Culture and Conservatism

I was posed the question not too long ago, what does freedom mean to me?

Of course, I had to take the question in a really weird direction, because, you know, such is my wont.

Anyhoo, I had been mulling over the notion of cultural freedom for a while and come to the conclusion that cultural freedom (or as I put it: collective freedom) is inherently conservative.  This bothers me, as somebody who likes to think of himself as fairly radically progressive.  On the other hand, I believe strongly in the importance of cultural autonomy.  But, what if that culture clashes with my progressive beliefs?  Well . . . hm.  This, fearless reader, is a strange loop, is it not?  (ha - I knew this was going to come back again).

I've been reading a history of the turn of the century (1900) Worcester working-class, which I will review shortly in this space.  The author suggests that Emma Goldman's disgust with the lack of class warfare in Worcester is misplaced as there was plenty of cultural warfare, if little union activity.  But, fearless reader, cultural warfare is inherently conservative - it's about maintaining traditions in the face of pressure to change.  Goldman, as an anarchist, was looking for something more progressive - something that would transcend ethnic cultural lines.

So, what does this mean for my position on contemporary issues?  Well, I've come to feel that Black Nationalism, Chicanoism, Boricuaism, etc., etc., etc., things that I used to admire, are in fact problematic as ultimately conservative forces that prohibit the progressive change that I think we need.  In America, progressive forces have to reach a post-identity politics in order to find success; of course, given the on-going state of racism in this country, there isn't much incentive for folks, but there it is.