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still follow this logic in that dependencia emphasizes the vertical dislocation, whereby the effect of trickle-down is superseded by dependency.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.