I find it fascinating how two seemingly opposing ideologies have merged at some point in time and are arguably thriving in their longstanding marriage. The two distinct ideologies are the neoliberal ideology and the traditional values. This bond is obvious in today’s modern political landscape, where right-wing political parties are ardent defenders of tradition while also wielding the neoliberal flag in the form of capital-friendly policies.
How can the right push values of community (nationalism), religious faith, and cultural preservation while also advocating for neoliberal policies in favor of privatization, individualism, and globalization? There appears to be a handful of discrepancies here. And this is not a fictional example; one only has to take a look at what the president of Hungary, Orbán’s Fidesz, is doing in the country. The key question here is: how can people support economic policies that go against their ideological values? This phenomenon bears a very strong resemblance to the concept of “doublethink” as portrayed in Orwell’s dystopian book:
“Doublethink is a concept in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth.”
In Orwell’s dystopian world, the contradictions are much more gross and apparent, such as “War is peace” or “2+2 = 5”. However, when complex ideologies are mixed together, these become much more subtle and require a certain level of analysis to understand where the discrepancies lie. In this blog post, I will explore one example of what these opposing values are and showcase how they are naturally conflicting.
There are so many examples of contradicting values in these two ideologies that one can write a book about this topic. I will be focusing on one of the topics I find the most interesting and that strikes at the heart of many: The preservation of culture.
Traditional values often champion the safeguarding of cultural heritage, and they have valid reasons for doing so (With some exceptions). On the other hand, through the lens of neo-liberalism, cultural elements are perceived solely in terms of their economic worth and individuals’ liberty to explore various cultural identities. The argument that I will be exploring here is that within the neo-liberal framework, culture is converted into a marketable business which we can call the “commodification of culture”. This process of commodification ultimately leads to the destruction (desecralization) of culture. This creates an interesting contradiction of both ideologies.
Picture this:
“You find yourself on vacation in Barcelona enjoying a nice day of sightseeing in the city. Your legs take you to one of the most famous churches in the city, “La Sagrada Familia”, and you decide to take a step inside to behold the beauty of the building. You are greeted by throngs of tourists jostling for position in the never-ending queue. Sweaty bodies pressed against you from all sides as you wait impatiently for your turn to enter. Finally you are ushered inside by an indifferent guide who seemed more interested in checking your ticket than providing any semblance of hospitality. Once inside, the cavernous interior echoes with the sound of chatter and camera shutters clicking incessantly. Tourists elbow their way to the front for the perfect selfie while disregarding any semblance of reverence or respect for the sacred space.”
Not an uncommon story, if you have ever been in a tourist place. Maybe a little bit dramatic but you get the point. We’re facing the ultimate representation of how a capitalist society engages with culture: the commodification of culture which in turn desacralizes it. I borrowed the term “desacralization” from Fisher’s book “Capitalism Realism” as I think it correctly captures the essence of this experience. The word describes the profound erosion of meaning and stripping of significance from cultural elements. Consider the example of this Church, where marketability is prioritized over integrity and think about the impact of such experience. What feelings are evoked in consumers of such culture? It is difficult not to feel a sense of disconnection with the things you encounter. As Hartmut Rosa would argue, the feeling of resonance is completely lost.
One could argue that this commodification helps mantain culture, as there is a source of revenue attached to it. Otherwise maintaining old historical locations or buildings can be quite expensive. The artifact itself remains, so what is the difference between this model Vs a non-marketable one? The key here is the meaning we attach to things and why it is important to protect that meaning.
Picture this: you have a very cheap ring and this ring was gifted to you by someone very dear in your life. Let’s say I am able to produce an 100% exact replica of such a ring. Would you be willing to exchange the ring gifted to you for this seemingly identical ring? The answer would most probably be: No. From a rational point of view, there is no reason why this exchange would not be suitable. From an emotional point of view the reason is simple, the ring is imbued with a deep meaning and this meaning does not stem from its physical characteristics but given by you (the owner of the ring). If I would force you to make the exchange, you would probably throw the new cheap ring away as the added meaning is not there anymore.
This same concept can be extended to cultural elements. The core of their value lies in the deeper meaning attached to them. Meaning of identity, belonging, spirituality, social expression and so on. What is left when we destroy these deeper meanings that are attached to them? A shell of their former self. This is especially noticable for the locals of such attractions, it is hard to identify with something that is marketed en masse. This commodification process undermines the potential for culture to provoke thought, inspire change, and enrich the human experience, instead prioritizing profit and marketability above all else. Like the example of the ring above, what is the point of having culture in such a form?
How can a person that wants to defend culture then vote for an ideology that, as a by-product of it, culture is destroyed? It is hard to understand for me. I have only given the example of an historical building but this concept can be applied to many forms of culture, such as art as well.
In conclusion, the blend of neoliberal ideas with traditional values creates an intriguing conundrum in today’s politics. One big clash is in how we handle culture: traditional values emphasize protecting it, while neoliberalism turns it into a commodity, which often ends up destroying it in the process.
Coming back to the earlier example, think about tourist spots like “La Sagrada Familia” in Barcelona.This kind of commercialization might bring in money, but it strips culture of its deeper meanings. It’s like getting a cheap copy of a meaningful gift – sure, it looks the same, but it doesn’t carry the same depth and meaningfulness.
This is one of the many examples where these two ideologies crash. There are many more interesting topics to explore such as the individualism in neo-liberalism Vs the collectivistic (national and religious) values of conservatism. A whole other topic to explore is how the core religious values oppose neo-liberal views as well, which also take root in these two ideologies.
I would love to hear your thoughts! See you next time!
