Introduction
There is one part of marketing that will always be some theory of heritage, - not museology, by the way. Heritology, maybe. It will have to help in defining the changing nature of our job so that we always know in which business we are in. It will be crucial in defining the changing nature of our product, or indeed, teach us the complexity of our product. One thing which no theory of ours will be able to ignore, is knowing the world we live in and we have to serve: the context will always be decisive for our functioning. I therefore think that understanding the globalisation is the must. Marketing is by definition an exchange, and communication is two way process, - therefore the same exchange, if we talk about the heritage care.
Well, we are not. The advanced architectural and technological disguise, helped to create the impression we all know how to act in the changed circumstances. How many among us understand globalisation? Do not judge the profession by own self. In brief, not many.
The eighties were talking about entropy as deterioration and disappearance of richness by reducing variety and creating the loss expressed in the amount of chaos. That is globalisation also. But globalisation is not what McLuhan predicted as «global village» Unlike his «village», this structure is hierarchical though multi-centred. The great change again struck us, but as recognition of the continuous process it represents.
Globalisation is pulsating change in constant fragmentation and uniformity. The reality we used to know is being transcended, overcome and conceptualised. Globalisation is, some say rightfully (Schaerer), the process we have been exposed for at least 500 years. Discovery of America or that of the passage to East Indies was some of many examples of the shrinking world. Yet, the globalisation as recognisable omnivorous process, as «simultaneous happening» (McLuhan), everywhere and all the time, is the new state of this managed world. Having got to the stage, globalisation became a challenge to anything local and separate, a challenge of creating the global identity. Heritage institutions were always about something specific and particular. In a sense, they are so to say, natural enemies to globalising processes. And that, taken as ultimate position, would be rather short-sighted as globalized world is reality. So, we shall have to function in the context where some mechanisms will analyse, promote, affirm and propose, even aggressively, the values of the unified world. Like in anything, there are good and bad things about this new state.
Good about the globalisation
...or at least what might be the outcome of it. One world should mean no wars fought, and yet, we know that unilateral world brought wars of a very mean nature: those proposed and promoted by the profit mongers.
Globalisation should also mean the perfect communication. True, we have amazing tools for it at our disposal. Be it electronic or traffic, we are advanced but it seems neither efficient nor fast enough for the new needs created by globalising world. The new means didn't, surprisingly, bring the better understanding neither of the world nor among people. It actually revealed that quality, like in museum job, lies elsewhere.
It may be true that globalisation brings better opportunity for planning. Yet it does not against the odds. It should guarantee the stability of systems, but we seem to be shaken all the time.
The truth may be that we manage standardization magnificently and we circulate better than ever. Yet, standardization is the sad side of any mass production and certainly an illness when applied in the fields traditionally coloured by cultural specificity. The circulation concerns the goods and capital, not so much the people, especially some people. Their frontiers are opened only one way for them but let the capital gains flow out easier then ever.
When globalisation brings cosmopolitan flavour to the culture, it is god, but when it brings non-culture, then it is a pest. The first is building bridges, always in dialogue with the local while the second is making it all even like a steam roller.
The businesses became very soft and omnipresent so we may recognise their new role of generating culture. This is not culture, - it is an imitation, - standardized, prêt-a-porter, changeable and measurable, with price tag and code bar. Only living culture can «reproduce», or an art can produce it, or even museums can, though to only an extent and not all of them.
One of the buzzwords of the present is freedom. The buzz-word is usually misunderstood or represents some hidden intentions. Deregulation is often taken as the synonym of freedom, but most often it is simple absence of (stable) rules. The freedom of choice, so much praised nowadays, is seemingly the choice of goods in the «global supermarket» (Bar/914/120) than life in the options: the choice of the same at the same price, similar gaudy packaging of presumably same quality (or lack of it).
On the other hand, people were given the seeming responsibility about the consequences. Socializing the responsibility, the profit only became bigger. Usually, these responsibilities were largely taken up by the institutions of common welfare. With the weakening state and institutions fighting for survival, the people are left alone. Scared.
Deregulation brings insecurity and unstableness. Unprepared for responsibility, left helpless by their institutions and welfare state, the ordinary people are easily manipulated. What they always need is easily known: security (of the group or the system), final answers, and clear definitions. Frightened and politically illiterate, they easily grant the mandate to business, politics, religious institutions or self organized groups.
The Greed as credo
Globalisation is not about America, it is about corporations in spite the fact that most are in the States. Any corporation is about greed and will extend as far as it can reach. The world is being changed to suit their goals. Their Boards are the new global structure of power bringing the unknown totalitarian rule. So, in fact, the mightiest state of the world is itself their puppet.
The ways are subtle and many. Local agents are always the handy tool: they know the fortress from within and hand out the key. They help in an effective corruption.
Politicians, especially in the poorer part of the Planet the natural pray of any bribery and easy to project false perspectives, illusory investments, or manipulated statistics.
There is also the greed in almost any human being, which, if under control, can be perfectly exploited for business purposes. Curiously enough this greedy dream is called «American dream» which is a cynical fact when we think of so many, hard-working Americans of modest wealth.
The egalitarian philosophy of the «free World» forbidding the politically or the racially incorrect joke is covering the rude reality in which the only inequality that is rising is that one between the rich and the poor: what was difference before now became the drama of starvation. What the poor produce of quality be it raw materials or final products, is extracted from them through the blackmail of they poverty and provoked needs, so that they can obtain genetically manipulated food, overpriced pharmaceutical products or other consumerist goods of doubtful quality and price.
In some imaginable circumstances of an honest world, globalisation might have been he name for the global brotherhood, even competitive one, but not the one where one can purchase the right to pollution or attack other country because of the market potential. Instead, it became the looting campaign.
The Orwellian prediction might have come to reality: thought crime is possible through the Internet surveillance, Thought police can be created by anyone powerful enough to assure the access, and Ministries of Truth are the new media empires.
There's one problem more: there seems no chance that young generations can attach themselves to any obvious idealist challenge. The ultimate egocentrism wrapped in the colours of the winning team seems to be the only way, and the hatred towards all the others the motivation mood guaranteeing the victory. We re witnessing the appearance of the loosing winner generations: winners by aggressive mentality and the losers by the vanity of their futile egocentrism. This is why family or compassion represents no values to them.
Why are we fighting for survival instead for our societal mission?
The fearful world is the world of manipulation. Enemies are everywhere. If there are no enemies they have to be created. The world without them would be all citizens' initiative and kindergarten atmosphere. Therefore, as Chomsky claims, one half of every tax dollar goes into the military budget. Once there, we loose trace for which purpose it is used. What proportion of it goes into crating or supporting the enemies? The simple mechanism of this impoverishment is done simply by the excessive privatization. Not far from now the natural resources always comprised as common inheritance will be privatized and on sale. Ultimately, the air we breath.
The modern state became the hostage to the corporative world masters. The weak state is also less glory of governing, less importance in history, less and less motives to stand against the insatiable private greed.....The state become a milking cow for socializing the consequences of mismanagement, losses at the market, or for assuring disguised extra profits. The state thus stops being the frame of societal welfare but becomes the extended hand of corporations inserted into the pockets of the innumerable taxpayers. Thus the state takes part in the logic opposite to what is the logic of citizens' state: privatized economy and privatized resources care only about the profit no matter at what price provided that it is paid by the citizens.
The state is finally dying out, though not to make place to the non-hierarchical community of free association based upon interest for common good, to enhance creativity and the freedom, - but to make still more place for the dangerous oligarchies. The weak state, able to care for itself and function as the interface between the interests of corporative business and the needy citizens is the caricature of whatever the welfare state was supposed to be. The endless interchange of the politicians and parties of no power and no creed seems to be the fate o the globalized societies.
Heritage institutions are directed towards the market to save their vitality and to earn their living. The state may provide the seed money but the societal project is the matter of past. Humanist cybernetics as a chance to enter culture into the developmental decision making is further than before. Simply, it costs money and the poor state is having less and less. It lacks its own resources. So, we need sponsor and patrons and they extend their help only as the soft form of trade: an exchange in which those with money dictate the terms.
Marketing is pointed out as the magical technology of management able to provide shortcuts. It is usually understood as a shrewd skill, devilish ability for selling, as an art of contacts which when right and high enough, pour in money in successful fundraising. Marketing is all but that. Understood correctly it is only the ability to create quality product, and the technique of proposing it to the users. So, where is the problem? The mission driven activity is not the first choice of the corporative sponsors. Only the state concerned with the common good can see the interest in financing what may be interesting and fruitful only in the long run. Besides, the programme of such cultural institutions may harm the interests of the corporative business and the corrupt politicians so the result is poverty and compromise.
When losing the patience, the business is creating its own cultural institutions. The, alas, look very similar to the «real» ones, only they use their activity to promote the interests of the owner. The time of Great Penitents when robber barons were squeezing out of themselves the humanist need for philanthropy (this time, however, trading it for the ticket for eternity) are gone by. The pretension is left to the diminishing class of politicians. By the way, others must have perceived the fact that the world is not allowed to have any statesmen anymore: they are not allowed. Instead, we are granted the privilege to choose the grotesque clowns and poor actors to represent us. This is called free, democratic elections. If any one makes way through the barriers he is simply killed. Made historical waste, the person can be re-used for the creation of more conflicts and enemies as the death is planned to produce the side effects so handy to blur the vision o the voters.
The illusion of the freedom to chose is called democracy and to make it possible, the proliferation of the Orwellian «newspeak» and cynical calls for human rights, rights of animals and environment protection is made everyday media theatre. This shallow illusionist stage is there to cover the real happening. Ha! Another plot theory! Whichever way one may call it, the show goes on legitimizing the rule and turning the attention from the real happening.
Now, of course, on asks what kind of Museology is that? None, to tell the truth. It is probably the Heritology, as a theory that could teach us what to do to make our past teach us wisdom of survival. It may remind us of the general ambition of all religions that we want to resemble the Absolute Good, the Supreme Being, or simply approach the Perfection as far as we can get. Why on Earth would we amass such a quantity of evidence about our environment about our predecessors and past experiences if not for some higher goal than the mere knowledge? Knowledge as the proclaimed goal got us where we are: facing the extinction. Knowledge needs noble purpose to be usable and effective.
The barbarisation of the world
The obsessive determination with aims and goals, with achievements and accomplishments transformed the western people into power machines. It is the prevalence of force and aggression as acceptable behaviour evaluated as positive if the set objectives are achieved. Nothing is left to nature voluntarily: the managed world becomes total engineering, from the cell structure and conception of human beings to other interventions into natural order.
The ultimate goal of frivolous human nature has always been achieving the eternal life, - and idea futile as ever and yet seemingly closer than ever. Immersed into their science, knowledge production and education, museums did not perceive that they were an exposed outpost of this ambition. Too much in them was done towards self........... , prestige and strive for eternity. They missed the true chance.
The world of today and tomorrow seems to be determined by lack of freedom (as mankind is transformed into the mass of anonymous voting spenders), by the great uncertainty and anxiety (as nothing will remain stable and secure), of false affluence and abundance (with miserable quality of life and products) and of instant, custom produced «culture».
The globalized world turns education into business so it devalues the public schooling: it is ruining the business. The same happens with public health institutions. What remains of both is beyond description and is used by the socially ruined poverty stricken groups and individuals. One may wander, why it was that museums as still another institution of common good has been spared. Part of the answer would be that we are not that obvious prey, but it could also be another question. Are you really sure we are not already suffocating in the embrace of our business sponsors, while the hug is euphemistically perceived as entrepreneurial idile?
Deprived of security and idealist quality education, the population is turned into the global «community of consumers» with no differences between them (Daniel Boorstin), betrayed by the intellectuals, politicians, and religious institutions, and abandoned by the social institutions, - people are turning into the «civilization of the unrestrained» (Claude Levi Strauss). The spirit of the globalised world gives them legitimacy and the selfish attitude of no obligation to anybody or anything but oneself, spreads like a plague. The space is lit by neon and decorated by plastic and lights, but outside this public illusion is the gloom. The life becomes shorter by becoming longer (Qui habet tempus habet vitam), and the forced happiness become psychotic frustration. With so much on disposal, modern man lacks content more than ever.
The post-modern slogan «anything goes» probably meant as freedom of expression (so creatively used by the modern avant-gardes in arts) actually gave legitimacy to dilettantes, it raised the risk, and deteriorated culture beyond recover. Culture has always been a set of rules and discipline, certain specific coherence of relation among the sharers of the same pattern, their relation to others and to the environment. No culture can exist without main ingredients of wisdom: moral, modesty, compassion, need for beauty, and respect for nature and living beings and responsibility for posterity. The later is expressed in the eternal dream of leaving behind oneself the better world, one that was earned by intentional strive for it.
Once that living quality is shattered or lost, all we could do is to mourn it in our museums or specialised media broadcasts, or we can just turn its remains into the goods and produce the plastics casts engineered to suit the taste of our customers or our new market formula.
The life of no rules my well be perceived as correct if we take that globalist posture: yet, good behaviour, as part of individual or group culture was a way of making distinctions and evaluating: language and manners would tell much in any contact. Without criteria we merge into relativism and voluntarism that make all things and persons the same: anything goes! The States seem to be the natural departure point of this global trend: itself a composition where only the common denominator guaranteed peaceful cohabitation of previous difference. The States were also the first polygon of globalising forces so its huge territory was the best rehearsal for the global show. This protrusion of culture-sphere that happened there much like the ozone holes appeared later on, started to spread all over the world. This disculturation of the world is not the fault of American people, though any mention of The States in this context is usually channelled into this imposed/supposed intolerance.
Displaced and delocalized beings are a natural prey for depersonalisation and manipulation. Ironically, the today's society is often called «the cultural society» but the only way it could justify the name is by understanding culture generically: as something cultivated, raised and made for the time and circumstances: the made up culture.
Making profit in cultural industries is necessarily dealing with customized, standardized and measurable product for the biggest possible public. Profit also spends the products and years for the innovation: hence the proliferation of «creators» and styles, of fashions and trends... Profit spends the culture it exploits like intensive fishing deserts the sea. Often irreversibly so that culture never recovers. The cultivated Maecenas and aristocracy of taste are gone and the welfare state is disappearing too. The cultivated public is rare and has little power to stop the disintegrative processes. The traditional culture and its coherent changes are thus devalued and depreciated, often as not sufficiently attractive for the spoiled market. The genuine individual creativity is suppressed to make place for «information jugglers» (Jean Claire) who create following the orders of gallerists, editors, cultural managers and media experts. The obsessive innovation must end in pretension, shock and excess. Even serious art experts, many of them knowledgeable curators are forced to support the atrocities sold as art, - of which only the most illustrative example is the exhibition of Guenther von Hagen «Body Worlds». He overdid it, it seems, by exposing taxidermized dead human bodies, but many others shock us by similar exhibitions of morbid or necrophile art products. The machine for production of human excrements, exposed first in NY ..........Gallery, was a good example. The elitist culture of today is like genuine cultural tradition: in books, museums, rare connoisseur circles or rare remaining oasis. What is playing the role of elitism, as proposed by media and other business, is little more than crazy cocktail of fancy ingredients.
Paradoxically, the Right (in defending its totalitarian position) is often taking strong stand on these matters and getting more attention than it would deserve by its general attitude. It is sad that nationalism and chauvinism are often making a clearer protest than the others. It is curious how non-culture state is s sort of totalitarian concept. The slavery today is not expressed in shackles, but with a strive of the power holders to move into the heads of their customers; this way they have it all: money, votes, social obedience, political sluggishness... Therefore, the traces of individual or collective personality can only be an obstacle. Yet, one has to make clear: the culture that resembles the tradition, or that plays its role continues to exist as folklore: again so much adjusted to the needs of market, specially of the tourism industry, that it can be realively well exploited. It is a sort of manipulated musealisation. The culture that is not lived is simply a dead culture and not culture at all. It is an evidence of its (former) existence.
Like no traffic is possible without the rules, so no culture can exist without, at least, referring to them. When all you have, all you can think and all you should imagine comes from TV and market mall, many start to dream their own dreams. The alternative culture or the culture of subgroups, the micro-cultures and even individual cultures are an obvious reaction to this process. An alternative cultural movement is playing by the rules, although is usually product of some protest or opposition. True, many of these are constructs, assemblages and compositions, but their creation is legitimate and driven by mere necessity for self expression and security that any distinctive personalisation brings. The mass is not the natural state of human nature, but this spontaneous protest is not neutralising the globalised non-culture state.
The business has the final word here too: appropriating the outer appearance of these cultures, devouring their individualism and originality by surrounding them with surrogates and fakes, by media misuse of their protagonists. Yet, the process is seemingly restarted with mutations and the culture, born out of trouble, is born anew.
Can heritage institutions do something to save the culture?
They should be able to do much. This is their primary role. Museum is not the house of objects but a house of ideas and concepts. Collections, scholarship and presentation are paramount but still only the means for the mission museums have to accomplish. That one is at the very end of the list of the long working process though, but can simply be described as continuation of values. What is recognised to be of value and need, will be documented, researched, protected, conserved and communicated, - in order to live on, in one way or another.
2003
No comments:
Post a Comment