(composed on behalf of a Bangladeshi Graduate Student)
In light of tentative definitions of "cultural process" and the impact of "mass culture" on human society, as presented both textually, in assigned readings, and verbally, during class discussions throughout the last three months, I have begun to ponder the intrinsic meaning of culture in my own homeland of Bangladesh. The parameters of cultural process, as such, are indeed vast. They sweep across the vital fabric and texture of a society, reaching profoundly into the very heart and soul of a nation. The teeming masses of Dhaka and Chittagong have little in common, at first glance, with the bustling crowds of Prague or Ottawa; and yet, all cultures share some cohesive factors which "bind" them to both their neighboring nations and to their more distant cousins in farther flung locations. It would be fitting to identify some of the cultural processes of a Third World nation, such as mine, not merely for purposes of demonstrating similarities among developing nations, but to illustrate how industrialized Western Nations possess many of the same cultural attributes found classically in the Third World.
The contemporary artistic and literary climate of a nation such as Bangladesh has clearly developed as a function of the influences to which it has been subjected over the decades. Certain societal constraints, plus externally imposed ideologies and readily identifiable traditional patterns have combined to form an amalgam in Bangladesh which is reflective of the values of several differing cultural paradigms.
The spectrum of Bangladeshi values, some inherited, some indigenous, features both of Richard Johnson's fundamental classifications: abstract and concrete. These values, which permeate cultural process in my country, reflect more than Johnson's two fairly naively differentiated categories, they dip beneath the surface of my nation and flavor the essence of my people. Johnson recognizes that abstraction and its counterpart are, in fact, over-simplifications and hastens to posit the notions of rationalism and empiricism to enrich his cultural process model.
Indeed, culture is empirical; it can be measured experientially and quantified in some ways. Rationalism, on the other hand, is more elusive; only relatively few aspects of cultural process in Bangladesh, or, for that matter, in the Western Nations, lend themselves to the tenets of rationalism. Culture is sporadic, erratic and slips through the fingers by virtue of its multiplicitous features. Reflected and mirrored in the cultural sub-specialty of historico-literary criticism, for example, Bangladeshi priorities are typified by the analyses of Ahmad Kamruddin (Inside Library, Dhaka, 1975)...
...who challenges many western values imported artificially from Britain in the first half of this century. His writings seem more empirical to me than "rational" in the theoretical sense. Yet, this does not nullify his thinking. It strengthens it and amplifies his perspectives in the experiential sense, perhaps drawing forth at least a modicum of rationalism in so doing. Further, his socio-historical writings are both, by Johnson's definition, abstract and concrete. They span the bridge of colonial and post-colonial thinking, furnishing concrete examples and developing abstract themes, as they progress. By describing the British colonial presence in Bangladesh, the critic acknowledges the impact which the colonizer had on his homeland. The traits left behind by the British formed the basis for much of the political and literary thinking extant in Bangladesh today. In support of our underlying contention, this creates bonds of cultural similarity, both in form and process, between the developing and developed nations.
As one ponders the paradigms and matrices of Johnson, it can be readily seen that the consciousness of a nation is, or can be, both subjective and objective. In autocratic societies, cultural unity is ideally prioritized, in an objective manner, by the government; whereas, in more democratic societies, the more fluid boundaries of cultural subjectivity are permitted. This is one measure of the status of developmental processes within a nation.
As a youthful member of the neo-intelligentsia of Bangladesh, I find it sometimes problematic to accept the rigid stances adopted by many of my colleagues in teaching; and yet, I recognize that, for the overall good of the Nation, certain cultural parameters must be defined for the masses. The British felt this to be the case in their own nation, as well, and still adhere to norms and standards which are reflective of their internal values.
By discussing the concept of autocratic control of cultural orientation and process in a nation, one also admits the possibility of differences being expressed within a society. Differences can be treated as harshly or as liberally within Western societies as within Third World milieux. Johnson points out that those who differ within a society, be it autocratic or liberal, tend to cluster together in defense of their positions, and express certain "affinities" or common traits binding them as collective elements in their greater society. This phenomenon exists within American society, certainly, as it does in Bangladesh. The degree to which these clustered associations of dissident thinking are able to survive depends on the cultural overlay of the society as a whole. In a sense, this is unfortunate, since diversity is a source, I feel, of intrinsic richness. Intolerant societies vanquish creative thinking and trample the process of renewal which is so important to growth and revitalization of the spirit. The tendency toward autocracy and control of the creative process is not only a distinguishing trait of the Third World but has also characterized industrialized nations in recent times. In this respect, cultural process in both spheres, irrespective of development-status, would not seem to be dissimilar.
How can the sensitized and attuned intellectual, in either setting, cope adequately with the on-going process of cultural production if artificial forces -- government, religion or tradition -- impinge on the expansive nature of this process? Responding to this question may provide the answer to " societal progress" in the larger sense of the term. The tradition-bound masses, which exist in the industrialized west as much as in the southern hemispheric developing world, must be by-passed or, as French cultural "aesthete" André Gide is frequently quoted as saying, "circumvented" in order to provide responses to the social ills of society as a whole.
The so-called " abstract" realm of literary criticism has always played a decisive and surprisingly concrete role in defining the crucial paths along which societies direct their energies. By providing insight into the cultural process, however it may be defined, literary critics, serving as enlightened intermediaries confronting government and tradition, furnish a vital service to their respective nations. By breaking away in "clusters", these luminaries in Bangladesh and elsewhere form encapsulated crucibles of insightful learning and productive "creation", demonstrably benefiting the global literary and societal climate in a contributory and uplifting sense.