things theatre can embody, in its forms and processes’ (Nadine Holdsworth (ed.) Naked Thoughts that Roam About: Reflections on Theatre).

Political art can help us deconstruct the past and imagine better futures. It can articulate a political problem to us, more clearly than we’ve heard it before. It can win an argument, and encourage us to think critically. It can pack an emotional punch; moving us in ways we can’t quite put our finger on or put into words, but that we carry with us. Maybe it’s something to do with the way the light falls on a performer’s face… or the way she looks you in the eye…. or the way a harmony in song, or sharing a space, physically, with people from your community who you’ve never met before, makes you catch your breath, or cry, or laugh, or shout, or want to leave the room. Art can introduce us to new ideas and feelings, start conversations, and friendships, and strengthen our resolve to undertake, or continue with, the hard graft of making change. It can create powerful infrastructures, and ‘cultures of feeling’. It can begin to intervene in the very structures of our reality, changing our environment, and our behaviour. It has been recognised and used effectively to these ends by political agitators and organisers over centuries.

Many of you will be very familiar with the rich history that cultural workers and trade unionists share; how they’ve tackled collectively ideological, practical and financial challenges (many of which, unfortunately, still resonate today - remarkably closely in some cases). In the 1960s and 1970s in the UK organisations were developed by artists making politically radical work, to provide infrastructure and support for their practice. For example, Agitprop was set up in 1968 to provide (and I quote) ‘a comprehensive information and communications service for all those […] working towards a revolutionary transformation of our society’ (Catherine Itzin, Stages in the Revolution: Political Theatre in Britain Since 1968). Impressively, this included an Entertainments Booking Agency, a Lawyers’ Group, a Publicity Group, a Music Group, a Special Effects Group, and a Street Theatre Group, as well as publications, libraries and conferences to disseminate information, and coordinate operations!

Meanwhile, the formation in the mid-70s of TACT (The Association of Community Theatres), the TWU (Theatre Writer’s Union) and the ITC (Independent Theatre Council) gave practical, creative and financial support to ‘alternative’ theatre-makers, providing a central base for equipment for hire/loan/sale; helping playwrights win the living wage, and helping groups define their own identities when the Arts Council’s criteria was found to be limiting and exclusive. Supported by such endeavors, collaborative projects evolved between artists, unions and housing associations, for example. Theatre companies performed at meetings, on picket lines and mass protests, in working men’s clubs, and in factories, schools and hospitals. We’re so privileged today to have representation from groups who were involved with, and who continue that work (in fact, I’m speaking through Banner Theatre’s microphone right now!)

Over the last few years, brilliant initiatives have emerged that begin to recall that legacy, in terms of their approaches to engagement and/or their integration into political movements. A few examples of this in terms of groups who are with us today or who presented work at our last event in December 2016, include the Artists’ Union, founded last year; Reel News who have documented strike action up and down the country and disseminated this far and wide; Brandalism’s campaigning through street art in the run up to the general election this summer; and Salford Community Theatre, who have worked with their community to create spaces of political consciousness and solidarity, in the process bringing people together with labour movement activists, and blurring the lines between performance and protest.

Love on the Dole

Salford Community Theatre's production of Love on the Dole, 2016 (Colin Armstrong Photography)

And there are many other examples, of course… like Common Wealth Theatre’s We’re Still Here, which took place a few months ago at the Port Talbot steel works, and which told the story of the Save Our Steel campaign through the eyes of local people; Ken Loach’s I Daniel Blake, which premiered at Momentum’s 2016 The World Transformed, before touring community centres, labour clubs and foodbanks to raise money for those whose lives have been carved up by relocation, benefit sanctions, precarious contracts, the running down and the privatization of public services, and a raft of other symptoms of dogged neoliberal governance. The World Transformed itself, of course, which aims to function as the cultural (left) wing of the Labour Party, provides an interesting model with scope for networking and infrastructures to support relevant practice. There have also been various initiatives by Collective Encounters (who today happen to be running an event on kick-starting cultural activism projects!) … I could easily go on.

So, these are exciting times! But, as ever, there’s much work to be done. There’s a case for rebuilding a cultural wing to the labour movement that is far more tightly integrated and more firmly supported than it is presently. What this might look like, and how to make steps towards it are the fundamental questions driving these events. It is an ambitious undertaking, but it is essential if we are to rebuild the strength of our movement so that it can respond with power and dexterity to many current forthcoming changes and challenges.

My general impression over the past decade, though things are beginning to shift, is that there is a disconnect between many - particularly young - political artists and the broader movement. Also, though, that the moment we’re in, slippery as it is to hold onto long enough to define, provides unique opportunities. We have recently witnessed an influx of young people into political consciousness and activity in this country. They have, and will continue (sadly) to respond to privatisation, precarity and poverty, but also to political figures and cultural activists bold enough to carve out a socialist politics in late capitalism. Their response has manifest recently from the doorstep to branch meetings and to the ballot box; from social media to mass protests; through quiz nights, karaoke, boxing clubs, grime, street theatre, strike action, benefit gigs, community theatre projects and hilarious memes - all of which has been facilitated by expert networking.

Those of us involved at the outset of this project - the one we’re part of today - couldn’t quite envision this burgeoning of organised, creative political engagement, which was just around the corner. Or, how young people, and others who were previously disengaged would channel their anger - including, by the way, those who may not fit neatly into conceptions of what ‘the left’ looks like. What we can learn from each other, across perceived differences, so that political culture is something useful and relevant, powerful and integrated, and so it is understood that it is socialism that answers our immediate class interests, should be our greatest priority as we move forwards.

Please keep in touch. Thanks for being here. Have a fantastic night.

banner theatre Rise Like Lions

Rise, Like Lions! Performed at the Liberating Arts Festival

A full list of the sessions, which included a wide range of workshops, discussions and performances is available here.

Culture is ordinary: the politics and letters of Raymond Williams
Friday, 15 December 2017 02:41

Culture is ordinary: the politics and letters of Raymond Williams

Published in Cultural Commentary

Derek Wall introduces the life and work of Raymond Williams, and presents a review of a recent book about his politics and writings.

Raymond Williams, born in Pandy in Monmouthshire in 1921, was a working class Welshman who became one of Britain's greatest socialist intellectuals. A grammar school boy he read English at Cambridge, became a professor and wrote a series of books on Marxism and culture. He sold 750,000 copies of books like Culture and Society, Keywords, The Long Revolution and Marxism and Literature. He has shaped the left we have today. Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood likes to quote Williams' description of what it means to be politically engaged on the left: 'To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing'.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett gave the Raymond Williams Foundation lecture in 2015. Jeremy Corbyn also seems to sound a lot like Raymond Williams, with his desire for a democratic, ecological and deep seated socialism.

Williams is best known for his work on culture. He argued that culture is ordinary and not elite, calling for a democratic approach to the arts. His most important piece of writing is in fact entitled 'Culture is Ordinary' published in 1958, remains worth reading today in the 21st century. 'Culture is Ordinary' is part a critique of T.S.Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. The poet famous for both The Wasteland and the musical Cats was interested in how we understand this slippery word and its wide implications. Notes Towards the Definition of Culture has some strengths. Eliot sees culture as a wide and multiple concepts including both artistic achievement and a description of a whole way of life. His examples of British culture are rather charming ranging from cheese to sporting events:

Derby Day, Henley Regatta, Cowes, the twelfth of August, a cup final, the dog races, the pin table, the dart board, Wensleydale cheese, boiled cabbage cut into sections, beetroot in vinegar, nineteenth century Gothic churches and the music of Elgar.

However, Eliot pursues a right wing elitist perspective. He argues that culture can be high or low, that only a minority fully engage with high culture, that culture is essential to prevent social disintegration. Ultimately only a kind of cultural elite can preserve and maintain the culture necessary for a civilised society to exist.

Raymond Williams in contrast argues that although distinctions are possible, citing the excesses of the media which even before tabloids like the Sun was crude and prejudice, culture is not the preserve of a tiny minority. In 'Culture is Ordinary' Williams argues that, 'An interest in learning or the arts is simple, pleasant and natural.'

Williams further noted that by becoming a student at Cambridge he didn't lose the working class Welsh culture that he had been brought up with. However, he had come to look at culture using two sets of academic perspectives. At Cambridge he became a follow of two cultural prophets, Karl Marx and the literary critic F.R.Leavis. He attended Leavis' lectures and was deeply influenced by him.

Leavis taught that literature was important because of its moral effects and its impact on everyday life. Williams agreed with him that formal artistic culture, such as a novel or poem or song, rather than being separate object was influenced by and influenced wider social life. Williams concept of the 'structure of feelings' also seems inspired by Leavis. However, Leavis was a cultural pessimist and, like Eliot, an elitist. He feared that culture was debased by industrial society, and feared the effect of mass American culture.

Williams learnt a lot from the Cambridge Marxists, but also came to reject some of their cultural analyses. He noted that the Marxists taught him several things: 'First, they said that a culture must be finally intrepreted in relation to its underlying system of production.'

Thus culture was if not totally determined by production was however strongly influenced by economics. A capitalist society shapes us with a capitalist culture. Also, the Marxists argued that education and access to culture was restricted by social class. Williams noted that with his working class background he was keenly aware that access to education was restricted. However, Williams also thought that Cambridge Marxism was also – paradoxically - elitist. While class and capitalism shaped culture, he thought there was also an independent and potentially resistant working class culture. Workers did not simply absorb capitalist norms, but created their own meanings. Williams also saw the Marxism of the 1930s as too prescriptive and dogmatic.

Williams took from the Marxism of his student days an assumption that culture was bound up with economics and class. He developed the concept of cultural materialism, arguing that culture had a material effect. He also argued that Marxism can be prescriptive about any form of culture, and argued that as well as socialism requiring the collective ownership of production, it also need collective, rather than elite, ownership of the means of communication. Diversity and real democracy were necessary for a vibrant socialist culture. State ownership was not sufficient, and one group's perception of the meaning of culture would always be restrictive.

Towards the end of his life he argued that new electronic communication would transfer culture. Raymond Williams is an important thinker if we seek a socialist culture and we defend the idea that culture is ordinary by which he meant culture was for all of us not simply an elite. Those of us on the left should study is words with care: culture helps shape society, so we need to learn how to shape culture.

                                                                                                      

Book review of Politics and Letters: Interviews with New Left Review,  by Raymond Williams, Verso, London, 2015.

Raymond Williams (1921-1988) was a self-described ‘Welsh European’, whose academic work as a literary theorist and activism, as variously a member of the Communist Party, Labour Party and Plaid Cymru, shaped the post-World War II British left. This recently reissued book provides a survey of Raymond Williams’ life and works. It is a novel and exciting project. Raymond Williams was interviewed about each of his most important books as well as his early biography and political essays. His opinions are subjected to detailed critique with a special attention from the interviewers on contradictions and silences in his work. This makes fascinating but often somewhat brutal reading.

Both the form and the content of this collection of interviews with the New Left Review (NLR) mark this as an important volume. Williams saw the book as a new and disturbing piece of literature. Three members of the NLR editorial board subjected Williams’ work to detailed scrutiny. Many of his major books and significant essays are examined. Such analysis was perhaps especially rigorous because the NLR editors knew his work in some detail, and believed his contributions were essential to the construction of Marxism in a UK context.

It is common to subject thinkers we disagree with to criticism, how much more painful but instructive to examine those with whom we sympathize with sharp analytical tools. Williams seems to have been plunged into personal crisis by taking part in the volume which, running to over 400 pages, took several months of interviews to complete. While this form may have been difficult for Williams, at times, it is an excellent overview of his work up until 1980 and provides a model for critical materialist scholarship. It would be good to see this form extend to other thinkers; it produces impressive results.

The contents, as well as the form, have considerable merit. A major intellectual figure from the 1950s to his death in 1988, Williams often seems forgotten, and even at his height of popularity seems to have been largely unnoticed outside the UK. There are a number of reasons why his considerable output remains important nearly thirty years after his death.

He challenged the Marxism that he encountered in the 1940s, as naïve, and embarked on a quest to make Marxist ideas both more sophisticated and accessible. While Britain is seen as distant from varied forms of Western Marxism some of the questions examined by thinkers as varied as Sartre, Althusser, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School were also addressed by Williams.

Equally, his experience as a working class socialist who gained access to an elite academic institution are instructive. He can be seen as a key thinker in the development of ecosocialism. His essay ‘Ecology and Socialism’ helped inspire socialists to embrace an ecological dimension in their politics and for greens to look to a socialist commitment in their environmental analysis.

The early chapters of the book, which are biographical, are perhaps the least challenging but most enjoyable. Raymond Williams discusses how he was born the son of a railway signalman in the Welsh border town of Pandy in Monmouth. He shone at grammar school. Without his knowledge, his headmaster and father successfully applied for him to read English at Cambridge. His father was an active member of the Labour Party and memories of the 1926 General Strike were strong in Williams’ community as he grew up. His left wing commitment deepened at Cambridge and he joined the Communist Party. He wrote Communist Party pamphlets with Eric Hobsbawm but drifted out of the party. During the Second World War he joined an anti-tank unit and fought in Normandy. His intellectual trajectory saw him developing theoretical insights from the literary critic F.R. Leavis as well as Marx and Engels.

The early chapters provide some of Williams' most charming and vibrant prose, but the remainder of the book is more instructive and, for Williams, often challenging. He was, for much of the postwar period, Britain's key left wing intellectual. He sold hundreds of thousands of books, which given their theoretical nature is impressive, and he appeared in numerous BBC television programmes.

His contention that 'culture is ordinary' was used to challenge elitist notions of culture, specifically T.S. Eliot’s notion that a kind of secular priesthood was needed to protect and promote culture. Williams engaged with Western Marxist approaches to literature and language, helping to introduce thinkers such as Gramsci, Althusser and Lucien Goldman to British audiences. His work helped promote the creation of a Marxist influenced form of cultural studies in the UK.

Raymond Williams is most important as a thinker who intervened and challenged both elite literary theory and the often simplistic and deterministic form of Marxism that dominated in the 1940s and 1950s. The suggestion in Politics and Letters is that, despite this, he was not always a rigorous and consistent theorist.

His first major work Culture and Society, published in 1958, is treated to extensive discussion in Politics and Letters. As far as I can tell Culture and Society argues that culture, rather than being ‘organic’ and fixed, is a product of social change. Williams describes the output of a number of key English commentators on culture from around 18th century onwards with an emphasis on the influence of the industrial revolution. Williams moves from Burke via William Blake to Carlyle and Arnold on to the interesting Marxist literary theorist Christopher Caudwell.

The barrage begins. Williams’ interviewers argued that he provides too little criticism of right wing thinkers under examination such as Edmund Burke, who was motivated by antipathy to the French Revolution. They also hint that Williams is too Anglocentric in the book, even failing to discuss the contribution of Marx and Engels who, of course, lived in exile in Britain during the period under study.

The interviews continue with Williams defending his political engagement during the writing of the book and agreeing with some of the critical points made by the NLR editors. He notes defensively but rather pleasingly that: ‘You have to remember that I read my own books too, and that in a competition for critical readers. I shall at least be in the final list.’ (106).

This dialogue is reflected through much of the remainder of Politics and Letters. Williams often seems better on intervention than sustained analysis, which is surely a strength. For example, despite the supposed weaknesses of Culture and Society, it was a largely successful intervention that challenged the notion of an elite culture. From his early employment with the Workers Education Association to his broadcasts with the BBC, Williams promoted an approach to culture that sought to build diversity and democracy.

I also feel that, while there is a small Raymond Williams industry, his approach can be seen as a contribution to a wider network of scholarship. On the left when we speak of a particular thinker, say Marx or Brecht, we import a form of methodological individualism. But intellectual production is a collective endeavour with key thinkers acting perhaps as nodes rather than unique originators. Perhaps one of Williams’ most important contributions to challenging this notion of an individual intellectual was his book Keywords, where he introduces a method that promotes a collective endeavour to research and understand, moving us beyond an author alone.

In Keywords Williams showed that words, rather than having an essential meaning, are subject to often dramatic change. One is reminded of the Russian theorist Bakhtin’s notion that the class struggle extends to the interpretation of individual words and that meaning is dialogic and polysemic. The interviewers in Politics and Letters, of course, take a sharp line, looking at contradictions and silences in Keywords. However, they acknowledge Keywords as a vital contribution, noting:

The intellectual effect of the kind of work initiated by Keywords could be regarded as akin to that of the Marxist critique of political economy – the demonstration that ideas and categories which are deemed universal and timeless are in fact eminently changeable and timebound. […] Your strategy in Keywords is to register the changes of meaning across a whole vocabulary very pointedly indeed.

Amongst Williams’ numerous works, The City and the Country is a key text for those of us on the ecosocialist left. In it, Williams develops his ideas about nature and culture, making way for his green political orientation in his essay 'Ecology and Socialism’. The City and the Country shows that ideas of nature and environment often fail to reflect the social construction of ecological concepts and issues.

The last section of the book deals with Williams’ political essays. These could be seen as marking a successful hegemonic project, a new left thinking that has become, at least in the UK, a left common sense, to some extent. Williams dominates political discourse on the left even though his name may be forgotten. The socialist and feminist leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood, quotes Williams. The current leader of the Green Party of England and Wales gave an annual Raymond Williams Foundation lecture in 2015. The Communist Party of Britain seems closer to Raymond Williams’ approach, with formulations that link culture to class politics. This website, Culture Matters, seems also to be very much in the Williams mould. I have no idea if the new and most left-wing leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, reads Williams, but he often sounds as if he does.

Williams seems to reject both a mechanistic Marxist politics that rejects culture, and culturalist politics that forgets class and economics. While the English Marxist historian E.P.Thompson critiqued Williams’ work as being too culturalist, Williams, towards the end of his life, defined himself once again as a Marxist. Williams also puts emphasis on a democratic and participatory form of left politics. Williams was, as noted, a keen early advocate of an ecological dimension to socialism.

During the 1980s the Communist Party of Great Britain was torn apart by a conflict between Eurocommunists and more traditional members, with the Party eventually dissolving in 1991. Supporters of the Morning Star newspaper then relaunched the present Communist Party of Britain. The Communist Party has had a strong intellectual influence on the wider UK left.

Williams was not a participant in the conflict within the CPGB in the 1980s, having left the Party during the Second World War. However, his work provides an insight into the conflict. Like the Eurocommunists, Raymond Williams stressed the need to engage with culture and new social movements, although he was keen that such engagements did not replace working class solidarity and activism.

In summary, this pioneering book shows that his thinking was neither consistently rigorous or original, but that he helped challenge both a particular form of rigid Marxism and an elitist approach to culture. In doing so he opened up ideological space for the British left in 2016, which in its diversity notes both class politics and ecology as well as the importance of structural change in ownership, and includes debates around identity and intersectionality. Raymond Williams contributed to some vital changes in the left political landscape in Wales and England, and we can still gain from close study of his words.

Part Two of this article is an edited version of a review first published in Marx and Philosophy Review of Books, www.marxandphilosophy.org.uk.

Blake's Jerusalem Frontispiece
Friday, 15 December 2017 02:41

Welcome! Thank You! Join In!

Published in Round-up

Welcome to Culture Matters, a website about progressive art, culture and politics.

You'll find more information about us in the About Us section, surprisingly enough.

We hope you enjoy your visit, and are interested, engaged and even inspired by the material to join in the 'mental fight'.

The Home Page has all of our latest articles, you can go here for details on recent material, and you can look at everything using the buttons above.

In particular we recommend the material which is about (and by) Muslims and refugees, such as the poems and short stories of Mohja Kahf, Muhaned Khorshid, and Amir Darwish. And we recommend Salena Godden's post-punk poem on the Paris attacks; Christopher Rowland's insightful article on Blake; John Storey's cogently argued piece on why culture matters; and Andy Croft's lucid yet passionate case for the essentially communist nature of poetry. If you know anyone who can write like Andy about the other arts, please send them our way.

Thanks also to the Morning Star for their assistance and support. Some of the current pieces you see here are taken from that unique paper. They are there not only for their own sake but as examples of the kind of committed writing we hope you are looking for, and which we want to encourage. And thanks to the Communist Party of Britain for providing webspace and technical support for this broadly based artistic and cultural project.

Culture Matters is currently like a first edition, or a skeleton, or a thinly populated country which we have provisionally mapped out but not defined. Many sections need more articles, and more creative material. In the months and hopefully years ahead, we want contributors to populate the country, help put flesh on the skeleton, and clothes on the flesh.

So please do join in, if you want to. You will find some common threads running through a lot of the material, a kind of emerging consensual approach to art, culture and politics. That approach, coming from contributors, is our steer, which we want to build on. Please help shape the site by reading the material, by making comments and suggestions, and by sending proposals and material to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Help build the new Jerusalem, artistically, culturally and politically, throughout Britain and the world as well as in England's green and pleasant land. Enjoy your visit, and please come back. Because Culture Matters!
Mike Quille and Ben Stevenson, Co-Managing Editors

 

What do we mean by culture and why does it matter?
Friday, 15 December 2017 02:41

What do we mean by culture and why does it matter?

Published in Cultural Commentary

What is culture and why does it matter? To help us answer those questions, Professor John Storey outlines a neo-Gramscian approach to culture. It exposes culture as a site of struggle, equips and empowers us to resist cultural domination, dissolves the barriers between 'high' and 'popular' culture, and thus helps us build the 'new Jerusalem'.

If we want to make the claim that culture matters politically, and be able to illustrate this claim against those who want us to see it as something quite distinct from the political, we need to be clear what we mean by culture. What I propose in this article is a working definition that will provide a way to think politically about all the things we call culture.

To claim that culture matters because it is ultimately political compels us to move beyond all definitions that reduce culture to the arts with a capital A. In other words, it is a definition that rejects the arbitrary – and elitist – distinction between culture and popular culture. The politics of culture involves all of us because it is about the making and circulation of meanings, meanings which affect all of us.

For example: meaning is produced by a play by William Shakespeare, but it is also produced by the latest episode of Coronation Street. If both produce meaning, and the production of meaning is how we are defining culture, it makes no sense to value one as culture and dismiss the other as popular culture. This does not mean that we cannot judge one as better than the other, but it does mean that we cannot rely on arbitrary categories of pre-judgement to make the decision for us. And of course ‘better’ always implies the questions: better for what and better for whom?

We must also reject the idea that the meaning of a play or television drama is the sole property of the text itself. Undoubtedly, they produce meaning but they are also sites for the production of meaning. And these meanings are variable, and often contested by those who consume them. Culture is a 'mental fight', as Blake wrote in 'Jerusalem'. It is a site of struggle between competing ways of making the world meaningful to us. And that cultural struggle therefore becomes a political struggle.

For the commodities produced by the culture industries (books, CDs, films, theatre, television programmes, etc.) to become culture, they have to be consumed and how they are consumed is always, ultimately, a question of politics. To paraphrase Karl Marx, a house only becomes a home when it is inhabited. So in a similar way a novel that no one reads is barely an example of culture. Culture involves both production and consumption. Both text and audience produce meaning: in political terms, a text can help change how we see the world, but so can the meanings we find in it.

There are two conclusions we can draw from a definition of culture as a terrain of shared and contested meanings. First, although the world exists in all its enabling and constraining materiality outside culture, it is only in culture that the world is made meaningful. In other words, signification has a ‘performative effect’; it helps construct the realities it appears only to describe. As Antonio Gramsci once pointed out,

'It is obvious that East and West are arbitrary and conventional (historical) constructions, since every spot on the earth is simultaneously East and West. Japan is probably the Far East not only for the European but also for the American from California and even for the Japanese himself, who, through English political culture might call Egypt the Near East … Yet these references are real, they correspond to real facts, they allow one to travel by land and by sea and to arrive at the predetermined destination.'

In other words, East and West are cultural constructions, directly connected to the imperial power of the West, but they are also forms of signification that have been realized and embedded in social practice. Cultural constructs they may be, but they do designate real geographic locations and guide real human movement and organize real political perceptions of the world. As Gramsci’s example makes clear, meanings inform and organize social action. To argue that culture is best understood as a terrain of shared and contested meanings is not, therefore, a denial that the material world exists in all its constraining and enabling reality, outside signification.

Such a concept of culture does not deny the existence of the materiality of things, but it does insist that materiality is mute: it does not issue its own meanings, it has to be made to mean. Although how something is made meaningful is always enabled and constrained by the materiality of the thing itself, culture is not a property of mere materiality. It is the entanglement of meaning, materiality and social practice, variable meanings in a range of different contexts and social practices. In other words, culture is always social, material and semiotic and always in a direct or indirect relation with the prevailing structures of power.

The second conclusion we can draw from seeing culture as a terrain of shared and contested meanings concerns the potential for struggle over meaning. Given that different meanings can be ascribed, for example, to the same novel or film, the making of meaning is always entangled in what Valentin Volosinov identified as the ‘multiaccentuality of the sign’. Rather than being inscribed with a single meaning, a book or a film can be made to mean different things in different contexts, with different effects of power. Contrast, for example, the interpretation of the film 'The Third Man' in the review elsewhere on this site, with the standard, mainstream interpretation.

Culture, understood as the making of meaning is, therefore, always a potential site of ‘differently oriented social interests’. Those with power often seek to make what is multi-accentual appear as if it could only ever be uni-accentual. In cultural terms, this is the difference between dictatorship and democracy.

The different ways of making something signify are rarely an innocent game of semantics, rather they are a significant part of a political struggle over what might be regarded as ‘normal’ or ‘correct’ – an example of the politics of signification. What are the class politics of Downton Abbey, or the gender politics of Game of Thrones? Is Trident a weapon of mass destruction, the use of which is impossible to envisage, or is it a necessary means of self-defense in an uncertain world? Is austerity a reasonable way to ensure we live within our means or is it a political choice that forces many people to rely on food banks and to become vulnerable to the Victorian diseases of malnutrition, scurvy, scarlet fever, cholera and whooping cough? In each example there is a struggle over meaning, a struggle over who can claim the power and authority to define social reality; to make the world (and the things in it) mean in particular ways and with particular effects of power.

Dominant modes of making the world meaningful are a fundamental aspect of the processes of hegemony. But hegemony is not something imposed that people passively accept. It is always a terrain of struggle between dominant and subordinate ways of understanding the world. While it is true that the forces of incorporation tend to be more powerful than the forces of resistance, this should not lead us to think of the consumption of culture as something always and inevitably passive. It is certainly true that the culture industries are a major site of ideological production, constructing powerful images, descriptions, definitions, frames of reference for understanding the world. However, we should reject the view that the people who consume these productions are ‘cultural dupes’, unable to resist the prevailing ‘common sense’.

People make culture (including popular culture) from the repertoire of commodities supplied by the culture industries. Consumption understood as ‘production in use’ can be empowering to subordinate understandings of the world. And it can be resistant to dominant understandings of the world. But this is not to say that consumption is always empowering and resistant. To deny the passivity of consumption is not to deny that sometimes consumption is passive; to deny that consumers are cultural dupes is not to deny that the culture industries seek to manipulate. But it is to deny that culture, especially popular culture, is little more than a degraded landscape of commercial and ideological manipulation, imposed from above in order to make profit and secure social control.

What is produced and how it is consumed can also challenge the taken-for-granted that always underpins hegemony. A progressive cultural analysis should insist that to decide these matters requires vigilance and attention to the details of the production, distribution and consumption of the commodities from which culture is made. These are not matters that can be decided once and for all (outside the contingencies of history and politics) with an elitist glance and a condescending sneer. Nor can they be read off purely from the moment of production, by locating meaning, pleasure, ideological effect, the probability of incorporation, the possibility of resistance, in, variously, the intention, the means of production or the production itself.

We need also to consider how meaning is generated through consumption, which should be understood as ‘production in use’. Because it is, ultimately, in ‘production in use’ that questions of meaning, pleasure, ideological effect, incorporation or resistance can be (contingently) decided.

This, I suggest, is a more optimistic, empowering approach to defining culture than traditional approaches. It enables us to engage with cultural products on more equal terms, and it enables us to break down the elitist divide between 'high' culture and 'popular' culture. I believe that if contributors to this website apply this approach, a wealth of meanings will be discovered which will help us build 'the new Jerusalem'.

The review of 'The Third Man' mentioned above is on the film section of the arts hub.