Navigation
- Home
- Philosophy
- Europe
- International
- Peace efforts
- Poets
- Artists beyond Images
- Culture
- Newsletter
- Links
- Imprint
Secularisation of culture - the thesis of Liana Sakelliou-Schultz
There is still more to be said about this excellent paper by Andrι Loeckx, but the difference between lines of thinking derived from Heidegger, all of which turn to 'ambivalence' in the language of analogies according to Rossi's interpretations of European cities, and a warning of Adorno about the inherent structure of culture being 'ambivalent' leading potentially on to Fascism, that is in need of further discussion and clarification. In that context, I was happy to hear Liana Sakelliou-Schultz talking about quite a dangerous force inherent in our systems. Usually that force is labelled in a one-sided sense as a kind of 'terrorism' being directed against states. Rather she states that as a result of the growing internationalisation of 'culture' - our identity being determined by many factors no longer exclusively derived from one's own cultural background, ancestral folklore included - there has set in a secularisation between culture and state not very different to the earlier separation of religious and political affairs. Her most important observation is that this process can easily make states feel 'terrorised' the moment they can no longer use or manipulate culture into upholding desired, that is local, regional or national identities.
For instance, the allegiance to the flag was a recent controversy between the administration of the United States of America and artists, but also demonstrators wishing to express something by burning the flag. This touches upon the controversial subject of the 'freedom for artistic expressions'. It differs from the 'freedom of speech', for as Martin Jay would point out, a line in Shakespeare's theatre suggesting "and I will kill your father", is only permissible on stage; taken down to the level of reality, such a statement would take on quite a different meaning. Media culture of the manipulative kind (Adorno and Horkheimer) tries to blend more and more these two very different levels of realities together, so that violence in the film becomes suddenly violence in the family, street or neighbourhood. Intimate places are so robbed of their innocence, yet short of censorship, no one has found really an answer to these problems. This means the context is no longer defined by what particular states want culture to reproduce. Where such attempts have been made, we saw disastrous results as in the former Communistic ruled countries and their art works of 'social Realism' having been transformed into 'real socialism' since the days of George Lukacs and his categorisation of literature, in order to identify which writing would destroy the kind of reason the socialistic state would like to uphold.
Bart Verschaffel talks about 'cultural identity' in terms of what happens when politics seizes upon local radio stations and tries to reproduce such a world as being sheltered and safe from outside forces. This he calls 'localism'. Or else in more recent times, such state interventions have led to extreme forms of nationalistic tones and provoked a recourse to one-sided forms of symbolism. They are connected with apparently ancient fears of no longer belonging to the same territory. That fear is being perpetuated, while suggesting the only acceptable solutions to 'belonging' or 'rootedness' are those things which make everything into one and the same thing: physical and cultural space as having a cultural identity, i.e. assumed sharing of the same values and thus interests. That is why workshop 2 will have also this difficult task of trying to bridge these two different levels of discourses about space when it comes to 'regions' and to uphold a certain 'cultural identity' in that particular region.
I agree not only with Liana that the state should not try to off-set this secularisation process of modern cultures, but also with the consequence she draws out of this. It underlines what the poetic sense for reality entails, namely that any further integration of Europe requires in this context a 'higher morality'. Only then we can be sure that the 'Europe of Cultures' reaches out to humanity and instead of a forced unity from above (or 'images' handed down by the state) Europe becomes a free space of prevailing cultural plurality, its many voices guaranteeing that true differences will continue to exist, while communication no longer rests on the partition between 'us' and 'them'. Culture should not be looked upon as something exclusive, but rather as a uniqueness bringing one in touch with humanity: the otherness of oneself in relation to other human beings.
Hatto Fischer Athens/Spetses 1994
« Towards sustainable cultures within the urban grid - review of Andrι Loeckx | Silence and Resistance - the position of Eugene van Itterbeek »