Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

How the Campus Culture Wars Are Coming to Your Office – Inc.com

"There are two ideas now in the academic left that weren't there 10 years ago," says Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business, in The Wall Street Journal. "One is that everyone is racist because of unconscious bias, and the other is that everything is racist because of systemic racism."

Do you believe that? Before you give a quick answer of "yes," think about it. Do you really think that you, yourself, discriminate illegally against your employees? Do you treat your white employees better than your minority employees?

Regardless of your answer to those questions, if you start hiring people who believe what they've been taught about racism, how does that look for your business? Every project assignment, every promotion, every time you ask someone to stay late can be seen through the eyes of racism. Which means that anything you do can result in official complaints. While the legal standard is different than the emotional standard of a new grad, defending against these accusations can be draining, emotionally and financially.

And it's not just racism--it's sexism.In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter, based on Title IX, which advised Colleges and Universities on how to treat cases of sexual misconduct--from everything from harassment to rape. While it might seem like a good thing for universities to actively investigate such charges, the end result has been a disaster.

For instance, a young man was accused of sexual assault and expelled from Amherst even though he had evidence that not only had the woman consented to the activity, he had been unconscious when she performed oral sex on him. The woman didn't file a complaint until years later and the man wasn't allowed to introduce evidence in his favor.

In another case, tenured Northwestern Professor Laura Kipnis went through a Title IX investigation (which she did eventually win) based on an essay she wrote, questioning the "sexual paranoia on campus." She said, among other things, that "women have spent the past century and a half demanding to be treated as consenting adults. Now a cohort on campuses [is] demanding to relinquish those rights, which I believe is a disastrous move for feminism." Students complained and Kipnis was thrown into an investigation where she wasn't allowed an attorney.

Jezebel quotes Kipnis' response as "the new [consent] codes infantilized students while vastly increasing the power of university administrators over all our lives, and here were students demanding to be protected by university higher-ups from the affront of someone's ideas, which seemed to prove my point."

How does this impact your business? Think about sexual harassment charges. When an employee has a consensual affair with a superior and then changes her mind about the consensual nature of it two years later, how are you going to respond? You're required to investigate, but the evidence is two years old and you're not a police officer and you don't have police powers. The employee, coming out of this university environment, will expect you to side with her immediately. If you don't, she will sue. If she can simply get an attorney to take her case, you're out thousands of dollars defending yourself, and if it hits the internet, you can be crucified in social media.

It's a huge mind shift--where people are always taught to appeal to an authority and that authority is you, but you're expected to side with the complainant. That's not how the business works, and you'll prevail (hopefully) in the courts, but do you want to go through that hassle over imagined racial or gender slights?

If you don't, you'll want to be actively aware and involved in what is happening in the universities.

The Wall Street Journal continues with Haidt's viewpoint.

If you're not a student or professor, why should you care about snowflakes in their igloos? Because, Mr. Haidt argues, what happens on campus affects the "health of our nation." Ideological and political homogeneity endangers the quality of social-science research, which informs public policy. "Understanding the impacts of immigration, understanding the causes of poverty--these are all absolutely vital," he says. "If there's an atmosphere of intimidation around politicized issues, it clearly influences the research."

Today's college students also are tomorrow's leaders--and employees. Companies are already encountering problems with recent graduates unprepared for the challenges of the workplace. "Work requires a certain amount of toughness," Mr. Haidt says. "Colleges that prepare students to expect a frictionless environment where there are bureaucratic procedures and adult authorities to rectify conflict are very poorly prepared for the workplace. So we can expect a lot more litigation in the coming few years."

You should be concerned. You should be very concerned. For state universities, you should let your legislatures know about your concerns. For private schools, you'll want to let your Alma Mater know, especially if that knowledge is tied to your usual donations.

We should not tolerate racism or sexual harassment in our businesses, but we can't live where we see racism and sexism behind every viewpoint we might disagree with. If you value diversity, you'll need to remember to value diversity of thought, which our universities aren't that great at encouraging in the current environment.

Visit link:
How the Campus Culture Wars Are Coming to Your Office - Inc.com

IN THE GAME – WND.com

Strategic bombing is an effective military strategy with the goal of weakening the enemy through the use of air, land or sea firepower. One of its main objectives is to demoralize the enemy so concessions will be made and the enemy conquered.

This battle strategy is now being used in the culture wars, as we saw last week in North Carolina prior to the repeal of House Bill 2 (the law prohibiting controversial bathroom policies from going into effect).

In his book, Rules for Radicals which many on the extreme left use as a guide for todays cultural battle plans author Saul Alinsky said: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

And thats exactly what we saw last week in North Carolina: Threats of economic disaster heaped upon us from media outlets across the country, all before a crucial vote to repeal HB2. It was nothing less than strategic bombing, with the use of projected economic losses instead of proven economic gains.

The facts are that our state has thrived economically since the passing of HB2, yet those facts simply got in the way of the radical left. So they firebombed us with fake news to drum up our imagination that North Carolina was headed into the toilet if we kept the law in place.

The Washington Times even noted the strength of our economy since the passing of the bill with an article 10 days prior to the vote, headlined, Tourism thriving, economy expanding in North Carolina despite bathroom bill desertions.

Check out some of the facts from the article:

But just days before the vote, the AP circulated a new report that our state was going to suffer massive financial losses over a 12 year period, upward of $4 billion in revenue. And with that little missile of guile, the strategic bombing began.

Check out the headlines that immediately ran from around the country:

The list goes on. But suffice it to say none of these reported the facts from the Washington Times article, but only the threats from the AP analysis.

It was nothing less than strategic bombing and it worked.

Many of the same legislators who took a moral stand for the safety and privacy of women and children decided it was no longer politically expedient to do so, and they switched their votes. The law was repealed, yet with it came a four-year hold on cities being able to enact new bathroom policies to allow men in womens restrooms (a twist that angered everyone the radical left).

No matter where you stand on HB2 or the new law (HB 142), the reality is that strategic media bombing will be used on any moral issue the left wants to be overturned or enacted. So moving forward, be sure to pay attention and prepare to fight back.

And the best way to fight back is to simply tell the truth.

G.K. Chesterton once said, When deceit becomes universal, truth becomes a revolutionary act. Were praying for truth revolutionaries today ones willing to stand up and not back down when the strategic bombs start falling again.

Get your copy of the Benham brothers first book, Whatever the Cost: Facing Your Fears, Dying to Your Dreams, and Living Powerfully, right now!

Media wishing to interview Jason & David Benham, please contact media@wnd.com.

Go here to read the rest:
IN THE GAME - WND.com

Curator Nato Thompson shines a light on art and the culture wars in ‘Culture as Weapon’ – The Missoulian

We live in an era in which image memes are lobbed as political salvos. In which security is theater and defining who controls the narrative in a world of facts and alternative facts is the daily bread of the hot-take class. In which words are bombs, delivered in 140-character installments in the new culture war a phrase that can and has referred to all manner of cultural conflicts: The face-off between elite versus populists, urban versus rural, Hollywood versus the heartland.

Culture is a weapon a pretty effective one at that. And its a topic that New York-based curator Nato Thompson takes on in his book Culture as Weapon, which explores the ways the tools of culture are deployed to do everything from sell iPhones to wage war.

As far as timing goes, the books landing during the early days of the Trump administration couldnt have been more impeccable. Culture as Weapon provides a broad overview on how individuals, corporations and governments employ design, storytelling, imagery and art to stir emotion and mold sentiment. The prominence of the Internet and social media makes this all the more profound and far-reaching than in the past.

Thompsons book kicks off with an extensive historical primer. Over the course of the 20th century, the fields of public relations and advertising created visually resonant cultural icons such as the Marlboro Man to move merchandise. Thompson shows how political figures have employed those same techniques to sway elections and stoke fear. For example: the 1988 presidential campaign ad for George H.W. Bush about Willie Horton, the Massachusetts convict who raped a woman while on furlough an ad that ignited anxiety about crime (and African American men) and likely cost Michael Dukakis the election.

Thompson also provides a backgrounder on how visual symbols have been historically wielded socially and politically. The Nazis, for example, were famously meticulous about their aesthetics. Adolf Hitler himself devoted great care and attention to the design and look of the Nazi flag.

The Nazis loved culture, notes Thompson. They used culture. They distributed culture. Cinema, music, flags, banners, book burnings, rallies, and holidays were all deployed in a phantasmagoria of stark blood red, swastikas, and blinding white.

Interestingly, political groupshave also been perfectly happy to co-opt the symbols of those they impugn. Hitlers propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, decried so-called degenerate art anything Modernist or made by Jews even as he put that art on view in an extraordinarily well-attended touring exhibition titled, naturally, Degenerate Art.

A similar phenomenon occurred during the U.S. culture wars of the 1980s and 90s, when Congress attacked some of the artists funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA hubbub, writes Thompson, was an opportunity to condemn luridness and bask in it in equal measure. An artists own work weaponized against him. (The Trump administrations proposed budget cuts are part of a long-running conservative animosity toward the NEA.)

The look back is interesting, and Thompson delivers priceless instances of cultural manipulation, such as when the American Tobacco Co. used the trappings of womens liberation to encourage women to smoke in the late 1920s.

But far more vital are the chapters the author devotes to the recent past and the present to the ways in which big business and government have liberally borrowed from culture for their purposes. (He comes at these topics from the left, with a healthy skepticism of capitalism and its habit of turning everything into sellable merch.)

Thompson examines how art and architecture have been used as an implement of urban development, via so-called starchitectural development projects and family-friendly public art installations such as Cows on Parade. The commodification of bohemia, as he calls it, has led to art being viewed as an engine rather than the cultural mirror of a nation. The NEAs motto, for example, has gone from Because a great nation deserves great art to Art works a model that would no longer be focused on excellence based on taste, writes Thompson, but rather on the way that culture could make things happen.

This, interestingly, has led to an increasing mistrust toward the idea of culture itself. Los Angeles offers a vivid (but not included) case in point: The anti-gentrification efforts in Boyle Heights have specifically targeted art galleries.

Culture as Weapon covers myriad other topics: How the U.S. military employed cultural anthropologists during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, how staged social relationships are as intriguing to artists as they are to corporations, and how culture informs our everyday retail experiences. (The layout of Ikea is inspired, in part, by the ramps of Frank Lloyd Wrights Guggenheim Museum in New York.)

In taking on so much disparate material, Culture as Weapon can feel scattered and often delves into topics that the reader is likely already familiar with. (Do we need to read again of the improbable rise of the personal computer from Steve Jobs garage to our back pocket?)

Thompson is at his most effective when he is dissecting what it is about culture that makes it such a potent social tool. Art, in its appeal to emotion, can override rationality. Fear, he writes, motivates faster than hope and appeals to emotion do not rely on the truth.

How the rational brain might counter the barrage of cultural string-pulling that we experience on a daily basis, and how the world of culture might save itself from becoming a mere tool, Thompson doesnt say. But Culture as Weapon provides a compelling manual for determining how the manipulation begins.

See the rest here:
Curator Nato Thompson shines a light on art and the culture wars in 'Culture as Weapon' - The Missoulian

Culture wars in Bosnia – Apollo Magazine

On 1 February this year, eager crowds streamed through the doors of the National Museum of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo smartphone-wielding teens and school groups in the afternoon, adults in the evening. It was the museums 129th birthday and there were queues to see the museums most celebrated and precious exhibit, the 14th-century Sarajevo Haggadah. Many brought their children or their children brought them. One father with his young son told me that, after a tiring day at work, he had secretly hoped his son might forget about visiting the museum, but here they were, making their way to the displays exploring Bosnias medieval past. Museum staff gave up counting after 5,000 visitors.

It has been nearly a year and a half since the museum, known locally as the Zemaljski Muzej, reopened. It had been closed for three years owing to the reluctance of Bosnias central state politicians to deal with the legal status of state-level cultural institutions that had existed in pre-war Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and with their consequent lack of funding. More than 20 years after the end of the war, these questions are still unresolved.

Watching the enthusiastic crowds, one might be forgiven for thinking the museums troubles were over. But the forces that led to its closure have changed little in the intervening period. While it has become common to talk of the positive role of cultural heritage in bringing about post-conflict reconciliation, the case of the Zemaljski Muzej offers a bitter example of how contentious cultural heritage can be and of how the politics of cultural exclusivism persists, despite two decades of international efforts to reverse this trend.

The Zemaljski Muzej, which houses some of Bosnia-Herzegovinas greatest cultural treasures, with collections of international importance, has survived two world wars and the 199296 Siege of Sarajevo. The Bosnian War was a conflict in which the aggressive pursuit of mono-ethnicity targeted not only the cultural heritage of unwanted groups during vicious campaigns of ethnic cleansing, but also those institutions which symbolised a common Bosnian identity and cultural patrimony, evidence of a long history of diversity and coexistence. The Zemaljski Muzej was among these institutions.

Founded in 1888 by Bosnia-Herzegovinas Austro-Hungarian administration, the Zemaljski Muzej grew into an interdisciplinary research and educational centre that played a major role in the development of Austria-Hungarys new colony. After the Second World War it thrived and evolved in socialist federal Yugoslavia to become Bosnia-Herzegovinas national museum and its foremost research and collecting institution.

After the outbreak of the Bosnian War, the museum, set on the boulevard that notoriously came to be called Sniper Alley, found itself on the frontline and the focus of constant shelling and sniping. Throughout the Siege of Sarajevo, the Zemaljski Muzejs dedicated (and multi-ethnic) staff came to the museum every day, determined to preserve its collections as best they could in deteriorating conditions. When I first visited the museum in March 1995, snow was falling through a hole in the shell-ravaged dome of the entrance hall and I accompanied the keeper of natural sciences, Svjetoslav Obratil, on his morning round to collect the snipers bullets from Bosnian Serb lines that had pierced exhibition rooms the night before.

By the end of the war, the museums staff was half of what it had been at the start, its elegant, turn-of-the-century neoclassical buildings were badly damaged and leaking, and its collections were at risk. Against the odds, the museum continued to function. Although its buildings were restored with outside aid and links with international experts were revived, there was no clear answer to the most significant challenge ahead: how would it survive the power-sharing arrangements between Bosnia-Herzegovinas three constituent peoples Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks (Muslims) which came with the Dayton Peace Agreement in December 1995?

The Dayton Agreement divided the country into two entities: Bosnian Serb-dominated Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (subdivided into 10 Muslim- or Croat-majority cantons). Most powers, including responsibility for culture, were devolved to the entities at the expense of the central state. In the world of Republika Srpskas officialdom, still led by hardline nationalist politicians, anything that strengthened Bosnia-Herzegovina at state level particularly culturally was detrimental to the interests of Bosnian Serbs. Republika Srpska is currently the fiefdom of Milorad Dodik and his SNSD party. Once held as a moderate by Western powers, Dodik has revealed himself a nationalist whose secessionist rhetoric is regarded as the principal threat to Bosnia-Herzegovinas stability.

There was a lack of clarity in the Dayton Agreement on many issues that arose in the new post-war state. One thing was clear, however there was to be no state-level Ministry of Culture. Where interaction in cultural activities was unavoidable in the international arena, the Ministry of Civil Affairs had responsibility. But, depending from which national group and political party the minister came, post holders had the ability to undermine support for state-level cultural institutions that represented Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole.

Among the ethno-national political elites who now held power, only the Bosniaks maintained the idea of a unified state and a common identity for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Though under the terms of Dayton, Sarajevo was the declared capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for nationalist ideologues the city was merely the capital for Bosnias Muslims, as Banja Luka was for Serbs, and Mostar for Croats. Funding for Sarajevo-based institutions was the responsibility of Sarajevo Canton with no relevance for the citizens of Republika Srpska or Croat-dominated cantons despite the presence of thousands of returnees of different ethnicities to the homes from which they had been ethnically cleansed.

From 2007 until 2015 Sredoje Novi, a Bosnian Serb and a close political ally of Milorad Dodik, held the post of Minister of Civil Affairs. The Sarajevo-based state-level institutions that spoke of a shared Bosnian cultural heritage were anathema to him. In 2010 a representative of Novi stated that there were no state institutions of culture in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that culture was in the control of the entities, and that the Ministry of Civil Affairs was not in charge of financing cultural institutions.

Along with six other state-level cultural institutions, the Zemaljski Muzej fell into a budgetary gap that ethno-nationalist politicians eagerly exploited. Among them were the National Art Gallery, the Historical Museum, and the National and University Library that same National Library whose destruction in August 1992 by incendiary shells from Bosnian Serb artillery had aroused worldwide condemnation and led to a long-running UNESCO-led fundraising campaign. Now the ideology that had underpinned the destruction of cultural heritage during the war continued, through political manoeuvring, into the peace.

On 4 October 2012, the Zemaljski Muzejs status and funding was still not settled and its staff had not been paid in more than a year. The museums then director, Adnan Busuladi, announced that the museum would close to the public until its situation was resolved. Photographs of the planks nailed across the museums entrance went round the world.

Photo: Martin A. Doe/Alamy Stock Photo

For almost three years the museums management and staff were subjected to public accusations broadcast widely in the media of mismanagement, incompetence, negligence, and worse, from politicians and well-known cultural figures. There were legal challenges and formal prosecutorial investigations. As the accusations continued, negative perceptions of the museum grew surely the museum must be guilty of something? Yet far from abandoning their responsibilities, hidden from the public gaze, staff continued to go to the museum, working a rota of shifts at the museum day and night to guard and care for the collections.

While a number of campaigns highlighted the plight and importance of the museum, it was the Bosnian cultural NGO Akcijas Ja sam Muzej (I am the Museum) campaign that captured the imagination of the public, transforming perceptions of the museum. Inspired by the dedication of the museum workers carrying out their rota of unpaid guard duties, the most successful part of the campaign was perhaps its Shift at the Museum, in which prominent public figures, along with international diplomats and ordinary citizens of Sarajevo, worked a shift at the museum and made it accessible to the public.

Yet though Ja sam Muzej was hugely effective in renewing public interest in the importance of the museum, it was the appearance in early 2015 of new actors on the scene with political clout, which ultimately brought about its reopening. Most prominent were the incoming US Ambassador Maureen Cormack and Adil Osmanovi, the new Minister of Civil Affairs, appointed by the recently-elected Bosniak-led government. A solution to the problems of Bosnia-Herzegovinas national museum began to look more hopeful.

Osmanovi swiftly insisted on the importance of the Zemaljski Muzej to all Bosnia-Herzegovina and announced plans for a concrete proposal to resolve the problems of the seven state-level institutions. These culminated at a well-orchestrated event on 15 September 2015, where in the presence of a host of dignitaries, including Prime Minister Denis Zvizdi and Ambassador Cormack, the Zemaljski Muzej officially reopened to crowds of enthusiastic balloon-waving schoolchildren. Ambassador Cormack announced a large grant of US $625,000 from the US Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation for preventive conservation of the Zemaljski Muzejs collections. Earlier the same day, a memorandum of understanding had been signed in parliament ensuring financial support for the seven state-level cultural institutions until 2018. The support, however, came solely from Bosniak majority cantons and municipalities in the Federation not from Croat-majority cantons, and certainly not from Republika Srpska.

It did not take long for politicians from Republika Srpska, led by Osmanovis own deputy, ore Milievi, to attack both the memorandum of understanding and the appointment of temporary management boards for the seven cultural institutions, which they denounced as illegal. Complaints from Republika Srpskas entity cultural institutions followed. The director of the entitys National Museum in Banja Luka expressed outrage at Osmanovis favouritism, granting millions to Sarajevo cultural institutions, while those in Republika Srpska received crumbs. She omitted to mention that, unlike the Zemaljski Muzej, entity cultural institutions receive their entire operating budget from the entity authorities anything that comes from the central state budget is extra.

Osmanovi continues to defend the seven institutions as indisputable legal state-level institutions from the former Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that preserve the cultural heritage of all the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He reminds his opponents that the constitution, in theory, incurs an obligation to maintain the state-level institutions that had operated up until the signing of the Dayton Agreement.

Under its acting director, Mirsad Sijari, a conservation centre has opened at the museum and financial support from the French Embassy to enable the Sarajevo Haggadah to be on permanent display has been announced. In April 2016 the Zemaljski Muzej and Akcija jointly won a prestigious European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage/Europa Nostra Award for, Sijari told me, doing the very work for which the politicians and the media had condemned them. The museums legal status and the source of its operating funding remain uncertain.

Helen Walasek is the author of Bosnia and the Destruction of Cultural Heritage (Routledge). She was deputy director of Bosnia-Herzegovina Heritage Rescue (BHHR) for which she worked from 199498.

From the April 2017 issue of Apollo. Preview and subscribe here.

Read more here:
Culture wars in Bosnia - Apollo Magazine

Curator Nato Thompson shines a light on art and the culture wars in ‘Culture as Weapon’ – Los Angeles Times

We live in an era in which image memes are lobbed as political salvos. In which security is theater and defining who controls the narrative in a world of facts and alternative facts is the daily bread of the hot-take class. In which words are bombs, delivered in 140-character installments in the new culture war a phrase that can and has referred to all manner of cultural conflicts: The face-off between elite versus populists, urban versus rural, Hollywood versus the heartland.

Culture is a weapon a pretty effective one at that. And its a topic that New York-based curator Nato Thompson takes on in his latest book, Culture as Weapon: The Art of Influence in Everyday Life, which explores the ways in which the tools of culture are deployed to do everything from sell iPhones to wage war.

As far as timing goes, the books landing during the early days of the Trump administration couldnt have been more impeccable. Culture as Weapon provides a broad overview on how individuals, corporations and governments employ design, storytelling, imagery and art to stir emotion and mold sentiment. The prominence of the Internet and social media, naturally, makes this all the more profound and far-reaching than in the past.

Thompsons book kicks off with an extensive historical primer. Over the course of the 20th century, the fields of public relations and advertising have created visually resonant cultural icons such as the Marlboro Man to move merchandise. Thompson shows how political figures have employed those same techniques to sway elections and stoke fear. For example: the 1988 presidential campaign ad for George H.W. Bush about Willie Horton, the Massachusetts convict who raped a woman while on furlough an ad that ignited anxiety about crime (and African American men) and likely cost Michael Dukakis the election.

Thompson also provides a backgrounder on how visual symbols have been historically wielded socially and politically. The Nazis, for example, were famously meticulous about their aesthetics. Adolf Hitler himself devoted great care and attention to the design and look of the Nazi flag.

The Nazis loved culture, notes Thompson. They used culture. They distributed culture. Cinema, music, flags, banners, book burnings, rallies, and holidays were all deployed in a phantasmagoria of stark blood red, swastikas, and blinding white.

Interestingly, political groups, such as the Nazis, have also been perfectly happy to co-opt the symbols of those they impugn. Hitlers propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, decried so-called degenerate art anything Modernist or made by Jews even as he put that art on view in an extraordinarily well-attended touring exhibition titled, naturally, Degenerate Art.

A similar phenomenon occurred during the U.S. culture wars of the 1980s and 90s, when Congress attacked some of the artists funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA hubbub, writes Thompson, was an opportunity to condemn luridness and bask in it in equal measure. An artists own work weaponized against him. (The Trump administrations proposed budget cuts are part of a long-running conservative animosity toward the NEA.)

The look back is interesting, and in the process Thompson delivers priceless instances of cultural manipulation, such as when the American Tobacco Co. used the trappings of womens liberation to encourage women to smoke in the late 1920s.

But far more vital are the chapters that the author devotes to the recent past and the present to the ways in which big business and government have liberally borrowed from culture for their purposes. (These are topics he comes at from the left, with a healthy skepticism of capitalism and its habit of turning everything into sellable merch.)

Thompson examines how art and architecture have been used as an implement of urban development, via so-called starchitectural development projects and family-friendly public art installations such as Cows on Parade. The commodification of bohemia, as he calls it, has led to art being viewed as an engine rather than the cultural mirror of a nation. The NEAs motto, for example, has gone from Because a great nation deserves great art to Art works a model that would no longer be focused on excellence based on taste, writes Thompson, but rather on the way that culture could make things happen.

This, interestingly, has led to an increasing mistrust toward the idea of culture itself. Los Angeles certainly offers a vivid case in point: The anti-gentrification efforts in Boyle Heights have specifically targeted art galleries (though, curiously, Thompson doesnt mention them).

Culture as Weapon covers myriad other topics: How the U.S. military employed cultural anthropologists during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, how staged social relationships are as intriguing to artists as they are to corporations, and how culture informs our everyday retail experiences. (The maze-like layout of Ikea is inspired, in part, by the disorienting ramps of Frank Lloyd Wrights Guggenheim Museum in New York.)

In taking on so much disparate material, Culture as Weapon can feel scattered and often delves into topics that the reader is likely already familiar with. (Do we really need another overview that covers the improbable rise of the personal computer from Steve Jobs garage to our back pocket?)

Instead Thompson is at his most effective when he is dissecting what it is about culture that makes it such a potent social tool.

Art, in its appeal to emotion, can override rationality, he notes. Fear, he writes, motivates faster than hope and appeals to emotion do not rely on the truth.

How the rational brain might counter the barrage of cultural string-pulling that we experience on a daily basis, and how the world of culture might save itself from becoming a mere tool, Thompson doesnt say. But Culture as Weapon provides a compelling manual for determining how the manipulation begins.

::

Culture as Weapon: The Art of Influence in Everyday Life

by Nato Thompson

Melville House: 288 pp., $27

Sign up for our weekly Essential Arts & Culture newsletter

carolina.miranda@latimes.com

@cmonstah

Read this article:
Curator Nato Thompson shines a light on art and the culture wars in 'Culture as Weapon' - Los Angeles Times