A
Manifesto
We
have heard it said many times that the liberation movements of the mid-20th
Century succeeded in changing laws but did not succeed in changing the hearts
and minds of the general population. Prejudice,
discrimination, division, and hatred are alive and well in the 21st
Century in spite of many rhetorical efforts to make things more egalitarian,
to enfranchise previously powerless constituencies, and to inhibit systemic
racism, sexism and so forth. But
since the Reagan
era, there seems to be nothing left but political correctness, a hollow
projection of what was envisioned when Rosa
Parks refused to walk to the back of the bus.
Why
would all those valiant efforts fail? Is
it simply because people discriminate, divide and hate? Are we doomed to infighting,
genocide, ethnic
cleansing, and terrorism
(however you define it)? We would
seem to have little reason to believe otherwise.
It does not take much to construct a very dismal view of the world.
But
if one scratches the surface, one finds optimistic
points-of-view almost everywhere. Are
these viewpoints simply delusional? We
think Gramsci faced a similar
question to the one we are facing in the early 21st Century.
In early-20th-Century Italy, Gramsci looked around and saw that Marx had the problem correctly
diagnosed – capitalism was creating essentially the kind of world that Marx
had predicted. But that world
wasn’t heading towards revolution. It
seemed that the worse the world got, the more “the masses” loved it, ate
it up. Why?
Why would these people act against their self-interest with such
enthusiastic glee?
Gramsci’s
answer was “cultural
production.” Not only did
owners of capital control production of capital, they also controlled
production of culture. It was the
owners of capital who decided
what would be seen, heard, read and experienced by the masses.
It was owners of capital who essentially taught the masses how to think
and feel. And if the owners of
capital controlled cultural production, it made sense that the culture
reflected the best
interests of the owners of capital, not those of the masses. This was not a conspiracy.
This was simply people acting the way they “thought was right.”
No collusion was necessary; control was all that was needed.
Hegemonic
messages pervade cultural constructions, and these messages reflect the
interests and beliefs of those who finance and control their creations. In
fact, one could argue that control of the means of information
production supersedes control of the means of material production, with
the former leading to the latter more readily than the reverse.
We
believe this is why classism
has never really been addressed in all the “isms” that have had their 15
minutes of fame. To discuss class
on any meaningful level would be diametrically opposed to the best interest of
those who control media
production. In a capitalist
society, the illusion that “haves” and “have-nots” occupy their
respective positions because of their work
ethic, and nothing else, is a presumption that allows those who control
cultural production to feel justified in their control.
The house of cards would be jeopardized if that illusion were
dispelled.
That
is not to say that other “isms” have been addressed adequately. There is a tendency in U.S. culture to address these things
just enough to rationalize saying “something was done” but not enough to
solve anything. We have laws
on the books but no dialogue in public forums.
The groups controlling discourses have “designated others”
that serve as examples of how open the system is, while different
segments of “others” are simply ignored or, worse, ridiculed
and tortured.
The
“designated opposition”
is a real problem in politics. The
second that your cause or group gets recognition you are in danger of playing
into the hands of the ruling powers. You
become the proof that the system that you are criticizing essentially works.
Audre Lorde
said “The master’s tools cannot be used to dismantle the master’s
house.” We think this is what
she means, in part. If we play
politics in the American system without a fundamental change in the system, we
simply become the designated opposition, the favorite child, part of the
system that those in power can point to and say, “See, the minority have
their say. It’s just that the majority
doesn’t want that. That’s
democracy. It’s the best system
we can have.”
It
is important to stress at this point that we are constructing a macro-level
picture for convenience more than proposing an optimal model of human
relationships. While it is
possible to communicate a coherent and accurate narrative
of power relations, these relations occur in the micro-level decisions made by
ordinary people in everyday circumstances.
Cultural production does not come down from on high but rather takes
shape in the day-to-day
resources upon which we draw to interact with each other.
We
do not want to be the designated opposition.
We want something fundamental to change in the system.
We want this because we’re tired of being on the outside looking in
all the time. We don’t belong
to many of the acceptable groups, but even if we did, we think we would be
heartsick about the stupidity that still exists.
A new channel for dialogue has to be opened, a medium suitable for the
message. American “democracy”
is failing to provide a good life for many of its citizens.
We believe that we must discover and develop new
discursive resources upon which we, and others, may draw to make sense of
our daily lives.
We
are allowed to be consumers
of culture. We can watch film and
television, listen to radio, and read books or magazines with relative ease.
But we cannot produce a film or television show, broadcast a radio show
or publish a book or magazine without approval from those who control culture.
Consumption
of culture is encouraged. Production
of culture is not.
Production
of culture is the Achilles’
heel of capitalism.
If people see, hear or read something enough times, it
becomes “real” to them. They
use these discourses as sources of meaning.
But how does one produce culture that isn’t pre-approved by the
owners and controllers of cultural capital?
This is where alternative
culture becomes important. Of
course, alternatives have the same problem of becoming the designated
opposition as political groups, but less so.
Attempts to co-opt alternative culture exist, of course.
But that is the battleground of culture.
Alternative producers seek to provide other voices.
Popular culture often absorbs those efforts.
But unlike politics, the predesignated majority doesn’t rule in this
battle.
Every
time the owners of capital absorb or co-opt something of alternative culture,
it changes mainstream
culture a little. It cannot point
to alternatives and announce them as simply the minority opinion and then
proceed to absorb them. Witness
how queer
culture has seeped into mainstream culture: Will and Grace
is one of the most popular shows on television. Several
shows have regular gay characters. A
topic where discussion was completely unthinkable 40 years ago is commonplace
in prime time now.
Producing
alternatives provides consumers with a choice.
Be we hope to do more than provide a choice. We hope to provide places where others can consciously
produce culture. Actually
everyone does produce culture. The
problem is that most of us do this with little thought and we often re-produce
what we have seen and heard. Every
time we tell another person about the great
movie we just watched or discuss the plot
line to our favorite sitcom or
soap opera we
are re-producing culture. In
order to open a space for constructing culture, we need some rupture in our
re-producing activity. This is why deconstruction
will consequently be part of the effort to find new cultural construction.
Deconstructing
cultural is cultural production because the deconstruction becomes a discursive
resource upon which meaning can be drawn.
“Cultural
Construction Company” is an Internet project dedicated to all things
cultural. It will offer critiques
of mainstream culture. It offers alternatives
to mainstream channels of media.
It offers links to other
alternatives. It offers
consumers a chance to become producers.
The idea is to become a producer of culture and not just a consumer. It is cultural creativity
with a self-reflexive
conscience.
All
things social and cultural are creations of human beings.
We are all cultural producers because we construct our lives and how we
think about our lives with every action and reaction we make.
CCC is an attempt to do what we are doing anyway but to do it on
purpose, in a self-reflexive manner. CCC
is an attempt to invite others to gaze upon the process as well as the result.
CCC is an attempt to be a player in a different game than mainstream
cultural creation. In fact, it is
an attempt to create a new game.
Where
we will end up is difficult to say. Staying
fresh and on top of things is an important part of what we will be doing, so
we see this as an organic experience. We
don’t want to reinvent the wheel, but we also don’t want to stop growing.
We also see it as rhizomatous
growth in that CCC will change as it connects with other efforts similar
to it. Thus, predicting where we
will end up is like predicting where grass will stop growing.
It is too complex to predict.
The
Internet seems a perfect place to
start because production of culture on the Internet is less controlled than it
is anywhere else in American culture and because the Internet is international
with access to something other than American productions.
Access is still limited by the technological equipment available to us
and within our means. We recognize that while we want to create an alternative, we
are stuck with creating it within a box.
We cannot get outside the box. But
the Internet
is full of optimists such as us, people who are trying something
different, who are making cultural alternatives.
The trick will be connecting us all together into something of a critical
mass, something that will fundamentally change the dominance of capitalist
culture.
But
we do not see our activities ending at the Internet.
Culture can be produced on multiple levels in multiple places.
Every word we utter both reifies something in culture and changes
something in it. We are part of
the tide that is seen from hindsight at “culture,” that is, as
“normative.” Thus, we cannot
predict with any accuracy where we will go, only assess where we’ve been and
how influential we’ve become. This
will be part of the self-reflective consciousness of CCC.
So
to sum this up, we see CCC as an adventure upon which we are interested in
embarking because we are tired of playing the political and economic games
that simply force us to act in the best interest of those in control of
capital. We have little capital
to control, but we plan to use whatever resources we have to do something
different, to ask different questions, to create alternatives.
This is a new phase of our lives and we welcome it.
copyright
by Pattie Thomas and Carl Wilkerson 2002