834707442

broad masscs, rejecting tcchnocratic-managerial oricntation towards profits and an absolutc market logie in the spherc of culture. He bclicves that the profit principle cannot be the motive force in the spheres of culture and education. Howevcr_t this does not mean that he denies the influence of the market upon culture: »There is no doubt ai all that the market is really necessary today, but it does not follow from this that the principle of profit-making is the basie yardstick which must be applied always, in all sectors. even at the price of a generał degradation of per-sonality and of the undermining of national culture* (p. 8).

Two Forms of Alienation in Culture within Socialism and Their Relation to Eaeh Other by Zaga Pe5ić-Golubović appears to be a logical continuation of Ku-va£ić’s discussion on the positlon of culture in the conditions of manipulation. Zaga Pd>ić-Golubović discusses the ideologization of culture and mass culture as two types of alienation in culture. What she means by ideologization of culture is the loss of autonomy in culture or the tendency to decide on cultural matters from a centre which is well apart from the spheres where cultural works are created. This is when men creating culture are told just how much freedom they may have and are expccted to express their loyalty and support for official policies in their works. In other words. it is a demand for the endorsement of a political system. However, ideologization of culture which the author defines as follows: »This is a message which the creator passes on (by various media) to other members of so-ciety, through which culture effeets a kind of ideological guidance. When culture directs men to develop and act in the spirit of socialism, i. e. of a human com-munity, there is no nced to impose upon it ideological restrictions which will also restrict this basie ideological guidance: otherwise culture becomes alicnated* (p. 1). Having identified the ideological and humanistic functions of culture, the author States that the ideological function of culture and freedom of crcativencss are not opposed to one another. Culture is not ideologically indifferent, but in order to be abie to effcct its humanistic function, it must be free from any ideological restric-tion. Hence freedom is a conditio sine qua non of any cultural creativcness.. The only limits to crcativc freedom are one’s own humanistic criteria. The ideologization of culture produces an alienated culture (1) by reducting culture to only one, permitted form of expression; (2) by denying freedom as a condition of cultural creativeness and by accepting *imposes freedom*; (3) by asking for all forms of cultural cTcativcness to be subservient to politics, which alone can prescribe what is ideologically correct; (4) by tuming ideological guidance, which is implicitly cont-ained in any act of creativencss, into an ideological canon; (5) by dcvcloping con-formism and lack of criticism; (6) by prohibiting doubt as a basie method of creat-iveness and proclaiming instead the faith in authority; (7) by accepting a partial pcrsonality and a model of »homo duplex« as a dcsirable type of man, in contrast to the essential function of culture of fostering the dcvelopmcnt of a total per-sonality.

Mass culture, on the other hand, fills the void created by ideologized culture. It deals with the world of crime and with the seamy side of life - which are never referred to by the official culture - in easily digested amounts, as »cntcrtainment« which does not give risc to indignation or concem but rather produces a false relief and a false relaxation« (p. 3). Mass culture, thereforc, offers entertainment rather than serious life determination in order to rcplace the abscnce of this determina-tion. It thereforc is a useful tool of ideological propaganda by diverting attention from 80ciety’s true problems and by lending support to a commercial approach as the basie unit of evaluating culture, thus tending to make the sphere of culture just another sphere of consumption.

Zaga PcSić-Golubović seems to see a way out in the observance of two basie requirements: a) of an autonomy of culture and freedom of creativeness, and b) of a consistent application of the principle of sclf-management as rcflectcd in the right of direct producers to decide themselves on their work and the products of their work, and societys right to control both activities and products of activities in all fields of social work. In this case, of course, the problem of public control becomes exceptionally important. The author refers to public control in its non-institutionalized (public opinion) and its institutionalized forms, and calls for public control over the media ot public Communications. A solution would be to elcct on the principles of self-management (rather than have them appointed by the State authorities) such members of councils in the sphere of culture who would be pro-fessionally capable of judging the quality of work in a corresponding social ac-tivity. Thus, in the sphere of public control the policy is to nominate competcnt

661