Viewing culture from the bottom up

Viewing culture from the bottom up

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): Vertical dimension seems to have beset the
general thinking on economical and political management. Keywords
such as "top-down approach" and "bottom-up approach" are
frequently reiterated by a great number of people, including
state ministers, NGO activists, executives and village officials.

The first term refers to centralistic management which goes
along the line of a single command running downwards through
every level of management or bureaucracy. The second expression
refers to a more participatory style, in which the final top-
level decision supposedly reflects the aspirations of most of the
people involved. In practical politics, the latter approach is
believed to be closer to democratic decision-making.

In terms of development, vertical dimension is best reflected
in the trickle-down theory of economic development, with its
counterpart in the spillover theory. The underlying assumption of
both is similar in that economic development starts from only one
particular point: from above if one looks at it vertically in
terms of trickle-down effect, or in the middle if one looks at it
horizontally in terms of the spillover effect.

The second underlying assumption is that the point of
commencement will naturally produce a multiplying effect, which
in the case of trickle-down runs from the top downwards, and in
the case of spillover from the center outwards.

In a global context this way of thinking is still fairly
prevalent, even in theoretical ventures which attempt to be
critical. I would argue that both dependencia and world-system
theory, for example, still follow this logic in that dependencia
emphasizes the vertical dislocation, whereby the effect of
trickle-down is superseded by dependency. This happens because
the top does not strengthen its lower levels, but rather tends to
weaken and even render them perpetually underdeveloped.

The world-system theory underscores the horizontal dislocation
whereby the center does not strengthen the periphery through a
spillover effect, but instead marginalizes it while keeping it
alive, because it contributes to the strengthening of the center
at the expense of its own development.

In politics, democracy is believed to best represent a bottom-
up approach because it provides people the opportunity and right
to realize their aspirations and attain goals, which are pursued
through their representatives. However, this is only possible if
the representatives are closely connected with and made
immediately accountable to their constituencies. In other words,
the bottom-up approach works only if legislation runs upwards
from below, whereas the responsibility goes downwards from above.

In this setup social control is only logical and
consequential, since representatives are subject to those who
provide them with authority, to whom they should be accountable.
Democracy differs greatly from all non-democratic systems. The
most evident difference is that in nondemocratic political
systems the origin and wielding of power exist up above, whereas
in a democratic system the exercising of power which takes place
up above originates from below.

The interesting question is: is there another example in which
only the bottom-up approach could help?

I would argue that it is the case only in cultural
development. Culture is a realm of human life which can only grow
from below. Of course, there is the feudalistic or aristocratic
culture which is usually regarded and treated as high culture,
and contained in splendid isolated sophistication far from the
lives of commoners.

Culture, cultural values, cultural orientation and cultural
artifacts are all produced, which is only possible if there are
enough people with the opportunity to produce. No wonder that in
the cultural domain one speaks not of facilities, but rather of
opportunity and freedom of creativity as well as the right to
self-expression.

Facilities assume the role of merely supporting prerequisites,
but are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for cultural
production. A lot of things can be done through instructions, but
good poetry or good paintings cannot be produced though
guidelines. In the same vein, a lot of things can be attained
with capital, but capital as such cannot produce cultural
achievement. One cannot provide a poet with a sum of money in
order that he write good poetry. Money can only help if the
creativity is there, since the role of money and facilities is
only secondary and subsidiary, but never essential nor
constitutive.

In that sense, cultural production cannot be initiated from
above. It can only be undertaken from below because it is an
externalization of life itself and therefore has to do with "to
be" and not with "to have". Just as with every living creature,
life can be promoted from above (as a garden can be prepared for
flowers), but life itself can only grow from below according to
its own natural tempo. In that sense the destruction of any
cultural product, be it a newspaper, newsmagazine, book, or
theater or intellectual exercise, is much more than just the loss
of an achievement. It is the negation of the natural right to
life which implies the energy, the ability and even the pleasure
to grow up.

The writer is a sociologist now working with the Jakarta-based
SPES research foundation.

Window: One cannot provide a poet with a sum of money in order that
he write good poetry. Money can only help if the creativity id there,
since the role is only secondary and subsidiary, but never essential
nor constitutuive.