Culture comes from humanity’s creation of the first society. – Functionalist View
We are on the verge of another cultural explosion of kind that continues to urge definition and comprehension among scholars, historians, sociologists, social commentators and the rank and file citizen. For about four to six weeks every year we divert, as it were, from normal day to day living and activities to “do Crop Over”.
Ostensibly it is easily the most prolific period of creativity, imagination and innovation. It is our premier cultural festival at the core of which is the dynamic concept of culture that has been variously defined in ways that differ according to the perspective of the author or the person with whom the definitions originate.
As a noun it is said to refer to the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellence in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits and so on (dictionary.reference.com/browesculture).
From a sociological perspective there are various schools of thought that examine the concept of culture. Insisting that culture is not a simple concept, Haralambos cites Raymond Williams who was a leading theorist of culture and who claims it is one of the most complicated words in the English language.
Culture is distinguished from nature and all the things that humans produce or do are considered to be cultural (Haralambos, Page 790). Nature, on the other hand, refers to those things which exist without human intervention as aspects of the natural world. Jencks (1993) sees it as “all which is symbolic: the learned . . . aspects of human society”.
But like aspects of the human experience, the concept is not static. Indeed it is very dynamic. The discussion inevitably introduced some judgement on the concept in terms of “things that are seen as desirable in a cultured human being”. Such definitions are seen as elitist in that they speak of high and low and superior and inferior culture. Strinati (1993) states that culture is often taken from the grass roots which is self-created and reflects the lives of the ordinary people.
Unfortunately, it is said that folk culture can never aspire to be art, but its distinctiveness is accepted and respected. In another sense culture is also restricted to what is found in theatres, concert halls, art galleries and libraries rather than in all aspects of human social life.
Other categories of culture include mass culture and popular culture. The former is seen as less worthy than folk culture and a product of industrial societies. It is said that if folk culture was created by ordinary people, mass culture is only consumed by them.
In this sense the audience becomes passive members of a mass society, unable to think for themselves. It is against this meandering through a maze of perspectives and definitions that I wish to raise a few questions about our Crop Over Festival as epitomizing our cultural moorings.
Dynamic nature
From a functionalist viewpoint I have always been keen about the element of culture in the sense of norms, values and lifestyles. In this context I accept the dynamic nature of this view and that it is evolutionary.
What has emerged over the years is an image of our cultural festival that projects it as ‘some leggo beast’ which must be allowed to express itself unhindered and uninhibited.
The calypsonians protest if their songs are banned and insist that it is an attempt to stifle their creativity. Masqueraders in the streets evoke responses that decry and draw attention to the skimpy manner of dress and the degeneration of behaviour into vulgarity and sexual simulation.
They too insist that they are free, black and beautiful and must be allowed free vent of their cultural expression. As such, we continue to query what is the role of the church in Crop Over since it is ostensibly secular in its orientation.
If culture is all that we do and can be, why shouldn’t it have room for the Christian elements of our experience as a people? Why aren’t Barbadians of Asian extract not overtly encouraged to express themselves as part of our culture? As itinerant businessmen for decades, what restricts them to the status of spectators?
In another sense, the animal on which our culture rides is more like a ‘jackass’ (or is it a thoroughbred horse?) that must be ridden with different kinds of reins for control. What is the role of censorship in our cultural expressions? What is the role of the politician whose sense of culture will vary from party to party or from individual to individual?
What gives the National Cultural Foundation the right to feel that they are best equipped to chart our cultural path? And the Pan-Africanists – is their outlook forward or backward looking? Are they still perceived as relevant?
In conclusion, it seems to me that, like Poonka, our cultural festival is all over the place. But then, given “the leggo beast” that we treat it as, all we could do is allow it to emerge since we dare not fashion it.
Nobody has that right! Given its dynamism, like an old time pastor in a pentecostal church said many years ago when he noticed the changing styles in his church: “Well, the dress necks are coming down and the skirt hems are coming up and I tell yuh I wouldn’t want to be around when they meet.”
He is long dead and the meeting has taken place over and over again and its agenda remains beyond our comprehension. Happy Crop Over!
• Matthew D. Farley is a secondary school principal, chairman of the National Forum on Education, and social commentator. Email [email protected]
