How can anybody change culture?

I am defining culture for the purposes of this discussion paper as what the majority of people think is right, good or true at a particular time without usually questioning it. In modern day terms it can be referred to as cultural hegemony; to reflect the dominant view supported through ideological or cultural means. In other words it is the values, norms and ideas that permeate a particular worldview, which may be routinely expressed by social institutions. Such a view is generally held to be true, mostly just on face value, by the majority, so that the remainder also are prone to follow on. 

The term was used in a particular context by Italian Antonio Gramsci (1891 1937) in the 1920s in his Prison Notebooks, penned whilst he was serving a sentence imposed under Mussolini’s fascist regime. More on this later on.   

One might say it is a feature or failure of human nature that ends up holding popular views on complex issues, to give credence to the idea the matter doesn’t warrant further investigation or invite a challenge to conventional thinking. Under cultural hegemony you have the idea an elite or ruling class frames its ideas or a worldview from social and economic structures that add support principally to achieve its own objectives rather than the intention to benefit the whole of society. For instance in the mass media the presentation may appear to be highly beneficial for all, whereas in practice a thorough analysis might reveal benefits accruing principally to an elite or ruling class. This then is the role of the philosopher as guardians of rationality, to examine the underlying issues with a comprehensive narrative.

Of course this kind of power is quite different to one that exerts its views by force, as is apparent in a military dictatorship. Rather, cultural hegemony exercises authority by utilizing all of the cultural or institutionalized means at its disposal. 

Today we can think of any number of issues in Australia that might roughly fit the bill indicative of measures that can be reasonably demonstrated to risk us moving the nation away from a desirable egalitarian system of governance. But the message might be couched in such a way to give the impression changes proposed accrue benefits for society overall. As Paul Keating famously remarked, assuming I can recall correctly, you can always rely on self-interest to exert its influence.          

Although not strictly applicable to ancient times, one can note how slavery flourished as an accepted norm to Athenian citizens who didn't see any problem in the system that enslaved others. Therein, according to Aristotle, this view was reinforced by Aristotle, who advised the practice of slavery was a naturally occurring phenomenon where certain peoples, are by their very nature, meant to be under the control of a master, which is in fact in their best interest.

Apart from that curtailment of freedom you will recall their culture sought a middle ground between culture and science, to present a narrative based on rationality, aimed to establishing a more informed way forward, whilst acknowledging our limitations. Their culture was aimed at ensuring the laws of the land are reflective of living the good life, based on a virtuous purposeful existence and freedom for all, unless you were a slave.  

Hence their culture supported a meaningful narrative designed to fend off the forces of darkness that are never far from the surface of our existence. Of course history informs us the first thing a warring party on gaining power does is to impose its culture and ensure it is is endorsed under the new regime to cement a high degree of ongoing control.  

Hideous examples in the more modern context were evident in the Cultural Revolution in China under Mau, who sought to build a world super power to put forward the idea to its citizens and abroad the new culture was highly advantageous, wherein it is estimated his policies directly resulted in the death of 70 million people. 

Prior to the Cultural Revolution, Confucian ethics and a more liberal democratic value system were finding their way back into the country. But Mau brought an abrupt halt to this movement and ensured the suppression of the ancient religious practices and beliefs as China became an atheist state. Post the Cultural Revolution it has thankfully moved away from these extremes and terror to work towards a more democratic society, which sits paradoxically uneasily within the confines of a communist state. However, human rights abuses continue as does the persecution of minorities.     

The political leader Pol Pot presided over a regime based on a forced culture where an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork. ... Some regard his regime as one of the most barbaric and murderous in recent history.  

Such grim reminders point to the need to preserve the positive aspects to one’s culture and embrace changes gradually that seeks to enhance such traditional values that may continue to serve us well in the future. The role then of the future philosophers might be suggested as twofold, one might be posited as in the ancient Greek tradition to argue a golden mean in rationality between different discourses and secondly as guardians of culture, to ensure change is  subject to careful analysis and debate.  

So that one might ask the question in Australia, where we operate as a democracy, are we nevertheless in the grips of what some might say are moves that risk taking away the safeguards that promote an egalitarian society?

I trust this paper provides some background for interesting discussions. It might be seen a precursor to another subject I wish to introduce soon “What is the Future of Capitalism”?  

A salient point I think is important to note is the current nature of our present position as part of a global village, which means the communicative tools to initiate change are more favourable than in any other  time in history. 

The author of an article in 'Philosophy Now' by Kevin Brinkman, sets out the steps one can take in modernity to change culture with some help from 3 modern day philosophers; Louis Althusser (1918-1990), Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and Karl Manheim (1893-1947).

He contends they could help us to do this.

Althusser  is regarded as the most influential in terms of rendering a respectability to Marxist ideas, as opinion is prone to recoil in horror at the mention of his name, associated as it is with the evils of the Stalinist era. His work continues to provide food for thought for philosophers and activists examining alternatives to our present economic and social construct. 

In his early formative years he became heavily involved in Catholicism, in conjunction with a membership of the French Communist Party in 1948.  Jean Paul Satrte also had a love hate relationship with the party and also with deconstructed Marxism. Althusser had previously spent the war years at a prisoner of war at a camp in Northern Germany, where he credits his ideas on communism as arising from that experience.

He was attributed as working alongside some of the more notable thinkers of his era such as Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault.

Antonia Gramsci

Similarly Antonio Gramsci was an Italian journalist and activist who is best known for his work on Marxism, economics and politics. He was imprisoned by the Mussolini’s fascist Italian government, where he wrote Prison Notebooks.

The upshot of his theory was that the state represented domination on behalf of capitalism and the ruling class. He is attributed to introducing the concept of cultural hegemony, the role of the state and how it accomplishes its ideological framework in hegemonic beliefs, via mass media to avoid thoughtful analysis.

Karl Manheim

Mannheim talked about social constructs and is known as the founding father of the sociology of knowledge. He was also agreeable to Marxism. Mannheim held each generation makes a fresh contact with the older version to slightly alter particular cultural aspects. The upshot is each new generation opens up opportunities for social and cultural continuity and change.

In Kevin Brinkman’s article that appeared ‘Philosophy Now’ he contends that these three big ideas – ideology, cultural hegemony, and the sociology of knowledge – when joined together will help us answer two big questions: Why is our culture the way it is? And what can we do about it?

On the other hand do we disagree with that idea and think there is no need to change anything except encourage more membership of institutions, such as political parties and centres of influence?  

Can we steer a middle course and as suggested by the author change culture with humility and civility, knowing that everyone is upset about something in the culture, and that many people are doing their best to make this a better world.

The Big Picture

According to the author culture is always interacting with various influences that keep it in a state of flux. Once hegemony can be challenged, and eventually replaced, by another, and it can happen in a perfectly peaceful way.

This is in contrast to the economic determinism often associated with Karl Marx, the political determinism often associated with Carl von Clausewitz, or the cultural determinism often associated with Max Weber. In all these cases, the named dimension holds decisive influence over the other two, such that the other two dimensions of human life cannot in the end affect what will happen in the determining dimension. In reality no single dimension of human life is deterministic. This is good news for those without power – those not occupying seats of economic, political, or cultural leadership – because it means the path of development of society is not set in advance. It implies that a small group of concerned and committed individuals can begin the cultural change process, which moves out to the economic dimension by its ability to multiply and sustain itself, exerts influence on the political dimension, before thoroughly influencing the cultural dimension.

He summarise the advice of this article in the words of the anthropologist Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world” (Earth at Omega: Passage to Planetization by Donald Keys, 1982, p.79).

How Did Our Culture Get This Way?

On this model, a cultural hegemony forms through three stages: its supporters acquire some power; they get institutions on board; and then let the institutions spread the culture.

Power is a natural and inevitable part of human society. Although philosophers such as Marx wanted society to ultimately move beyond power dynamics, someone, or some group, is always more powerful than another.

According to our philosophers, the last stage of establishing a hegemony – spreading a culture – is the easiest to achieve. Winning power requires fighting. Winning institutions requires negotiation. Winning individuals requires only their consent to the values of the institutions. Most of the values of most individuals are unconsciously absorbed. We do not often question the values of our culture (for example, human rights, individualism, and materialism) because, in the words of Gramsci, they have become ‘common sense’ (Selections, p.134). For example, we are pro-choice or pro-life usually because that is the stance of our family or religion.

Althusser describes the process of accepting the culturally hegemonic institutional line as moving from being ‘free subjects’ to willingly accepting subjection ‘all by [one’s] self’ (Lenin, p.182).

How Can Cultural Values Be Reformed

Cultural values are reformed in three stages: get people thinking, get people together, and get institutional change.

Culture is not something static – people are always changing culture. So the real challenge, after all, may not be how to change culture. Our three philosophers have given us a roadmap for how to do that. The real challenge may be changing culture with humility and civility, knowing that everyone is upset about something in the culture, and that many people are doing their best to make this a better world.