Universalism and Difference: The Separation of Culture and Politics

By Inglis, Fred | British Journal of Canadian Studies, September 2006 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Universalism and Difference: The Separation of Culture and Politics

Inglis, Fred, British Journal of Canadian Studies

In present usage and understanding, 'culture' is a good, warming, humane sort of word, and 'politics' bleak and unaccommodating. To have a culture is to be fortunate, to be joined to others by common values and inclusive emotion; to have to face up to politics is to enter an alien atmosphere where harsh talking, blank refusal, and grim egotism will be mediated only by those unattractive necessities, the politicians, whose trade is not only stained by personal ambition and the necessity of lying, but who bring the corrosive effects of cynicism and conflict, the absolute incompatibilities of self-interests, and the grossness of partiality to bear upon one's own integrity, one's purity of heart, one's allegiance to culture.

Culture entails community; politics entails conflict. For some years now, in academic life and in the life of the street, the texts of politics have been dissolved into the contexts of culture, such that the hardnesses of such facts as class and its struggles, monster injustice and its only recourse, the courts of law, social barbarism and its violence, eradicable cruelty and vindictive envy, have all been obscured by the ointments of moral hypochondria and an intellectual preference for interpretation over criticism.

The Concept of Culture

The strength of the concept of culture has been to force our attention upon the self-interpreting nature of the human animal. That is to say, in the common emphasis of the policy sciences, whether in the worst detail of community development schemes or in the more fatuous reaches of managerial theory as presently promulgated by government and by vicechancellors, much has been made of the self-image of subordinates, the self-esteem of those experimented upon in the policy to hand, and of the value-attributes of what is characterised as the institutional culture, generally caught in some such round and empty slogan as the 'culture of failure', or 'a culture of passivity', of drug-dependence, or worse. At this point culture as a concept approaches vacuity. If the word designates (as the founding anthropologists tell us) a whole way of life, circumscribed, recognisable, inclusive, then it becomes no more than a loose and baggy classification into which we can throw any social manifestation, including politics. If Max Horkheimer1 could make, as he put it, metaphysics out of chewing gum, culture can be defined to include pretty well everything that is thought and confected by human beings. Edward Thompson, reviewing Raymond Williams' early discussion of culture, offered as his definition of culture 'handled experience', and substituted for way of life, 'way of struggle', but this, while separating nature from culture and replacing living-and-breathing with living-and-quarrelling, still leaves us with almost everything to do, if we are to give the word explanatory force (Thompson 1961: 47).

On the other hand, we are right to be reassured that, in dealing with culture, we may be hard put to distinguish conduct from expression, custom from symbol, gesture from idiosyncrasy, but in all these manifestations cannot doubt that we are dealing in human particularity and therefore in matters of ultimate value. Max Weber tells us that politics is the domain of authority, its legitimation and assertion, of centralisation (and its adjunct, bureaucracy), and - since the advent of the nation-state - of the determination of territory (1948: 77). The state, as distinct from society (still less from culture) distributes power, status, and rewards. For Weber, the defining attribute of the state is its monopoly of the means of legitimate violence.

By these tokens, culture is counterposed to politics as the repository of everyday value faced with the blankness of power. Power protects, of course, as well as coerces: indeed, the state's first duty is to defend its people's safety (hence the present necessity not just to detest but to defeat terrorism). Once we grasp the momentousness of this obligation, we are well on the way, at least in the democracies of Western capitalism, to sanctioning as absolute the distinction between public and private lives, largely devised according to liberal theory to decorate these accommodations, to effecting a correspondence between the public/private separation, and the political/cultural one.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Universalism and Difference: The Separation of Culture and Politics


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?