“The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad: Summary and Critique

·  Confusion between Culture, Civilization, and Religion

• Discussions of culture in India often conflate it with civilization and religion. This leads to the identification of Indian culture with Brahminical classicism, sidelining other religious traditions like Christianity and Islam.
• “The terms of this debate, with their extraordinary orientation toward the past, pave the way for a revivalist and even fascist kinds of cultural nationalism” (Ahmad, 1999, p. 65).

·  Materialist Conception of Culture

• Ahmad argues for a materialist understanding of culture, not as spiritual heritage but as “a set of material practices through which people live and produce the meanings of their lives” (p. 65).
• He emphasizes that culture is shaped by real-life access to cultural goods like education and the arts, which varies across social classes and groups.

·  Culture as a Site of Conflict

• Rather than a harmonious expression of a national spirit, culture is a space of contention where different classes and social forces struggle for dominance. “Every nation has at any given time not one culture but several” (p. 66).

·  Rejection of Revivalist Cultural Nationalism

• The essay critiques revivalist, elitist, and communalist cultural nationalism centered on Brahminical traditions, proposing instead the development of a “democratic, secular culture of modern civic values and radical equalities” (p. 66).

·  Gramsci’s ‘National-Popular’ Culture

• Ahmad invokes Gramsci’s concept of the “national-popular,” where national culture is rooted in the practices and aspirations of the oppressed classes. This approach is future-oriented and part of a broader struggle for social and economic justice.
• “Culture itself is conceived then not as a finished common possession, but as a struggle for cultural entitlements” (p. 67).

·  Critical Appropriation of Cultural Traditions

• Ahmad calls for a critical appropriation of both the cultures of the oppressed and the oppressors. He rejects the notion that dominant culture is a product of the leisure of the upper classes, noting that it is built on the labor of the working classes.
• “The work of creating the ‘national-popular’ thus involves a critical task twice over” (p. 67).

·  Marxist Perspectives on Culture

• Ahmad discusses Marx’s materialist conception of culture, emphasizing that while economic conditions can be understood scientifically, human consciousness and ideology are shaped by political and social struggles.
• He references Marx’s idea that “political struggle encompasses a greater variety of ‘forms'” (p. 67).

·  Cultural Imperialism and Revivalist Movements

• Colonialism was not just a political and economic system but also a cultural force. Ahmad highlights how cultural nationalism was contested during the national movement, with the right-wing seeking a revivalist version and left-wing forces promoting a secular, democratic culture.
• “The past two decades have witnessed great expansion in those revivalist and communal tendencies, now parading as ‘Hindu nationalism'” (p. 68).

·  Contemporary Challenges to Secular Culture

• Ahmad outlines three major shifts in the cultural landscape: the rise of Hindutva forces, the spread of a pan-Indian commodity culture through media, and the increasing dominance of market-driven values, which have led to a brutalization of cultural life.
• “The greatest long-term danger comes from that worship of the market that goes currently under the name of ‘liberalisation'” (p. 69).

·  Materialist Critique of Culture

• Contribution to Marxist Literary Theory: Aijaz Ahmad’s essay significantly contributes to Marxist literary theory by emphasizing a materialist understanding of culture. He rejects the idealist and revivalist conceptions of culture, particularly the view that culture is a spiritual or religious heritage. Instead, he argues that culture should be seen as “a set of material practices through which people live and produce the meanings of their lives” (Ahmad, 1999, p. 65). This aligns with historical materialism, where cultural forms are seen as products of material conditions, class struggles, and the social relations of production.
• Gramscian Influence: Ahmad applies Antonio Gramsci’s concept of the “national-popular” to argue that culture is not a unified, homogeneous entity, but a field of social and class struggle. The “national-popular” conception posits that culture is produced by and for the popular classes, contrasting with elitist and revivalist ideologies. He argues that national culture must arise from the “practices as well as aspirations of those classes” (p. 67), connecting culture to broader democratic and social struggles. This reflects Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony, where dominant ideologies are contested by subaltern groups.

·  Critique of Cultural Nationalism

• Contribution to Postcolonial Theory: Ahmad’s critique of cultural nationalism, particularly its revivalist, Brahminical, and communal tendencies, has significant implications for postcolonial literary theory. He criticizes the reduction of Indian culture to Hinduism, which marginalizes other religious and ethnic traditions such as Christianity and Islam. He argues that revivalist cultural nationalism is deeply intertwined with violence and exclusion, contributing to communalism and fascism: “The culturalist claims of an organised religion in the context of modern politics… conceal very high degrees of violence against those who stand outside the charmed circle of this religiously defined cultural nationalism” (p. 65). This aligns with postcolonial critiques of nationalism, which highlight how nationalism can reinforce exclusionary ideologies and perpetuate colonial structures of power, even after independence.

·  Culture as a Site of Conflict

• Contribution to Cultural Studies: Ahmad’s conception of culture as a field of contention and conflict contributes to the interdisciplinary field of Cultural Studies. He argues that culture is not a harmonious expression of national identity but is “a field of contention and conflict, among classes and among other social forces that struggle for dominance” (p. 66). This notion challenges romanticized views of culture as an aesthetic or spiritual domain and highlights the role of cultural production in reinforcing or contesting social hierarchies. It aligns with Cultural Studies’ focus on power, ideology, and social inequality, where cultural forms are understood as sites of ideological struggle between different social groups.

·  Critique of High and Low Culture

• Contribution to Popular Culture Theory: Ahmad critiques the distinctions between high and low culture, noting that such distinctions are “modes of the hierarchical organisation of the sphere of culture as a whole, which is by its very nature repressive” (p. 66). His argument that classicism is not just the accumulated wisdom of the ages but an “anachronism that weighs upon the souls of the oppressed” (p. 66) reflects a radical critique of elite cultural forms. This has implications for Popular Culture Theory, which challenges the dominance of “high culture” and values the cultural expressions of marginalized and working-class communities.

·  Ideological Struggle in Literary and Cultural Forms

• Contribution to Ideology Critique: Ahmad extends Marxist literary theory by arguing that cultural and ideological forms cannot be scientifically determined like the economic base, but are instead shaped by human subjects in collective struggles. He quotes Marx’s distinction between the material transformation of economic conditions and the “legal, political, religious, aesthetic, or philosophic – in short, ideological forms” through which people “become conscious of their conflict and fight it out” (p. 67). This view enriches the ideology critique in literary theory, which examines how literature and culture reflect and shape ideological formations within a society.

·  Impact of Modern Media and Commodification on Culture

• Contribution to Media Theory and Cultural Production: Ahmad’s analysis of modern media, particularly the rise of electronic media (radio, TV, film), and its role in propagating ruling class ideologies contributes to media theory and cultural production theory. He asserts that the media have become “the very central element in cultural control” (p. 68), where ideology is dispensed not as abstract beliefs but as “image and narrative” that seeks to “colonize the unconscious” (p. 68). This resonates with Adorno and Horkheimer’s concept of the culture industry, where cultural production is commodified and used as a tool for mass control and manipulation.

·  Critique of Market-driven Culture

• Contribution to Critical Theory of Neoliberalism: Ahmad critiques how neoliberal economic policies, particularly economic liberalization, have accelerated the commodification of culture and led to the brutalization of cultural life. He warns that the “worship of the market” has led to “a culture so brutish, so much at odds with itself, so devoid of any sense of culture as a ‘common way of life'” (p. 69). This aligns with critical theory’s critique of neoliberalism, where the market is seen as a destructive force that erodes cultural and social cohesion, leading to alienation and the fragmentation of cultural identities.

·  Overemphasis on Class Struggle:

• Critics may argue that Ahmad’s Marxist framework places too much emphasis on class struggle as the primary determinant of cultural conflict, potentially oversimplifying complex cultural dynamics that also involve gender, ethnicity, and religion.

·  Neglect of Individual Agency in Cultural Expression:

• Ahmad’s materialist conception of culture could be seen as reducing culture to economic and social conditions, overlooking the role of individual creativity, agency, and the more nuanced aspects of cultural production that go beyond class relations.

·  Underestimation of Religious and Spiritual Dimensions:

• Critics from more traditional or religious viewpoints may argue that Ahmad dismisses the spiritual or religious aspects of culture, particularly in societies where religion plays a foundational role in shaping cultural identity.

·  Generalization of Cultural Nationalism:

• Some may contend that Ahmad’s critique of revivalist cultural nationalism, particularly his association of it with Brahminical classicism, is too broad. It overlooks the diversity within nationalist movements and the potential for progressive or inclusive forms of cultural nationalism.

·  Western-Centric Marxist Perspective:

• Ahmad’s reliance on Marxist theory, particularly Gramsci’s “national-popular,” may be seen as imposing a Western theoretical framework on non-Western societies. Critics might argue that this perspective doesn’t fully account for the unique historical and cultural specificities of India and other postcolonial nations.

·  Limited Engagement with Globalization and Contemporary Cultural Forms:

• Although Ahmad acknowledges the rise of media and its impact on culture, some might argue that he does not sufficiently engage with how globalization and contemporary transnational cultural forms (such as digital culture) challenge his national-popular model of culture.

·  Romanticization of Oppressed Cultures:

• Ahmad’s notion that the culture of the oppressed holds intrinsic egalitarian and libertarian elements may be criticized as romanticizing marginalized cultures, potentially overlooking internal contradictions and regressive practices within those cultures.

·  Idealization of a Secular, Democratic Culture:

• The essay’s call for a secular, democratic culture of “modern civic values” could be criticized as an idealized solution that may not fully address the deep-rooted complexities of identity, tradition, and belief systems in multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies like India.

·  Excessive Focus on Historical Materialism:

• Critics might argue that Ahmad’s heavy reliance on historical materialism leads to a deterministic view of culture, reducing cultural phenomena to mere byproducts of economic conditions, and ignoring the influence of ideas, emotions, and other non-material factors.