The length and the aesthetic craft of the introduction, opening the forum at the CUNY Graduate Center, attest to the magnitude of the distinguished guests joining Professor Nesaw for the discussion on Cultural Power. Despite the presence of the preeminent professor as moderator, little guidance was needed for the dialogue, for there was no dearth of motivation for passion for renowned British playwright Sir Tom Stoppard and Trinidadian poet, Nobel laureate Derek Walcott.
Upon considering the meaning of cultural power, my driving question was, given the popular general conception of art as being a form of entertainment, what are the means through which literature can transcend this notion and serve as a tool for reshaping public consciousness regarding the many divisions within society? Both speakers indeed addressed my question thoroughly, expanding the scope of culture to a universality of which one does not often conceive. Nesaw put the issue into context, asking about the role of culture in an increasingly globalized world, in which “time and space are collapsing.” Still within the shadow of the past week’s monumental election, this much needed discussion is particularly relevant. Professor Nesaw wittingly opened the discussion with a photograph of President Elect Obama, holding a book, taken just days after his election. For those who fail to acknowledge connections between politics and the arts, the book of Derek Walcott’s selected poetry, embraced within the arm of Obama, reveals the many intersections between culture and politics. The treat of Walcott’s reading of his poem inspired by Obama served as an appropriate window into the discussion.
One of the key issues with which the speakers grappled is the term of “cultural power” itself. Both Stoppard and Walcott, along with Professor Nesaw, are distinctly aware that culture is generally conceived as being incomparable with politics and economics in terms of the possession and exertion of power. In addressing and challenging this skewed notion of the need for a gauge for power, Walcott repeated stressed that the power of culture is an “immeasurable calculation.” He argues that the effort to determine a numeric value for the power of culture is completely irrelevant. Both he and Stoppard further redefined the term of ‘power’ in relation to culture. They prefer to use the word “influence” instead, for the power of the arts is in its influence that accumulates over time. However, not all forms of art are necessarily the same either. They noted that literature exerts less of an immediate effect in comparison with documentaries and film. Rather than effecting an immediate impact, the importance of literature and the arts as a whole is the way through which it gradually influences future generations, allowing them to alter their perceptions.
They also discussed current obstacles faced by the arts, particularly the issue of censorship and indifference. The two writers’ reflected on the censorship of artists under totalitarian regimes, especially in the former Soviet Union. They emphasized that the need for censorship is in itself a testament to the fear, of the government, of the potential power and effect that the arts can have. Nesaw posed the question of whether or not public indifference serves as an even greater threat than censorship. Derek Walcott argued that present writers seem to suffer from “subpoena envy.” Feeling insignificant, writers crave for a form of political or legal sanction, like the experience of censorship, to validate the importance of their work.
Stoppard writes for the love of manipulating language. Walcott brushes off Stoppard’s implicit accusation that he uses an imperialist language in creating his works. He posits that the real imperialist language for him would be French Creole. Instead, he owns the language of English in his manipulation and challenge of it within his works. He further noted the achievement of English as transcending itself into a language that is devoid of nationality. They encourage writers to continue to have faith in their passion for writing itself. Stoppard boldly stated, “We are culture” and “Humanity is culture.” It is the one factor that distinguishes us from all species. Without culture, he argues, human life would consist of nothing more than basic bodily functions for survival. The dialogue between Stoppard and Walcott reaffirmed a conviction for the importance of the arts. Their valuable insight regarding the inextricable link between culture and humanity itself were profoundly inspirational and encouraging, especially for a prospective literature scholar like myself.
