Anticulture and Capitalism

When Oprah released her tell-all interview with Prince Harry of the United Kingdom and his wife Meghan Markle, monarchists in Britain gave a collective shriek of horror and anger. To them, the topics of discussion were only slightly better than high treason, and the image of the couple as dangerous radicals hellbent on demolishing all that is good and holy in Britain was solidified.

Habermas and the End of Culture

Perhaps, from a certain perspective, they are partly right. But before we consider that, we should first turn to the ideas of Jürgen Habermas. One of the biggest names in modern political theory, Habermas has spent decades writing many different theories on many different subjects. However, one of the first books he wrote was Legitimation Crisis. To Habermas, capitalism and liberalism were (and are) flying off the rails as the systems they have created continue to self-perpetuate exponentially beyond sustainable bounds.

One aspect that Habermas discussed, and that we will focus on here, is the demolition of culture brought about by liberalism. Liberalism is built upon pre-capitalist cultures and traditions; traditions that include religions, holidays, and art, among many others. However, as Habermas argues, these cultures often come into conflict with liberalism. These cultural components prioritize elements of life beside wealth generation, and thus they encumber the development and expansion of liberalism.

These conflicts, Habermas theorizes, will almost always end in liberalism’s favor. These cultural aspects will be removed or at least subverted towards liberalism’s end; consider the various religious holidays and celebrations of medieval England. Roughly 200 days of the year were dedicated to some sort of holiday, meaning one would only work around 150 days in any given year. Today, there are only eight bank holidays in England, and only a few more in other regions of the United Kingdom.

But this creates a problem. Liberalism’s primary, perhaps sole, unifying trait is pursuit of profit. As more and more pre-capitalist relics of culture are dissipated, what is left to bring people together and incite a sense of community? Nothing, at least according to Habermas. This is the essential contradiction of liberalism- the more successful it is, the more it undermines what allowed its success in the first place.

The Modern Anticulture

So what is today’s culture? Contrary to the beliefs of the scores of orthodox conservatives who can be found decrying the collapse of Western Civilization, we do have a culture. But, as evidenced by Mark Fischer’s argument about the “slow cancellation of the future,” it is a culture that relies on nostalgia and rehashing old ideas in new forms. Look hard enough and one can find an abundance of truly unique and new culture, especially in music; however, the mainstream continues to become more and more reliant on previous works and ideas. This is mirrored in a political context that increasingly relies on citizens’ wistfulness for pasts long gone. “Make America Great Again” obviously implies America is no longer great. “The new FDR” in reference to Joe Biden pushes us to imagine him as a simulacrum of a President who has been dead for nearly eighty years.

The point is that our culture in many ways, although not all, is being undermined by the force of capital. Why write a novel idea for a new movie when creating yet another superhero film of dubious originality will earn much more?

But let’s return to Habermas’s argument about legitimation. He is concerned about this issue because he believes that an economic system, such as capitalism, that is so uniquely decoupled from morality will inevitably come under intense scrutiny. If political consciousness about the meritocratic credentials of bourgeois liberalism were to grow, the results for the system could be disastrous as people would be forced to confront the irrationality of the system and the pointlessness of it all.

Return of the King

But we should return to the story we began with; the Royal Family of the United Kingdom. They are, I believe, a perfect example of Habermas’s theory in action. Where once the monarchs ruled as absolute, bourgeois uprisings in the 1600s, as well as a steady expansion of parliamentary power, led to the increasing sidelining of the Crown’s position.

By the 20th Century the British Royals had largely assumed a position of figureheads, deliberately aloof from the political questions and debates. Where once the Kings of Britain had ruled with an iron fist, absolute above all, now their time was taken up mainly by divorces and sex scandals.

And this brings us to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Rightfully off-put by the unsurprising instances of racism in the House of Windsor, the two fled one dying monarchy for the land of a nobility of its own- Hollywood. Monarchies are, traditionally, not an institution that can be freely left like a job. But that is really what the monarchy has become- influencers for a particular audience, promoting a way of life long-gone.

Royalty- the traditions, the gloriousness, the splendor- has become a commodity like any other, a tourist attraction of little more significance than Big Ben or Stonehenge. The British Monarchy is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, but what it once stood for has. Does that mean I will shed a tear for it? No, definitely not; however, this model shows the ever-growing cultural hegemony of capital, a beast far grown beyond what its creators could have imagined.