The Rise and Fall of Culture 11

March 26th, 2009 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

Charles Homans, writing for Washington Monthly, has a great article on a conservative site that found its demise in the aftermath of the economic crisis, and only months after it began.  The site was Culture 11, which aimed to discuss popular culture out of the confines of movement conservatism.  I thought it was a great site, with potential to become a rising voice in conservatism, but unfortunately it couldn’t stand up to the economy.  Its funding dried up, and it had to lay off all of its writers.  The site still exists, but only in the form of its user diaries, which its feed now broadcasts.

I was actually surprised to learn at least some of its people were paid, because anyone who pays attention to the blogosphere knows its difficult to actually get a job just doing that.

Some people, like Andrew Sullivan, do it, but it’s not the only thing he does; he has a weekly column in The Times of London, and then there’s his books.  And in any case, he has help.  His 40+ entries a day don’t all get posted by him.  The same is largely true of most popular bloggers.  They all usually do something else to supplement their blogging.

The article also notes that its lack of an ideological direction may have contributed to its demise:

The let’s-see-what-sticks approach with which the site was launched had produced contradictory ambitions—Carter’s socially conservative safe zone, Friedersdorf’s electric Kool-Aid conservatism—which, while not entirely incompatible, did make it a curious beast; there was a transparent absurdity to a journalistic enterprise with George Bush Sr.’s drug czar at the head of its board of directors attempting to take stylistic cues from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with have multiple perspectives.  We do it here, and within the space of a week just brought on both a conservative and a liberal.  Culture 11, meanwhile, was trying to air a bunch of views within the culturally conservative sphere.  But the task was becoming difficult to maintain:

And as some of the site’s contributors grew increasingly adventurous, one of the principals got skittish. In December, when a pseudonymous contributor to Ladyblog, Culture11’s “conservative feminist” forum, posted an entry titled “In Defense of the ‘Hook-up Culture,’ ” Carter yanked it off the blog. (“I didn’t like the content,” he later said. “We wanted dissent within the conservative perspective, but to me that fell out of line.”)

Interestingly, its former managing editor, Joe Carter, also noted the problem in his farewell article (emph. mine):

We disagreed, openly but politely, which seemed to confuse some and thrill others. We began to spend more time disagreeing with fellow conservatives than rehashing tired conflicts with liberals. We didn’t fear dissent or lack of consensus; we believed it was needed to improve our own positions. We had one editorial agenda: be intellectually honest. We didn’t think we were being brave or unique. But we did wonder if we were going to be read out of the conservative movement.

I think the last sentence there is important.  Culture 11 was running at a time when conservatives, particularly in the Republican party, were closing ranks.  Contrast the open-minded C11 with all the stories of Obama supporting Republicans getting chewed out by the idealogues.  There is also, of couse, the problem that moderate and more open-minded blogs in general simply don’t do as well as the more hardline sites.

One wonders not if C11 was an idea before its time (I certainly think the time is ripe for such publications), but whether paying people to run and work at such a site was before its time.  Culture 11 might have benefited from being an ambitious side project, and if it took off, then start paying people.  But to work that way as a start up with the economy tumbling and in a sphere that has an inherent bias against open-mindedness is tough, to say the least.  To do so with a movement that has had a tough time widening the tent to incorporate some of these views might be even harder.

Yet, one can hope to see it succeed, whether as a revitalized C11, or some other source.  I patiently await the day.

(H/T Andrew Sullivan)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Rudi666
    March 26th, 2009 at 17:52
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Interesting that Larison also commented on it’s demise, with an attack on the shallowness of the Riehl’s and Big Hollywood types on the Right.
    http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/03/24/culture11/

    Charles Homans recounts the too-brief history of Culture11. As a former contributor, I found it strange to be reading about the site’s demise in a magazine profile. The contrast Homans makes between C11 and Big Hollywood is instructive, and tends to confirm my rather jaundiced view of the inverse relationship between success and quality. Essentially, on one site you would find intelligent cultural criticism, and on the other you would find a lot of the cultural whining that seems especially concentrated among actors who have a political grudge with the rest of their own industry. In the former, there would be smart takes on new films by Suderman, for example, and in the latter you get Dirk Benedict complaining about how feminism corrupted the new BSG or Breitbart going off on another one of his insane rants. One site was challenging, the other flatters its audience’s prejudices. Naturally, the second one survives and thrives.

  2. Jason, Managing Editor
    March 26th, 2009 at 21:24
    Reply | Quote | #2

    One site was challenging, the other flatters its audience’s prejudices. Naturally, the second one survives and thrives.

    …and, as usual, Rudi is completely blind (and non-responsive when challenged) to the fact that quotations he endorses as criticisms of the right apply with equal validity to his own side of the ideological spectrum. This pattern is the red flag of partisan hackery.

  3. c3
    March 26th, 2009 at 22:21
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I liked culture 11. A great idea. Its sad to see it go. Maybe someone else will give it a go. Now I don’t often agree with Rudi but I would agree that PJM and Big Hollywood have too much of the “oppositional tone”. I’m not looking for a “cultural version of Fox News” just one that’s thoughtful and not reflexive in its liberal worldview. By the way, the American Scene reviews movies too.

  4. Jason, Managing Editor
    March 26th, 2009 at 22:30
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Perhaps. But whenever people like Rudi complain about “oppositional tone” on the right while remaining consistently silent about the outright vilification and demonization that is commonplace from many on their own side, I just can’t seem to let that kind of gross hypocrisy and dishonesty slide without calling it out for what it is.

  5. Michael van der Galien
    March 26th, 2009 at 22:41
    Reply | Quote | #5

    What needs to happen is this: BG is becoming a mass movement. Then that mass movement hsa to create the ability for people to write longer, thoughtful analysis. Having said that, this already appears at BH. That one example is from months ago. BH also features analysis, reviews, etc. etc. – all diving into the subject matter. It’s not all “superficial.”

  6. Michael Merritt
    March 27th, 2009 at 02:50
    Reply | Quote | #6

    I groaned a little when I got to the part about Big Hollywood because I knew you’d say something. I decided to ignore it here because I simply haven’t gone there more than a couple times yet. So I have nothing to say, good or bad.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.