A Commentary on Daniel Bell’s Book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism

Leonardo, Vol. 1 1 , pp. 49-51. Pergamon Press 1978. Printed in Great Britain A COMMENTARY ON DANIEL BELL’S BOOK THE CULTURAL CONTRADICTIONS OF CAPITALISM Gifford Phil1ips* The relationship between capitalism and the arts has received too little serious study, and much that has been written on the subject suffers from ideological bias. Cultural historians have noted that in capitalist countries an art market system emerged in the past two centuries replacingan earlier reliance of artists on the patronage of aristocracy and church; whereas in socialist countries a greater portion of artist support has been assumed by the state. Marxist writers have asserted that art in capitalist countries inevitably becomes a tool of the bourgeoisie in maintaining its social privilege. On the other hand, apologists for capitalism have claimed artistic freedom depends on a ‘free market’ and is absent in a statecontrolled economy. Whatever the validity of such observations, they are of limited value in advancing one’s operative knowledge of how the arts have influenced capitalist institutions-and vice versa-in specific historical situations. Assertions that can be argued effectivelyonly in ideologicalterms are especially useless in this regard. Happily, Daniel Bell’s new book, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (Basic Books, New York, 1976.301pp. $12.95)helpsto fill this void. He attempts to show that modernist and post-modernist (19th century and later) art have been strong forces in undermining the capitalistic ethos and that a crisis of morale may be imminent within capitalist institutions. Though his case is not entirelyconvincing,he does throw new light on a long overlooked area of cultural interplay. Bell’s references to what he sees as the insidious role of modernist and post-modernist art in the U.S.A. are contained in a larger analysis of the present state of culture affecting capitalist institutions in that country. According to him, these institutions have undergone significant changes in recent decades that have affected their fundamental integrity. Timewas(in the 19thcentury and earlier) when the capitalistic ethos was all of a piece. Economic producers and consumers alike subscribed to the protestant work ethic and the puritan code of behavior. Producers worked tirelessly to improve the efficiency of the manufacturing apparatus. Consumers practiced thrift, saved their money for a time of need. People, generally, felt constrained by the puritan code of modesty, sobriety and inhibition. But today capitalist culture appears to have become schizoid. The producer’s component still adheres to the ideals of efficiency and productivity. Wasteful activity is censured. The consumers component, however, has become profligate. Consumers are continually enticed to spend beyond their means, and the by-products of this promotion contribute *Writer and publisher, 11777San Vicente Blvd., L O ~ Angeles, ~ _ _ _ _ _ - -___CA90049 , U S A . (Received 9 May 1977.) to waste and pollution. Puritan ideology is turned inside out. A combination of factors, some economic and some cultural, has brought about the change in attitude. The economic factors are more easily discerned. Installment easy credit and aggressive product advertising have altered consumer psychology. Post-Keynesian economics , with its emphasis on maintaining aggregate demand, has influenced a number of federal administrations in the post-World War I1 years and has reinforced the new attitudes and habits. Bell concedes that marketing stratagems fostered by capitalism itself are the factors most responsible for the conversion from Puritanism to hedonism:‘Theprotestant ethic was undermined not by modernism but by capitalism itself. The greatest single engine in the destruction of the protestant ethic was the invention of the installment plan, of instant credit.’ Yet he seems to contradict his own thesis by placing more stress in his ensuing argument on cultural factors, on modernism especially.Indeed the destructive influence of modernism and post modernism becomesthe principal basis for his attack on thechanging socialcharacter of the U S A . At times he seems outraged. He fulminates and becomes shrill, at other times he writeswith more balance and perspective, but always he seems to exaggerate the influenceof the contemporary arts in the broad stream of culture. Nor does he offer convincing evidence for his assertion that culture in the U.S.A. has become predominantly hedonistic. Some sub-cultures have moved in...