Democracy and the arts

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the renowned but now deceased historian, wrote that democracy is impossible without capitalism and the private ownership it affords us "because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom."

Recently I came across a book entitled "Provoking Democracy: Why we need the Arts" by Caroline Levine. Her book provoked a thought in me, that the arts play a role like capitalism. Like capitalism the arts also cultivate an autonomy in people and a personal independence from the state such as Schlesinger describes. The arts also provide a basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom essential to democracy. What the arts engender is the reason why we fine so many Jews in the arts. When in the past Jews were denied participation in the mainstream of society they found accommodation in the arts, which afforded them the self-indulgence and expression they craved. What the Jews found in the arts is a big aspect of what upholds and reinforces democracy - people pursing their own self-interests and freely expressing themselves.

The main thrust of Levine's book is that people should be able to express themselves freely through art, without being harassed or censored. Art provokes democracy because it stimulates debate and deliberation, key ingredients in pursuing and maintaining democracy. For democracy to remain democracy it cannot become static or complacent. As Kant rightly pointed out human have a propensity for laziness and complacency. Thus, it's great to have a vehicle like art around because it constantly provokes, agitates and stimulates, keeping the zealous piety and authoritarianism that can ruin the democratic process at bay. Oscar Wilde was one of those artists who provoked and challenged the powers that be, helping to liberalize society in its thinking so that it be more open, accommodating and democratic.

In his book "What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" Bernard Lewis attributes the nonexistence of democracy in the Arab/Islamic world to the lack of polyphony. Polyphony means many sounds or voices and is generally associated with the arts, mainly the performing arts, like the sounds and voices heard from orchestras and choirs. But Lewis was using it in political terms, as the many voices of diversity and the variety of opinions that facilitate and lubricates the democratic process. In mature democracies democracy could not survive without the many voices of its constituents and the demands those voices places on it. Those many voices keep democracy churning and vital. It is no wonder then that the Arab/Islamic world has a hard time understanding or embracing democracy since the multitude of voices it requires is nonexistent.

How about the arts under communism? The Soviet Union and other communism countries heavily cultivated the performing arts, which also produced a sense of polyphony. So why didn't democracy develop there? Ah, but eventually democracy did come. The arts did help lead to democracy. The cultivation of the arts in communist countries is one of the major things that ultimately led to communism's downfall. Ironically the arts in those countries cultivated the intellectual opposition and freedom that democracy requires. I say it's ironic because the arts cultivated by the communist regimes cultivated the resentment that eventually turned against and overthrew those regimes. The arts in those countries helped cultivate the polyphonic atmosphere and foundation that eventually ushered in democracy.

The more complex a society the better it works. The arts tend to make things more complex. They add additional voices and increase the engagement within a governing system. The more interaction, whether it be in the arts or in any other endeavors like capitalism, the better. The more voices in a system the better it will function. Systems like democracy, especial democracy, require feedback in order to remain fluid, legitimate and vital. The more feedback and deliberation a system gets or receives from its members - the arts, capitalism, the more legitimate and relevant it will be. The arts and it participants certainly engender a lot of feedback.

There are those that bemoan the fact that the arts are depending more on capitalism for their funding. Capitalism sponsors a lot of artistic events. Under communism the arts were funded but the government but there were strings attacked; the arts had to look favorably on the government and never criticize it. There was no artistic freedom under communism, only censorship. However, in the end communism collapsed in spite of it all, because the Soviet state bankrupted itself trying to maintain a bogus, illegitimate governance. Capitalism may sometimes tarnish and taint artistic endeavor but it rarely, if ever, sensors it. On the contrary, capitalism has promoted the arts like nothing else, through the many benefactors and philanthropist it has given birth to.