Culture Schlock

In all the recent scandals that have engulfed the newspapers I have noticed an unfortunate turn of phrase creeping into journalistic shorthand   - that is the inclination to ascribe everything bad that happens to a 'culture'.  Yesterday we had 'culture of collusion' (Guardian) and 'culture of phone-hacking' (Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post).  Then there are the old stand-bys 'culture of bullying', 'culture of secrecy' and that old chestnut 'culture of dependency' (ie everyone is on benefits).

Journalists will of course always coin shorthand expressions in order to get their copy down to a manageable length but I wonder if this particular literary habit is not becoming too destructive to be useful. 

In every case we are asked to believe that the 'culture' concerned consists of one negative influence.  This is hardly a culture which as defined by Tylor is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and other capabilities acquired by man as a member of society." 

What the journalists are referring to is in fact a custom - the repetition of a certain mode of behaviour which is accepted as the norm within an organisation. A custom is simply a repetetive habit and can be changed.  Culture is much more deeply ingrained. Fundamental to the culture of the free press is that it is a symbol of progress and of the spread of a more open form of government.  Phone-hacking is only a very recent and relatively minor technical glitch.

Furthermore we have to ask ourselves is this a defence?  The inference is that the wrong-doer did wrong because everybody else was at it.  This is a denial of personal responsibility.  The lack of a corporate conscience is being used as an excuse to allow the individual to evade blame.  How can this be healthy?

Additionally the use of the term 'culture' when we mean collective responsibility means that a whole community is being tarred with the same brush.   During the expenses scandal all MPs were branded corrupt even though it turned out most of them had acted within the rules, however stretched those rules had become.  A very small number were found to have acted illegally and have suffered as a result, but the fall-out is that we are now daily being informed in the newspapers that all of our political representatives are corrupt.  I do not believe that to be true.  Some MPs may be corrupt but most of them are not.  The same is true of our police officers and our journalists. 

In recent days there has been a shift from blaming the individual, to blaming the 'culture', to blaming the institution itself although no institution can of itself be corrupt only the individuals working within it.

This may seem very nit-picking but the way in which we use language changes our perception of things.  If the use of the term 'culture' to indicate a whole community of professionals leads us to conclude that our most important social institutions are rotten to the core without, so far at any rate any solid evidence, then this is not good for our society as a whole.  There may have been wrong-doing and there may be a need for active reform but our parliament, our police force and our free press are not bad institutions.  On the whole they are a positive force for the good.