Value Decisions

So, in the TUs, the Arts & Humanities have been manoeuvred into a position whereby their ‘value’ is calculated in terms of their contribution to the profit/loss model of business. They are not seen as valuable in themselves, but only in terms of “added value”, that is as secondary to the primary focus of business. Arts & Humanities (from now on, “A&H”) do not operate on their own terms of references: challenge; critique; justice & fairness. Instead they play “supporting roles” in the quest for profit…yet, within these supporting roles, A&H retain the ability to disrupt the metanarrative, to expose its uncaring worthlessness. A&H always retain the power to transcend their assigned roles, to expose ruling class ideology.

In the medium of mainstream film, for example, we can see the assumptions of capitalist society laid out in ways that appear to be unthreatening but, should we choose to do so, the edifice can be unravelled. The assumptions such as capitalism = good; heterosexuality – most desirable relationship; rich/poor = necessary for the functioning of society, are represented onscreen as being, in some sense or other, ‘natural’. Yet, as the narrative develops based on these assumptions, the spectator (perhaps “the aware” or “the political” spectator) can begin to decipher the connections between such assumptions and narrative drama. Instability, one can argue, is necessarily a component of any artefact: instability in terms of the posited assumptions, instability in terms of what it appears to be endorsing.

Year and years ago – I think I was 16 – I remember, after seeing a film with some friends, we were discussing it and someone said to me “Perhaps it was just a film. No deeper meaning, just a film.” I’ve always remembered that, mainly because I’d argue that nothing is what it appears to be: simplest, seemingly insignificant actions we perform every day have a deeper, connected meaning…are strands in a web of beliefs and values, all of which are connected, if only we take the time to analyse these. My buying a cup of coffee yesterday has a connection to my watching Last Year in Marienbad or the fifty sixth time six months ago, as it has a connection to my watching Prospero’s Books twenty years ago. Nor is my ‘self’ the connection; ideas and imagination form connections over time in a kind of continual “compare and contrast” flow.

This kind of connectedness can be, when it takes place between works of art, a deliberate creation of the makar, but these intentional links are of much less importance than those which take place, unbidden, in the imagination of the spectator. When this occurs, we often feel that taken as a whole (I don’t want to suggest that connections only take place between two works), these connections form a greater value/form greater values than previously existed, in that by calling attention to aspects of society, the behaviour of self and/or others, to political situations, our ‘reading’ of one or more of these is altered, changed in ways that were previously unthought of. In this way, A&H refine our values and, at one and the same time, present us with a choice: we can, as A&H alters our values become possessed by the volition to act OR we can recognise what one might call the apparent truth of Art, yet still choose to suppress or consciously ignore this volition.

In the wake of our recognition of, say, an injustice, this recognition then ‘ripples’ through the other values of which we are conscious. It has an affect/effect in the way we are in the world, on the ways in which our imagination forms links to other instances of injustice. Ultimately, it affects the concept of injustice that motivates us. It is, however, still our choice whether we act or ignore this revised awareness.

Although it is a matter of choice, on occasion it can appear to us that our ‘new’ or ‘revised’ values compel us to act or to speak out. This is what scares business, and makes the very existence of A&H a threat to its dominance, hence, the marginalisation and, if the TUS succeed, the expulsion from the academy. Should this happen, the Arts will become the preserve of the affluent classes, the ‘realm’ of Art tied to money (and time – it takes time to create, and to foster/have fostered one’s creativity) and that notion that the artist does not inhabit the same world as you and I.

What we can also see here is the TUs position and function in the class structure. Those from a working class background are more likely to go to TUs, therefore, the removal of A&H will reinforce the idea that Art ‘belongs’ to the ruling class, with little connection to the majority of the population.

However, we are not there yet, in that the servants of the ruling class have not managed to destroy the idea of Art as a legitimate expression of frustration, protest and anger. Those servants, whether through false class consciousness, or a deliberate decision to surrender and accept monetary rewards, continue to ply their betrayal under the guise of ‘management’ – or, more accurately, managerialism; these people are rule followers, incapable of original thought. they simply reproduce what has gone before.

Still, these folks have always existed, and have always faded into the background without a trace.

So. What Art does is draw connections between seemingly-disparate ideas; it enlightens people, changes their lives and can alter people for the better. It strengthens outrage at injustice, at inequality and in so doing can lead to societal change or reform (for example, many of Dickens’ works have specific political targets in mind); it leads us to re-evaluate our position in the world, our relation to others, and what counts as a concept of the world itself.