Page 165 - CULTURE IN THE COMMUNICATION AGE

JAMES LULL

nationalism in the twenty-first century have moved away from an emphasis on
political representations and interpretations to cultural displays and meanings.
This does not mean that the political importance of nation is diminished, how-
ever. Cultural nationalism is key. The constant construction of an ‘imagined
dominant culture’ that somehow represents ‘who we are’ is what keeps nations
alive and functioning. That’s why cultural divisiveness in any nation-state is in a
way irrelevant to the discursive potential of ‘nation’. In fact, as we have seen in
several nations in the past decade especially, cultural divisiveness may lead even
to violent conflict, but it also clarifies and strengthens the rhetorical status of
those nations as discursive cultural constructs.
Nationalism as a cultural field exists worlds apart from the rationalistic, bour-
geois public sphere of nineteenth-century Europe that Jürgen Habermas
(1989) and his followers have had in mind. The Habermasian ‘public sphere’
implies trust and confidence in the public space and a sense of citizenship that
simply does not exist in many parts of the world the same way it does in
Germany and most of Europe. For the public sphere to function democratic-
ally, everyone must have a reasonable opportunity to participate in and influ-
ence political activities and decisions. For people in many parts of the world,
cultural democracy is more important than political democracy and is easier to
achieve. Mass media and popular culture play a pivotal role here too. In his
analysis of Brazilian culture, for instance, the American anthropologist Conrad
Kottak claims that ‘soccer, television, and Carnaval . . . each create a democracy
missing most areas of Brazilian life’ (Kottak 1990: 43) because mass media and
popular culture provide an equality of access to feelings and unite people in
ways the political forces cannot achieve. Even the ouster of former president
Fernando Collor de Mello in Brazil in 1992 was just as much a cultural action
as a political one, and was made possible by the cultural media.
Nations come together, at least temporarily, through mediated, symbolic
displays of common purpose. National sporting teams participating in the
Olympics every four years are one example; World Cup football is another.
Popular music is a vital domain of symbolic national unity. In Brazil, for
instance, trans-generational, trans-regional, trans-racial, trans-class fans sing,
dance, and emote along with Caetano Veloso, Roberto Carlos, Maria Bethania,
Jorge Ben, Olodum, or Daniela Mercury and feel very Brazilian in the process.
Mexicans of all ages and backgrounds create the same kind of cultural access and
solidarity through the Olympics, the national football team, religious rituals,
and popular music – the brilliant compositions of Juan Gabriel, the romances
of Luis Miguel, and the mariachi-soaked rancheras of Vicente Fernandez all
provoke profound feelings of ‘Mexicanness’ that are simply unachievable
through political means.
For Latin American national cultures, the television novels (telenovelas) have
the same ability to unite across age groups, regions, ethnic divisions, sexual
orientations, and social classes. Pan-national television literacy enhances a sense
of cultural equality by permitting fundamentally unrestricted access to the

154