This is just a suggestion in an Op-Ed piece at the New York Times, but something seems a little disturbing about forming an actual Department of Culture.
…Which is why I believe the president should create a cabinet-level position — a secretary of culture — to provide more cohesive leadership for these impressive programs and to assure that they receive the recognition and financing they deserve. New York Times
Why I find it quite so disturbing, I’m not sure. I’m not against libraries, museums or the arts, although I do believe that actual funding should be done more privately and more at the state and local levels than at the federal level. But clearly, the programs Mr. Ferris wants to put under the direction of this proposed Secretary of Culture already exist.
I suppose my discomfort comes more from putting a name or label to what already is, with a tad bit more centralization.
Michael Kaiser closes a piece for the Washington Post with an interesting statement:
As we print billions of dollars in bailout money, isn’t it time to ensure that we are saving our soul as well as our economy? Washington Post
He intends that as a plea to consider the arts in the billions of dollars of bailout money we are issuing to industry at the moment, but I can’t help but wonder how you can save your soul by selling it? At what point do such programs cease to be a means of preserving our national “soul” and become a means of controlling and directing it?
Welcome to Roscommon Acres, my little home in the country. I write here about life more abundantly, from the joy of a baby’s smile to the almost unbearable grief of losing a son. I am seeking beauty instead of ashes, the oil of joy instead of mourning, a garment of praise instead of the spirit of despair (Isaiah 61:3).
Just place "Tiggy" in the subject line.
Nice usage of quotes. Pretty scary to want to create more government positions. We are moving away from a production based economy and services to outsourcing and debt. Interesting to think of the position though
If the government feels the need to spend money on the arts, why don’t we just give it directly to the artists and museums instead of to bureaucrats? Or, why doesn’t the government just let me keep my money? That way maybe I could afford to patronize the arts.
Do you know what the larger problem is? The BAILOUT MONEY. Everybody wants a piece o’ the action there. What about artists? What about this? Or that? Waah… where’s myyy piece of the pie?
Can I get political and say we shouldn’t be doing this whole bailout thing? At all? And that we’re prolonging the inevitable, and when the inevitable business collapses happen, we’ll be further in debt AND have to deal with it??
JMO.
Dana, you got me thinking about the government “departments” we already have to organize various initiatives and support programs.
Once you have a Department of Families and Children, or Health and Human Services, surely the ship has sailed on this basis for objection?
My state has had those forever, as well as the department for culutral affairs.
Maybe your real discomfort then, isn’t the idea or the name or organizing principle but rather the federal level of it?
Oh, and let’s not to forget the Secretary of Education. . .
I am with you on this being a bit disconcerting.
JJ–it definitely has to do with the federal nature. I don’t mind it at the state level so much…in fact I may fully support some of these programs, particularly those dealing with libraries and museums. The actual things this person proposes bringing under the umbrella of the proposed Secretary all exist already, but somehow this does seem like further centralization.
That and this idea of “getting the funding and recognition they deserve.” Maybe it is just me, but I don’t think the federal money spent on a program is an accurate measure of the importance a people put on a specific activity, etc.
And Mrs. C, I don’t even want to go there. Who else shall we bailout? The financial system because we sort of messed them up to begin with, the auto industry because it is the auto industry, the arts because in economic hard times, they suffer first.
When Twitter is overcapacity, you get a nice graphic, the infamous Fail Whale. It is a more and more accurate depiction of what it is we are heading for, I fear. A bunch of little birds trying to suspend a whale out of water.
IMO, there are two mindsets in this country- those that believe that America is great because of gov’t programs, and those that believe that America is great because of individualism and freedom.
I believe that a strong gov’t is important, but should be limited to areas of law enforcement, defense, and basic infrastructure. Beyond that they are invading the privacy of its citizenry, and the idea of ‘cultural concerns’ requiring a cabinet position, budget and inevitable legislation is just bizarre. Do the people of this country really want gov’t to force a federal binky in their mouths and make sure we are getting our daily dose of ‘culture’ (whatever gov’t defines that to be?)
Thanks but no thanks- I don’t need gov’t to save my soul.
“Basic infrastructure” is what some people see this as and want — for culture, education, and the arts.
The first stories I read on this were a little over the top for me, talking about a Ministry of “Kulture,” never mind the misspelling of the German. I don’t want to draw that comparison. But I did find it amusing to read about Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Culture.
Within the Kingdom, the Ministry provides a focal point for all information about Saudi Arabia. Through its country-wide network of Information Centers it offers to Saudi Arabian citizens a ready source of data on the history and culture of the Kingdom.
That is a direction I really don’t think we need to be headed.
True, but having a standardized system of roads and rails and even telephone service is a little different than a standardized system of education and cultural dissemination.
Sunniemom, imo the two types of mindsets in this country are those whose minds ARE set period, of one mind only on all questions — and those whose mindsets aren’t set at all.
I use the word ‘infrastructure’ in the sense of a basic framework or foundation for the gov’t to provide essential services- defense, law enforcement, travel, communications… ‘Some people’ just want to be able to dominate, control and manipulate others at the expense of a taxpaying public using the police power of gov’t. It isn’t any more a legitimate function of gov’t to define ‘culture’ as it is for the gov’t to create a Dept. of Religion or a Dept. of Fashion. We definitely need to dismantle the Dept. of Education and return that function to the states, counties, and communities.
Culture is not an essential element to sustain life, and it is way to subjective. What will be defined as having cultural significance? You are talking about the gov’t defining what kinds of expressions are and aren’t appropriate for support and participation by its citizens.
Yes, of course cultural infrastructure isn’t exactly the same as roads and rail systems, telephone and television and the Internet (and the CDC and vaccinations and family social services like adoption and public schools) — but it’s not so different either.
No sunniemom, I wasn’t talking about that and I don’t hear Barack Obama talking about that. I find that an absurd hyperbole, just to be really honest. Take Claiborne Pell who just died, you know, the father of Pell grants that helped change the lives of 50 million-plus Americans and their families with education support (not mind control!) as well as the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. That was in 1965, probably before you were born and yet those federal efforts apparently have not silenced or indoctrinated you (not effectively anyway!)
JJ- I see them as very different. A road is a road is a road, and one’s opinion doesn’t change the nature of disease or the ability to communicate digitally. But culture is personal and specific and within the realm of personal choice. It should never become the function of gov’t.
When I first discovered C-Span, I watched an interesting committee meeting on the exportation of American culture. The members in that meeting basically concluded that American culture was “good” and worthy of export and thus this should be encouraged.
These sorts of things are obviously already going on, but do we need to make it yet more centralized?
JJ- we are cross posting and probably starting to miss each other’s points.
IMO the best way to promote culture is to allow people to express themselves freely and without gov’t oversight or intervention. If there were a Dept. of Culture, the gov’t would therefore need to define culture, either proactively or by default, because the folks in power will be choosing what is and isn’t supportable with taxpayer money on a much larger scale than they do now with the NEoA and PBS etc.
I haven’t argued that the gov’t will attempt to silence or indoctrinate anyone (and I haven’t mentioned Barack Obama at all) but that the gov’t should not be deciding what our ‘culture’ is and how Americans should express themselves artistically. That is IMO firmly a function of personal choice and private enterprise.
BTW, I was born in 1965, but thanks to Clairol and L’oreal, I don’t look a day over 30. :p
“Culture is not an essential element to sustain life” — that difference between our “mindsets” is probably the real bone of contention here. I can’t even make sense of that sentence. Life for humans and most higher order animals is inseparable from culture, solitary confinement from society makes people dysfunctional and can lead to literal loss of the will to live, and life isn’t worth living without the arts and humanities imo.
Maybe this conversation is like the new film Defiance? I haven’t see yet but I was just reading the NYT review, in which sunnimeom and I perhaps represent two similarly opposed views of what is essential for society (and similarly need to find ways to include both?)
Sunniemom, the whole post is about Barack Obama being urged to create a Secretary of Culture. Right?
Hey, here’s a news story about Pell that directly links federal infrastructure support for our arts, humanities and rails!
What Obama is being urged to do and what he himself believes about it are two different things. I was answering this sentence: “I wasn’t talking about that and I don’t hear Barack Obama talking about that” because I haven’t made any comments about nor do I know what Obama believes on this topic.
When I say that “Culture is not an essential element to sustain life” I am not denying that humans will always have their cultural and artistic expressions- but that gov’t should not be involved in legislating, defining, or overseeing what is not an essential function of gov’t. Law enforcement, defense, and even overseeing the safe production of foods and drugs are not undefinable in the same way as ‘culture’ is. E.coli is not subject to interpretation, nor is murder, rape, theft etc…
But when gov’t says “This is/isn’t a form of artistic expression that should be supported and promoted with taxpayer money” they are engaging in defining appropriate artistic and cultural expression. You can play Six Degrees of Separation if you like, but the inspiration for a railroad is not the same as legislating what forms of artistic and cultural expression my tax dollars will support.
I am now going to go express myself by cleaning the downstairs and doing laundry.
Something Favorite Daughter wrote for her college humanities final exam and blogged one year ago this week (she was 17.)
“I Actually Wrote This for a Class”:
Hey just what we need, another government department! Sweet!
Let’s create a Department of Culture and consider who will run it.
How about CAIR (The Center for American Islamilization Regardless). Cultural icons such as Shari’a Law, Female imprisonment and circumcision, suicide bombers etc.
Or maybe the Atheists can run it. Think about it, Crucifixes in urine, free for all anarchy, forced labor camps and death mills for the socially unfit..
Just think of the cultural lessons among the myriad of other controllers. We’ll finally realize that diversity equals perversity and the best part is it’ll be too late.
America is self destructing.
Some kind of cynical Christianity-as-bigotry bumper sticker, or is this meant as your actual philosophy of government? –
“diversity equals perversity”
I haven’t a clue what that is supposed to mean. At least it rhymes, I guess?
If I need a three-word philosophy of government, I’m sticking with “power of story.”
Christianity as bigotry? Please…..Opposing the deterioration of America and Western Culture is not bigotry. Supporting the decline thereof under the diversity banner is to set the nation adrift in dis-unity.
Under the ‘Diversity’ banner I am asked, no demanded, too not only accept but to celebrate this culture:
http://www.black-and-right.com/2008/12/05/the-violent-oppression-of-women-in-islam/
and bring it to America!
Under the ‘Diversity’ banner I am asked, no demanded, too not only accept but to celebrate this culture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG05kVNFU9Q&feature=related
and increase it in America!
Under the ‘Diversity’ banner I am asked, no demanded, too not only accept but to celebrate this culture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_hPlXn6Sro
that’s already in America!
Under the ‘Diversity’ banner I am asked, no demanded, too not only accept but to celebrate this culture:
http://goodfight.org/a_p_gay_marriage.html
and make it mainstream in America!
Under the ‘Diversity’ banner I am asked, no demanded, too not only accept but to celebrate this culture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFajpTD9YT0
and think wonderful thoughts of the 60′s counter-culture!
In the end we get what we ask for!