Dangers of cultural revivalism

The PM recently made statements to encourage what he called, ‘cultural revival as a means to counter religious extremism and for spreading tolerance in society’. He suggested that artistes could be employed in fighting obscurantism and TV dramas and films could help promote positive values. His statement was artful in that it did not call for any cultural revolution but by suggesting that the government had done its bit by reviving the 1973 Constitution, he made a call upon the artists’ community to revive drama, theatre and film in the spirit of ‘our heritage’.
On its own, any policy that patronises the arts is a welcome one by any government and especially in contrast to the anti-cultural philistinism of the PML-N. However, the inherent danger in loading such expectations on cultural expression as a counterterrorism strategy, is at best, desperate and at worst, a dangerous and self-delusionary policy. Making this argument was unpopular during the cultural duping days of Gen Musharraf, when several self-promoters lent him support in order to maximise their demands to extract his patronage of the arts.
Of course, the justification was that any state patronage that may further the public’s cultural sensibilities is desirable, even if it came at the cost of compromising broader political democratic principles. However, while the serious political flaws in such reasoning were discussed at the time, now that this civilian democratic government seems to be beating a similar drum, the dangers of cultural revivalism need to be discussed.
The first common argument against revivalism of any kind, questions the assumption that everything historical is somehow pure, authentic and natural. It is a myth that traditions and cultures were always egalitarian, shared and democratic in their impulse and benefit. In fact, cultural practices and traditions as we know, most often, have been the power tools of a gated and hierarchical community. Why then do we wish to revive an exclusionary cultural heritage?
The second myth associated with the case for cultural revivalism is that there are always competing narratives that build any culture. Given that ‘our culture’ is such an incredibly rich layering of the pagan, heathen, secular, plural, enslaved, patriarchal, oppressive and hedonistic, which segment is, and who decides the date of, ‘our’ heritage?
The third trouble with cultural revivalism is its association with peace. Culture is not separate from politics and heritage has been fraught with competition whereby religion has tended to fuse with natal culture, albeit sometimes violently, absorbing it in osmotic fashion. Why is culture then presumed to be some insurance against religious extremism? If history has taught us anything it is how porous and magnetic the boundaries between culture and religion are. So this false project that proposes a reverse osmosis in order to separate the pollutant from the pure, respectively, is a dishonest one.
Lastly, contemporary cultural artistic endeavours may have thrown up many masters, doyens, and epicureans and the art of some may even have served ably as vehicles for social messages, progressive politics and even democratic resistance in the past. However, given that contemporary religious revivalism itself has become such a material-based, geostrategic, armed complexity, is it really honest to suggest that film and drama, however didactic, can be anything more than an educational venture, a campaign for raising some debates, if it’s really good?
The successful reception of Coke Studio for example, despite its offensive brand identity, has been based on a reinvention of musical strains and provided an experimental cultural platform. Does it serve as deliverance from terrorism and extremism? Even if some songs are inspired by social injustices, does it amount to the reparation of rights? Not by a long shot. Post-Musharraf, the ‘soft image’ argument needs to be buried and never exhumed.
Cultural expression, may however, in a particularly oppressive environment, serve as counter-cultural and that only, when it aims to be non-conformist. Otherwise it’s simply entertainment. It may act as an enabler of the right to express freedoms and encourage others to do so through the fine and performing arts. But if it is to be considered and funded seriously as some policy or strategy, then this project needs closer examination. While many progressive messages regarding women’s rights, feudal wrongs, religious intolerance and social duties may have been scripted on TV and film, (often stereotypically but still) can we recall how many serious critiques of the military and army excesses, financial misappropriation, labour issues, police complicity and religious personalities have been the text in mainstream popular culture?
It is only alternative cultural expression that challenges by seriously taking up controversial issues which target the heart of the violations and expose them. Where is the evidence that we have crafted that tradition and are looking to revive it?
That the representatives of the artist community that met the PM have been petitioning for state protection from Indian TV channels and films, is telling. Apparently, their real threat is competition, not extremism. If the government should succumb to such a revisionist demand, driven by foreign policy rather than a progressive domestic cultural policy, then the danger of cultural revivalism is sure to backfire in a most ironic manner. It would merely fuel intolerance and an inability to cultivate a taste for other cultures while parochially consuming the kind of moralising based on a glorified past culture that has led us to this point in the first place.
It may be far better to call for the reinvention of a progressive culture rather than peddle its dubious revival. In this proposal, the minimum principles of humanity and equality that may be found in all cultures may be adhered to in a form that is familiar to our context. This work-in-progress of defining our culture may be left to a contemporary generation that should compete in a healthy democratic manner to form a consensus on how it wishes to define the culture of contemporary Pakistan. It should not have to be chained to some romanticised, falsely glorified, rewritten culture and certainly not have to relive it.

The writer is a sociologist based in Karachi. She has a background in women’s studies and has authored and edited several books on women’s issues Email: afiyazia@yahoo.com