Surrender on the cultural front

Submitted by Anon on 30 November, 1997 - 11:55

I was appalled by much of the nonsense Jim Denham treated us to in his article about Elvis Presley (WL42). He seems to have little grasp on the Marxist theory of ideology and to be determined not only to live in the 1950s himself, but to drag the rest of us back there too.
At the root of the problem is Denham’s attempt to counterpose the real problem of the degeneration of culture by capitalist consumerism, to some ahistorical category of “great” popular music. In doing so, he offers an alternative which is closer to the feudal-absolutist and Stalinist positions (which share Jim’s belief in ahistorical “greatness’’) than to a serious Marxist analysis. He therefore offers capitulation on the cultural front to forces even more reactionary than the bourgeoisie.

Jim states: “When the roster of great popular singers of the century is finally drawn up, he [Elvis] most assuredly won’t [top the list].” Yet it is impossible to construct such a list except on a subjective basis. In practice, such rosters of ‘’great” artists are invariably right-wing, presume the existence of a dominant culture rather than a diverse collection of subcultures and fail to recognise that all culture is historically relative.

This recognition — that the controllers of production in a given epoch also control cultural production, that culture can only be assessed from a modern viewpoint which is itself a historical construct, or else in the context of a broader socio-historical analysis — is at the heart of the Marxist view of ideology, and to reject it is to reject the materialist core of Marxist theory.

What roles do cultural products — especially ones which Marxists, from the standpoint of their own politics, may perceive as “great” — play in society? Firstly, they perform definite functions for their consumers by providing enjoyment and/or a degree of self-actualisation. Second, they can help to raise the intellectual level, usually by bringing their users into conflict with the dominant culture. Thirdly, they can resolve internal dialectics within the cultural sphere by innovatively combining elements of previous traditions.

Rock music, when viewed historically, is “great’’ by all three standards. It has brought a great deal of enjoyment to a huge number of people. Variants on rock and roll played a crucial role in the popular-democratic fightbacks of the 1960s and later, helping to create movements from below such as “hippies” and ‘’rockers”. And rock music also resolved a dialectic within culture, by combining “black” and “white” musical styles. Since the 1960s it has been far easier for black-led musical forms “from below” to gain a wider audience.

Crosby, Sinatra et al, by contrast, emerged in a period typified by stultifying social structures, political conformity and cultural staleness. These performers hardly innovated from existing styles, and did nothing to revive struggle. I challenge Jim to prove otherwise.

Jim’s approach — like that of the reactionary Tories who believe in forcing children to regurgitate “classicist” — elevates his personal taste to the level of an objective standard, excludes large numbers of people who do not share his subjective viewpoint, and fails to address (thereby covering up) the issues of social construction of culture and ideological effects which are so central to understanding culture in a real, social and historical framework.

If Jim really feels the need for Marxists to live in the past, he should at least pick a period with a sense of fightback about it. In his ridiculous attempts to turn the music of the past into some latter-day Socialist Realism, he risks alienating the millions who enjoy rock music, contemporary pop, and their derivatives. These include many good socialists and ordinary people, not only people like Blair and Clinton*. Socialists should recognise the validity of the cultural forms they prefer.

The crucial issue for Marxists is not “greatness”’, judged by some fictitious externally- imposed standard. Our role is to champion cultural freedom and struggle from below. To forget this is to lose what makes us Marxists.

* Incidentally, Leo Abse (in “The Man Behind the Smile’’) provides a detailed argument as to how rock music may link to the pathologies of people like Blair, Clinton and the Elvis cultists. But I seem to recall Jim dismissing this approach as “psychobabble”. Evidently, his attitude to innovative science is as hostile as his attitude to innovative culture.
Andy Robinson

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.