Culture’s Course through Discourse

The eccentric, intriguing nature of the word culture and what it is believed to embody perhaps was what led to the emergence of Cultural Studies as an academic discipline. The human pre-occupation (often obsession) with the elusive, the mystifying is what triggers and sustains every intellectual discourse in this arena. It’s a zone that has been created to meddle with insecurities and engage in the uncertain. Every question that the world shuns as idiosyncratic is brought up for dissection and scrutiny here. Is this done just to pacify/satisfy the need/greed of the intellect? Does it have a very strong sense of purpose before it launches into a discourse or does it aim to acquire/find its purpose through the discourse? Usually there arise no clear answers but instead more questions that are instrumental in causing one to live the answers of yesterday’s questions, though one may not realize it.

Cultural discourse is not so much about culture as it is about the agents that carry it. Culture always takes on the form of the agent hence understanding the agent is imperative in order to understand the cultural content and the mechanism of the relationship between carrier and content. For instance, Cinema gives a certain personality/dimension to culture which significantly differs from the culture that Drama carries. The individuals involved in these specific agencies, both, take on and give a characteristic to this specific culture…. The dynamics of this mutual exchange give this culture an identity that shapes up in a manner that is very similar to the way a human identity is built and as mysterious too. It carries the influence of so many other agents within itself but attempts to create for itself something beyond these influences.

Interestingly, the human identity is a micro-unit of the cultural identity thus always carrying the potential to alter it, even revolutionize it. All vehicles of culture like Drama, Literature, Music and the Arts consist of a network of people functioning in a particular/peculiar manner. This manner determines the route the agent takes/adopts to chart out for itself a niche within the larger framework of Culture.

A historical study of Culture reveals how this region acts as a buffer to the confining/conforming nature of the political/economic framework of which it is indeed an integral part. It’s a place of exploration, of indulgence, a place where there is no room for plastic formalities. It’s a region that welcomes, that allows. It’s a place that aims to give room for growth. Ironically it is also a place of excuse and a place where ignorance is excused. Culture is that place where the private is welcomed (not exposed) into the public.

What then makes culture different from Art? Art too is a place/space that accepts and includes much more than it rejects. Perhaps culture is the creation of a few master artists who chose to be the medium rather than use a medium to initiate a process of creation. Artists of culture always attempt to know the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. Cultural artists create while curating.

The role of language in culture is too integral to ignore. The language is not only the tool of communication but an entity that carries the very essence of the culture. It is the thread that always linked and continues to link the intentionally/unintentionally fragmented units of time and space. The nuances of the language reveal the beliefs, fears, assumptions of that culture. The tone always reveals more the words themselves. The tone is the body language of the culture.

The almost hilarious ability of culture to both unify and diversify makes it indispensable. The popular saying, “familiarity breeds contempt” is probably what makes culture work so well. Due to the diversity it can withhold within itself, it appeals even to the most uninitiated. Culture always comes as a package that commands attention.

Culture was initially outward looking. Over the course of time it has come to embody such a vastness that it’s look has now shifted inward. What is within its premise is now demanding more attention than what lies outside of its boundary (if there is one). It now looks at itself as a vehicle where different kinds of passengers walk in and out leaving behind something and carrying away something with them as they move on.

Cultures need each other in order to survive. They keep a check on each other and sort of prune and refine each other. For instance the culture of the media checks the culture of the cinema and vice versa. Yesterday’s culture cannot survive today. It has to be repeatedly interrupted in order to be sustainable. Culture has shifted from minding other businesses to minding its own business.

Earlier culture used to deal with what could be understood and therefore known. Now it has come to realize that there is far too much that it does not know and needs to deal with this issue. The times of today demand this and culture carries a responsibility to deliver the answer. Having chosen/fallen to embody what it does today, it cannot afford to escape these demands. With the kind of knowledge and power being generated outside its premise, there is a dire need to break through into the next level of function. It cannot afford to lose its relevance within the larger framework of society. It has a choice to either rise to the occasion or move into oblivion….. perhaps forever.

The multidisciplinary aspect of culture is now interdisciplinary or both. Culture now has to challenge itself in order to survive the onslaught of the next decisive moment. A time and space where it needs to give an account of its responsibility as a realm of expertise involving numerous occupants and functions. We need to know what culture is doing here at such a time as this.

The section of society most affected by cultural studies is the one that affects cultural studies. The intellectuals carry a certain kind of responsibility in their realm of influence. Keeping tract of the alternating expansion and contraction of this realm is part of this responsibility. There are intense and desperate needs that need to be addressed. There are political needs, economic needs, social needs, individual needs that have been neglected for so long that ignoring them has become a thinking pattern, a mindset. It then comes to a point of having to address thinking patterns that need to be bent and renovated. Its too painful, almost impossible to discard the insensitivity that has been harbored or/and hardened through time and experiences .We need to deal with what we have lost while gaining so much, what we have compromised through what we have appropriated. Much of this realm of erasure has been contemplated if not addressed by writers like Foucault and Derrida. Post-modernism has basically been in the business of breaking down mindsets yet escaping the responsibility of replacing this vacancy that it has brought about. Is it the calling of some other –ism or enterprise to give us an appropriate thing to believe in, something to lean on?

Culture like all other enterprises has a mandate to fulfill. Recognizing and charting out the details of this agenda or updating what already exists has been long due. Culture has been a region where excuse richly dwells. But excuse enters this realm expecting to be dealt with and not entertained. It is a space where refreshing/revival is expected. Culture though always prevalent, was never understood the way it is now. With the evolution of its understanding, hidden demands have been unveiled though not necessarily recognized. Culture’s methodologies and motives need to fall into alignment with each other. The non-convergence of the two diffuse the focus and disrupt the functional process. Though culture is an enterprise in itself, it is also a part of every other existing enterprise. Every decision taken here has a ripple effect, thus affecting every other section under its mantle. It’s a domain that covers numerous sites and these sites have given it the authority to make crucial decisions regarding themselves and how they ought to function.

Cultural dialogue in constantly determined by the prejudices and desires of the agents involved. Yet because of the diverse sources that generate and sustain the dialogue, the course it takes is most often very unpredictable and hence enlightening. The content may be clichéd but the direction the dialogue takes may be highly innovative thus reorganizing the content into something more sensible and relevant to today. The purpose of dialogue has always been to generate new ideas that are practical and that work. There are very real and grave factors influencing dialogue which cannot be totally grasped during dialogue since the focus is mainly on the content rather than the intent. However, trained minds constantly seek and attempt to decipher the intent as they know that that is the core issue. The content becomes merely a means to know the intent. Knowing the intent sums up to nothing unless there is a way to alter these intentions so as to fit a purpose and plan that deeply convinces the minds at work. Unless there is a way not only to think but also to communicate and present this plan effectively to bring about persuasion, conviction and performance of the highest degree, dialogues can be excruciatingly frustrating.

It is established thinking patterns that are the real target of dialogue. Flawed mindsets have limited our perceptions, experience and the quality of our life. Depraved minds have persisted in society for too long leading and misleading too many individuals who trusted in the experienced. Thinking that they know better we have fallen prey to a system that is far more destructive than we could ever imagine since our imaginations too are subject to this system. Often, some of our most disturbing experiences bring about a breakthrough in this system of thinking. When the revelation dawns that our understanding can fail us, a door opens for a new thinking pattern to enter. Both the patterns are then tested to see what really works not just mentally but practically as well. If the new one comes through then the old one dies forever in that mind. There is no turning back from then on, unless one deliberately chooses to stick on to the old even after experiencing its failure. It is not surprising that many make this choice as it is easier to live a lie than risk the new. It takes immense courage to take this leap. There is always a price to pay for something of worth.

Culture lies in performance, even the performance of theorizing culture. The culture of cultural studies is like a camera that from a bird’s eye view captures, edits and sometimes even manipulates the recordings it has taped. To know whether the position it holds was obtained or ordained needs some intense study.

Since culture is the behavioral manifestation of beliefs, fears, assumptions and suppositions, a single approach to understanding it would not suffice. Every aspect of its composition needs to be approached individually yet contextually to produce an understanding of what it really means. Every aspect of culture is supported by a certain world-view. It is these big-picture/big-brother views that really hold the roots of culture. Unless we view culture within this larger context we are invariably falling short of a sustainable understanding of culture and its domain and methods of influence.

Culture can also be viewed as the consequence of a number of decisive actions. Could it be an unpredicted/undesirable by-product of certain uncalculated decisions? Is it an unwanted outgrowth that has occurred due to a dysfunction in the existing system? Perhaps certain ancient boundaries were transgressed…. carelessly. Is culture a necessity then? Can we live(not just survive) without it? Has it always existed or is its history shorter than we think it to be? Is culture capable of answering these questions or will they be answered by some other enterprise that’s already carrying the answers?

17/11/08
Diploma in Cultural Studies
CSCS, Bangalore
Assignment 1