The Dissent in the Sphere of Culture: Parekh`s Critique of Liberalism and Trotsky`s New Art

Author: Samseer R H, Research Scholar, Department of Sociology, University of Kerala

Abstract
The modern nation states that proclaims autonomy in the cultural sphere are often found to have
taken regressive measures the consequences of which turned the autonomy of the cultures in the
states as nominal as possible. Leon Trotsky fiercely defended the autonomy at the cultural level.
States fear contamination of the people`s mind by the literatures and arts that are produced by the
adherents of ideologies which are in contradiction to states` ideologies (paradoxically most of the
states claim adherence to liberalism). Trotsky could comprehend that no matter how shielded they
think they are from the contamination, the humanity is destined to fall prey to the intellectual
currents produced by its own kind. This inevitability is well emphasised by Trotsky while lamenting
the misconception that a socialist culture is possible only by abandoning bourgeois literature and
art. Rather he chose the co-existence of dissenting voices in cultural sphere. Socialist Culture in the
Trotskyst sense cannot mean that the cultural production should be the hegemony of socialist alone,
but it should provide equal space for the creative works of people who belong to other ideologies
too. Trotsky urged for a socialist culture or New Art at a critical juncture in the intellectual history
of Russia when the two Great Revolutions effectively displaced the thenceforth cultural orientation
of the country which was essentially formed around Bourgeois center. His prime justification for his
defence of the cultural autonomy is that every cultural production whether it comes from the
dissenters or the supporters of the state, cannot escape reflecting the spirit of an epoch. Thus, state
recognising some literatures and arts as worthy of praise and banning others would delimit the
reflective space.
Liberalism`s major proponents usually set their theoretical perspectives transcultural. The prime
consequences of this transcultural perspective is that it failed to recognise the equality of diversities
and declared uniformity as its foundation. The equality of people at the level of their shared human
nature is emphasised while their equality at the cultural level is not.
The great ideals of deliberative democracy such as inclusion, equality, and reasonableness cannot in
the long run evade Bikhu Parekh`s critique of liberalism. The critique reveals liberalism`s serious
failure to recognise cultural pluralism. Parekh observes that the political right of equality has
different levels and providing human beings with this right at all these levels cannot be achieved if
the cultural setting to which they belong is abstracted away. In his view, situating people in the
cultural settings to which they belong and comprehending their political demands and actions in
accordance with the specific meanings that their repective cultural settings signify are inevitable to
the progress of liberalism. Moreover, the attempts to make out whether a particular political action

is just or unjust for the people who is affected by the action cannot be effective if a transcultural
perspective is adopted. Parekh`s critique stems mainly from the subjective emphasis of
The present paper attempts to figure out the importance of Bikhu Parekh`s Critique of Liberalism
and Trotsky`s New Art in the progress of democracy.
Key Words: Liberalism, New Art, Democracy, Leon Trotsky, Culture