Altermodern: drawing together the divisions?

The [highly ambiguous] cultural movements of the past century have all made attempts to define the culture of the Now. The ambiguity comes in the sense that the definition is based on broad similarities occurring in the many cultural, literary, artistic and fashionable trends of the time. Modernism literally became the definition of the time – where connoisseurs of various practices tried to shake of traditionalism to assert the Now – an enlightened, modern approach emerged from socio-technological advance. Then followed postmodernism, a more specific movement, once again trying to define the state of the Now by shaking of modernist traditions: it attempted to guide the emergence of culture away from what was modernism – the new modernism. This came of course in a time of political unrest: a cold war influenced emergence of commercial values which were summed up in references to the state of society and the personal conflictions that prevailed. But it was also a revolution of current trend over defined structure of modernity.

Divided by Law suggests that postmodernism was the assertion of individuality: When difference was defined and “worlds apart” were created. I am suggesting that its power took over society and was celebrated in art, culture and politics. At the same time that literature and art took an introspective look at the individual so too did the law. And a deluge of anti-discrimination legislation (whilst necessary) was created on a bedrock of celebrated difference and freedom. This introverted existentialism provided a new look at morals and idealism and provided a new structure for the definition of Now.

I have no intention of suggesting what altermodernism is aside from pointing out that it must be a new suggestion of what is Now: a new attempt to define things as they have become [bear in mind that in most contexts attempts at such definitions are little more than hollow constructions]. The term, coined by Nicolas Bourriaud, is the theme of a current exhibition at the Tate Britain. The exhibition, whilst clearly a commercial stunt, in fact portrays some very positive themes for society as it is now seen through the ideas of a handful of artists. At points there is reference to how the once clear racial partitions in society have become so blurred that definitions are even harder to impose: thus these divisions are slipping into irrelevance and people are starting to think their traditions, whilst important, should do not hold back their future and they are free to allow clashes in culture, nationality or race to shape their present existence as if they were a natural part of it.

I must comment that this was purely my opinion and the movement is too fresh and, in fairness, abiguous to really suggest that these elements are solid aspects of it. One problem for me is that by defining a “movement” so early we will be led to falsely create things as part of that movement rather than letting them form part of it naturally (as they have been doing up to this point). And ironically the label of a particular concept threatens to be the cause of its downfall – but for the time being we can be pleased that there is an inkling of new enlightenments emerging in the artworld defining what Now is and pushing us in the direction of a less divided world.

the devolving minorities

"I want to be the minority, I don't need your authority, down with the moral majority, because I want to be the minority". Another joined-up hypocrisy of pop-culture where everyone, in a bid to become unique, ends up being exactly the same.

But on this occasion I’m talking about the crescendo of Welsh voice against being part of Great Britain: although actually this isn’t the case at all. I’ve been reading a number of articles about how Welsh individuals are feeling repressed by the concept of Britain; how their language, cultures and traditions are not allowed to flourish due to being part of “British rule”. They want to devolve – but they’ve got their concepts mixed up: the truth is that they want to devolve from England not Britain.

And that is my little point for the day: that Wales is Britain, so is Scotland: they just want an identity free from England, that’s all. The unfortunate thing is that the question of England's devolvement, from the British Parliament, never comes up. So when all parts of Great Britain/ the UK fight for their individual autonomy their discourse is directed at England, not Britain. Britain only exists for the English and are now almost synonomous. I read a study that suggested that equal opportunities forms are frequently used to express that one is not British but Welsh, or Scottish, or Northern Irish. As if Britain is more tainted than anything else.

But why such contempt? What I gather from a article written (in perfect English) by a Welsh inhibitant (sic) is that this person was “forced” to learn in English and was therefore denied her “mother tongue”. Far be it for me to suggest that it would be insensitive and illogical for Welsh schools to apply a blanket language which is familiar to only 20% of Welsh people. Of this 20% only about 50% consider themselves fluent. The language may be important for the history of a country but should not act to restrict it’s future: learning about the history and culture is one thing but learning everything else in a unfamiliar language is absurd.

So my message to this writer is: although you are desperate to define your differences you should not ignore the startling similarities which essentially make you British. You’ve been empowered with the ability to move freely in a country, be educated and live anywhere within and you would have fundamentally have limited your future opportunities if you had been educated in Welsh.

Like me you might be half-welsh/ a quarter English/ Indian or whatever: the one thing you know for sure is that you are British. So when you talk of devolution make it clear that the Welsh Assembly deserves more autonomy for more local issues – like culture, tourism, transport – not a break from a strong and fundamental economic, social and ultimately democratic union which Wales is already constitutionally part of: This would be arbitrary and pedantic nationalism which would inevitably lead to the ostracisation of the majority of mixed nationality inhabitants of Britain as a whole.

progressive liberalism and the death of the west

(This is not my idea, but I’m elaborating on my understanding.) I read a book by a gent called Patrick West. The first problem being that reading something that attacks liberalism, elements of democracy or the reality (rather than the ideal) of free speech suggests that you fit into the negative connotations of fascism, being “right wing” (whatever that is), a “neo-con” (even more ambiguous) or generally showing favour to absolutist or authoritarian government. This is absurd. “Labels” should be put to one side for the time being and cynicists should bear in mind that religious people should allow their faith to be tested (rather than following blindly) in the same way that people of certain political persuasions should know the contrary arguments thoroughly.

This book had amassed negative connotations because of political prudes being unable to ignore these “labels” – it was in fact a pragmatic and intellectual reality check of things as they stand with a disregard to the controversy that truth creates. I appreciated the tone – whilst disagreeing with many of his points.

The fundamental point is one which, for me at least, sums up a lot of the frustrations that arise when sociology meets reality. In order to “assert that no culture is better than another [the basic idea behind a multiculture], they [the government] happily elaborate that Western culture is actually inferior, and shy away from celebrating it for fear of causing offence”. One example being the traditional nativity play being removed from use in primary schools (I am an atheist but at my school we learned about the story of Hanukah as well suggesting there is a secular element to putting on a play in general). This is the difference between cultural toleration and cultural promotion. The book could easily be misinterpreted as a reassertion of our country’s nationalism: but it is in fact quite to the contrary. It suggests that culture overall is loosing out – not any specific culture but the fact that multiculturalism in reality overshadows individual cultures in favour of tolerance.

If interested the book is called "The Poverty of Multiculturalism" by Patrick West. Perhaps prepare for funny looks on the tube (although reading "And then there were none" by Agatha Christie was maybe a little more awkward - because my copy had the original title).

The irony is that the Western world’s predominant cultures are the ideas of social liberalism, freedom of speech and democracy: arguably the very things that are allowing the Western world to eventually lose its own identity. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another story.