When Do You Think The Culture Wars Began? And Why Understanding Its Long History Really Matters.

It has been going on for decades but many of those who should have known better chose to ignore it

There is widespread confusion about the history of the Cultural Wars. In an age where society suffers from the condition of historical amnesia many assume that the Culture Wars are of recent vintage, a 21^st century phenomenon. Others regard the Culture Wars as an epiphenomenon that will soon fade away. Numerous commentators assert that the Cultural Wars are a distraction from the important economic and social issues that afflict society. Some simply deny its very existence or claim that the Culture Wars are the invention of malicious right-wing idealogues and used by them to reassert their failing authority.

The literature published in the 1980s and 1990s that dealt with the Culture Wars tended pooh-pooh its significance. Their authors went out of their way to reassure their readers with arguments about the insignificance of cultural conflict. Typically, they argued that cultural politics was a minority sport, one that was soon destined to disappear. They claimed that most Americans were interested in bread-and-butter issues and were not inclined to go to war on cultural matters.¹ Commentators frequently insisted that political correctness and later, cancel culture were fads and predicted the imminent terminal decline of the Culture Wars. In his A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars,(2015), Andrew Hartman foolishly stated that ‘The logic of the culture wars has been exhausted. The metaphor has run its course’².

The tendency to minimise the durability and significance of the Culture Wars has in recent years become – if anything - more widespread. ‘The Culture War is Running out-of-steam’ is the ridiculous claim made by a commentator from The Times.

At times it seems that woke commentators are determined to communicate the idea that the Culture War is a fantasy peddled by bitter far-right idealogues. They claim that the Culture War is exaggerated. It only involves a small number of protagonists and therefore does not directly touch most people’s lives, they insist. A headline in the Guardian summed up this view: ‘“Culture wars” are fought by tiny minority.’ Citing a report by the More in Common think-tank, the Guardian claimed that the ‘desire to fight a “culture war” is the preserve of a small group on the political extremes that does not represent most British voters, according to a major new project on political polarisation in the UK’.

The scare quotes around ‘culture war’ are designed to drive home just how fake this conflict apparently is. The Guardian reassures its readers that a ‘disproportionate amount of political comment on social media is generated by small, politically driven groups’. A report, the Policy Institute at King’s College London (KCL) repeated this idea that there is a disproportionate amount of media commentary about the culture war. It noted that there has been an exponential rise in news stories about cultural conflict, but analysis of these stories apparently shows that the ‘culture wars are either overblown or manufactured – if they exist at all’. Further, KCL said that 76 per cent of the people it surveyed had no idea what the culture war is.

In some instances the Culture War is depicted as a fake news story invented in response to the forward advance of social justice warriors.’ The black lives matter backlash is generating its own fake culture war’ is the headline of an opinion piece in The Guardian.

The representation the Culture War as either fake or as a transient phenomenon is not simply inspired by a political agenda. Its underestimation is in part a result of the failure to understand the depth of the crisis confronting Western Culture. It is also a product of a failure of historical imagination. Many commentators associate the Culture Wars with its latest manifestation such as trans genderist ideology or Black-Lives Matter. They confuse the outcome of a long historical process with it starting point. A historical review of its development would show that the Culture Wars were a long time coming. Conflicts over cultural values were evident over a century ago, during the years leading up to World War One. At this point in time a quest for meaning drove a generation of young people to fight their cultural ideals on the battle fields of Europe. The Great War did little to assist its participants in their quest for meaning. On the contrary it led to a crisis of valuation that in one form or retains its influence in the present era³.

During most of the 20^th century the potential significance of cultural conflict was supressed because outwardly the headline grabbing events were about conflict of classes, nations and above all of ideologies. In the inter-war era ideologically motivated conflicts created the conviction that the West was living through an Age of Ideologies. Struggles regarding which ideology would prevail distracted attention from domain of cultural values. It was not until the Age of Ideology ended that culture could gradually emerge as a source of political polarisation.  The so-called Cultural Turn of the late 1970s marks the moment when support for ideological conflict declined and when values related issues began to dominate public life.  The current Culture War began when culture – a way of being- a system of meaning began to get politicised.

One reason why it is difficult to conceptually capture the dynamic of the Culture War is that this conflict rarely assumes an explicit and systematic character. That is why numerous studies insist claims about the polarisation of culture are exaggerated and some even go so far as to deny its very existence  Conservative denunciations of political correctness have been continually met with angry denial and the assertion that such charges represent the desperate attempt by backward looking fundamentalists to justify their prejudices. The reluctance to openly discuss conflicts over culture is understandable given the difficulties it poses to attempts to forge consensus. Historically, officials and policy makers tended to fear the open contestation of cultural values because of its divisive and potentially explosive character. The American sociologist, Daniel Bell, for one was convinced that divisive moral questions had to be depoliticised because these ‘cultural and symbolic issues’ are ‘by their nature, non-negotiable and can only invite public conflict’⁴

Patrick Buchanan’s famous Culture War Speech at the 1992 Republican Party Conference indicated that Bell’s view was shared by even those who were sympathetic to the speaker’s view. This right wing conservative political figure faced a tirade of hostile criticism for what was described as his extreme rhetoric at the conference. Buchanan’s rhetorical call to arms was reminiscent of the language of religious wars in the past. Buchanan insisted that differences over values were far more significant than arguments over economic resources regarding ‘who gets what’:

‘It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as the Cold War itself’.

Buchanan’s denunciation of what he perceived as a threat to the American way of life highlighted the claim that this was war and not simply the usual rivalries that exist between parties that inhabit a shared moral universe. He later expanded on this point by contrasting the conflict faced by 1990s America with those of the interwar depression. Citing former President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said that ‘our common difficulties’ concern ‘thank God only material things’ Buchanan noted that in contrast ‘our national quarrel goes much deeper’.

What was noteworthy about Buchanan was not simply the content of his speech but that he articulated it in public at a major party conference and in front of television cameras. For unlike the wars fought between armies or by rival ideologies such as the Cold War the conflict that Buchanan drew attention to is essentially silent one. Since his speech there has been a greater willingness to acknowledge the fact that party political conflict, particularly in the United States is frequently focused on values rather than simply traditional economic issues. Moreover, it is widely recognised that differences over cultural values are subject to a polarising imperative that is far more powerful than disputes over other matters. That is also why in European societies there is often a hesitation to openly engage with cultural insecurities over multi-culturalism, immigration and national identity.

The tendency towards polarisation is now widely recognised. The polarisation imperative is the outcome of a loss of consensus over the constitution of moral authority. Decade by decade, disagreement about the source of moral authority has acquired greater and greater intensity. The significance of this development was noted by historically literate commentators such as the historian Gabriel Kolko, who in 1986 drew attention the cultural realignment taking place in America. He noted that;

‘There is, then, a more vital cultural dynamic involved in generating this cultural realignment. In this sense, the conflict is prepolitical and it precedes class. What ultimately explains the realignment in America’s public culture are allegiances to different formulations and sources of moral authority’⁵.

Kolko added that ‘the problem is this: not only does each side of the cultural divide operate with a different conception of the sacred, but the mere existence of the one represents a certain desecration of  the other’[x].  Kolko’s use of the word ‘desecration’ to capture the polarised attitude of the conflicting parties is apposite. The polarisation spiral⁶ – which is often blamed on the social media is actually the crystallised expression of long-term trends that were unleashed over a century ago. Its particularly shrill and infantilised form is the due to the highly personalised and identity obsessed outlook driving the Culture War against Western Civilisation.

Why does all this matter? Because unless there is clarity about the historical trends that led to the dissolution of the consensus about the constitution of moral authority it is difficult to grasp the depth of the crisis that resulted in an explosion of conflict over values. Decade by decade conflicts over values have hardened to the point that opposing sensibilities constitute a parallel moral universe. The Cultural Turn calls into question every fixed point established in Western civilisation. The ease with which the cultural politics of identity embraced the outlook of Hamas shows how the internal opponents of the West can readily embrace the outlook of its external enemies. For Hamas propagandists the Culture War represents a great opportunity for winning support for their message of hate.

After 7 October no one can be left in doubt that the politicisation of culture is dangerous and unforgiving. The desecration of the humanity of the victims of 7 October serves as a reminder of the threat posed by the outwardly gentle crusaders waving the rainbow flag. For Hamas propagandists the Culture War represents a great opportunity for winning support for their message of hate.

For decades Western society failed to take seriously the formidable threat that the Culture War represented. After 7 October this treat can no longer be ignored. We either step up and fight to uphold our way of life or we follow the steps of the many civilisations who throughout history lost their way and became complicit in their own demise.

Some personal news. I have just sent my manuscript The War Against The Past: Why The West Must Fight For Its History to my publisher. It will be published September 2024. Next month I will embark on an ambitious programme of writing and research. My first project is The Long History Of The Culture Wars. This will serve as an introduction to my projected investigation of Western Civilisation - Why It Matters. Many of my substack essays will serve to test out my ideas on these themes. I look forward to your criticisms and comments.

Have a great Christmas and a relaxing holiday and I wish you all a Happy New Year!

---

1. Thomson, I.T., 2010. Culture wars and enduring American dilemmas. University of Michigan Press.

2. Hartman, A. (2015) A War for the Soul of America: A History of the Culture Wars, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p.285

3. This development is discussed in Furedi, F. (2014) First World War: Still No End In Sight, Bloomsbury Press : London.

4. Bell, D. (1985) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.

5. Kolko, G. (1968) The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy 1943-1945, Vintage Books : New York, p. 118.

6. Kolko (1968) p.131.

The Polarization Spiral