photo by Alex Lear
DOING BATTLE
ON THE CULTURAL FRONT
What is more important: reality or the perception of reality?
In the long run, reality is always more important than perception. For example, if we are sprayed with a poisonous gas, whether we could perceive that gas would not determine whether that gas killed us. Or if we were Sioux and made a treaty with the U.S. government, whether we believed in that treaty or not would not prevent us from dying at Wounded Knee, Wounded Knee (1 or 2 for that matter).
The facts are that in the long run, reality always rules. However, what we must contend with is the unfortunate truth that perception dominates human discourse more than reality. In the minds of humans, myth is more important that truth. How we perceive reality will determine what we do, far more often than reality itself.
In this context, cultural workers occupy a critical position. Through the power of our art work, we artists can either reveal the truth or maintain myths; can wake up the consciousness of our audience to the realities of our world or hypnotize people into believing that beliefs are synonymous with truths. The invaluable role that entertainment plays in stabilizing the status quo is why artists as entertainers are paid disproportionate to other workers (such as teachers and farmers) in modern American society.
Perhaps here we need to clarify the distinction between artists and entertainers, that is assuming there is a distinction. First of all, all successful art entertains, i.e. engages the imagination and emotions of its audience. That is the essential power of any art. So then being an entertainer is part and parcel of being an artist. An artist must be able to move people.
The real question then is not whether the art is entertaining but whether the art reveals truths or reinforces myths -- and because we live in a period and a place where truth is multifaceted and often contradictory, it is both easier to communicate received myths to the general public and for the bulk of contemporary Americans to accept myths than it is to communicate and have the bulk of people accept revealed truths.
Received myths are easier for the mass elements to swallow because these myths conform to the perceived reality of Euro-centric domination. Moreover, it is easier to market such myths, especially because the means of communication, not to mention the amount of remuneration, is generally tied to adherence to and propagation of the existing mainstream. Thus, even an avant garde which protest bourgeois values but does not lead a revolt against bourgeois domination is acceptable to the status quo as a safety value outlet of frustration that might otherwise be channeled into rebellion, or, "god forbid," social revolution.
An essential difference between art and entertainment is that art reveals the realities of history and the status quo, and proposes a vision of a significantly altered future, whereas entertainment reinforces social myths and proposes the futility of revolution past, present or future. Judge for yourself, but sooner or later, those essential characteristics will manifest themselves in all artwork. You can deal with this or you can deal with that, one way or another, you either conform to or transform the status quo.
Given our current state, which is a contradictory mixed bag (i.e. we both conform and transform, but tend to conform more than we transform), the real question for us as artists is how to mount and sustain cultural warfare with the avowed goal of winning the hearts and minds of our people away from conforming to the status quo, win our people over to transforming the status quo reality.
So that is the revolutionary duty of the artist: to reveal the truth. This is intrinsically a revolutionary duty because in a period of cultural domination the revelation of truth in and of itself is oppositional to the status quo which works to maintain hegemony.
We have tossed around two big words: reality and myth. Let us consider briefly, what we mean by these terms. Reality is simply what is. But reality is also complex. Reality is the event and the interpretation of the event; the conditions that lead to the event, the context within which the event took place, and the resultant outcome of the event. A myth is an accepted, symbolic explanation of reality. A myth could be true or could be false. By this definition of myth, it is obvious that I believe that there is nothing inherently incorrect about myths. However, within our contemporary context, a context of Eurocentric world hegemony, the myths of the status quo are intrinsically in opposition to the truths of non-European peoples.
For example, a Euro-centric myth is the belief in man dominating nature. Modern urban architecture (which I call "modern cave architecture") attests to this belief. The prevalence of air conditioning--enclosed spaces designed to keep the outside out. The drive to dominate nature is not just a reflection of atmospheric and environmental conditions. For example, the Inuit people live in cold weather but they don't try to dominate nature. No, I think the effort to dominate nature is a social characteristic which is intrinsic to Euro-centric thought. Native Americans, Africans, people of the so-called Asia subcontinent, and the peoples of the Pacific, all manifest either a reverence for or at least a respect for nature and see ourselves as part of nature.
A corollary of all of this is the Euro-centric move not only to separate man from nature (and notice when I speak of Euro-centric thought I specify "man," and when I speak of other modes of thought I specify people), but indeed Euro-centric thought puts man at odds with nature and even goes so far as to say that man has the right to control, or dominate, nature. Thus, we have this Euro-adopted trinity of sky gods, i.e. 1. Yahweh; 2. God the father, son and holy ghost; and 3. Allah, all of whom exist without a female principle (Christianity even goes so far as to make Adam the mother of Eve). All of these religions bestow to men dominion over the earth. and reserve the dominion of heaven (and by extension, hell) to the control of God. This then becomes the mythological justification for Europeans (even though Europeans did not create any one of these three religions) to conquer and control the world and all its diverse peoples.
I suggest to you that an artist who has not come to grips with the patriarchal and dominating nature of a so-called "universal" sky god, is an artist unable to break the psychological grip of Euro-centric thought, and hence, regardless of the so-called political content of their work, that artist will invariably end up supporting the status quo, and thus in the long run end up being an entertainer. Of course, there is much more to discuss in this context, because this is a very complex topic, but I think you see the general outlines.
All of this is the context within which I think our battle for cultural equity and cultural diversity takes place. I believe what we are struggling to do is defend and develop ourselves based first on revealing the truth of our day to day lives and our history, and second on taking responsibility for the shaping of our future.
Our social truths are tough and complex in that they include all kinds of contradictory social realities, some of which are shameful, nearly all of which are painful to reveal. Our failure to stop the colonizer was often because of a failure to unite with others who had a common battle to wage even if they were historically our enemy; a failure to curtail collaboration with the enemy; and ultimately a failure to overcome our own weaknesses in thought and action.
The fact is we were enslaved by the millions and the magnitude of that slavery could not have taken place without strategic mistakes and critical sell-outs. Fortunately, as our ongoing struggle makes clear, we have been delayed but not denied. So the task of our artist and art institutions is to reveal both the perfidy of the enemy and the pitifulness of our own weaknesses. You see when we talk about what needs to be attacked, the internal contradictions must be very high on our list. Most of the major slave revolts in the United States were betrayed from within.
So art must look unblinkingly at the past and the present if it is to offer a clear-eyed vision of the future.
Furthermore, the future of our struggles for equity and diversity, for empowerment and tolerance, must be grounded in specific realities and aimed toward a general embracement of the oppressed and exploited including huge sectors of the so-called "white" world who are more confused than we are, and certainly more spiritually and emotionally bankrupt than we have ever been. We may not have much wind in our sails, but there are literally millions of white Americans running on empty who live in a world of dread and angst. While I feel no moral responsibility to save them as whites, I do feel a responsibility to address them as human beings.
I do not fool myself into thinking that the majority of people who think of themselves as white will heed my words, but, at the same time, I am wise enough to understand that I in no way diminish myself by helping others, even if those others have historically bought into their alleged superiority over me. For you see, deep down in their souls they know, just as deep down in my soul I know, that none of us are superior, we are all humans struggling to survive, procreate and find a measure of peace and happiness.
The effort to accurately communicate the complex and contradictory nature of truth is the battle I envision as a human being, the battle I wage as an artist.
—kalamu ya salaam