Culture Making Discussion: Chapter 3
I’m behind in my reviews for Andy Crouch’s book Culture Making, so here’s my overdue discussion of chapter 3, “Teardowns, Technology and Change.”
In this chapter, Crouch critiques dominant views of how cultural change comes about: progress and revolution. The problem with the myth of progress is that many of our most important cultural goods cannot be improved. They can be changed, but how does one measure improvement to things such as language? The English language has grown and evolved over the years, but is it any better or worse than the language used by the Saxons? They were certainly able to communicate and make sense of their world using the language they possessed even if it had just a fraction of the vocabulary we have today. Instead of progress, Crouch suggests we evaluate cultural change through integrity. “We can speak of progress when a certain arena of culture is more whole, more faithful to the world of which it is making something.” (54)
Crouch establishes that cultural change has two key components: the “speed of change” and the “longevity of impact.” (56) He argues that often, the faster a layer of culture changes, the less likely that its influence will last that long. Conversely, “any change that will profoundly move the horizons of possibility and impossibility will almost always, by definition, take lots of time. The bigger the change we hope for, the longer we must be willing to invest, work and wait for it.” (56-57)
The second assumed means of cultural change Crouch addresses is revolution. Most revolutions have a desire to tear down some system or structure that currently exists. More often than not, they do not have an alternative to put into place after the demolition is complete. Thus, revolutions move at great speeds, but they often do not have long lasting effects. Those “overnight” revolutions that were successful often had a long history leading up to the tipping point. “Nothing that matters, no matter how sudden, does not have a long history and take part in a long future.” (58) Crouch uses the example of Jesus’ resurrection as an event that did not change much in the immediate moment, but few can deny it has become the most culturally significant event in history.
Finally, Crouch adeptly looks at the idea that culture is merely a worldview, a means of thinking. If culture is only or mostly a worldview, then the primary means of engagement and change is analysis. To change culture, one needs to look at all its parts and form a new way of thinking. Crouch thinks this is backwards. “The language of worldview tends to imply…that we can think ourselves into new ways of behaving. But that is not the way culture works. Culture helps us behave ourselves into new ways of thinking.” (64) He uses the interstate system as his example in that it was not just a result of thinking differently about the world, but the interstate system was itself “a new way of viewing the world.”
My Reaction
Crouch’s critiques of how we view culture and cultural change seem accurate to me. The idea of progress is limited when we consider the humanities. Was Ernest Hemingway ahead or behind Miguel de Cervantes in writing fiction? That question does not make much sense. Similarly, the revolutionary spirit is limited in making lasting change. I’m reminded of John Adams’ thoughts of Thomas Paine’s writings. Adams agreed with Paine’s critiques of the monarchy and the call for self rule, but if Paine got his way, Adams believed all they would accomplish would be to tear down the English system of government in America. They would have little upon which to build a new government.
I would like Crouch to discuss what he means by “integrity” more. It seems that there are cultural events or creations that arrive fairly quickly and bring about radical and long-lasting change. How would Crouch evaluate using his method, the advent of the personal computer?
Finally, I appreciate Crouch’s critique of our focus on worldview. I love analyzing and critiquing things. And while analysis does effect some change, its value is limited. I do not hear Crouch saying that we must do away with analysis—his book would be much, much shorter. I think Crouch is placing analysis in its right place and sets himself up to show how making culture is the best way for changing culture.
