if culture This implies a set of shared rules of behavior (norms) and common exposure to certain ideas (if this second category is not superfluous), and culture is a common knowledge of many or perhaps any group of individuals. also exists. If culture is nothing more than a national culture, then one of the two words is redundant, as are “culture culture” and “nation-state.” Culture is often a black box or contains all sorts of things related to humanity and human concepts. Britannicait “includes, inter alia, language, ideas, beliefs, customs, norms, institutions, tools, technology, works of art, rituals, rituals, etc.”
I’m not really interested in culture in the narrow sense of the “humanities” here, as opposed to culture in the broad sense mentioned above. (For more on the distinction between culture in the narrow and broad sense, see Mark Fumaroli’s 1999 book. Leta culture. modern religion essay (Cultural Nations: Essays on Modern Religion)) In the broadest sense, culture is difficult to pinpoint. “You’ll know it when you see it,” he suggests. financial times Columnist Stephen Bush. Accounts of culture are usually far from a set of necessary or sufficient conditions for being British or British, for example. Mr. Bush writes:There is such a thing as British culture.October 8, 2024):
This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but the UK has distinct cultural customs, including an emphasis on understatement, scatological humour, and an obsession with class. These have had a major influence on most British cultural achievements.
I define culture as the influence between individuals within a human group, characterized by geographical location, political obedience, or other criteria: “Catholics,” “Jews,” “socialist culture,” ” “Art Community” 140,000 members worldwide of model aviation academyand so on. Several characteristics and the result of interpersonal influences give the group its unique characteristics. Culture influences individuals, but without individuals and their interactions there is no culture. In a sense, each individual is his own culture. Extreme weirdos aren’t the only relevant examples. At least in complex, free societies, no two people have exactly the same mosaic of “cultural” characteristics. Everyone participates in many cultures.
for a moment, financial times The columnist seemed to arrive at universalist values with an individualistic flavor.
It is patently absurd to suggest that understatement, vulgar humor, or class obsession are important to maintaining the health of the nation. In terms of community cohesion and national prosperity, what really matters to Britain are liberalism, religious tolerance, respect for people’s personal choices and bodily autonomy. So, in a sense, who cares if these values lose their distinctly British accent?
The columnist goes on to ponder the meaning of “national health” (a naked anthropomorphic concept), “community cohesion,” “liberalism,” and “individual choice,” and whether these concepts are compatible. I might have done it. In any case, his question is purely rhetorical, since what really matters is what the state does to preserve its culture – for example, the BBC said:
And in a globalized economy…small and medium-sized countries like the United Kingdom and South Africa cannot maintain their own cultures without some degree of public subsidy.
This is something that successive French governments have acknowledged by supporting French-language film and television. All British governments owe a huge debt to the forward-thinking Conservative government of the 1920s when setting the BBC license fee. If you’re interested in preserving a uniquely British culture and not just a generic brand of liberalism that says, “This could be any liberal democracy,” the BBC is the only game in town. …
There is no obvious way to create and maintain a shared national culture and identity other than through public broadcasting in general and the BBC in particular.
is financial times Are the columnists saying that British (or British?) “culture” requires taxpayer coercion for funding and government propaganda for its content? Is culture a means of encouraging obedience to the orders of national politicians? Or is it simply a matter of funding some people’s cultural preferences at the expense of others?
Interestingly, and apparently unknown to Bush, some questions were raised relating to the 1920s when the BBC was established as a broadcasting monopoly, which lasted until 1954 on television and 1972 on radio. Ta. The bulk of the BBC’s funding still comes from the compulsory “annual television fee paid by people who own a television set or who watch live television on a device such as a computer.”Britannica).
Ronald Coase, 1991 Nobel Prize Winner in Economicswrote an interesting book on these issues. British Broadcasting: A Study of Monopoly (New York: Routledge, 2013. 1950 (original edition)). He explained how the BBC secretly gained a broadcasting monopoly that remained unquestioned for decades. It was primarily a tool for the government to spread the “culture” of the state or its major customers. Coase writes:
The Corporation’s program policy gave the lower social classes what they deserved, but gave the educated classes what they wanted.
In 1951 he also wrote: The Owl: A Quarterly Journal of International Thought:
The view that only public broadcasting is desirable is likely to be accepted only by socialists. The widespread support for the current public broadcasting system is just another example of the acceptance of socialist views not only in the Labor Party but also in the Conservative Party. and the Liberal Party.
The BBC is not as dangerous as it was when it was a monopoly, but from what I hear it does what government intervention does best: interfere with politically dominant “cultures” and the most politically important elections. Continuing to strengthen the culture that the district loves.
