Culture and Social Change: answers to questions

Lourdes Arizpe

What role is played by cultural nationalism in the global economy and how does it affect movements of ideas, people and resources?

“Cultural nationalism” will, in all probability, increase its influence in the global economy in the years to come for many reasons, among them, because it is part of two movements that were held and are still held in precarious equilibrium in the Westphalian model of nation-state. On the one hand, cultural nationalism is the ideological underpinning of the notion of citizenship and its rights and obligations, a notion which will be necessary as long as nation-states continue to be the building blocks of global governance. On the other, in the framework of cultural analysis, nationalism belongs to a continuum of forms of asserting loyalties, belonging and appropriate behaviour, which can only inadequately be analyzed today with the old concepts of ethnicism, communitarianism, and religiosity.

International decision-making is still driven by “cultural nationalisms”, although in complex patterns of alliances and oppositions, as policies of all international agencies and even international non-governmental organisations show. In fact, institutional structures are closely tied to such nationalisms than is usually acknowledged.
In the global economy, the role played by “cultural nationalisms” depends on whether cultural affiliations are used as springboards, fences or trenches. Examples can be given in each of these cases: Chinese migrant colonies have used them as springboards,  Japanese migrants as fences and Islamists as trenches. Why the differences? Now, that is the interesting question.

Can new forms of cooperation based on cultural innovation help us to develop new solutions to the major global challenges of the 21st century:  HIV/Aids, environmental crisis, poverty, social inequality?

The answer is definitely yes. Already, many new forms of cooperation have arisen in many countries. However, they usually entail a holistic attachment to the cooperative group, so that assistance is given freely in all or most aspects of people’s lives. In fact, it could be said that the more people feel vulnerable, the more they will deepen cultural or religious affiliations.

Single purpose associations are still mainly a feature of Western developed countries and of elites in the developing world. Today, new global forms of cooperation which combine these two components are being constructed. Advancing along this road is a question of building discourses of commonalities that culturally diverse people can adhere to. It is already happening.

How can culture and the arts become more central in economic and political decision-making?  How can we resource culture and the arts more effectively to allow for new directions of change?

At a recent seminar an interdisciplinary group of economists and the rest – the rest being us anthropologists, literary and art critics, folklorists - discussed at length whether the value of culture and art could be measured and understood in economic terms. The result was, as could be expected, inconclusive but certainly very motivating. Art and culture create forms of exchange which go beyond methods of formal calculation. They animate, instead, forms of communication that enact political, social and psychological ends.

Therefore, it is not only a question of providing additional resources or additional influence to the arts and to culture but to recognize that not all systems vital to developing vibrant societies are amenable to economic management techniques. This requires, then, a different approach to decision-making so that it reflects the real composition of societal development. It means recognizing cultural agents and artists as, in a certain sense, decision-makers.

Transnational corporations are major drivers of social change. What would be the consequences of rethinking corporations as innovative cultural institutions?  Can business enter into new forms of relationship with diverse cultures to enhance cultural diversity and innovation?

It is very necessary to think of transnational corporations in terms of the cultural impacts that they are having in societies. In recent years, corporations have become much more sensitive to issues of their own in-house culture and to cultural and ethnic diversity among their staff. They have not, however, taken full responsibility for the cultural impact that their products are having in local cultures. The obesity epidemic in the U.S. and other countries is a case in point. Recently, there are positive signs that this is changing. It would be a question of adding cultural responsibility as a component in discussions on the social responsibility of corporations.

It would be highly desirable for business to become more aware and to develop new forms of relationships to diverse cultural groups. In some cases business has tried to compensate uneven relationships between cultural groups in a given society, for example, when they have hired on the basis of affirmative action. However, I have heard them argue, rightly, at the Global Economic Forum in Davos, that they are not social or cultural welfare institutions. So then it is clear that state institutions or civil society institutions must be acting in this regard, in which case business may play an important role in funding or otherwise helping supporting anti-discrimination and conflict-resolution programs.

Lourdes Arizpe, June 17th 2005