Blue Danube and Global Capitalism
Notes on Ales Debeljak’s Varieties of National Experience
(spacesofidentity vol. 1, 1, 2001)
In his contribution to the first issue of spacesofidentity, Ales Debeljak argues that the nation state is the only possible guarantor of democracy and cultural identity and should therefore be defended not only by political and economic means but also by means of culture. I see two problems with this argument although I am not blind to its strengths. Two statements toward the end of the text articulate a commendably open orientation, that "the meaning of cultural tradition" is "constantly changing and publicly negotiated" (Debeljak 37f.) and that it is necessary to "turn freedom from an abstract, if noble concept into a meaningful, if messy, social experience" (39). But my point of critique is, first, the nation state is just one possible framework in which one can try to gain more liberty and equality, and second, Ales Debeljak does not make clear what exactly the relationship of politics, the economy and culture can be.
Debeljak quite reasonably describes the increasing control of global capital over several sectors of society as a threat. With respect to the fact that Slovenian culture/s was/were hegemonized by other cultures for centuries (which is still the case in Austria), this is a justified concern. My initial objection is that the tendency of capital to expand beyond national borders has been a much-discussed fact since the 19th century. Maybe Marx and the Marxists underestimated the role nations and nationalisms can play in preventing the idealized "Gesamtkapitalist" from taking shape, and to be sure in the 20th century it was the socialist and communist movements which transformed into the most national enterprises of all. But precisely this latter situation is the reason why capitalism has managed to take on global forms over the past ten years: the Stalinist states collapsed while trade unions and Social Democratic or Socialist parties in the "free West" failed to internationalize, or re-internationalize. Who if not socialist countries or social movements and their international efforts was supposed to stop capitalist globalization? National cultures? Unfortunately it was not national cultures that were in the way of global capitalism but Socialist states and state capitalist protectionisms (which came under attack at the same time as the crisis of Soviet style socialism culminated). National cultures did not and indeed cannot halt globalization, although they may offer pockets of resistance. The defense of a national culture, policy, and economy as one entity, however, is not the key to the problem; rather, it has been its catalyst.
What could have been an alternative, especially* after the hegemony of the highly repressive elites of the communist states had deteriorated, is — global social, economic and cultural resistance. But this has not happened on a significant scale so far. Frankly, I do not see the same threat in cultural globalization as in its economic counterpart. It led to, or maybe partly is, the development of international movements in the arts and in pop-culture, which have not only the potential of overcoming local chauvinisms, they also represent a starting point for cultural resistance to the global cultural hegemony of corporate business, beyond the stages of the traditional Clerical, Social Democratic and Communist folklore of Völkerverständigung and bratstvo i jedinstvo. Apart from national culture, other developments, as for instance youth culture and regional cultural phenomena, have quite successfully put up a certain amount of cultural resistance. Youth culture in particular but also regional styles have managed to create niches for themselves and to either protect or redefine themselves in order to avoid hegemonization. I do not want to argue that these strategies are the only viable ones to curb the threats of globalization but I am convinced that to leave them out of the picture would be a mistake. It was for this reason that Ales Debeljak’s reference to Blue Danube Radio struck a chord in the first place. But I will return to this point.
My second point of critique is that Ales Debeljak’s article does not make clear the relationship between culture, politics and the economy. This leads to confusing statements — at least they confused me. Especially when it comes to the relationship of politics and the economy with culture, it is more than vital to distinguish cultural phenomena from these two fields. Of course culture is used for political purposes, as for instance when politicians draw on cultural stereotypes in order to give credibility to their campaigns against constructed foes, or, to use Debeljak’s words, cultural means can be used instead of machine guns (33). Culture can also be used for economic purposes, for example in advertising, when international sports shoe producers instrumentalize youth culture to sell their products. And vice versa, cultural producers use politics and the economy, too. But these three fields are not identical and should, at least for the sake of analysis, not be mixed. Instead their complex relationship should be described
This distinction was not really made in Ales Debeljak’s text. Especially the terms nation and nation-state are often used synonymously. What is a nation in this text? Is it cultural, political, economic, or all of the above? In one instance it actually seems to be geographic: the Slovenians are described as a “small population” at the “crossroads of the Romanic, Hungarian, Germanic and Balkan cultural traditions” (30, cf. 34 below). Romance, Hungarian, Germanic are names of linguistic groups, not cultures. Speaking a Germanic language does not necessarily lead one to take part in specific non-linguistic cultural practices. And more importantly: Can traditions, cultures have a fixed place in geographic space? I think not. Culture is by definition mobile because it is bound solely to the human imagination. And those who want to nail down culture geographically usually do so for a political goal, such as defending political borders or hegemonizing space. This can be done e.g. by erecting landmarks, churches, or monuments in this space, or by destroying them.
I am not saying that Mr. Debeljak is a protagonist of such practices but I feel that the quote he takes from Josip Vidmar (30) gets quite close to it:
The leading Slovenian literary critic in the period between the world wars, Josip Vidmar, captured the importance of local interaction with the tendencies of the wider world in his seminal essay "The Cultural Problems of Slovenian Identity" (1932). He vividly explained that a small nation is 'like a very uneven peninsula – the ocean keeps splashing against its many shores and the fresh wind infinitely blows over its entire surface' (Vidmar 73). (30)
Which metaphor could describe cultural identity as fixed or static more than the metaphor of landscape? From my point of view to "turn freedom from an abstract, if noble concept into a meaningful, if messy, social experience" (39) should include problematizing quotes like this one of Josip Vidmar's, even though it argues for the acceptance of "foreign" influences.
However, what motivated me to write these notes on Ales Debeljak’s contribution was the following passage:
After a lecture, one of my students once came up to me and ruefully stated that he was really not sure what made him a Slovenian. He surfs the Internet, watches MTV and Hollywood ‘slash and burn’ movies, shops at Benetton, and listens to the regretfully now defunct Viennese international radio station, Blue Danube Radio, while the rural idyll of Slovenian ‘hayracks’ and the rituals of peasant festivities are, understandably and legitimately, lost to him. (36)
What struck me is Ales Debeljak’s perception of what happened to Blue Danube Radio (BDR), and how much it differs from mine. BDR is history but there is still a station on its frequency. Before 1995, Blue Danube had been a daytime program, alone on the frequency, broadcast exclusively in Vienna. From that year up to 2000 Blue Danube was broadcast for six years from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. sharing a frequency with FM4, a station which is directed at a target audience between the ages of 15 and 40. FM4 acquired a sort of cult status in Austria, or at least some of its shows did. The target group of BDR ranged at the other end of the age scale and its program was a unique mix of English and other language shows. It was as quaint as it was heterogeneous. That it was mainly in English, however, was what made it attractive to its listeners. Part of the Austrian state media monopoly ORF, the station was transformed into a nation-wide service in 1997. Behind this step, critics saw a strategy to prevent any potential private radio from using the fourth and last of the nationwide broadcasting chains. In February 2000, Blue Danube was closed down in favor of an extended FM4, advertised as "the only alternative."
This slogan sounds quite presumptuous as the competitors it is directed against are far more alternative than FM4 can ever be as a state radio station. For instance, the Viennese station Radio Orange has no commercials and is run by several local communities (ethnic communities, the queer community, several youth groups, styles, etc.). As such it is independent from state or corporate influence. FM 4 has been having a hard time with critical reports about government policy and especially the new right-wing coalition. FM4’s background as part of the Austrian broadcasting monopoly is most obvious in the station’s news programs. These are but clones of the ORF news service, spreading such news as that the number of homosexuals dying of AIDS is increasing (and this at a time when Vienna is host to the gay and lesbian pride festival, Europride 2001).
Viennese culture beyond Blue Danube and Otto Wagner: Detail of the Regenbogenparade, the closing event of Europride 2001 Vienna, this year’s gay and lesbian pride manifestations (in the picture is the carriage of the HIV-charity Life Ball, in front of Otto Wagner’s Postsparkasse). Picture: Udo Häberlin
But however ambivalent the character of the officially approved alternative FM4 is and however charming Phil Tintner’s morning shows on BDR were, the new program is an important novelty in Austria. For the first time there is an urban youth program available everywhere in the country. Together with the internet and cable TV, this is an enormous asset to the cultural life of young people who no longer have to travel hours to get the latest information on trends and styles in order to choose and integrate elements into their identities. Many of the FM4 shows are still in English. Maybe this also makes them attractive to non-German speaking younger audiences beyond Austria’s borders. However, a tribune for glocal cultural resistance it is not.
Notes
* "Especially", because such a movement had been possible before, too. But after 1989 there was the advantage that national socialist bureaucracies had completely lost their credibility. Unfortunately this chance was not used, which would have been, I concede, very hard.
Links
Radio Orange http://www.orange.or.at
Radio FM4 http://fm4.orf.at
On Blue Danube Radio http://www.via.at/fobdr/
Friends of Blue Danube Radio http://www.fobdr.at
Europride 2001 http://www.europride.at