The Problem with Mixing Politics and Culture

Problems with Mixing Politics and Culture

Eduardo Jaramillo

One effect of 2016's maelstrom of a campaign season and election was a striking increase in the number of politically related events on campus during Bowdoin's 2016-17 academic year.  Every week there was a speaker, panel or discussion dissecting Trump, political correctness, or some other hot topic.  It was exciting and informative to attend these events and hear what my professors thought about these issues.

I remember one event featuring a popular Government and Legal Studies professor entitled "How I Became a Conservative".  On the posters advertising the event was a photo of the professor, and next to her a stock image of an American flag hanging over a manicured lawn and some Adirondack chairs.  At first glance the image was unsurprising; it makes sense on a surface level that an American flag would be used to bill a conversation about conservatism.  Conservatives tend to adopt a brand of patriotism that celebrates traditional symbols like the national flag or anthem, and institutions like the military.  When liberals talk about patriotism, at least in recent memory, they often celebrate America's history of diversity and the overall increase in inclusivity of immigrants from other countries.  This, they say, is part of what makes American great.

Seeing these posters and thinking about the role of the flag reminded me of another event I'd I attended months before.  There had been an open discussion on the intersection of patriotism and protest, specifically to talk about NFL player Colin Kaepernick's kneeling protests during the national anthem at football games.  As the hosts of the event opened up the dialogue to attendees, many students voiced their opinions, mostly in defense of Kaepernick's right to protest and the cause of the Black Lives Matter movement generally.  

These voices dominated the conversation for a while, until one student began talking about members of his family that had served in the military.  This student acknowledged Kaepernick's right to protest the national anthem and the American flag, but claimed that he found the athlete's actions deeply offensive, as they disrespected a symbol significant in ceremonies like military funerals.  The student's complaints were genuine, and he didn't attack the Black Lives Matter movement.

To sum up, students on both sides of this argument agreed that it was Kaepernick's First Amendment right to protest the national anthem and flag.  So if the two sides of this conversation weren't disagreeing on anything politically in any strict sense, where was the conflict?  It essentially boiled down to what the American flag meant to each side.

To Kaepernick's supporters the flag was less meaningful, and to his critics it was quasi-sacred.  I'm not going to try to get into the details of the meaning of the flag any further than that.  But it does seem relevant to point out that it's much harder to have conversations about certain things (like what the American flag means to each of us) than more commonly discussed issues.  The significance of a flag (or of any other symbol) for any individual comes from their background, and is rooted in complex histories that are hard to trace.  While the same can be said for larger systemic issues (like racism), many of these issues have been studied a great deal and put into school curricula, and people come to conversations about them armed with a deeper understanding and more relevant talking points about those complex histories (Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws, redlining, etc.). The study of how objects take on symbolic resonance for people is more often relegated to, say, specializations in philosophy departments.

Sometimes the meaning of a symbol does come to the forefront of national discourse, like in 2015 when there was widespread debate over the meaning of the Confederate flag that flew above the South Carolina Capitol building.  But usually symbols sit just behind the more obviously contentious issues, acting as imagery and dog whistles in partisan propaganda.  For example, take the ad campaign put on by the Judicial Crisis Network (a conservative political advocacy group) in support of then Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.  One ad, titled "Outdoorsman", opens with the following lines: "A real outdoorsman, he rides horses and knows his way around a barn.  Comfortable in the mountains, an expert fisherman, Neil Gorsuch is a family man, a conservative from Colorado."  None of these things should be seen as requisite qualifications for a Supreme Court Judge, but the Judicial Crisis Network seems to think they're important enough to mention in a seven-figure ad campaign advocating for an unelected official.  By using this code, the ad is able to give some clues as to Gorsuch’s political bent and take advantage of stereotypes of conservatives without talking about any meaningful policy issues.

That kind of language is clear enough that many Americans could parse out the attempted appeal to conservatives.  But what's perhaps even more problematic than that obvious use of symbolic subtext, visual reinforcement of the overlap between politics and culture comes from places as mundane as the poster for an innocent conversation about a Poli-Sci Professor's road to conservatism.  At least in the case of the Gorsuch ad the imagery was so florid and clichéd that it should be clear to many that such descriptions can be dismissed out of hand as pandering.  But when we assign certain cultural images or activities to a corresponding political perspective in more subtle ways, the viewer is less likely to pick up on the intention behind the association, and their subconscious receives a quiet but powerful message: "if you believe in X, you should probably like or do Y."

This kind of reinforcement should be avoided.  When citizens of the same nation assign starkly different meanings to the national flag, something has gone wrong.  I think this goes not only for important symbols, but for other aspects of culture as well, like taste in music or sports.  You don't need to take your cultural recommendations from your side of the political establishment.  Of course, politics isn’t the only thing that influences culture.  Geography, demographics, and many other factors do as well.  But in America today it feels like politics have too much influence.

If you're a liberal, go fishing while listening to country music.  If you're a conservative, try yoga and listen to a few hours of This American Life.  These activities are strongly coded as having a political association, but there is nothing inherently political about them.  And buying into the idea that there is only works to deepen the tribalism.