Jazz It Up

I know what you’re thinking: Pointless paper shuffling, deeper deficits. Where do people get the nerve to suggest more bureaucratic mess? Creating another cabinet-level department would waste precious time, energy, and resources. On the other hand, the unemployment rate is into double digits, and we need to flesh out some fresh ideas for recovery.

A U.S. Department of Culture could provide jobs to thousands of Americans. As it does in most other advanced democracies, it need not promote any specific artists, but rather serve as an economic engine and revitalize the national spirit broadly. The department could directly invest in arts education, museums, libraries, public radio, and public television. It could create special task forces—for example, a young “artist corps” for low-income schools and neighborhoods, an original Obama campaign idea. It could establish federal writing projects to promote cultural literacy and historical memory. As a bonus, culture department officials could serve as popular diplomatic emissaries.

France, Germany, Brazil, Japan, and the UK all have ministries of culture. Some might say that’s all fine and good, but those countries are not America—where the government generally refrains from interfering with our sense of who we are. Young Republicans may see little worth in more red tape—even if it’s wrapped around reinvigorated national pride. Young Democrats—who have ironically paid less attention to public culture over the last decade than Republicans—may fear the purview of the state over something as precious to progressives as the arts.

But, truth be told, we’re not too far off from a Department of Culture as it is. We just need tie it all together. In addition to the National Endowment for Arts—which received $50 million in stimulus money—we have the National Endowment for the Humanities, Institute for Museum and Library Services, National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the State Department’s cultural programs, and ,of course, the Smithsonian. All in all, the argument against rolling out the frontiers of the state is pretty weak—they’re already rolled. If anything, a Department of Culture would make federal support of cultural programs less of a mismanaged mess.

A Department of Culture could hire administrative staffers and full-time workers in addition to putting the unemployed of the arts sector back on their feet and working for a common purpose. Some might argue that financing artists should be low on our priority totem pole. But artists are taxpayers, rent-payers, and consumers—just like everyone else. This country has 100,000 nonprofit arts groups, which employ some six million people and contribute $167 billion to the economy per year. Of course, in the long term we could use more engineers and science teachers, but right now we really need more working Americans exchanging goods and services.

The vision of an expanded federal role in promoting American culture isn’t entirely unprecedented, especially in challenging times. Although it only hired a few employees, during the Great Depression, the Farm Security Administration received a mandate for a national photography project that did much to lift the spirits of the country. In the early days of both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, officials lobbied hard for an Arts Secretary. Shortly after President Obama’s election, music composer and mogul Quincy Jones briefly pushed for a cabinet-level position so the average American kid might know who Toni Morrison and Joan Baez are.

Some might contend that a Department of Culture would quickly become a Department of Propaganda. It could fall into the wrong hands. Yet this is a fear for any federal department. There’s a risk that even the Department of the Interior can fall prey to private contractors and a particular political ideology. Perhaps a more important question: Why should anyone have the authority to say what American culture is? There’s a fear that the Department of Culture could become an ethnocentric, gender- or class-biased agency. But the department need not take this route and could legitimately maintain a position of unity through diversity—just as the Smithsonian and the NEA have.

If anything, the department could play a prominent part in the big picture of bringing Americans together in tough times. Some days it seems this country has a problem solving social problems, and part of that is because many Americans from different backgrounds don’t recognize the importance of each other’s contributions to American vitality and well being. It might be a special mission of the department to put Americans more in touch with one another in times where we need more trust and solidarity.

It’s a shame cultural policy is not perceived as “real” public policy. As Americans, we have a responsibility for both stewardship of our heritage and the welfare of our posterity—in both material and immaterial terms. At the heart of American culture has always been a special knack for innovation in challenging circumstances. It is entirely appropriate that we should now consider jazzing up our institutions and investing in our best, brightest, and most beautiful to aid in national recovery.

Raúl A. Carrillo ’10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.