USING EXAMPLES, CRITICALLY DISCUSS ‘CULTURE’ AS ‘STRUGGLED-OVER SET OF SOCIAL RELATIONS SHOT THROUGH WITH STRUCTURES OF POWER, STRUCTURES OF DOMINANCE AND SUBORDINATION’ (MITCHELL, 2000,)
By the late 1950’s, there were over 150 definitions of ‘culture’ in academia. There is not one specific definition of culture, but an array of interpretations. The traditional cultural geography definition is linked to the work of Carl Sauer (1925) who defined landscape as the main standing point of culture. His views focused on the idea that landscape shapes and develops societies and cultures due to the interaction between humans and the ‘natural landscape’. This definition of culture that focuses on landscape and identities has been critiqued however for lacking emphasis on space and spatiality in social theory.
The emergence of ‘new’ cultural geography considers the involvement of of space and place as part of cultural power (Mitchell, 2000). Mitchell draws attention to the idea that spaces and places are constantly produced and ‘reasserted’ to guarantee that the dominant class (the white upper-class or middle class) benefit from this reproduction of social geography. This in turn naturalises the relationships that are formed as products of ‘struggle’ and allows the dominant class to have control over spaces and places as part of culture. Each class naturally attempted to utilise communication to impose rules upon others and the class that succeeds in presenting their view as the correct one conquers. While Mitchell accepted this as human nature, Karl Marx argued that culture favoured inequality. He believed that the ‘engine of history’ was the harsh struggle among people with conflicting economic/social interests, therefore society was determined by the cultural ‘superstructure’ of values and ideas.
Cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1971) describes the situation in which people subconsciously subscribe to a knowledge system which is beneficial to those with superior power, rather than themselves. This concept has become integrated as a dialogue in which multiple forms of ‘common sense’ (Shurmer-Smith, 2001) are put forward in favour of the existing power structures. Cultural power structures are formed on pillars of domination, subordination, persuasion and manipulation through boundaries and acclamation of spaces. Cultural power structures are distinguished by international boundaries as they provide the opportunity to assert power upon subordinates (Prescott, 2016) and are material elements part of the cultural landscape. When these structures begin to weaken, cultural power diminishes. Evidence for this can be seen in past historical events where the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the fade of the superpower conflict and resulted in both East and West side losing their ability construct geopolitical threats. As well at this, territorial redefinition can be seen in 9/11 attacks on the Unites States of America which quickly realised its spatial safety was under threat after it was infiltrated. The usually powerful nation was vulnerable and its global dominance was briefly lost.
Correspondingly, globalisation has compressed the world and different cultures to become one global culture (Featherstone, 2011) and in doing so, has intensified the connection between people and places. While this has been revolutionary for the progression of technologies and the spread of information globally, boundaries are not as prominent as they once were due to the fade of borders and authority. Consequently, the question of ‘who owns what’ is a prominent issue in the world today as the rhetoric’s and expressions of cultural power and dominance are challenged. In addition, the ‘annihilation’ (Giddens, 1990) of space has also commenced as places are brought together through the constant development of communication technologies.
Globalisation is often considered as ‘westernisation’ or cultural ‘dilution’ due to the overwhelming economic and cultural power of North America and some parts of Europe. Subconsciously and sometimes unintentionally, cultural imperialism can be exhibited through the dominance of European language, media and TNC’s. For example, global brands have a variety of associations in different cultural contexts such as the opening of McDonalds in Moscow. In this cultural context, in the fall of USSR and communism, McDonald indicated the rise of capitalism and freedom in Russia. Some cultural geographers (Mukherjee, 2016) believe that ‘it would be foolish to conclude that other non-Western cultures will simply give way to the logic of modernity and adopt Western forms.’ This is understandable, however as stated previously, many non-western communities unknowingly become the product of cultural imperialism and disparity as a result of investment from western countries, and brands, thus emphasising that power structures prevail as an important dynamic of cultural geography.
While culture is built upon structures of power, dominance and subordination, there are other contributing dynamics in effect as well. Cultural geography is motivated differently in different places, thus it is seen as a ‘contested terrain of debate’ with a variety of interpretations and meanings. (Anderson, 2003).
Culture can be interpreted as the distribution of ‘things’ in which cultural artefacts are studied. This involves critical thinking and continuously asking questions such as ‘whose artefacts are they?’, ‘how did they get there?’ and ‘why are they there?’ An example of the display of culture and identity through the distribution of ‘things’ would be housing style and décor. This can disclose the economic stance of a household and even more personal details such as ethnicity and attitude toward the environment and community. The meaning of material objects/ artefacts are embedded into culture as people use ‘things’ to demonstrate and ‘objectify social relationships’ (Jackson, 2000) in order to provide a form of clarification on their social experiences. This motivation of cultural geography stems from materiality and links to the creation of social identities produced in specific spaces.
Additionally, culture as a way of life has been altered due to the shift in cultural geography from the focus on ‘exotic’ livelihoods of non-western groups, into the traits, habits and practices of westernised groups. Particular Eastern societies, who were once thought to emphasise interdependency have now began to adopt westernised individualistic culture in which people emphasise independence (Markus and Kitayama 1991). The clear diffusion of habits as the source of cultural differentiation has led to the ‘systematic neglect’ (Anderson, 2003) of culture in relation to power structures, domination and subordination and the focus on culture as a way of life.
Despite this, even when discussing cultural artefacts, materialism and the shift of cultural ways of life, these dynamics still are connected back to and are influenced by the significance of power structures in culture. The reification of culture in regards to it being ‘a thing’ implies the notion that “it” has the ability to can act, somewhat self-sufficiently of human actors, which is incorrect.
In conclusion, culture, economy and power are interconnected since groups with high economic status have the power and ability to exert their cultural values, habits and traits upon other vulnerable groups by means of investment, brands and material consumption. This created the dependency of non-western countries on the thriving economies and political governances of westernised players such as the United States, which has infiltrated its culture globally with ease. Powerful western players like the United States have gained their dominance through experience and learning curves gained through past vulnerabilities, be it through the economy (recession) or terrorist threats to their safety (9/11 terrorist attacks). Culture and economy are joined from the beginning, therefore the proposed antagonism between a simple materialistic concept of culture (ways of life, artefacts) and a non-materialistic culture (power, dominance subordination) is fabricated. Therefore, although culture is influenced by other factors, power structure, structures of dominance and structures of subordination remain in control culture.
Bibliography
• Atkinson D, Jackson P, Sibley D, Washbourne N, 2005 Cultural Geography: a Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts, London, I.B. Tauri
• Crang M, 1998 Cultural Geography, London, Routledge.
• Featherstone, M. (2011). Global culture. London [etc.]: Sage.
• Gramsci, A., Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q. and Nowell-Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
• Jackson, P. (2000). Rematerializing social and cultural geography. Social & Cultural Geography, 1(1), pp.9-14.
• Markus, Hazel Rose and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98:224-52.
• Mukherjee, A., (2016), ‘Culture, Tradition and Globalisation: Some Philosophical Questions’, Social Alternatives, vol. 35, no.1, pp.53-56
• Prescott, J. (2016). Political frontiers and boundaries. [Place of publication not identified]: Taylor & Francis.
• Sauer, Carl Ortwin, 1889-1975, The Morphology of Landscape. Berkeley, Calif. :University of California press, 1925
• Shurmer-Smith P, Ed., 2002 Doing Cultural Geography, London, Sage.
• Skelton T, Allen, T, 1999 Culture and Global Change, London, Routledge.