UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM The Culture Machine Thinking about culture, society and politics beyond the theoretical and physical borders of the nation-state 10880437 Hannah Achterbosch Supervisor Prof. Dr. H. Y. M. Jansen Second Reader Dr. F. Russo December 8, 2015 1 Al wat je ooit zag of hoorde, al wat je dacht te weten, is niet meer dat, maar anders.1 Hella S. Haasse Sleuteloog (Amsterdam: Querido’s Uitgeverij, 2002) 1 Translation from Dutch: ‘All that you ever saw or heard, all that you thought to know, is no longer that, but different.’ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 Introduction ……………………………………………………............... 4 1 Reduction of Being ……………………………………………………..... 11 1.1 A Philosophical Criticism on Sociology ………………………………….. 12 1.2 The Integration Discourse ………………………………………………… 13 1.3 Integration and Society …………………………………………………… 16 1.4 Reduction of Cultural Beings …………………………………………….. 17 1.5 Culture as Problematic Concept ………………………………………….. 22 1.6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………... 24 2 Weakening of being ……………………………………………………… 25 2.1 Machine as a Bad Model ………………………………………………….. 26 2.2 Weakening of Cultural Being ……………………………………………... 30 2.3 Imagining Multiple Cultural Worlds ……………………………………… 32 2.4 Analogy with the Museum ………………………………………………... 34 2.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 36 3 The Dutch Case: The Blue Diamonds…………………………………... 38 3.1 Political, Cultural and Societal Awareness………………………………... 39 3.2 Indorock Representing Exotic Otherness …………………………………. 41 3.3 A Cultural Hegemony? Dutch Versus Indonesian Culture ……………….. 44 3.4 Cultural Connectedness as Political Stake ………………………………… 48 3.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 51 4. Discussion & Conclusion……………………………………………….... 52 5. References ………………………… ……………………………………... 59 3 0 INTRODUCTION The arrival of more than 300.000 Dutch Indonesians in Dutch society between 1946 and 1968 as consequence of the decolonization of Indonesia lies at the very heart of rethinking the relationship between the concepts of culture, politics and society underpinning the Dutch nation-state. No longer was it possible to build on the existing presumed self-evident nation- state, because Dutch politics was gradually undermined by Indonesia’s struggle for independence and Dutch society had to make space for at least 300.000 citizens with another cultural background. Besides these political and societal consequences, the cultural arena served as a place where young Indonesian migrants, such as the Indorock formation, The Blue Diamonds, made the presence of the new cultural group with other cultural expressions visible. Despite this fundamental historical event resulting in social, political and cultural change, in social-political philosophy the emphasis is still on theorizing within the borders of the powerful nation-state. Admittedly, attempts have been made to elaborate on the cultural component of society, which can be described as ‘the cultural turn,’ described by, for example, Geertz (1973) and Bourdieu (1984) and later by Appadurai (1996). This cultural turn, however, did not lead to a renewed, solid philosophical theory. Subsequent studies focus almost exclusively on national or societal citizenship (see for example: Boele van Hensbroek & Vega, 2012; Koopmans, 2005; Kymlicka, 1995 & Modood, 2007). The focus on citizenship in these subsequent studies results in a theorizing and understanding of the concepts of culture, politics and society limited to the borders of nations-states. This thesis will argue that the understanding of the concepts of culture, politics and society could and should be philosophically deepened. The sociologist Willem Schinkel (2007 & 2008) and philosopher Gianni Vattimo (1989 & 2003), both enter the academic and public debate about the interrelated understanding of culture, politics and society – and about cultural diversity and cultural emancipation, in particular. Schinkel (2009) criticizes the Dutch obsession with integration in 4 particular and even uses citizenship in that respect as an example of problematic thought concerning cultural emancipation. He states that the focus lies too heavily on moral and cultural citizenship, which results in the exclusion of cultural minorities on the basis of their adjustment to Dutch norms and values. Vattimo takes this critique a step further, looking beyond one particular society, and states that philosophers should consider the relationship between culture, politics and society in a more global perspective. His focus is not necessarily on citizenship or exclusion, but rather on how the understanding of cultural emancipation can be refined in the context of globalization. This thesis will discuss the two recent critiques from Schinkel and Vattimo on socio-philosophical thought concerning cultural diversity and cultural emancipation. Their critiques will be examined in the context of a case study describing the introduction and increase of Indonesian cultural expressions in the Netherlands, in particular, Indorock. Philosophical context To a large extent, the relationship between culture, politics and society in social and political philosophy still seems to be based on Anderson’s (1989, p. 154) Imagined Communities where he describes the nation as: ‘An imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know their fellow-members […] yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion. Communities are to be distinguished […] by the style in which they are imagined.’ What is important in this definition is the role culture plays in the political unity of the nation-state. This political unity results from imagined shared cultural values as Anderson (1986, p.6) states: ‘A nation can be described as an imagined community which is the product of cultural norms and values within a territory.’ 5 Two important assumptions that are still dominant in recent sociological and philosophical research arise from his definition. The first is the assumption that politics and culture coincide within the nation-state or society. The second is that a nation or society is collectively imagined as a cultural unity, where the concept of imagination is of great importance. Recent social and philosophical studies still base their assumptions on Anderson’s imagined communities, to the extent that they associate the weakening of the nation-state with the rise of cultural diversity as opposed to cultural unity. For example, Rattansi (2012, p. 4) explains how cultural diversity is assumed to lead to an unravelling of the nation-state on the basis of the ‘triple transition’. This transition consists of the state losing power to separatist demands of minorities, such as global institutions, the unpredicted effects of the use of guest workers, and the retrenchments relating to the welfare state. On the basis of Rattansi, it can be argued that the apparent order that resulted from the creation of nation states is on the wane. For many decades, the nation was considered as an organizational structure with an eternal lifespan, but recently, the question is raised whether nations can be maintained in this century of supranational processes, in which culture plays the leading role. Moreover, this weakening of nation-states due to the rise of cultural diversity is often not perceived neutrally, but rather as highly problematic by socio-political philosophers, politicians and the majority of the nation (as for example explained by Rattansi, 2011 & Schinkel, 2007). Boomkens (2006, 235) goes so far as to state that the presumed weakening of nation-states is seen as ‘a great discomfort’ or ‘crisis of the community’ amongst philosophers. There are two ways in which cultural diversity is problematized in relation to the decreasing power of nation-states. On the one hand, the majority culture is presented as a reason for protecting the nation and its politics, as people conceive of the nation as a result of a common, homogeneous culture. On the other hand, cultural diversity (the rise of cultural minorities within nation states) is used as an explanation for the lack of power of national policies. In the case of the latter, culture is sometimes described as problematic from the inside – for example, when populations in the Middle East rebelled against national regimes in order to start cultural and political renewal under the name of Arab Spring. It is more common, however, that culture is perceived as a threat from the outside, when migration and refugees greatly affect both national politics and the majority culture because of their ‘otherness’. More philosophically formulated, cultural diversity is seen as undermining the collective imagination of a cultural unity that once resulted in the nation-state. 6 The notion of cultural diversity as a causal factor for the decreasing power of the nation-state results in a problematic understanding of cultural emancipation and cultural minorities. Although the decreasing power of nation-state cannot only be blamed on cultural diversity, as an aging population, economic globalization and modern technologies also undermine the power of the nation-state, cultural diversity is represented as the main problem of the nation state (Schinkel, 2007 & 2008). This is supported by Boomkens (2005, p. 63) who states that ‘Politics took on the shape of a cultural war’. Cultural diversity is seen as a problem, for example, because it is assumed that cultural minorities are not sufficiently integrated into the majority,