Artykuły

"Education for Public Responsibility," dated 1961, is an old book which contains a chapter titled "What is Liberal Education," written by one Leo Strauss, who begins by touching upon the matter of Culture. "Culture," notes Strauss, "(cultura), means primarily agriculture: the cultivation of the soil and its products, taking care of the soil, improving the soil in accordance with its nature. 'Culture' means derivatively and today chiefly the cultivation of the mind, the taking care and improving of the native faculties of the mind in accordance with the nature of the mind. Just as the soil needs cultivators of the soil, the mind needs teachers." Culture, then, if we take its' definition etymologically, would seem to be a form of improvement in human things as agriculture is a form of improvement in the soil. In short - Culture is education. If the cultivation or education of the mind is as fundamental for human happiness and human excellence as the cultivation of soil is fundamental for crops to grow correctly, then we might say that Culture is fundamental for political excellence and the happiness of Mankind.

This view of Culture is radically at odds with the modern connotations of culture as understood by the phrase 'pop-culture,' and further at odds with the modern idea that culture is primarily a form of entertainment. Understanding Culture as entertainment means relegating culture to matters outside of immediate serious political concern or, executing a politics that makes of culture the infamous spectacle of "circuses for the masses." Asking the question of the relation of Culture and Politics, and recognizing that Culture is fundamental to human happiness and thus to Politics itself is the first and most important step that Poland can take towards a politics of Culture.

With the recent parliamentary elections behind us, and the presidential elections before us, Poland finds itself in yet another moment of democratic upheaval, which begs its' citizens to consider the politics as both rulers and ruled. One matter that is up for consideration is the question of the development of Culture in Poland. A recent article in the Polish magazine "Polityka" presented readers with a condensed history of the politics of Culture in Poland. This history reads something like the varying fortunes of Machiavelli's beloved Romagna insofar as Poland has had thirteen Ministers of Culture in the space of sixteen years, each of whom, with certain exceptions, had a propensity to destroy all that came before him, create new modes and orders, and move on without solidifying them. The Ministry of Culture, it would seem, has been regarded by most of the partisan political establishment as the least important arm of the government, and no serious thought seems to have been given to a politics of Culture beyond one that is general, vague and akin to partisan sloganeering. Outside of the realm of government, in the commercial sphere, Culture in Poland has developed primarily as entertainment, at times taking on more thoughtful modes thanks to limited albeit existing independent initiatives. Political commentators seem keen on predicting who will be the next Minister of Culture, and guessing upon the future directions of his policy. This however, seems symptomatic of the fact that there is no wider politics of Culture beyond the politics of a single personality to be considered. For if the major political parties in Poland had a coherent idea regarding the development of the Republic, Culture would be merely a component in the composite whole and the particular individual entrusted with administering said policies would be of secondary importance; with debate more likely focused on the policies themselves. Given that there are no policies, debate necessarily focuses on personality. Our purpose here is to examine the question of Culture as politics and possible policy, in the hopes of contributing to the general discourse now being held on this subject.

Culture and Economics: On Leisure

It is well to begin with economics when discoursing on Culture in Poland because at the root of all problems here is the lack of funds, be they in the public or private sector, for cultural endeavors. Mr. Maciej Nowak, in his interview with Trybuna, spoke to this problem, noting that Culture, and theater in particular are treated as though it "were a kind of after-thought; we are at the very end of what is considered important for the public."

This accusation, while an accurate description of present realities, also misses a vital point: namely - there is no inherent conflict of interest between Culture and everything else that is "important for the public." Mr. Nowak's statement, while true in the immediate sense, also presumes a finite pool of wealth to be economized. This presumption is, however, not a matter of fact, but rather a matter of policy. Leisure, it is true, is the prerequisite for culture, and leisure is gained through wealth. But the notion that this leisure must come at the cost of other matters "important for the public" relies on an economic thinking that is rooted in pre-industrial, autarkic closed societies deprived of the benefits of the division of labor, economic competition and, ultimately - economic growth.

Economic growth is the key to the flourishing of Culture because economic growth creates the conditions for Culture - namely leisure and wealth. The flourishing of Culture in the West has been in direct proportion to the flourishing of commercial society and the consumption of its' benefits. Societies where economic growth has not taken place do not experience the benefits of wide Cultural pursuits because their populations are too preoccupied with subsistence. Whenever and wherever economies flourish, Culture takes root and flourishes as well.

Naturally, this flourishing takes on many forms, sometimes public, sometimes private, at times mixed. It is also true that this flourishing is precisely what makes it possible for "pop culture" or "entertainment culture" to exist, and it is often times noted that commercialism and economic growth do not provide so much for culture as they do for entertainment, for "low" culture. This is a debatable point; but what is beyond doubt is that economic growth broadens the amount of wealth available for consumption and subsequently broadens tax revenues. To complain that public expenditure for Culture is only a certain percentage of overall expenditures is one thing, but to become a prisoner to that percentage, rather than recognizing that with economic growth, the ratio of public expenditures towards Culture might remain the same, while real expenditures would rise with increased GNP, is another. Ergo, even the most abjectly hostile detractors of commercialism and enterprise who see it as necessary that government provide "high culture" to counter "commercial culture" must for their dependence rely upon a growing economy, and subsequently ought not be hostile towards it.

This is not to say that the Ministry of Culture is responsible for economic growth, but rather, that in order for Culture to expand, artists ought to support policies of economic growth, and the government ought to promote them. Absent such policies, the situation shall remain as Mr. Nowak has characterized it - an ever dwindling basket of scarce funds to be fought over and 'prioritized;' in short- a situation detrimental not only to Culture, but to the Republic as a whole.

Culture and Economics: On Self-Government

Ironically, perhaps, insofar as economic growth is what makes leisure possible, which in turn aids the flourishing of Culture, Culture itself is necessary so that economies can grow, insofar as the sources of economic growth are seen as a particular disciplining of the body politic with regards to the laws concerning commerce, not to mention a particular set of habits and mores which rest at the foundation of enterprise and civil society.

It is almost cliché to recollect Benjamin Franklin's words following the American Constitutional Convention, whereupon he replied to the question "what have you wrought?" with the words: "A Republic, if you can keep it!" Nevertheless, this is true. Republics depend for their preservation on the cultivation of public virtues amongst the citizens; one of the most important of these virtues is the development of the capacity for critical thought and analysis; often called liberal arts education. Devoid of such education, citizens in a commercial society are wont to become more like participants in Hobbes' "war of each against all" and less like free men who pursue their interests, rightly understood.

This recognition ought to prompt those political partisans in Poland who emphasize the country's commercial success and marginalize the relevance of culture to reconsider their stance. This will not, however, happen easily, since insofar as no theoretical conflict exists between Culture and other things "considered important for the public," there does exist a practical consideration which if not remedied, devolves into the situation we have in Poland now.

Because they judge people on the basis of merit rather than class or race, commercial (or liberal) regimes encourage a justice that threatens liberal democracy. This justice is manifest in the fact that honors and wealth are distributed in accordance with who satisfied whatever conditions the market required in order to earn them. This is justice as Socrates speaks of in his best city: "to each his own." But the problem with this justice is that it is justice. As such, it does not inspire partisan friendship, only partisan enmity. Those who are the beneficiaries of this justice do not feel they owe it to the regime. They feel that their own arms and virtue were the cause of their good fortune and the fact that the law makes them free for it they consider not a favor but a right. Thus the great men produced by liberal democracies do not necessarily become partisan friends of liberalism because they believe that they are great on their own account rather than on account of the political. On the other hand, those who, under this justice, lose their work and livelihood and owing to a malicious combination of slavishness and bad fortune are impoverished, become partisan enemies of the regime who are bent on its destruction. This because, as Justice is equality for equals and inequality for unequals, those who are unequal and receive their due ratio are dissatisfied. True, all men are always dissatisfied, but for these poorer types it is a magnified dissatisfaction since they cannot partially satisfy their desires by following the just course of working hard. As hard work is the partial satisfaction for the masterly man, so revolution is the only partial satisfaction for the slavish man. Thus I judge that there are two humors in the commercial, or liberal regime. One is the partisan enemy, the other is the individualist. While the individualist is no enemy to the commercial, or liberal regime, he is also not its' partisan friend. Thus liberalism leaves itself without guardians for its' own freedom while producing partisan enemies. In this way, commercial society, whose success is the necessary condition for leisure, which in turn sustains Culture, is at once often the enemy of Culture despite being so dependent upon it because Culture is tantamount to the notion that the great men of commercial regimes owe their greatness to it - something they do not wish to recognize out of vanity and pride.

Needless to say, by virtue of being a good, a thing is not thereby a perfect good. Just as bringing commercialism to the body politic entails certain levels of malignity, so too, Culture is not always and in every form a public good. When considering the question of whether or not to bring a theater to Geneva, Jean Jacques Rousseau warned in his Lettre sur les Spectacles of the dangers that such an institution would carry with it - namely, the pollution of the sober and virtuous republican spirit of the city. Yet the essence of freedom is amongst other things the resignation from a utopianism that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. There is, ultimately, no way that a government can treat seriously of economics without subsequently treating seriously of culture. No one whose intention it is to foster commercial success can do so without cultural success. Conversely, no one whose intention it is to foster Culture can do so through means which disdain commercial success. The one belongs to the other; and both of these spheres of public concern are symbiotic in nature, not antipathetic. When and if the body politic is given to thinking that it must "choose" between investing in culture or investing in the economy - this is a purely artificial choice. Investing in Culture means investing in education, in the rearing of more excellent citizens and in the sustenance of public virtues that are ultimately of paramount importance to the success of commercial enterprise.

From what has been said above it appears that civic Culture must be brought to the regime by one alone who is armed for it, and is not so much a product of the liberal city or commercial republic as such, as the producer of a free republic. How, though, does one bring civic culture to a city divided into the two humors discussed above? The partisan enemy will never honor civic culture for he is the enemy of the civilization. The individualist, while not dishonoring the civic culture, will not honor it either for he feels that he owes nothing to it.

To conclude our reflections on economics and culture - given Poland's woeful economic situation, there can be little surprise that the country also faces shortages in funds for cultural endeavors. There cannot be partisans of economy as opposed to partisans of culture; the one require the other. A growing economy is the best friend that Culture can have, and the partisans of commerce would find their projects in great danger if not for the civilizing effect that Culture has upon the people. Void of culture, the people will not learn self-government, which demands the type of critical thinking that only Culture can teach.

Culture and Statesmanship as opposed to Administration or Professionalism

It is sometimes the desire of well intentioned partisans to advocate a 'professionalism' in politics that is akin to what we might find in the commercial world. Other partisans are equally committed to resigning from openly political rule in favor of "administration," a neutral form of government which presumes that all political questions have been settled, leaving the agents of government no more tasks than effecting what has been determined as praiseworthy. The aim of both of these positions is to remedy the ills of extreme partisan politics which by-passes all questions of the public good in favor of what is often called cronyism, the spoils system or, as Machiavelli had it "the existence of friends and enemies." Insofar as it is praiseworthy to wish to move the regime away from the perverse focus upon the good of a few towards the correct focus upon the good of the whole, it is equally blameworthy to do so at the cost of energy in the executive.

When we speak of excessive change in the Ministry of Culture, and a general disarray in the politics of Culture in Poland, what else do we speak of but the weakness of the executive and the lack of Statesmanship on the part of Prime Ministers and political leaders? Polityka presents the history of the Ministry of Culture as if the problem were somehow an isolated affair. This is not the case. The instability of the Ministry of Culture owes to the weakness of the Prime Minister's office, and to the general lack of an energetic executive in Polish political life.

Certain spheres in public affairs, such as the Courts or the public auditors, seem well suited for "administration" or "professionalism" as opposed to "politics" because these spheres have but to abide by the letter of the law in the providing of their specific services. The Courts cannot judge with a view to anything but the law, and public auditors cannot calculate anything but with a view to mathematics. To make such functions "political" in the partisan sense would be to rebel against the political in the wider sense, as the laws were decided by partisans who had won the power to represent the will of the people, thus earning themselves the right to effect such laws as the people deemed necessary or worthy. Still, there remain other matters in political affairs where there is not such clarity as in the case of the Courts or the public auditors. Culture is one such matter.

That Culture is not a matter of exactness and clarity and cannot, thus, be left to "administrators" and "professionals" is, of course not clear, let alone exactly true and so, a debatable point; one that requires justification. To whit - some think of Culture as merely the archiving and celebrating of history. In this regard, as history is a given, there is little room for political partisanship and plenty of room for administration and professionalism; or so goes the argument. At most, there may well be battles regarding which elements of history to exalt over others, and this question may be more partisan in nature than simply administrative; but this is an extreme case, and no Historian who wishes to save his art from the accusation of propagandist would ever exercise favoritism to any ludicrous extent.

A politics of Culture that is thought of as merely the archiving and celebrating of history, aside from the danger of becoming propaganda, brings with it another danger - namely the danger of becoming nominal and thus utterly divorced from human life. Culture is, after all, a living thing, because Mankind are a living race. But this is not to say that because Culture is in constant flux, so too should the politics of Culture be in constant flux. Rather; it is to ask the question of the nature of that flux? In Book VIII of his Poetics, Aristotle notes in passing that "poetry is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular." Therefore, following Aristotle's thought, we see that a politics of Culture which is merely historical in its' aims is not truly Cultured, because Culture cannot be a recollection of the particulars void of the poetic impulse which constantly manifests the universal in renewed forms. In short: Culture must above all be philosophical rather than historical if it is to perform its' function.

As such, Culture is always developing, always presenting the human drama in different ways; and always seeking to understand Man's nature through its' many modes and orders. A politics of Culture that is energetic must therefore be focused on aiding this development. This said, the hard question arises: what exactly is this thing Culture, and how, clearly, can we know what steps to take in order to develop it?

That this question must be asked is the proof for Culture being an area of public life that cannot be "managed" by "professionals" and "administrators" - but must, in fact, remain in a kind of ordered chaos, or ordered liberty so as to thrive. This state of affairs makes Culture a purely political matter - forever elusive of categorization within any strict bounds that are so beloved by the modern sciences, the worshippers of utilitarianism and the denizens of the Administrative State.

The politics of Culture are the responsibility of the Statesman, and he must have energy to perform his duties well.

Energy in the Executive and the Politics of Culture

An energetic executive, with a grand vision for the Republic, is one who will have a view of the whole; this includes culture. That there is no energetic executive in Poland is not only a testimony to the lack of a view of the whole, but more pointedly, it is a testimony to the habit that Polish political actors have of viewing only the part; namely their own narrow interest. An energetic executive is feared by the majority of those active in political affairs as possibly tyrannical. There seems to be a conventional wisdom that supports the notion that when political offices are kept impotent and ineffective, there is less likelihood of them being used against ones interests when they fall into the arms of an opponent. This thinking may protect marginal gains of certain political factions in the short term, but it is also without any benefit to the Republic as a whole. In short, excessive faction is at the heart of the lack of executive energy in Poland which, in turn, is the reason for little thought being given to, amongst other things, a sound politics of Culture.

This said, faction, understood as a kind of liberty, is also necessary to maintaining the robustness of executive energy in the political realm, while being most obviously indispensable in Culture given that it is the fountainhead of all creativity. Ergo, it would appear that Culture, like Republicanism, may be wont to suffer by its' very nature from its' own virtues. In fact, it is precisely this tension between the need for liberty and order, or faction and energy in execution, that arguably rest at the very foundation of Western Culture. This tension has also been responsible for the vast failure of democratically governed republics seen throughout most of human history. Who can count all of the little Greek republics or their later Italian counterparts which have come and gone over the ages? Poland herself is no stranger to this malignity; having gone through III Republics, numerous occupations and partitions and other upheavals in the span of only a few centuries. Yet to resign from this tension in favor of either extreme order and energy in the executive or faction and liberty would be folly.

Writing of faction, the American patriot Publius wrote in Federalist #10 that "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." One might well apply this credo to Culture as well as to political life. Publius' essential argument in Federalist #10 is revolutionary, and very pertinent to Poland's present malaise. Therein he considered the failure of ancient republics in securing the blessings of liberty without tilting into chaos and anarchy. What he noted earlier as the "efficacy of modern political sciences" comes to pass in his advocacy of a Union whose constitution he is defending and whose guarantor is to be an energetic executive who is in many ways a tamed variation of Machiavelli's Prince, bound by Constitutional due process and oaths, limited by the separation of powers, yet nonetheless energetic in his rights and capacities for decisive action. It must also be noted here, that the choice is not so much between what has at times been called a 'parliamentary system' or a 'presidential system,' but between a weak and a strong executive. Germany and The United Kingdom have strong executives in the form of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, though the one is a parliamentary system and the other a Monarchy. Ergo, it is not necessary to adopt the American Constitution to have a strong executive.

Poland, with its' weak executive, be he President or Prime Minister, is far from this model of government, which serves not only the United States, but the Russian Federation, Germany and England as well. At times, the executive under such political circumstances is blamed as a tyrant, but ultimately, his opponent can be elected for voicing such dissent, and it seems better to be able to blame four or five years of a clear policy than to be at a loss for even identifying a policy due to such excessive faction that would permit 13 Ministers of Culture to have come and gone within the scope of 16 years.

Statesmen then, not "administrators" or "professionals" are called for; and their arms must be the energy of an executive branch that allows for initiative within the scope of a sensible amount of time, and limits to power that are nominal in all free societies.

Culture and the Republic

When considering the best City, Plato has Socrates begin from the education of the Guardians of his City, and immediately there commences a debate regarding Poetry and Music, or Culture; since education is a matter of Culture. The content of this argument, revolving around whether or not to teach Homeric poetry or create a new poetry, is secondary to the fact that Cultural concerns lay at the foundation of a self-governing republic. Socrates recognized that one must be Educated for Liberty, in other words - a man without Culture is not a free man.

Pawel Demirski, in his dialogue with the poet Pawlak, rightly notes that his parents' generation, denied for so long the benefits of a commercial republic, seemed to give little consideration to the foundations of such a republic, thinking it was enough to "study economics and buy, buy!" While Poles of Demirski's generation ought to praise the heroism of their parents for achieving independence and freedom, they ought not be blind to the fact that these same people left a fragile foundation upon which republican self-government was to thrive. A consumer culture will, in the end, consume itself. If everything is for sale - then government and high office must necessarily also come up for sale. In the end, even fundamental human rights that make a liberal, commercial republic possible, such as the right to private property, will come up for sale as well. For who else is the tyrant than, as Socrates says of him "he who does awake what men do in dreams?" Is not tyranny the ultimate actualization of a Culture of self-interest and consumerism? Does not the tyrant wish to defeat his competition, to reign supreme over all wealth? Within the bounds of a Culture that respects the liberty of Mankind to pursue its' self interest while respecting the rights of others, such tyranny is unthinkable, but when self-interest is loosed from Culture, then liberty becomes mere license, and the Republic is lost.

Poland requires Statesmen with a sensible vision for the country's future, and this vision need not be one of "Culture first, economy second" but can be one of economic growth and social progress together. Without such vision, her citizens are reduced to fighting over an ever dwindling amount of wealth rather than creating more wealth, and this fight will ultimately sap the leisure that is vital to the development of Culture, which itself is the source of civic and economic education. Barring Statesmanship that views politics in this holistic manner, little will be accomplished; whether in the politics of Culture or any other area of public and private life.