Authority to Discuss Culture

Right now, I am going to do something I haven't done in a while. I am going to write without a very specific topic.

This is the way I used to write in my early STAC days. I would start a blogpost with something like, "Imagination," "Reality," or whatever other abstract thought occupied my mind at the moment. I would go on long, intellectual rambles, that occasionally said something wise.

In my attempt to tighten up my blog for my senior year, I haven't done much of that at all. After reading Clive James's Cultural Amnesia though, I wonder if I'm missing out by making my blog so focused.

I haven't gotten very far into Cultural Amnesia, but from what I've read so far, it seems like James's statements could be accurate. For example, when he talks about the Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, he makes clear that her importance derives from how Soviet communism eliminated her potential to become a genuine Russian culture icon, and how Moscow could have been one of the centers of the intelligensia. Note how I said it seems like James could be accurate. There's no way to prove whether this is true or not.

I do not wish to put down Clive James in any manner. I have only gotten about 40 pages through the book and I do not have the information nor the authority to declaim him. What I'm saying is, culture criticism seems like a dubious concept to me because it is based in supposition and it cannot be proven.

It's unfortunate for me to feel this way, I realize. We live in a society where we need tangible proof of something for it to be true. Intelligence is measured in grades. Culture is measured in material. Such structure often oversimplifies reality, because reality does not fit into structure. This structured reality seems more valid in our eyes though, because it can be more easily conceived in the mind. This simplification can be harmful, as many of us can see by how emphasis on grades takes away from the genuine joys of learning. Structuralization is also dubious.

What's the true way to evaluate these complex concepts? There is no true way. It does not exist. In essence, all ways are valid. James's analyses include things that structuralists may lack, while structuralists will have writing that is more empirical and easier to digest than Clive James. From both of these sources, we can derive our own judgments as to what seems the most truthful in our own lives.

Perhaps it's time for me to stop being so structural and to let myself become relaxed in my formatting and style. Sometimes, it's good to sacrifice focus for a brief moment of clarity.