I once had a discussion like this with a young poet, a rather good one  
I thought. I was trying to convince him that the word Fascist actually  
had a meaning -- that it was not the same as saying "Satanic". The  
point being that Fascism as a system of government and social  
organisation does not in itself imply the cold-blooded murder of many  
thousands of people. So those in charge, who chose to interpret  
fascism as Nazism, made a lot of difference. It was not the work of a  
"culture", which would implicate the whole of that society and far  
beyond it, but was a kind of spasm of a particular society responding  
to both historical and demagogic forces. The "seed" of this, if you  
like, was already there, and always is, but this does not make the  
entire "culture" rotten. I didn't get anywhere; Fascism remained  
simply an evil.

Culture is such an amorphous and disputed concept that I don't see how  
it can be held "responsible" for anything without a lot of definition.  
I take it you don't mean "music, painting, poetry, film, theatre..."  
were responsible for WW1, but the use of Culture in a greatly expanded  
sense is recent and uncertain (it meant something like "civilisation"  
in the 18th Century but became destabilised in the 19th). Its use  
among angry poets seems to be totalised, with no boundaries of time or  
place; it is the everything of "everything is  wrong as it was then  
and as it is now and you're all to blame". Or it means "everything  
that I don't like about where I am". The trickery is in the attempt to  
exclude yourself from it.

Well I don't expect I'll dissuade you, Tim, from your convictions. I  
wouldn't want to, But neither will I ever be persuaded again to  
surrender a sense of the realities of what happens, for that old new- 
world protest sloganing (I don't accuse Tim of this) which denigrates  
the entire context in which we live, including a social set-up and a  
commerce without which we'd be finished, wouldn't we? Of course there  
is a lot wrong with it, some times more than at other times. And it  
does concern poetry, down to the syllable. It's a matter of language  
use, trying to make a habit of accuracy in all departments as best we  
can. (I don't for instance much like that use of the term "the rich").  
Also that writing a poem about daffodils (which I think everyone  
should) does not make you complicit in large-scale harm.

I'd rather have written this so that it didn't slip and slide so from  
one hefty proposition to another.
xxP


On 18 Mar 2015, at 14:36, Tim Allen wrote:

Hi Peter, not sure if I can squeeze this in before going out but I'll  
have a go... Also scared of tying myself in knots and appearing self- 
contradictory by not explaining clearly enough.

I, personally, do not 'view everything exclusively from political and  
socio-political perspectives', I can't speak for others on this. I  
don't do that because of experience really - the discovery, especially  
in the workplace, that sometimes the people I got on with best and had  
respect for were people who voted differently to me - and it's not as  
if I was a tolerant liberal, I was very left-wing, a lot further to  
the left than anyone I knew personally.

But yes, when something impels me towards the political (usually anger  
and a despairing disgust at the power and lies of the rich) then I'll  
readily go there with no holds barred. I also tend towards a socio- 
political perspective when looking at the world of poetry, partly  
because very few other people seem to do so, or when they do they  
generally frame their arguments in a way that makes it difficult to  
understand them.

OK, let's jump to what is definitely a difference between us, and  
which relates so much to your perception of 'totality' and 'blame'  
etc...

WW1 - which we've been forced to think about again by the media and  
their roll-call of war apologists and rightists in the guise of  
historians (yes, this is something that definitely gets my angry  
juices flowing). You say that the war was not down to a totalising  
culture but to individual acts by individuals with power. It isn't the  
actions of individuals alone that sent all those poor devils across  
Europe to slaughter each other (talking about all the countries  
involved on both sides) - those 'poor devils' did it because they had  
very little choice. Their whole upbringing and the world-view that had  
been stamped into them came from the culture, and this applies both to  
those with the power and those with no power - the actions of all of  
them were within a context - (if any Marxists want to say that it was  
economic necessities that underpinned that 'culture' then OK, but I'm  
not going there for the purpose of this). WW1 was not inevitable, and  
yes, mechanically it was down to decisions, obviously, but those  
decisions could not have been made and the consequences of them could  
not have been the same if it did not comply with the cultural world  
view (I know philosophers have words for this but I can't remember  
what they are). So my blame, and the blame of millions of others who  
thought about it was aimed at the culture. It can be summed up as  
'This is sick. There is something badly wrong.' So the blame does not  
fall on individuals - individuals cannot be 'blamed' as such.

However (and this is where we begin to walk through an ethical  
minefield, so to speak, and also where I am not sure of explaining  
myself well enough) blaming the culture does not then automatically  
mean that collective guilt takes its place. If anything it's the  
opposite. I for one do not believe in collective guilt. It is  
abhorrent. If blame comes into it - and note I say 'if' (which it  
does, emotionally at times) I think individuals are responsible for  
their own actions, and yes, still responsible even within the bubble  
of the culture with all its pressures. In other words for me the  
soldiers who were doing the killing were in their own way just as  
responsible as the generals and politicians. I'm not talking about  
right and wrong, I'm talking about 'responsible'. I've had vicious  
arguments with people about this ever since my teens in discussions  
with my mum and dad about WW2 etc and I admit that it is a very  
difficult topic. I am not pacifist by the way, even though I have a  
great respect for those who are.

So do you see why I don't share your very well put, " "Culture" just  
spreads the guilt out, off the shoulders of the actual perpetrators  
and onto everybody. It ceases to be a historical event. It becomes a  
factor of a misbegotten climate inhabited collectively. And we,  
everybody, still, 2015, we are all responsible, and must seek  
expiation for this and all other wrongs." Nobody since 1918 is  
responsible for WW. But what remains is the 'culture', the set of  
beliefs in Nation and obedience to authority etc. If an individual has  
confidence in those beliefs then fine, but I don't. I don't know if  
you do or not - not sure if it's relevant or not either.

I want to say more on the poetry re this totalising notion of yours  
and what you say regarding the 'fracas' etc is of course connected,  
but it will have to wait otherwise I'll miss my train and be unable to  
go to Manchester to have a pint with some 'eminently unpublishables.'

Cheers and sorry for the rambling length of above for those who get  
put off by more than a sentence.

Tim