Empowerment & Culture

In what way does culture inhibit or enable empowerment?


In this essay I will aim to answer the above question. To do this I will discuss different definitions of culture and empowerment. I will discuss my own interpretation of them, and provide my own view of what I believe culture and empowerment to be. In order to explore my views of culture and empowerment I will attempt to inform the reader the way in which I view the world to be constructed, and how it impacts of culture & empowerment.

Any attempt to define the word culture is not made easy, as there is not a general consensus as to what the concept should include. It is precisely for that reason that I struggled to start this paper, as every time I thought I had grasped it, it slipped away. My understanding changed when I experienced different circumstances, and sometimes a rare moment of clarity provided yet more complexity to the concept. However based on what I have read, my own experience and understanding of the subject, I will attempt to discuss how and what I see culture to be, and how it inhibits or enables empowerment.

Empowerment is a process which challenges our assumptions about the way things are and can be. At the core of the concept of empowerment is the idea of power. The possibility of empowerment depends on two things according to James Herrick (1995) Firstly; empowerment requires that power can change. If power cannot change then empowerment is not possible, and is not conceivable in any meaningful way. In other words if power can change, then empowerment is possible. Secondly the concept of empowerment depends on the idea that power can expand. This second point he says reflects our common experiences of power rather than how we think about power. To clarify these points it is important to understand what is meant by power;

Power is often related to our ability to make others do what we want, regardless of their own wishes or interests (Weber 1946)

Traditional social science emphasizes power as influence and control, often treating power as a commodity or structure divorces from human actions (Lips 1991). Looked at in this way, power can be viewed as unchangeable. (Weber 1946) gives a view beyond this limitation by recognizing that power exists within the context of a relationship between people or things. Power does not exist in isolation nor is it inherent in individuals, by implication, since power is created in relationships, power and power relationships can change. Empowerment as a process of change then becomes a meaningful concept.

I view empowerment as a multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives. It is a process which fosters power in people for use in their own lives, their communities and in their society by acting on issues that they define as important


The word culture derived from the Latin word referring to growing, nurturing and cultivation. It was only in the 19th century that it began to take on two distinct meanings;

‘Culture as a way of life’ and ‘culture as the expression of the artistic products of society or ‘the higher things of the mind’ Steel T, (2001)

(Storey, 2001:1) cites Williams who defines the theory of culture to be ‘the study of relationships between elements in a whole way of life. The analysis of culture is the attempt to discover the nature of the organisation, which is the complex of these relationships. Analysis of particular works or institutions is, in this context , is analysis of their kind of organisation, the relationship which works or institutions embody as parts of the organisation as a whole’

Williams describes culture with three broad definitions. Firstly he says culture can be looked as ‘a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development’. Another way in which culture could be might be viewed, to be ‘a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period or a group’ and the final way in which Williams suggests that culture can be used to refer to ‘the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity’.

Sandoval offers a definition of culture which I feel fits the purpose of this paper ‘culture is the blueprint of beliefs, behaviors and identities which shape the perceptions of a person or a group of persons. It is an inheritance of ideas, practices and attitudes which are conveyed and reinforced from generation to generation through institutions in society, like family, church and community. Culture defines right and wrong, delineates assumptions and expectations, and ultimately describes our dreams and the meaning of life’ (ccw/culturehout/lj/00/01)

Lynette Jordan gives a baseline definition of culture in CCW handout, which offers the idea that the essential feature of culture is that it is learned. For example, a baby desiring food in the morning is triggered by psychological characteristics which are determined by the human genetic code. However, on the other hand an adult’s desire for cereal & milk in the morning cannot be explained genetically, but rather it is a learned cultural response to morning hunger. Jordan states that behaviours common to a given society acts like a ‘template, shaping behaviour and consciousness within a human society from generation to generation’ (2000, Pge 3). This template she says can be broken down into two categories which feature important elements of cultural systems;

Systems of meaning, of which language is primary
Ways of organizing society from kinship groups to states and multinational corporations the distinctive techniques of a group and their characteristic products

Both Sandoval’s and Jordan’s explanations of culture contain the idea that culture is an inheritance of ideas, practices and attitudes which are learned and passed on from generation to generation. This learning and the process which shapes it can be described through Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. Hegemony originated with Lenin and was developed by Gramsci (Mayo 1999) it is a method through which dominant group’s effect social control over others. This is done according to Gramsci through various institutions which form the state, including religious bodies, the education and legislative systems which underpin our society. These systems serve to maintain the interests of the dominant class.

The systems of meaning mentioned in Jordan’s baseline definition of culture, will encompass norms, values symbols and signs. A norm is a ‘specific guide to action which defines acceptable and appropriate behaviour in particular situations’. (Haralambos & Holborn, 1990), an example of this would be that all societies have norms regarding dress code, for example, in India it is considered offensive for a female to bear her shoulders, particularly if she is low down on the social structure or caste system. Norms are enforced by positive and negative sanctions which can be either formal, such as an official reward or fine given by an official body, and informal, for example a disapproving glances. Some norms are formalized into laws which are enforced by official sanctions, like the nude bather on the beach in the west would be subject to a degree of legal punishment. These sanctions which enforce norms are part of the hegemony of social control and social order. Values on the other hand, rather than being a directive of conduct are ‘a belief that something is good and desirable’ Haralambos & Holborn (1990, pge 7) an example of this would be in western society there is high value placed on material wealth and this motivates people to invest time in acquiring material things.  Like norms, values will vary from society to society.

Discourse is constructed by society as a means to convey ideas, assumptions and values, and is strongly influenced by norms, for example the behaviour and language used in churches is different from that used at football matches, although both are learned and commonly known. Through discourse knowledge and myths are created, this knowledge is what defines normality and supports to maintain suspicion of ‘abnormality’ and counter hegemony.

Signs and symbols play an important part within societies and the way in which society interacts. The study of signs and symbols is known as semiotic analysis, Strinati (2004, p.78) defines seminology as ‘the scientific study of sign systems such as cultures’. It’s important to point out here that different theorists hold different views as to how analysis should be undertaken.

Saussure offered a ‘dyadic’ or two-part model of the sign; he defined a sign as being composed of;

A ‘signifier’ (significant) – the form which the sign takes place, and

The signified (signifie) – the concept it represents.

The sign is the whole which results from the association of the signifier with the signified (Saussure, 1974, P67). The relationship between the signifier and the signified is referred to as the ‘signification’, a linguistic example of this would be  the word ‘open’ when it is invested with meaning by someone who encounters it on a shop doorway is a sign consisting of;

A signifier: the word open

A signified concept:  that the shop is open for business.

‘A sign must have both a signifier and a signified. You cannot have a totally meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified’ (Saussure, 1983 p.101)

Barthes theory of seminological analysis introduces the idea of text. Texts are not only words but anything that can be read like pictures, objects, smells and sounds. This concept is similar to Frierian codes in that in that text carries messages and has meaning to those interpreting them. Barthes writes that signs are socially constructed and are a means for the dominant class or group to influence society and reinforce hegemony. ‘Dominant groups use myths to convert social constructions of history into nature which are then internalized through discourse by wider society as being absolute truths’ (Strinati, 2004, p.96)

It is my belief that we live in a modernist society which organizes around structures, boundaries, laws and Meta narratives, which serve to provide absolute truth and universal knowledge. It is important to inform the reader at this point that, I myself hold a post modernist view in that I believe that things like reason, rationality, and confidence in science are culturally biased. I believe that truth whether in science, education or religion is created by the specific culture and only exists in that culture, thus any system or statement which tries to communicate truth, in my opinion is playing the power game in an effort to dominate another culture.

Karl Marx and his theory of capitalism have offered an insight into the concept of capitalism from the standpoint of the working class and how they view the world to be constructed. Essentially Marx believes that society is structured in such a way that is supports the current economic system, a system which does not pay full value to the workers for their labour, where the bourgeoisies (Capitalists) keep the profits. He believed it to be a mode of production where the role of the state ‘is to maintain stability so that capitalism can develop unhindered by social unrest’ (Purcell, R 2002)

In the west, social structures are constructed around the concept of capitalism. The Keynsian strand of capitalism supports government intervention in the economy because it believes that the free market without government intervention cannot sustain full employment, and that unemployment is a waste of economic and social resources and needs to be solved. An example of this in Britain would be New Labour’s ideology of comminitarianism, which they use to encourage individualism through placing high value on educational attainment, and measures of cultural capital which signify success, which is essential to capitalism’s development, yet still recognize the social dimension to human existence, through social policy which aims to support those who are in their view low in cultural capital and less educated.
It is through this recognition of human existence I view to be New Labour’s vehicle for communicating their truth to society, which in turn, I believe shapes the cultural beliefs (norms and values) of those being communicated to, as culture and society are inextricably linked, culture is created and transmitted to others in society.

Karl Marx described the working class or proletariat as the ‘multitude of individuals who sell their labour power for wages and do not own the means of production’ (Wikipedia, 2007), essentially the poorer sections of society, whom he believed to be responsible for creating the wealth of a society.

Working class culture is a range of cultures created by or popular among working class people. The cultures can be contrasted with high culture and folk culture, and are sometimes equated with popular culture and low culture, (the counterpart of high culture)(Wikipedia, 2007)

Baudrillard believes that capitalism works because it encourages participation through work and consumption, and that the masses absorb what is thrown at them, and that our social world is a phenomenon of signs and discourses that relate to one another in a confusing excess of information and image. In this sense we no longer inhabit the ‘modern’ world of solid social institutions and material social relations but instead live life in a ‘simulcra’; an example of this would be the concept of virtual reality; a reality created by simulation, this is particularly evident in computer games. According to Storey, (2001, p.152) ‘for Baudrillard, postmodernism is not simply a culture of the sign, but rather a culture of the simulacrum’. Modern societies depend on the idea that signifiers always point to the signified, and there lies the reality. Baudrillard views people as consumers who have ‘bought in to the idea’ that they have a choice in what they do.

I do agree with what Baudrillard says, although he is very negative in his view that ‘people have bought into the idea’ that we have a choice in what we do, however capitalism can only develop through increased consumption, and I view encouragement of consumerism to the masses to e largely led by the media who control and present to us our perceived needs. In this respect we are not just buying objects but their significance. I.e. Buying into a specific lifestyle. Given that by definition capitalism exploits one class over another, I believe that that in our society the masses are still being dominated by a ruling group and this is reinforced through consumerism and the media as a form of hegemony. Equally I believe that that the role of the UK’s government’s communitarian ideology is to educate people to promote the individualistic element to capitalism through education, whether it be a vocational training programme or educational attainment & educational progression , which are reinforced as being as being a signifier for wealth & success. Baudrillard also views the talk of change as ‘cosmetic & meaningless’, I disagree with this, I believe that we are all capable of interpreting signs and are able to achieve critical consciousness’ and through doing so we can create change and build a counter hegemony.

Throughout this essay I have referred to education and alluded to it’s role in supporting the current culture. Left wingers often assert that the school system exists to reproduce the present class structure. In relation to the question ‘How does culture inhibit or enable empowerment?’ I would have to say that education is part of culture and in western society formal education can be used to shape the norms & values of that society. In order to expand I must touch on some of the theorists who argue that education is used as a tool for domestication, i.e. a form of social control.

Paulo Friere believed that education is never neutral. He defines the concept of education as the ‘practice of freedom’ and describes it as an ‘act of love, thus an act of courage’. Friere, a Brazilian adult educator, in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed discusses the notion of the historical reality of the dehumanization of people through an unjust social order. He believed that people are taught through formal educational processes to support and uphold the ideas of the ruling class, and through this type of education he believed people would never be able to overcome their oppression. According to Mayo (1999, p.36) education influenced and played an important part in Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony who relates a similar idea to Friere’s dehumanization through his work on hegemony; Hegemony can be defined as ‘a social condition in which all aspects of social reality are dominated by or supportive of a single class’  (Livingston, 1976:235). Like Friere’s ideas that oppression is promoted by the ruling class, Gramsci viewed hegemony as a learning relationship, in which institutions such as law, education & mass media engage with society to promote the agenda of dominant groups. (Peter Mayo 2006). Gramsci’s hegemony and Friere’s concept of dehumanization would suggest that change and social justice will only be delivered from the bottom up, as the dominant groups groups will only look after their own interests, interest which serve to oppress those at the bottom. Gramsci talks about a ‘war of position’ (1999, p.38) by that he believes the subaltern classes must gain the support of the presiding class or the ‘organic intellectuals’ (1999, p.41) by this he means intellectuals who come from the people, and it is they who support the creation of a counter hegemony. Counter hegemony is the term used by Gramsci to describe the process of the oppressed changing their situation through challenging the status quo. Equal to this is Friere’s belief in the possibility of ‘humanization’, where people learn together through common struggles to understand the economic and political forces which create their experience, and enable them to be challenged.

In his book Deschooling Society (1971) Ivan Illich argues that formal schooling is unnecessary and indeed harmful of society. Illich’s views schools as repressive institutions that indoctrinate pupils, smother creativity and imagination, induce conformity and ‘stultify’ students into accepting the interests of the powerful. He sees the ‘hidden curriculum’ operating in the following way; pupils have little or no control over what they learn and how they learn it, they are simply taught by an authoritative teaching regime, and to be successful pupils must conform to it’s rule. Illich believes however, that ‘real’ learning is not the result of instruction, but of direct free involvement by the individual in every part of that learning process. In sum, most learning requires no teacher.

The concept of culture and cultural capital are critical to Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of how the mechanism of cultural reproduction functions within schools. Bourdieu’s ideas of cultural reproduction functions within schools do not involve the transmission of the culture of society as a whole, but as argued by Durkheim, is the reproduction of the culture of the dominant class. (Haralambos & Holburn,1990). The dominant class have the power to impose meanings and to impose them as legitimate. They are able to define their own culture as ‘worthy of being sought and possessed’ (1990, p.269)

Bourdieu uses Gramsci’s theory of hegemony when trying to understand the mechanism of social reproduction. Bourdieu disagreed with the Marxist view that society can be analysed simply in terms of class and ideologies, his work is concerned with the much more independent role of educational and cultural fields. So instead of analyzing societies in terms of class, he uses the concept of field; a social arena in which people maneuver and struggle over desirable resources’ (1990, p.269). A field is a system of social positions, structured internally in terms of power relationships. According to Bourdieu schooling is seen as reproducing social class divisions and tends to equate economic capital with cultural capital i.e. the wealthier the family the more likely the children are to acquire the cultural capital deemed necessary to fit them for their place at the top of the labour market. The poorer families are the more likely they are to be steered away from such expectations.

In closing I think it would be fair to say that I am quite divided on my views. I feel that culture can inhibit empowerment, in that the very nature of education within our society serves to disempower those who have low economic, cultural & social capital, and while I am largely in agreement with Bourdieu’s concept of social capital, I feel he doesn’t credit people with the ability to increase their own so called capital, never mind their ability to work together to help each other increase in their capital, and that this would be anything other than for monetary gain as oppose to social gain. As mentioned earlier if power is understood to be working on various levels then collective action can help people work towards creating change. For example a community may come together to tackle an issue which is important to them, during this process workers are able to explore with the group what is actually the root cause of the problem, this Frierian method of ‘problem posing’ is a tool which we can use to critically analyse the community and wider society in which we live. This could be one of the ways in which a catalyst emerges to challenge (albeit on a micro level initially), the dominant hegemony which has the objective of promoting the status quo.

Taking Barthes mythology theory, where he said that signs and symbols can be exploited to bring particular association to mind, through promoting the values & interests of the dominant groups within society which ultimately serve to defend the current power structure. A worker working with a group within a community could take this idea to work through the myths imposed on that particular community, using dialogue to make sense of signs, communities can explore these myths and begin to understand where they com from and how and why they’ve been created, and by the same process can create a new shared reality for that community which could be the start of a counter hegemonic process.

Finally I now know more so realize in order for people to become empowered and change/transform their ‘reality’ it is important that they understand the culture in which they live. And as previously mentioned power is something that cannot be given, but needs to be taken either individually or collectively and so by just telling people and community what is actually going on is not a way forward, and ultimately will now work as empowering process. I can see that through the use of semiotics and dialogue, we as workers can encourage people to be critical of the world around them and analyze where the values which they hold derive from.