A Commentary on Daniel Bell's Book "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism"

Abstract

The relationship between capitalism and the arts has received too little serious study, and much that has been written on the subject suffers from ideological bias. Cultural historians have noted that in capitalist countries an art market system emerged in the past two centuries replacing an earlier reliance of artists on the patronage of aristocracy and church; whereas in socialist countries a greater portion of artist support has been assumed by the state. Marxist writers have asserted that art in capitalist countries inevitably becomes a tool of the bourgeoisie in maintaining its social privilege. On the other hand, apologists for capitalism have claimed artistic freedom depends on a 'free market' and is absent in a statecontrolled economy. Whatever the validity of such observations, they are of limited value in advancing one's operative knowledge of how the arts have influenced capitalist institutions-and vice versa-in specific historical situations. Assertions that can be argued effectively only in ideological terms are especially useless in this regard. Happily, Daniel Bell's new book, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (Basic Books, New York, 1976. 301 pp. $12.95) helps to fill this void. He attempts to show that modernist and post-modernist (19th century and later) art have been strong forces in undermining the capitalistic ethos and that a crisis of morale may be imminent within capitalist institutions. Though his case is not entirely convincing, he does throw new light on a long overlooked area of cultural interplay. Bell's references to what he sees as the insidious role of modernist and post-modernist art in the U.S.A. are contained in a larger analysis of the present state of culture affecting capitalist institutions in that country. According to him, these institutions have undergone significant changes in recent decades that have affected their fundamental integrity. Time was (in the 19th century and earlier) when the capitalistic ethos was all of a piece. Economic producers and consumers alike subscribed to the protestant work ethic and the puritan code of behavior. Producers worked tirelessly to improve the efficiency of the manufacturing apparatus. Consumers practiced thrift, saved their money for a time of need. People, generally, felt constrained by the puritan code of modesty, sobriety and inhibition. But today capitalist culture appears to have become schizoid. The producer's component still adheres to the ideals of efficiency and productivity. Wasteful activity is censured. The consumers component, however, has become profligate. Consumers are continually enticed to spend beyond their means, and the by-products of this promotion contribute