THE EXPEDIENCY OF CULTURE
POST-CONTEMPORARY INTERVENTIONS
Series Editors:
Stanley Fish and Fredric Jameson
THE EXPEDIENCY of CULTURE
Uses of Culture in the Global Era
GEORGE YDICE
DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Durham and London 2003
2003 Duke University Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
Designed by Amy Ruth Buchanan
Typeset in Quadraat by Tseng Information Systems, Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book.
Chapter 3 was originally published in Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cultures: Re-Visioning Latin American
Social Movements , edited by Sonia E. Alvarez, Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998.
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book could not have been written without the myriad discussions and debates with friends and colleagues. Some of these go back decades and inform my everyday views of the world. Sohnya Sayres, Juan Flores, Jean Franco, Nstor Garca Canclini, Daniel Mato, Toby Miller, Andrew Ross, Randy Martin, Doris Sommer, Silviano Santiago, Helosa Buarque de Hollanda, Beatriz Resende, Alberto Moreiras, Idelber Avelar, John Kraniauskas, Mirta Antonelli, and many others are part of this transnational interpretive community. I am particularly appreciative of the time and effort that Toby Miller, Andrew Ross, Larry Grossberg, Alberto Moreiras, Luis Crcamo, Micol Seigel, Sonia Alvarez, Arturo Escobar, and Ana Mara Ochoa dedicated to reading and making specific comments on one or more chapters. Nstor Garca Canclinis review of the Spanish version, as well as Gabriela Ventureiras excellent translation, added significant and highly appreciated insights. I am also indebted to my editor at Duke University Press, Ken Wissoker, and to the various institutions that have given me support to conduct research on this book over the years: the PSC-CUNY Research Award for research in Brazil; the U.S.-Mexico Fund for Culture, for a grant to study how diversity is construed differentially in Mexico and the United States; the Rockefeller Foundations Post-Doctoral Humanities Fellowship Program, which enabled me to coordinate research on cultural policy as part of the Privatization of Culture Project at New York University; and New York Universitys various forms of support. To these individuals and institutions, as well as to the many others mentioned in the pages that follow, I give my heartfelt thanks.
INTRODUCTION
At a recent international meeting of cultural policy specialists, a UNESCO official lamented that culture is invoked to solve problems that previously were the province of economics and politics. Yet, she continued, the only way to convince government and business leaders that it is worth supporting cultural activity is to argue that it will reduce social conflicts and lead to economic development (Ydice 2000b: 10). This book aims to provide an understanding, and a series of illustrations, of how culture as an expedient gained legitimacy and displaced or absorbed other understandings of culture. Permit me to stress at the outset that I am not reprising Adorno and Horkheimers critique of the commodity and its instrumentalization. As I explain in , culture-as-resource is much more than commodity; it is the lynchpin of a new epistemic framework in which ideology and much of what Foucault called disciplinary society (i.e., the inculcation of norms in such institutions as education, medicine, and psychiatry) are absorbed into an economic or ecological rationality, such that management, conservation, access, distribution, and investmentin culture and the outcomes thereoftake priority.
Culture-as-resource can be compared with nature-as-resource, particularly as both trade on the currency of diversity. Think of biodiversity, including traditional and scientific knowledge thereof, which, according to the Convention on Biological Diversity, must be fostered and conserved to [maintain] its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations (Convention 1992:5). Taking into consideration the proclivity of private enterprise to seek profit at all costs, the tendency of developed nations to have an advantage over developing countries, the greater legitimacy of scientific over traditional knowledge, ever increasing pollution, and so on, the major issue at hand becomes management of resources, knowledges, technologies, and the risks entailed thereof, defined in myriad ways.
Culture, for most people, does not evoke the same sense of life-threatening urgency, although it is true that many lament the ravages that tourism, fast food, and the global entertainment industries have on traditional ways of life. More recently, however, the very managers of global resources have discovered culture, at least paying lip service to notions of cultural maintenance and cultural investment. On the one hand, it has become common sense that to preserve biodiversity, cultural traditions also need be maintained. On the other hand, it is arguedif not really believedthat (gender- and race-sensitive) investment in culture will strengthen the fiber of civil society, which in turn serves as the ideal host for political and economic development.
It is not always easy to make bothsociopolitical and economicaspects of cultural management jibe without problems or contradictions. Consider, for example, that in accepting Western forms of law in order to protect their technologies (e.g., engineering of seed varieties) and cultural practices (e.g., aboriginal dream paintings), non-Western peoples may undergo even more rapid transformation. If a particular technology or ritual is not currently included as a form of protectable property, the recourse to Western law to ensure that others do not make profits therefrom almost certainly entails the acceptance of the property principle. What will it mean when non-Western forms of knowledge, technology, and cultural practices are incorporated into intellectual property and copyright law? Will the sale of inalienable culture become something akin to the sale of pollution permits in the United States, whereby companies that reduce their air emissions can sell the rights to emit those air pollutants? Increasingly, in cultural as in natural resources, management is the name of the game.
Although I obviously identify villains and heroes in this book, most of the situations I examine are more complex. Some readers of the manuscript wondered if I wasnt pessimistic about the prospects of grassroots movements. One anonymous reader remarked that cautionary conclusions outweigh the grass-roots politics of cultural work. I am, to be sure, sounding a note of caution regarding the celebration of cultural agency, so prevalent in cultural studies work. But this caution does not ensue from a desire to be a killjoy; rather, it follows from a different understanding of agency. For some, the relatively powerless can draw strength from their culture to face the onslaught of the powerful. For others, the content of culture itself is almost irrelevant; what matters is that it buttresses a politics for change. Although these views can be quite compelling, it is also the case that cultural expression by itself is not enough. It helps to engage in a struggle when you have a good knowledge of the complex machinations involved in seeing an agenda through a range of multiscale, intermediary instances populated with others similar, overlapping, or differing agendas. Cultural studies scholars often see cultural agency in a more circumscribed manner, as if a particular individual or group expression or identity in itself leads to change. But as Iris Marion Young points out, We find ourselves positioned in relations of class, gender, race, nationality, religion, and so on, [within a given history of sedimented meanings and material landscape, and interaction with others in the social field] which are sources of both possibilities of action and constraint (2000: 100).