Cultural Value

Every so often, we as a people/nation/tax-paying-public are called upon to justify not only government spending on the arts and basic science research but also the fundamental value of these pursuits. The usual defense goes something like Robert Wilson's eloquent response to Congress when asked how the building of Fermilab would impact national security. He said:

It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.*

Or, as the NEA puts it, "a great nation deserves great art."

While all this is undoubtedly true, I think there is also a more calculated and calculating argument that could be made. Cultural objects — works of art, musical performances, scientific discoveries — are commodities like any other (steel beams, livestock, paper clips). But their main value to society is not monetary. Rather, they have the same value that comes from winning Olympic medals or building the world's tallest skyscraper. They are the peacock's feathers, projecting an image of robustness and vibrancy.

At some level, science and art (and any other "useless" endeavor) can be seen as abstract and highly stylized ways of communicating and/or amassing knowledge. They all require a formidable degree of training or technical proficiency, not to mention inspiration and talent, which automatically makes them unavailable to most people. This very exclusivity is one source of value; equal distribution of goods suppresses commerce, while scarcity pushes prices up. Thus, just as asymmetry often animates a piece of art, so it also drives the creation of value in a larger, economic, sense.

Of course, the counterpart to supply is demand. Cultural objects represent a society's highest, most refined ideals, and one reason that we cultivate them (as a people) is that they demonstrate our skill and innovation, exercising a form of soft power. Art and science take years to master, and when they flourish, they proclaim a society's stability and longevity. Because they serve as a repository of cultural (and, by extension, political) capital, they are no less useful than bridge building or agriculture. However, they are valued in a different currency, a social currency that shapes the desirability of an individual or even a whole people.

And so, by making art or conducting basic science research, we set up shop in a cultural marketplace that is distinct from the financial one (even though there must obviously be some overlap). In this separate economic sphere, the value of an object lies in its creation, and a cultural transaction takes place by simply engaging with a work of art, reading a book, or transmitting a scientific idea. Therefore, to return to the opening question, I claim there is indeed a practical yet nebulous purpose for spending hard-earned cash on these cultural objects: it fosters an intangible type of wealth, as measured by the ability to move people's imaginations, to evoke wonder, and to inspire nations across the globe.




*Incidentally, Wilson, who was a pillar of the Cornell physics department for two decades, was also an accomplished sculptor, as shown by his bold design for Fermilab's main hall.