Constitutional Culture & Cultural Diversity: A Deep Dive
INCORPORATION AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL CULTURE:
The presence of the word “culture” in the new Constitution and its significance to the right is a useful distinction between “culture” and “cultures.” This distinction highlights the impact on specific socio-historical events and the general idea of culture.
The word “culture” has transitioned from being a neologism lacking legal recognition. The vague and ambiguous statements found in legal phrases demonstrate this lack of clarity. Scientific doctrine offers little guidance on this conceptual issue.
In constitutional law, the concept of culture lacks theoretical foundation and remains in its embryonic stage. Therefore, this study focuses on the constitutional notion of culture.
Examining the Constitution reveals the richness of its vocabulary concerning cultural affairs. The terms “culture” and “cultural” frequently appear in discussions of language, traditions, art, science, literature, monuments, and art history. While constitutions from previous years used the word “culture,” the phenomenon it describes has acquired new characteristics.
Interestingly, none of the 19th-century Spanish constitutions explicitly mentioned “culture” in their articles. There were hints, but never a literal reference.
In the 19th century, the word “culture” was primarily used in the context of civilization. An exception can be found in “Principles of Administrative Law” by Cuesta and Martin (1894), which discusses the culture of public administration and its intellectual, moral, aesthetic, material, and generative aspects. However, this work also highlights the confusion between “culture” and “civilization.”
Another exception emerged with the rise of “folklore studies” (the study of genuinely patriotic elements) in the late 19th century. Lawyers played a significant role in these early stages of anthropology as a science in Spain.
However, it wasn’t until the 20th century that significant changes occurred. The 1917 Mexican Constitution was the first higher-level text to prominently feature the term “culture.” Subsequently, the Spanish Constitution of 1931 paved the way for the systematic and conceptual use of the term.
Following the Republican era, virtually all European constitutions adopted the term “culture” after World War II. Its use multiplied, acquiring a unique semantic significance, particularly in the constitutions of the 1970s.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND CULTURAL RIGHTS:
CURRENT CONTENTS OF CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY:
Particularism and Universalism: Reflections on Human Diversity:
Montesquieu explored how human groups perceive themselves and others, focusing on the contrasting trends of “particularism” and “universalism.”
Todorov also examined the tolerant spirit of universalism against the individual’s right to difference.
Particularism and universalism are not necessarily incompatible categories.
Advocates of cultural universalism posit that broader perspectives offer qualitative advantages over particular ones, viewing cultural diversity as an imperfect stage in the development of human culture.
Conversely, particularistic thinking negates the “other.” Therefore, both particularism and the notion of “cultural identity” require critical self-reflection.
In 1947, Claude Lévi-Strauss published “Race and History” and later “Race and Culture” in 1971, sparking controversy by arguing that races are products of culture rather than the reverse. His text begins with the premise that cultural diversity is a natural phenomenon. He argues that species develop through diverse pathways, and this diversity arises from the relationships between groups rather than their isolation. It’s important to acknowledge that the diversity of civilizations has also been accompanied by negative aspects, such as inequalities, massacres, and oppression.
Universalization of Culture, Cultural Diversity, and Mass Culture:
The growth of cultural exchange, knowledge dissemination, and the movement of people and objects have led to rapid diffusion and contact between cultures, resulting in diverse outcomes.
Mass media plays a significant role in this process, transmitting a constant stream of cultural messages that shape a shared imagination and influence individuals’ characteristics, forms, and cultural values.
The impact of mass culture is a subject of debate. Some argue that it has led to the homogenization of cultures and the decline of humanist culture. They describe it as a “mosaic culture” – a fragmented collection lacking a coherent structure. Others, however, see it as a potential avenue for individual and group cultural development, despite its negative aspects.
Critics of mass culture contend that it produces a superficial culture catering to the average consumer, eroding the unique characteristics of ethnic groups. As this culture spreads globally, individuals may feel powerless and lose self-awareness, succumbing to the standardizing influence of mass culture under the guise of “equality.”