Truth, meaning, and knowledge - always cultural?

Cultural truth, meaning and knowledge are produced both by society and the individuals within it. This essay examines the way in which cultural concepts such as class, politics and ideology all eventually wind down the level of the individual, and likewise all begin here. I argue that the individual is the lens of culture and illustrate this through the textual analysis of a photograph taken at recent healthcare protests in the US.

Discourse in Cultural Studies refers to the underlying assumptions exhibited explicitly and implicitly through cultural texts – or, any signifying practices. Texts always already come from a point of view, and depending on how meaning is generated within the reader, the discourses contained (often numerous, working for/against/oblivious of one another) can position the audience within a framework of liberating or prohibitive thought and action (Barker, 2008, pp.30/Lecture 4, 2009, p.1). In broad categories such as the individual, social, and institutional (Lecture 4, 2009, p.22), meanings are reproduced and reinforced by acceptance of discourses. Thus Cultural Studies sees value in identifying discourse – production of meaning can be intercepted and understood as a contrived rather than absolute truth (Lecture 4, 2009, p.20).

Using Kress’ approach (why/how/what other ways text might be articulated (Lecture 4, 2009, p.14)) we can see the text depicts a political rally in the US opposing a proposed healthcare reform (dubbed ‘Obamacare’) that has been put forward by President Barack Obama. The reform will cost taxpayers extra money in providing those with lower, or no incomes access to basic healthcare. It is first and foremost a political text, with political discourses. One of these discourses working implicitly in the text is capitalism, a free-enterprise system based on the pursuit of profit (Barker, 2008, p. 475) and central to the US political value system. However, the US system is split into two main political parties - Republicans and Democrats - and capitalism operates differently within the context of each party. While the Democrats tend to be more for progressive taxation leading to poverty alleviation through investment in welfare systems (still within a system of capitalist free enterprise) (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html), the Republicans oppose progressive taxation with the view it unfairly targets producers of wealth. Republicans think people should be responsible for their own welfare and earn it (http://gop.com/index.php/learn/what_we_believe).

The text positions the protesters as victims of injustice, who wish to express their dissatisfaction. Many of the protestors are probably employed and/or Republican, with values that run contrary to the proposal and see it as unfair they should pay for unemployed/low earners healthcare. But this might not be the whole truth. In thinking about other ways the text might be articulated, we could imagine those in the picture as Obama supporters, lauding the brilliance and fairness of such a healthcare plan. They might be Democrats, or just people whose socio-economic situation means they cannot afford private healthcare – maybe because they didn’t have the same education, family background, or opportunities as those in the original text. Looking at the text this way uncovers a potential discourse of class.

Class is a way of categorising people into relational groups on the basis of their socio-economic history/situation. Class division is commonly stratified into upper, middle, and lower, though many people think this is too simplified for contemporary society, as the factors attributing to class can crossover to produce a multitude of cultural divisions (Lecture 15, 2009, ‘Occupation’). Upbringing and occupation provide a broad classification criteria, but interrelated factors like wealth, education and influence can also determine the class a person is associated with (Lecture 15, 2009, p.1).Upbringing relates to the values and opportunities provided throughout youth by guardians or family, and incorporates other factors like affluence and the level of education afforded a person. Thus a person from a wealthy upbringing may attend private instead of public school, and have a higher chance of employment in high-level occupations. According to class theorists, this produces a perpetuated hierarchy of social classes – hence the common taxonomy of upper, middle and lower class. In this simplification, the upper class are business owners, the middle class are white-collar workers, and the working class are blue-collar workers (Lecture 15, 2009, p.1 links). While this illustrates the imprecision of such descriptions, it also highlights the dividing lines. It is not as easy to move between categories as it is within.

Class is an important discourse operating within the text because it seems highly likely that the people protesting will be possessors of private healthcare. Through either familial financial support or their own earnings/savings they are in a particular class of people who have access to this costly privilege. They will get taxed more if the healthcare plan proceeds, because they have more to be taxed on. The meaning they derive from the intent of the plan is one of unfairness. They cannot comprehend why they should pay for other people’s healthcare when they are already paying for their own. However their judgement of the situation’s truth is dictated in some ways by the class in which they come from, and the opportunities they have had. If we look at it from the perspective of a low-income factory worker who cannot afford private healthcare because his earnings only provide enough for his family’s food and lodgings, then you might find a different discourse of injustice. This person might see it as unfair (for example) that his father only worked in a factory and couldn’t afford to send him to university, that he had to work at the same factory because his father couldn’t continue to support him after being financially crippled by an emergency medical bill. He might see it as unfair that the same pattern is emerging for his own children, because class distinction isn’t fixed in nature, and if he didn’t have to pay for healthcare he might be able to break the cycle. He might be able to break away from the system of ideology that perpetuates his family’s class distinction.

Ideology is a concept that describes the way politics are embedded within cultural settings. It refers to the cultural meanings that, while claiming to be true, may in fact be contrived by privileged social groups/classes with a hidden agenda to maintain power (Barker, 2008, 482). Althusser describes the methods by which these agendas are enforced as ideological and repressive state apparatuses (ISA's and RSA's). RSA’s are the coercive means at the state's disposal such as police and military. ISAs are transparent means such education and media, and work by dictating our thoughts so coercion becomes unnecessary (Lecture 8, 2009, p.5). These concepts derive from Althusser’s Marxist background; Marxism being the theory that society is defined by hierarchical socio-economic class relations/conflicts (Lecture 8, 2009, p.2). Althusser believed this hierarchy is perpetuated by the powerful classes as they seek to maintain their position.

The media ISA is often used by political parties to present their policies in a sympathetic, controlled way, and to attack their opposition by presenting the facts they choose as pertinent to a valid argument. Truth, meaning and knowledge here are determined not only by what information is presented, but also (and sometimes more importantly) by what is omitted. It is difficult to know whether the protestors in the text have all the facts about Obamacare, or only a selection to set them onto one side of the argument. But it is likely each political party will present its argument in a way that carefully appeals to the core principles and passions of its audience. With this in mind, something that stands out in the text is a person waving the US flag - a symbol of US values like capitalism. Americans being notoriously patriotic, any emotional appeal that incorporates US symbology has powerful and influential ideological implications. It appears the protestors think the Democratic Obamacare plan runs in contradiction to the principles of capitalism, the US value system, and is principally un-American. This suggestion is amplified through an intertextual reference to socialism (a politico-economic theory contrary to capitalism) in its most extreme form.

Intertextuality relates to referencing between texts. It brings imagery, feelings, and meanings in from secondary texts via symbols embedded within a primary text (Barker, 2008, p.202). The subsequent collage/heteroglossia is where different meanings compete. Prevalence of mainstream meaning perpetuates existing practice, while prevalence of subversive meaning encourages change (Lecture 5, 2009, pp.12-13). The key is identifying what intertextuality adds to primary texts.

The main intertextual reference at work in the text is a Hitler-style moustache that has been drawn onto Obama’s image. It is a powerful and disconcerting image intended to evoke discourses of Nazism, dictatorship, and deceit. Textual meanings clash as the US flag in the background symbolises capitalism/democracy, and the Obama-Hitler face socialism/dictatorship. It plays on the heartstrings of American loyalties, and tells people not be deceived. Obama, like Hitler, is suggested as someone who can influence people’s thinking with charisma and rhetorical brilliance. The slogans “I’ve changed” and “Liar in chief” imply that what Obama convinced people of in the past is not the truth, and people have been duped. They fear, like Hitler, he is a master of manipulating people’s socio-political beliefs in a way that makes them appear self-realised. That he can manoeuvre a person’s socio-political subjectivity.

Subjectivity refers to our self recognition, constitution, and realisation. It is whatever we mean when we use the concept “I” either implicitly or explicitly (Lecture 10, 2009, p.1). For most individuals, subjectivity is presented as a coherent self. To Foucault, our subjectivity is continuously reconstituted by the discourses within our cultural sphere, and he describes each individual as a “vehicle of power” (Foucault 1980, quoted in Lecture 10, 2009, p.5). He believes that while we are in truth continuously manipulated by discourses of power, we feel like an autonomously determined individual, and this allows us to be positioned as a coherent concrete subject by such discourses. They have the power to define things as powerful as what we like and dislike e.g. what people we befriend, or political views we hold (Lecture 10, 2009, p.4).

            Across the text we see symbols intended as an appeal to people’s subjectivity. The US flag represents who the protestors and their audience recognise themselves as, and what they associate their subjectivity with – being American. The truth that most of these people are only American through ancestral immigration and may have nothing in common is unimportant. Their self-recognition as Americans gives them a sense of meaning and solidarity. Their politics and education unite them as one. Together they should fear and discard all anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, un-American ideals. On the other hand, the way people constitute their subjectivity is also the way in which they construct their social relations. If people associate their “I” with the group culture identified as working class, those people might constitute themselves as working class. If the working class are mainly Democrats whom Obama has been emotionally appealing to the needs of, then those people might constitute themselves as Democratic, or simply supporters of Obamacare. Either way, Meaning is produced in the individual subjectivity just as much as it is in the collective culture. Culture is but a plurality of subjects in agreement.

Whether a person’s subjectivity is comprised more definitively by their allegiance to American ideals, class relations or politics; the subjectivity of an individual is both defined by, and defines culture. The individual is the atomic element of our cultural world, and the lens through which all truth, meaning and knowledge is constructed. These things are never absolutes as the journey of each culture and person has an individual starting place. From here one can only ever envisage an individual destination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Barker, C 2008, Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition, SAGE, London.
• Various 2009, ‘Module 2: Lecture 4’, CLT110: Text, Image, Culture, Macquarie University, Sydney.
• Various 2009, ‘Module 2: Lecture 5’, CLT110: Text, Image, Culture, Macquarie University, Sydney.
• Various 2009, ‘Module 3: Lecture 8’, CLT110: Text, Image, Culture, Macquarie University, Sydney.
• Various 2009, ‘Module 3: Lecture 10’, CLT110: Text, Image, Culture, Macquarie University, Sydney.
• Various 2009, ‘Module 4: Lecture 15’, CLT110: Text, Image, Culture, Macquarie University, Sydney.