Culture Club
Culture is the buzz word of the Right. They want to preserve, promote and protect it. Or so they say. They’re not racists. They just love their country and their culture (like the Romeo who professes his love for his wife by hating all other women). They don’t hate the foreigners, but they're just a threat to our national identity. Or so they say.
Their analytical naivety is, in my opinion, their fundamental weakness. Yet paradoxically it is what gives them their strength. The strength of mass appeal. It’s easy to rally people around ‘our culture’ without defining what that is. If one asked all the people at the ANR demonstration last October what they understand by the term ‘Maltese culture’ they would have all given a different answer. Culture, as a concept, is a tough nut to crack. I would not burden myself with the difficult task of coming up with a comprehensive definition of such a vast concept. I’ll leave that to professional sociologists. Nobody in their right mind would dream of coming up with an original definition in a short blog entry like this anyway. But that is besides the point. Or is it? I mean, if sociologists struggle to come up with a definition of culture, how are the Right-wingers talking about it as if it’s an uncontested, universally accepted and a uniformly understood concept? What do they understand by culture? L-Ghonnella u l-bigilla? The Maltese language? Or general patterns of behaviour? Speculation gets us nowhere, so for conveniency’s sake I will take up a random definition to work with. Hiller (1933) defined culture as:
The beliefs, system of thought, practical arts, manner of living, customs, tradition, and all socially regularised ways of acting…So defined, culture includes all the activities which develop in the association between persons or which are learned from a social group, but excludes those specific forms of behaviour which are predetermined byinherited nature (Hiller, in Kroeber et al, 1952: 82).
If anything, the first thing that one must acknowledge and which the Right cannot seem to get is that culture is not static. It’s not fixed and unmovable. It’s not a shared mass of patterned behaviour. We’re not lemmings. Within the territorial borders of the Maltese islands we find a kaleidoscopic variety of ‘beliefs, system of thought, practical arts and manner of living’. ‘Customs and traditions’ are not shared either. Not only that but one cannot say that the current patterns of behaviours and lifestyles are intrinsically Maltese either. What is so Maltese about a young person’s weekend routine of partying and eating kebabs for example? How does this ‘Maltese culture’ that the Right speaks about, connect a young rocker from the North of Malta and an old bizzilla woman from a Gozitan village? For all it’s worth, these people are living in different worlds even if they share the same flag and possibly, although not necessarily, the same language. Her traditions are alien to the rocker and you can be sure that he looks at her work with tourist eyes when he’s spending a weekend in Gozo; and I would dance naked in the streets if she can carry a conversation with him about local bands Beheaded and Forsaken.
What does the Right consider as ‘Maltese culture’? What is it that they’re defending exactly? This is something that they never seem to be eager to explain. In my eyes it is obvious why. Why seek to define your concept if you can appeal to more people by being general and vague? That is their strength. They yell ‘Maltese culture’ in the microphones, they write it in the letters to the press and hold it up high as their sacred banner. That way the rocker and the Gozitan woman can equally relate to what they’re saying even if the term ‘Maltese culture’ creates in their heads opposite mental images. This unifying factor is just an imaginary relation. There is no one whole, static ‘Maltese culture’ that connects all the people born under the flag.
Their analytical naivety is, in my opinion, their fundamental weakness. Yet paradoxically it is what gives them their strength. The strength of mass appeal. It’s easy to rally people around ‘our culture’ without defining what that is. If one asked all the people at the ANR demonstration last October what they understand by the term ‘Maltese culture’ they would have all given a different answer. Culture, as a concept, is a tough nut to crack. I would not burden myself with the difficult task of coming up with a comprehensive definition of such a vast concept. I’ll leave that to professional sociologists. Nobody in their right mind would dream of coming up with an original definition in a short blog entry like this anyway. But that is besides the point. Or is it? I mean, if sociologists struggle to come up with a definition of culture, how are the Right-wingers talking about it as if it’s an uncontested, universally accepted and a uniformly understood concept? What do they understand by culture? L-Ghonnella u l-bigilla? The Maltese language? Or general patterns of behaviour? Speculation gets us nowhere, so for conveniency’s sake I will take up a random definition to work with. Hiller (1933) defined culture as:
The beliefs, system of thought, practical arts, manner of living, customs, tradition, and all socially regularised ways of acting…So defined, culture includes all the activities which develop in the association between persons or which are learned from a social group, but excludes those specific forms of behaviour which are predetermined byinherited nature (Hiller, in Kroeber et al, 1952: 82).
If anything, the first thing that one must acknowledge and which the Right cannot seem to get is that culture is not static. It’s not fixed and unmovable. It’s not a shared mass of patterned behaviour. We’re not lemmings. Within the territorial borders of the Maltese islands we find a kaleidoscopic variety of ‘beliefs, system of thought, practical arts and manner of living’. ‘Customs and traditions’ are not shared either. Not only that but one cannot say that the current patterns of behaviours and lifestyles are intrinsically Maltese either. What is so Maltese about a young person’s weekend routine of partying and eating kebabs for example? How does this ‘Maltese culture’ that the Right speaks about, connect a young rocker from the North of Malta and an old bizzilla woman from a Gozitan village? For all it’s worth, these people are living in different worlds even if they share the same flag and possibly, although not necessarily, the same language. Her traditions are alien to the rocker and you can be sure that he looks at her work with tourist eyes when he’s spending a weekend in Gozo; and I would dance naked in the streets if she can carry a conversation with him about local bands Beheaded and Forsaken.
What does the Right consider as ‘Maltese culture’? What is it that they’re defending exactly? This is something that they never seem to be eager to explain. In my eyes it is obvious why. Why seek to define your concept if you can appeal to more people by being general and vague? That is their strength. They yell ‘Maltese culture’ in the microphones, they write it in the letters to the press and hold it up high as their sacred banner. That way the rocker and the Gozitan woman can equally relate to what they’re saying even if the term ‘Maltese culture’ creates in their heads opposite mental images. This unifying factor is just an imaginary relation. There is no one whole, static ‘Maltese culture’ that connects all the people born under the flag.
Maltese culture is in constant motion and it changes; it evolves. Besides, how the mere presence of other cultures forces people to change their ‘beliefs, systems of thought, manners of living’, without their own consent is a bit perplexing. Of course there will be influence, but that is reciprocal and is not done at gun-point. If culture was indeed the concern of the Right, they should promote it by being active in cultural activities rather than bash and feel threatened by other cultures. If I’m permitted to re-use the previous Romeo analogy, I would say that it is a sign of sheer insecurity if Romeo feels that the presence of other women is enough to interfere with his relationship with Juliet. Food for thought. Local food for thought if you will.
posted by Peklectrick at 1:22 AM
6 Comments:
A very good essay.
But I think that rather than promoting culture (whatever that may be), their raison d'etre is to promoze Nazi ideals. Their forum says it all.
Their analytical naivete... but do popular movements, including those of the Left, ever have an analytical genius? Or rather, isn't analytical naivete a political tactic for ANY movement that goes populist?
As for your [non-]definition of culture, I agree almost perfectly, and I'm Rightwing (or am I?).
"Maltese culture is in constant motion and it changes; it evolves."
Once things are seen exclusively in a historical perspective, humanity becomes a passive agent, with no direct involvement in the shaping of its society and culture. Of course cultures do change, but does that say anything about people's reaction to change? Must change, which is what the old right mostly fears, necessarily be embraced simply because things have changed in the past? Ultimately, this rests on whether one happens to perceive the occuring change positively (you) or negatively (the old right). Conservatism is not opposed to change for its own sake; as Burke wrote: "A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation."
And they have nothing to do with Nazi ideals, which were, quite simply, avant-garde. I'm sure that equating the two is insulting to both factions.
Once things are seen exclusively in a historical perspective, humanity becomes a passive agent, with no direct involvement in the shaping of its society and culture.
Why?
Must change, which is what the old right mostly fears, necessarily be embraced simply because things have changed in the past?
Not merely because it changed in the past, because it is changing in the present.
Ultimately, this rests on whether one happens to perceive the occuring change positively (you) or negatively (the old right).
I don't agree. Accepting that cultures will evolve and change has nothing to do with the positivity or otherwise of one's perception of that change.
great blog
Legatory
Post a Comment
<< Home