Culture has become an essentialist buzzword much like race was during parts of the 20th century in hence discursively legitimizing patriarchal ethnocracy. What then is culture? Culture is simply structural oppression with highly varying ethnic expressions. This is not to say of course that culture should be entirely rejected in favor of strict science but rather that culture needs be continually deconstructed in eliminating structural oppression generally by means of social innovation and feminist SBT (Social Behavioral Training).
Culture of course is much more than structural oppression, yet virtually all human cultural expression is permeated by physionomism (anti-body ideology) and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice) and so need we continuously transform social roles and subvert culture alike from structural oppression in ways that are intelligent, transformative, subversive and importantly also inclusive.
There are at least two temporal elements to culture, these are innovation and conservation. Conservation means identifying that which is worthy and valuable and separate it from physionomism and DOLP.
Then what to do about the history of literature which is obviously full of expressions of structural oppression? We should create online versions with commentaries to which anyone should be able to contribute profound comment if offering some sort of different insight, in writing collaborative online wikitalmuds.
This means that we need create understanding and dialogue rather than as is so common shaming others for expressing prejudice. At the same time need we learn to become open to constructive criticism about our own expression of prejudice.
The essential task is to mainstream critical theory and certainly not as an informal censorship apparatus of new structural oppression but rather need we all learn to communicate better with others in individually tailored ways so as to become able to communicate with more and more persons, even those whom we may consider as irredeemable bigots. Perhaps is it that we simply are not sufficiently discursively skillful in terms of reaching persons who subordinate logic to strong negative emotion?
We need thus all learn how to become diplomats in daily social life and and make deconstruction of culture part of our very mission in life. As participants in culture need we become active in discussing in critical terms what it is ethical and what is not in specific hegemonic cultural expression. For cultural expression needs be situationally optimally ethical or it is probably simply mere structural oppression! This of course is not to imply that we should participate in some kind of taboo dystopia where we constantly create new taboo subjects and trigger fears in others of being labeled as bigots for engaging in open discussion but rather that we need transform masculinist speech norms into feminist ones where mutually transformative communication supplants masculinist rhetorical competition. The purpose is transformative engagement, essentially targeted feminist lobbying as opposed to silencing and shaming others for something as ordinary as expressing prejudice.
Indeed, as long as the person who expresses prejudice does not engage in shaming and silencing is there probably no justification whatsoever to engage in shaming and silencing towards that person. The feminist purpose should rather be to communicate in such a manner so as to subversively mutually facilitate meaningful transformation in both parties hopefully learning something from the conversation.
We need thus end competitive speech norms in focusing on actually transformative feminist communication. We are all participants in culture and so politics itself needs become transformed into a vast web of transformative conversation about of our ethico-political participation in culture of specific socio-discursive contexts.
What then does it mean for cultural expression to be ethical? This is an important question as morality is quite insufficient and ethics is structurally part of the future. Ethical consumer/corporate choice means applying the best choice of always striving to make the best decision in terms of the ethico-moral footprint as caused by any particular such decision. Non-economic choices are fundamentally about interrupting the iteration of physionomism specifically and DOLP generally. In both cases are optimally ethical decisions usually simple unavailable as any long-term ethical vegan will be to tell you. What is available however is the best-choice principle which allows us to make situationally optimal decisions in moral/ethical terms.
The task is thus on the one hand conservation, meaning identifying that which is worthy of preservation in culture as opposed to physionomism and . On the other hand need we engage in conceptual, social and technological innovation in integrating the worthy into ethico-politically innovative social construction. Culture (and by extension politics) is always a certain dialectics between conservation and innovation and so that very process needs an increasingly improved theoretical basis in the present constituting a certain art of navigation between past and future.
How do we identify what is worthy in new and old ideas alike? This needs be far better understood in terms of critical theory of various scientific fields as this understanding is essential not only for the futures of cultures but for politics indeed.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project