Gene aesthetics

It is certainly not entirely clear what is meant when something is said to be a cultural construct. Taking the ‘soft’ interpretation, it means that we recapitulate certain cultural beliefs from generation to generation. These stereotypes shape our view of, for example, the sexes, so that they contain beliefs that are culturally specific.

According to the ‘hard’ interpretation, however, it is assumed that the demonstration of the existence of a number of culturally specific beliefs proves that the phenomenon does not, as such, exist. One quite often assumes, then, that the phenomenon had not existed before those in the West began their theoretical and philosophical discussions about the phenomenon in question. In this issue of Axess, we write about how art, great art – like sex differences – has proved a rewarding concept for constructive revisionists to sink their teeth in.

The fact that it was only in the late 1700s that interest emerged from the philosophical and aesthetic quarters in experiences of art and nature, which were termed ‘sublime’, is cited as supporting the view that people in earlier times had not appreciated such ‘sublime’ experiences of art. From this we conclude then that the phenomenon of ‘art’, as we now know it, is a social construction.

We are taught to appreciate certain sights, certain sequences of sounds, certain sequences of events, which conform to what we perceive as valuable visual art, music, and fictional narrative. As long as the majority agrees. It is equally difficult for a Swedish Wagner enthusiast to fully appreciate the equivalence of Peking Opera as it is for a rockabilly enthusiast to fully appreciate a Wagner performance. But can one, as a consequence of being schooled in such tastes, conclude that, for example, the difference between good sound and noise is merely a cultural construct?

That there are cultural characteristics that sometimes make it difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate music and literature from fundamentally different cultures, does not necessarily prevent the opposite from often being the case. Albrecht Dürer noted in 1520, when first encountering Mexican art, that he had never seen anything that affected him so deeply. Goethe said something similar a couple of hundred years later when he discovered certain Chinese literature that was previously unknown to him.

From the opposite, constructivist perspective, which emphasises the differences rather than similarities between different cultural expressions, however, people are assumed to be a blank slate, which is an attractive idea for the modern individual. Who does not want to feel that all options are available? That we can transform ourselves completely at will?

That liberals are attracted to these explanatory models is not surprising. That many of those in the academic world are also attracted to them is not surprising, since they provide complication-free interpretive models. And for anyone who aspires to be a writer, composer, or visual artist, these theories offer a single path to the core of art.

The apprenticeship process that previously could take decades can now be accomplished in significantly less time. The title of Lars Vilks’s book HowtoBecome a Contemporary Artist in Three Days, then, is not entirely ironic. To those on the Left, it seems social constructivist theory is building nothing less than the perfect ideological superstructure to a thoroughly regulated command economy.

The liberals see, through social constructivism’s extension, a world where individuals can live in complete freedom from tradition and biology. Ok, now close your eyes for these theories’ downsides. Social constructivism is not only opposed to knowledge in medical, anthropological, and biological research.

The ideology which claims that man is a blank slate, and that it is destructive power structures over the last few centuries that have shaped our behaviour and beliefs, yes, this ideology holds, by its extension, that the situation here and now can only get better by the people (through various state interventions) being changed. This is because it is assumed that only through the power structures’ influence can modifications to our behaviour and our beliefs occur. And the man who is believed to be a blank slate can, of course, be made to adapt to virtually any circumstances: labour camps and totalitarian states do not recognise human nature, as human nature is said not to exist.

To take into account human nature, as it has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, need not lead to reductionism and to the view of the 1800s nuclear family as the ultimate way of life, or salon painting as the ultimate art form. It is human nature to deviate from norms, to consider alternative solutions and to adjust ‘natural’ behaviours. That is what lies in the concept of culture, which in turn is part of human nature.