7

Why Pop Culture?

Posted: August 24, 2010 at 8:00 am | Tags: convergence, cultural relativism, hi/lo culture, pop culture, power, symbolic artifacts

The readings for today introduce us to important definitions in the critical and cultural studies traditions. I outline my thoughts on some of them here. While this is not a graded individual blog post, the questions I pose here (as in future posts that review readings) are not simply rhetorical. I’d like for you think about them and offer a comment (on this blog, not your own). I don’t object to you discussing on your own blogs (for that counts toward overall participation, too), I simply encourage you to comment here toward a group conversation. Additionally, these questions are intended as prompts for in class and Twitter discussion.

From Danesi:

The phrase “pop culture” surfaced in the United States in the 1950s. The post-war and baby boom era brought unprecedented buying power, especially to the new class of “teenagers.”

It’s important to understand culture historically and subjectively, also known as cultural relativism. This means we have to work hard to not morally or even aesthetically judge forms of pop culture by current standards. This doesn’t mean we can’t form and share opinions, just that the practice of cultural critique involves analyzing culture on “its own terms” (p. 3).

Scholars and fans alike have contested the distinctions of high, mid and low categories of popular culture. The examples Danesi shares in Table 1.1 on page 6 identify Mozart and Frontline (a PBS program) as high culture, while PBS is listed  as mid along with Oprah. Finally, American Idol and Budweiser are included as examples of low culture. What do you make of these placements? Are they arbitrary or do they make sense based on your understanding of high/mid/lo culture choices? What institutions and/or types of people impact what becomes hi, mid or low?

On page 25, Negroponte’s definition of convergence culture is included as an example of how media, technology and cultural forms are becoming intertwined and, I argue, indistinguishable, if we combine this with McLuhan’s symbolic artifacts (where culture, society and science are conflated). Your reading uses the jukebox and the automobile as prime examples of convergent, symbolic artifacts. What examples exist today? (Hint: this is a prime example of how to engage popular culture via Twitter! Perhaps, tweet your ideas? #justsaying)

The article also discusses entertainment spectacles. What are prime spectacles in popular culture we currently consume? How have they changed from previous eras that Danesi outlines?

From Martin:

The concept of power is crucial in critically analyzing popular culture. Everyday life may feel as it moves along naturally, put our actions and experiences are very much tied to politics and people/institutions in power (p. 13). This doesn’t just mean economic power but also cultural power and identity politics. Her argument, grounded in Marx and Gramsci (which we discuss soon), encourages an understanding of structures and policies that organize and command our lives and choices, but also that we interrogate how we operate within, around (or perhaps beyond) these rules and forces.

From Storey:

Our textbook author summarizes key terms such as Marxism, hegemony, ideology and articulation toward emphasizing the political nature of culture. If you don’t grasp what these ideas mean, ask here, as they are foundational to critical theory. In fact, rather than me regurgitating the definitions here why don’t you attempt commenting your interpretations of one of the above four terms?