6 Power/Culture

Mr. Sachin Rajeev

This chapter attempts to look at the relationship between culture and power. The chapter will focus on the various ways in which power shapes culture and how culture is a space which legitimizes and masks the exercise of power. Culture was conventionally understood to be static whose source of creation was virtually unknown. It was understood in a very obscure sense as ‘habit’ or ‘convention’ which existed since times immemorial and was to be followed without question. It was only after entry of critics like Raymond Williams that Culture had begun to be understood as a multidimensional phenomenon and the focus has shifted from “What Culture is?” to “Who creates and enforces culture? And how is culture created?”

Power, according to post-structuralists is the ability to control people’s ability to make decisions. The control exerted can be partial or complete. Power too was a vaguely understood concept till the advent of philosophers like Michel Foucault. It was after his propositions and writings on Power that the understanding and the perspective towards power took on a new turn. Power can operate covertly or overtly. Most of the times, it operates covertly than it does overtly. The overt working of power can be seen in an organisation wherein the designations of the people are hierarchical. In a sociological construct like family, one can see the covert operation of power running down from the male head of the family down to other male members and then to the female members. Financial and physical power plays an important role in determining the manner in which power operates within these systems.

The following sections will deal with, in detail, the working of power in modelling a culture, the working and masking of power within cultures, exertion of agency and its possible aftermaths.

Section One: Culture, an institution of power

This section will be dealing with the creation and enforcement of the concept of culture by the people who hold power in a society. Culture, as mentioned earlier, is portrayed as the normative practice within any society. The entry of critics like Raymond Williams has brought to the forefront of analysis the various processes (economic, social, political and so on) working behind the formation of culture. It was after this shift in the approach to ‘culture’ that the understanding of it has come to be broadened and refined. Till then, culture which was understood as just ancestral practices and habits, retained through generations, began to be understood as power-play. Power-play was very visible through this approach to culture since culture was more about the few powerful who made decisions and could enforce them.

A practice does not “normalize” a “Cultural Practice” in a single day, it happens over a period of time in several stages. Initially, the powerful enforce their will on the powerless and convince and/or coerce them into following the practices which are beneficial only for the powerful few. They are convinced and/or coerced into confirming to those practices. The practice is given validity using logic. Various discourses are used to convince the people about the positive/negative effects of the practice. Sometimes evidences and instances are brought in for convincing. Then the practice is further reinforced by reiteration in various forms like art forms and so on. Finally the practice is “normalized” so much that the people who follow the same practice never understand the purpose of the practice but reiterate it to be accepted as the “normal” individual of the society.

Societal norms are accepted only by certain sections of the society after they are created. The other sections of the society are coerced into accepting these norms. In due course of time however, these practices are standardised and people blindly begin to believe in these rules, they develop a false consciousness which tells them that these practices are correct. Upon analysis however, one would be able to easily understand that those norms only privilege certain groups of people and that the others are convinced into believing that the practices they follow is beneficial for them as well. An example of this can be Patriarchy. The physically and economically strong male is at a privilege in a patriarchal societal setup. It is regarded that the female existed only for the convenience of the males. It is said that the societies were egalitarian until they became patriarchal. Later on, all the males in the society adopted patriarchy where they can hold the primary power over a woman. The women of the society were expected to comply with the system. They were convinced using various discourses like religion, science, etc. This is reiterated by all the people practicing it. Means like art forms, literature and so on, also contribute to the reiteration and thereby normalizing it. The females were convinced that they are physically and intellectually weak though they are two sexes of the same species. Hence, it is made to believe that a woman cannot exist independently without a man. Though women are not at a privilege in this setup, they still comply with this system to gain acceptance into the society they live in and for being regarded as a “normal” woman of that society. Any woman who does not confirm to these norms is excluded from the society and loses her recognition as a woman and a human being in that society.

However, there is a stratum of the society which imitates and reiterates the “cultural” practices of the powerful. This is done with the aim of getting a membership into the class of the powerful. The membership however, is complicated in nature as they are neither fully part of the powerful nor are they considered powerless by their peers and by the people below in the hierarchy. An example can be taken from the manner of dressing adopted by different people. Manner of dressing marks the sense of style of a certain class of people which may have come about due to multifarious factors like convenience, decorum, identity marker and so on. However, for the powerless the style of the powerful is an indicator of what is needed to get access into their circle. Several examples of the same can be found in popular culture wherein the people who do not belong to a certain class try to belong to it by imitating the dressing style of that class.

After the codification of certain norms within societies, people are expected to follow those rules so that they are considered active participants of that society. This will give them access to all benefits and privileges enjoyed by the members of that particular society (equal social status, normalized treatment and so on). An example for this can be the practice of marrying women off as soon as they reach the legal age of marriage, as well as the dowry system. Noncompliance in these too cases will lead to social exclusion, the “offenders” will not be given equal value as the other members. They will be treated as abnormal, unsuitable and “cheap” if they do not follow these norms.

Noncompliance to norms leads to exclusion of people from societies making them outcasts who are not entitled to any and all privileges enjoyed by the participants of that society. Exclusions can range from denying the excluded to participate in certain common societal acts to being subject to extra judicial persecution. Case in point can be the Naxalites who do not follow the rules of the sovereign and society, commit “agential” acts of violence, face extra judicial persecution and are stripped of all benefits enjoyed by the citizens of a society.

Once a practice is normalized the society dictates that “everyone” will have to follow through with that practice. Everyone in this context however does not mean the entire populace. “Everyone” with regards to culture is all people who belong to a certain social strata within a society (the middle class). Culture can be understood as a pan middle class phenomenon. The upper class and the lowest class are excluded from this circuit of culture by virtue of being exceptions to the rule due to either lack of economic capital (the lowest class) or excess of economic capital (the upper class). It is to be noted that though these classes are exempt/excluded from the circuit of culture. They will try to either create new cultural standards or will try and get citizenship into the circuit of culture. For instance, it was considered to be a normative practice in India to marry older men to younger women. The reverse happens only rarely, and it also happens in celebrity circles. The celebrities are excluded from these laws as they, by virtue of being rich, have extended social boundaries. They have crossed a certain (economic) societal strata which necessitates normative social conduct. The best example of this can be taken from the case of the cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, who married a woman older than himself and did not face any social stigmatization. This was only possible due to his celebrity status. If he were a “common man”, his act would have been considered highly uncommon and he would be chastised by the society for the same.

Culture: A space for Power

Culture masks the functioning of power in the pretext of habit or normative practice. Culture offers a space where power can be exercised and practices that either enforce or reiterate power can be performed. The powerful enforce their beliefs and practices as normal using discourses that convince people that their ideas are normal and that they (the powerful) have the natural right to impose such ideas on people. Culture then, can be understood as a set of ideas that conceal the effect of power exerted on people. This reminds one of the Gramscian concept of Hegemony which talks about how a person or a group of persons holding power dominate all others by either convincing them of their legitimacy and ability to rule or coerces them through various institutional and non-institutional methods to accept their power.

In this case the concepts of Hegemony propounded by Gramsci, and Louis Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatus overlap. The hegemonic power usually convinces people of their power and its legitimacy by creating within their mind a false consciousness that whatever that they do is for the good of the people they rule. The institution of religion, one of the most popular institutions of culture that can be found everywhere, dominates people by creating in them such a false consciousness. These hegemonic groups (be they Christian, Islamic or Hindu) create in the minds of the people a sense of fear. The claim made in the Bible that all Human Beings are sinners due to the Sin committed by the first humans (Adam and Even) and that they will go to “Hell” if they do not follow the edicts and practices of “God” is an example of how a false consciousness is created in the minds of the people, masking the working of power from the eyes of the people. This idea was sutured into the minds of the people by means of Mass and Sunday Classes, and the Church had also committed several periodic acts of violence to coerce people into following their way; Witch Burning (a few notable examples include the burning of Hypatia and burning of Joan of Arc), Stoning of Heretics, excommunication from societies were among the several methods used for coercion by the Church. Islam and Hinduism too have historical records of such violence committed to people who refused to obey their commands.

These religions use false ideas like the idea of heaven and hell, rebirth, the notion of karma and so on to convince people that their way should be followed lest they be subject to harsh punishments, like being sent to hell and fired in oil, be reborn as a lowly creature like a leech or dog and so on. In the Indian context, the greatest justification provided for the enforcement and reiteration of caste system, by the uppercaste Hindus, was the notion of Karma. The working of power in all these cases is hidden under the mask of the larger discourse of religion. From this focal point, it can be inferred that Culture (meaning here any practice that is followed as a tradition or habit by groups of people), is a network of power which lets a certain group of people enforce their ideas and beliefs on others as legitimate by convincing ‘their subjects’ that they have a right to do what they do. Culture, in this context, is used to effectively mask the operations of power as it normalises the acts of power which people are subject to.

Further instances of such masking can be seen in practices like, a widowed woman having to shave her head is a practice that asserts and affirms male dominance over women. The culture of writing can also be taken as an example wherein power hierarchies are maintained. Writing acknowledgements is an ‘age-old habit’ for everyone who undertakes research. The arrangement of names in the acknowledgements of a thesis or dissertation will be on the basis of hierarchy rather than on the basis of helpfulness. Regardless of whether a person provides help or not, their positions are to be regarded by the scholars, this compels them to acknowledge them before they acknowledge the (powerless people) who helped them.

If we look at examples of binaries within a society we will be able to easily understand the function of culture. The manners in which binaries are treated illustrate power as one among the binaries is favoured by most cultures. For instance, if we take the example of a simple binary like fair/dark, we can see that many cultures (both western and non-western) favour fair skin over dark. Skin in this context acquires value, fair skin becomes a symbol of beauty and power and is desired as the ideal quality by many people, dark skin on the other hand becomes a symbol of deformity and weakness. This is reiterated by other discourses that are part of the larger discourse of culture like the films, advertisements and so on. The film industries of various places reiterate this discourse through the choice of heroines, villains and comic characters. Heroines, in a large percentage of movies are fair skinned and possess qualities desired in a “good woman”. Heroes are portrayed as possessing ideal, chivalric qualities and are “smart” and “attractive”. Villains on the other hand are created like the other of the heroic self, they will possess qualities and features which clearly segregate and define themselves as distinct from heroes. Most movies show villains having dark skin, unfriendly personality; they are “sinister”, arrogant, unpleasant, and untrustworthy. Advertisements reiterate this discourse by portraying dark sin as unattractive and ugly. They go so far as to portray dark skin as a biologic accident, deficiency and deformity.

Section two: Resisting Power- Agency and the birth of Subcultures

People who are subject to power structures, however, are not entirely deprived of their ability to assert their choices. Such an assertion of choices can be termed as ‘agency’. Agency can be defined as one’s ability to assert oneself while being a part of the power structure. Exertion of agency is not unproblematic. In many cases, when agency is asserted, the power structure will try and thwart their agential acts. The people in power try to either get back ‘rule breakers’ into their fold, or try and excommunicate them from the structure. Power, as is understood by Post Structuralism, is not a fixed or static entity.

Power, as Foucault understands, works horizontally than it does vertically. Any member within the power structure will be able to resist the exertion of power on them. For instance the numerous sects in Christianity took birth due to resistance against the dominant Catholic ideology which prevailed since the inception of Christianity. Henry VIII created the Anglican Church as he was not allowed to marry Anne Boleyn by the Pope, who is the head of the Catholic Church. Exertion of power within all avenues was met with resistance by the subjects of the power. Power and resistance to Power exist in a state of constant tension against each other. In the context of the larger discourse of culture, this tension gives rise to Subcultures.

Subcultures are to be understood as deviant cultural practices from the dominating discourse which had been created as a result of resistance offered to the dominating cultural practices. Cultures like Rastafari, Rap, Punk, fanimation, BDSM are all examples of subcultures. Subcultures exist within every dominant culture. Both the parent culture and subculture validate each other’s existence. Subcultures are created because of mainstream culture and mainstream culture is ‘mainstream’ due to the existence of these subcultures. Subcultures can also be understood as agential acts of wilfully defying cultural acts, as mentioned earlier.

Resistance to power can further lead to exclusion of individuals from the cultural landscape. A person who offers resistance and a person with considerable economic resources are usually the people who are excluded from the cultural landscape. Gorgio Agamben clearly describes this in his treatise Homo Sacer. Where he mentions two types of exclusions, one is exclusion due to privilege while the other is exclusion due to condemnation. The ‘privileged’ in a society is excluded (exempt would be a better term) from the cultural landscape (meaning that they do not have to strictly adhere to cultural norms) as they are at a ‘privilege’ (due to reasons economic, social or political) when compared to others and hence they are exempt from following rules. The second exclusion on the other hand is due to the fact that they have gone against the will of the powerful. Their mistake would be, for the people in power, in such great magnitude that they would be punished by being totally excluded from any and all cultural or civil rights.

An analysis of various cases can serve as examples for the same, in all cases the nature of the power being exerted changes, but the structural algorithm of the working of power does not necessarily change. The two cases which will be shown here are cases of familial exclusion and juridico-political exclusion. The cases that are considered are the several instances of honour killing and the treatment meted out to the Naxalite anti-socialists.

Honour killings occur when a member of the family (mostly the female members) exercise their agency and make decisions when it comes to issues like marriage. Marriage, in a socially conventional space like India, is a marker of respect and status for families. If any member of a family marries according to their wishes, violating the expected conduct by going against the patriarch of that family, the “honour” of the family is “soiled”. In many cases this leads to the excommunication of that family member from the family and that member will be no longer entitled to receive anything from the family, like family inheritance. In severe cases however, the family member is killed off by the other members of the family to protect their honour. From this it can be understood that “performing” marriage is a status symbol for a family. If this status symbol is not maintained by individual family members, tarnishing the “image” of the family, the violators shall be rooted out not only from the family also from the society by murdering them. This is done with the hope of maintaining the family’s “image” in society.

The second case, of the Naxalites, analyses a more “severe” violation. The anti-social activities of the naxalites are seen as gross legal violations, but they are not punished according to the existing judicial mechanism. Rather, they are stripped of all legal rights by the ‘sovereign’. They are rendered into, what Agamben calls, Homo Sacer. They are within the judicial system, but do not and cannot enjoy any judicial privileges which every “normal” Indian citizen is entitled to. They exist in a state of double exception, unlike in the previous case where the offenders can at least take legal recourse, wherein they are bound by the legal system but cannot enjoy any privileges of the same. They are imprisoned by the legal system and are not given any legal privileges and they can be killed off at any moment by the system as they are no longer recognised parts of it.

Summary

The module has focused on the relationship between power and culture, how culture is created as a means to mask the working of power, how power flows within the cultural circuit (from the rules to the subjects), how practices that benefit a certain class within a society are practiced as normative, how people are coerced into believing that the practices are for their benefit. The module also glances at subcultures and how they are created as active resistance to dominant cultures. Even through ‘subculture’ is resistance to culture; the existence of mainstream culture however is validated by means of the subculture and vice-versa. The module also speaks about exclusion of people from power structures due to their non compliance to norms.

Audio Visual Quadrant

Fig I:

Figure shows a person in gothic attire and make up. The Got hic is a contemporary subculture found in many countries. It began in the early 1980s in the United Kingdom as a part of Gothic Rock. The above picture shows the attire and make up that has to be and is donned by people performing the Gothic Subculture. The unique way of dressing and make up functions as their marks both their identity and difference from the dominant class.

Fig II:

The above image is taken from the infamous Karamchedu massacre which occurred in 1985. It was one of the bloodiest feuds between the Dalits and Upper castes in India. Many Dalits were murdered during the incident, which occurred due to a political and caste quarrel between the people involved in the incident. Six Dalits are said to have lost their lives in the scuffle and more than twenty ended up being injured. This case clearly illustrated how violence is meted out to people who try and go against the dominant class in a society.

Glossary

Post-structuralism: It can be understood as a theoretical standpoint which is post-positional (meaning that it does not take a strong stance). Post-structuralism can be seen as a continuation of structuralism wherein Saussure’s arguments are taken to the next level. Post- structuralism works under the assumption that there are no totalising narratives and that all master narratives (also called metanarratives) are false.

Hegemony: Hegemony describes a social phenomenon wherein one class of society dominates all others. In the context of culture, hegemony comprises of all practices which dominate all other practices and becomes the ‘norm’ of the society. The theory of Hegemony is associated with the Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci.

Ideological State Apparatus: Ideological State Apparatus, propounded by Louis Althusser, refers to ideas which people are subject to within the inner spheres of society (example can be schools, churches and so on). These ideas are followed by people more out of the fear of social ostracization than out of the fear of legal persecution. People are convinced of the legitimacy of the idea and they are made to believe that the ideas exist for the benefit of people while it clearly does not.

References:

1. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Print.
2. Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1998. Print.
3. Nayar, Pramod K. An Introduction to Cultural Studies. New Delhi: Viva Books, 2008. Print.
4. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Print.
5. Althusser, Louis. “On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” , 2014. Print.
6. Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Print.