Power and Humanizing Models of Culture - Essay Example

? Power and Humanizing Models of Culture By Human beings have certain characters that they have because they belong to certain society and have a certain culture. These characters are not maintained throughout their generations and this is because of evolution. Friedrich Nietzsche argues that for the animals species their survival throughout is guaranteed by their genetic problems but for human beings they have o look for means to ensure their continued existence. This can only be done if they look at their cultural memory which Nietzsche continued by explaining that the concept of cultural memory could be defined through a delimitation that distinguishes it from communicative or everyday memory which is said to not contain cultural characteristics (Nietzsche 2004, p.51). The concept of communicative as Halbawach said includes all varieties of memories that are gathered from the daily communications. The varieties gathered are part of oral history. The communicative memory however has no fixity to bind it to the past as time passes and for it to attain this it requires it to include culture. Human beings require moving from the everyday communication and getting into the objective culture which has the structure of memory. Cultural memory that Nietzsche says people should adopt is fixed and therefore even as time passes one is bind to the past. The memory can be kept by having cultural formations in forms of text or monuments. Cultural memory has been seen to preserve knowledge that has enabled people to be aware of their unity. The other advantage of cultural memory is that though it is hard to remember what happened in the past cultural memory can be reconstructed by relating its knowledge to an actual situation. It is also said to exist in two modes and the first is the mode where the texts and monuments act as total horizon, it is called the mode of potentiality (Nietzsche & Large 2007 p.49). The second mode in which the cultural memory exists in is the actuality mode. Cultural memory formation does not depend on one medium; it has many options like writing, images and also rituals. There is also the existence of specialists when it comes to cultural memory unlike the collective memory. Cultural memory has also been said to be reflexive in certain ways, one is that it is said to practice reflexive because it explains practices using proverbs and also rituals. It is also said to be self-reflexive because when explaining and interpreting certain practices it draws from itself. The other benefit of cultural memory is that it uses images and rituals that are specific to each society. Every society is required to remember its past. This enables a society to be open to it and also to others understanding their culture. Cultural memory presents the image of the society and in this way a society is united (Nietzsche, Kaufmann & Hollingdale 1968, p.71-3). This said it shows that Nietzsche was in favor of maintaining culture and looking at the past. This is why he was known to be the strongest critic of modernity. He in fact called termed it to be barbaric. Nietzsche believed that human beings in the modern era had weakened personality. He therefore argued that there was need to create great personalities as this was the only way to bring back genuine culture. The philosopher also dealt with cultural complex and said that cultures were patterned wholes. The reason why he liked culture was because he believed that culture was what domesticated human beings. He talked of culture enabling humans to have discipline and also have social control. It is culture that makes individuals to be healthy and strong making them to have good values unlike the modern culture which he believed had slave values. The Socratic culture that led to emergence of modern world was said by Nietzsche to be oppressing the body making individuals to have weak personalities (Miller 1970, p.98). Nietzsche has written numerous essays and books on philosophical matters, touching issues of life and society at large. According to this Greek philosopher, morality consists of a series of errors which most of us have incorporated into our basic modes of feeling, thinking, and living. It represents the greatest symbolism of people’s profound ignorance of themselves and the world. In his work, it is illustrated how humankind often falsely rank themselves above inhuman beings (Nietzsche & Large 2007 pp.71-2). He notes that human beings usually see themselves only incompletely and endow themselves with attributes that are fictitious and often place themselves in inherently higher rank of superiority than nature and other animals and eventually we keep inventing ever new tables as to what is proper and then they accept them as unconditional and eternal (Nietzsche, Kaufmann & Hollingdale 1968, p.48). However, Nietzsche does not in any way suggest that we should feel guilty for such incorporated errors and mistakes. According to this philosophical work, there is need for humans to thrive to be just and not to settle at the point of concentrating at what is good and evil. It is what Nietzsche calls morality prejudices that stand on the way to this and there is need to transform things, since morality has the tendency to assume knowledge of things which it does not have. The concern of Nietzsche is that individuals may probably never achieve the highest point of their potential. The role of culture should be to produce individuals who are sovereign but historically we only get series of cultural deformations and pervasions of such cultural roles (Miller 1970, p.18). Therefore, the role of culture in our present society has been taken to be a continuously transforming society of human lives and aspects of culture that just breed a new human being. Man has been striving to become better creature every day and retention of cultural practices and values has been as such a bother. The two models of culture distinctly represent the contrasting views of the two German philosophers whose works provide a vital contribution to the history of cultural theory and aesthetics. The power model of culture is majorly advocated for by Friedrich Nietzsche a German philosopher. Initially it was believed by the philosophers of Athens that one would find the true meaning of their existence by looking at the human sufferings and the reasons that surrounded the suffering (Nietzsche, Kaufmann & Nietzsche 2010, p.51). The power model seeks to prove that life is basically composed of a struggle between two forces which Friedrich called the Dionysian and the Apollonian. In the most basic meaning, he explained the two as, “reality being indistinguishable by forms and being disordered is Dionysian and the other Apollonian meant reality as being distinguished by forms and organized” (Schiller & Snell 2004, p.41). The power model therefore depicts that there is a struggle for humanity by the two forces. One prevailed at the expense of the other, that is, if the Dionysian prevailed the Apollonian lost and vice versa. Interestingly, neither the Dionysian nor the Apollonian elements permanently won but served to keep each other in check and therefore maintain a balance (Schiller & Curran 2005, p.24). According to this view, the power model of culture rests in the great interacting forces of tranquility and turbulence all coexisting to produce a equilibrium that so much of humanity is oblivious of. The power model therefore advocates for a culture where human beings need to understand that it is their destiny to live life in what would be a dream world of illusions while at the same time being controlled by dark universal realities (Nietzsche, F. W., Kaufmann, W., & Nietzsche 2010, p.90). On the other hand the humanizing model of culture can be best understood by studying the philosophical works of the German philosopher Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller (Schiller & Snell 2004, p.63). He propagated the reality of the good is the beautiful. He also got into detail on the works of Martin Wieland where he explained that there is a moral practice beyond the aesthetic value of duty and inclination existing harmoniously without conflict due to the fact that reason educates a person’s emotions causing them to think before they feel (Nietzsche, Kaufmann & Hollingdale 1968, p.56). The humanizing model thus explores further the concept of human liberality and freedom to express them as individuals that are independent of external forces that they are bound to obey or that rule over their lives. This model of culture follows that it is possible to change the general perspectives of people and their attitudes in life by touching the souls of humanity with beauty (Miller 1970, p.79). Basically, the humanizing model is a nonviolent model that is based on a cohesive interplay of life’s forces in a peaceful coexistence as to ensure there is satisfaction and rest in the lives of humanity. According to Schiller (2004, p.45), cultural imperialism manifests in various ways. Cultural imperialism as a theory attempts to look at core- periphery and media relations. Imperialism in this perspective refers to the establishment and maintenance of unbalanced relationships between civilizations that tend to favor the more powerful civilization. Imperialism can be termed as the way of imposing as well as promoting progress of a culture that is usually of politically mighty countries over less powerful countries. Imperialism is the totality of all events and processes through which a society is brought into world systems that are modern, and how the dominating stratum gets attracted, forced, pressured and at times bribery being issued in attempts to shape social institutions so as to correspond or even have to foster and promote the structures and values of the system dominant center (Schiller & Curran 2005, p.97). As such, according to Schiller, imperialism is a broad perspective which includes more than consumer goods. Although this process sounds kind of appeasing on the surface of it, it does mask some quite frightening truth, which is the fact that many cultures across the world are presently disappearing due what is believed to be the influence of the corporate and the American cultural practices (Robertson1905, p.98). While Nietzsche sees cultural diversity as a continuous thing often under great influence by the western culture through what he called transformations to always become better of what one is, in the Schiller’s philosophical work there is also such a thing but in a different perspective. In the imperialism culture, there is continuous change from one mode of culture to another, often under great influence of the American corporations. It is almost given that most non-American corporations would feel that consumer products that are packaged in American style would attract more customers because of the notion that American culture is more superior to all and has the ability to transform others. Schiller says that, whether making attempts to sell any item, an entire culture or a brand, marketers have frequently been able to attribute American products with modernity in the world wide minds of consumers (Schiller & Snell 2004, pp.67-9). Consumers are therefore ceaselessly made to stick to American made consumer goods. This process is a continuous one, with corporations altering their strategies to fit the American culture and business policies. Similarly, in the Nietzsche case there is also continuous process of change. The change is described as one towards becoming better ‘tamed’ animals. The philosopher describes this mode of culture as a poor one since there exactly no real culture but continuous change. Conclusion A great contrast appears between the two models in that whereas one depicts that man is a victim of control by dark forces of reality while living in the eternal bliss of a dream world of illusion, the other shows man as an independent being capable of choice and peaceful coexistence with one another and with the environment around him (Miller 1970, p.76). The humanizing model is therefore more valid than the power model since it deals directly with elements that are not as abstract as the power model. It shows the rise of diplomacy even in solving life’s problems and challenges rather than living in denial in a dream land while destiny is determined by some dark forces. The humanizing model also puts into consideration the will of humanity and their sovereignty to make decisions that will impact their lives whether positively or negatively. References Miller, R. D. (1970). Schiller and the ideal of freedom: a study of Schiller's philisophical works with chapters on Kant. Oxford, Clarendon P. Nietzsche, F. W. (2004). On the future of our educational institutions. South Bend, Ind, St. Augustine's Press. Nietzsche, F. W., & Large, D. (2007). Ecce homo: how to become what you are. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, F. W., Kaufmann, W. A., & Hollingdale, R. J. (1968). The will to power. New York, Vintage Books. http://www.contentreserve.com/TitleInfo.asp?ID={9E4BCE50-A65C-4174-8927-4803D0B9A786}&Format=410. Nietzsche, F. W., Kaufmann, W., & Nietzsche, F. W. (2010). The birth of tragedy and The case of Wagner. New York, NY, Vintage. http://www.contentreserve.com/TitleInfo.asp?ID={AB334CE3-AC09-4790-89B5-A230FC7F6FF8}&Format=410. Robertson, J. G. (1905). Schiller after a century. Edinburgh, W. Blackwood and Sons. Schiller, F., & Curran, J. V. (2005). Schiller's "On grace and dignity" in its cultural context essays and a new translation. Rochester, NY, Camden House. Schiller, J. C. F. V., & Snell, R. (2004). On the aesthetic education of man. Mineola, N.Y., Dover Publications. Read More