Today’s readings explore the concept of the relationship between economics and culture as developed through Marxist theory. What facets of cultural & social analysis from Marx and Adorno do you find most useful for studying popular culture? And how might this mode of Marxist critique fit within the Culture & Civilization vs. Culturalism debates?
Theories of Popular Culture
Class blog for AMST0355, Spring 09, Middlebury College
One of Marx’s most interesting arguments is that a society’s mode of production determines its political, social and cultural existence. Modes of production and production relations, or class relations, connect to popular culture because a person’s job and financial function within society often relate to how he or she views, uses, and creates popular culture. Stereotypically, and as proponents of the Culture and Civilization approach argued, working class members often seek an escape from the difficulties and responsibilities of their lives, often economic realities, through pop culture. Upper class members, on the other hand, typically view popular culture as something that belongs to the lower classes, whereas they use high culture texts to demonstrate their educations and what is accessible to them. Like Leavis and Arnold, members of the Frankfurt school argued that pop culture was bad for the masses, but for different reasons. They argues that pop culture keeps the masses limited and confined, while “authentic” culture is created to improve the world (Storey, Introduction, page 50). They also believed that when culture becomes accessible to everyone, there is no longer a push for democracy, and so the current social order is reinforced. (Storey, Introduction, page 52)
I also thought about economics and pop culture in terms of globalization. Globalization is essentially the spread of American culture and ideologies throughout the world. It is deeply connected to economics in various ways. For example, the owners of these spreading companies gain huge profits, which is very motivating for these companies. Also, for places like MacDonald’s, the marketing of the food is the marketing not only of an American food, but of an American that is cheap.
Ultimately, a great deal of pop culture is designed to be consumed, or something is deemed pop culture because of how vastly it is consumed. The importance of consumption to popular culture is entwined with Marx’s and Adorno’s arguments about modes of production and production relations.
Adorno’s theory is particularly useful in explaining the cachet of vintage culture. We can extrapolate his comments regarding popular music as an instrument of social control to say that vintage culture is seen as superior and liberating because its ideology is outdated, and therefore no longer dominant. For example, music from the 50s, much of which was part of a government-initiated propriety campaign, no longer speaks to us in a constraining, repressive way; rather we find in it the romanticism of a bygone era. Should this music become re-appropriated by the superstructure, it would face revolt as soon as the base detected the change in ownership.
This interpretation also serves as a framework for analyzing the work of Culture & Civilization scholars, whom we could see as either 1) inadvertently Marxist-leaning thinkers who were unaware of the motivation behind their own preference for the past; or 2) Philosophers of the superstructure, creating an ideology to enforce the intellectual subordination of the working-class base.
I think a measure of both applies.
Vis-à-vis the C&C vs. Culturalism debate, the Marxist critique is more in line with culturalism by virtue of its conception of societal power structures. Marx argues that the classes in power possess a monopoly on intellectual as well as economic capital that allows them to dictate the public discourse in a manner beneficial to themselves. Though he does not discuss qualitative differences between products of any particular society, implicit in his argument is the belief that all judgments of value rely on subjective analyses that may appear objective due to their hegemonic status. Further, as he argues that generations will adjust and tweak their inherited hegemonic cultural narratives, he implies that cultural symbols can change in meaning. This fits the culturalist perspective, for culturalism maintains that in order to more accurately understand the significance of any artifact we must attempt to understand the context in which it was created.
Through looking at societal factors such as the forces of production and the political and educational institutions, Marxism provides some form of causation as to elitist cultural claims rather than as C&C claims that things should. Marx and Engels argue that ‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’. This is similar to the Cult. & Civilization approach, but Marxism argues that the dominance of the ruling class’ ideology is inherent, whereas C & C in a self-appreciating manner believes that the ruling class simply should dominate.
I found Adorno’s concept of mass culture, particularly his treatment of the commodification, fascinating. On popular music, he writes “The moment of recognition is that of effortless sensation. The sudden attention attached to this moment burns itself out instanter and relegates the listener to a realm of inattention and distraction”. This brought to mind the rise of the ‘mashup’ genre of music as DJ’s capitalize on society’s yearning for the ‘effortless sensation’ of recognition.
First, I would like to clarify something in Sarah’s response: “Like Leavis and Arnold, members of the Frankfurt school argued that pop culture was bad for the masses, but for different reasons.” I agree with Sarah in that that the frankfurt school is concerned with conformity and depoliticization – that is to say, they claim the culture industry wants to keep the masses satisfied with the present rather than keep alive their hopes for a better world. However, I don’t think that the scholars of Culture and Civilization (Arnold perhaps more so than Leavis) really give a damn at all about the masses. Arnold’s argument isn’t that pop culture is bad for the “masses” or the “working class”, but it’s disruptive to the established social order. If it’s bad for anyone, it’s “bad” for Arnold and other people who enjoy high standing in society. Perhaps a better way to put it is that one views pop culture as disruptive to the social order while the other reinforces the current social order (which Sarah did point out, but I just wanted to clarify).
Andrey’s comment on vintage culture made me think of something kinda related but quite different: The historical drama. Take Neil Jordan’s 1996 film Michael Collins (starring Liam Neeson) for example. For those of you haven’t seen the film, it takes place around the 1916 Easter Rising of the Irish Civil War. Now keep in mind that this film was released when the religious violence known as the “troubles” was plaguing Ireland and 2 years before the signing of the Treaty of Belfast. My point is this: many contemporary conflicts are so distressing or controversially loaded that it’s difficult to tackle them head on. A good historical drama, as screenwriter and author Robert McKee says, “polishes the past into a mirror, making clear and bearble the painful problems of the present.” Do we still consider a good historical drama to be what Adorno refers to as “social cement?” My point is simply this – not all works of the culture industry are designed to satisfy desires and make people content with the world as it is. I suppose members of the Frankfurt school might consider the historical drama as one type of ‘authentic’ culture in that it can (though doesn’t always by any means) “keep alive the human desire for a better world.”
Though I realize we might not be to Althusser yet (or get there), I couldn’t help but see the relationship between the historical drama to his concept of the ‘problematic.’ He might say that in order to fully understand the meaning of a historical drama, we have to be aware of the assumptions which inform it (that is to say the current political, social, etc. context of the text’s production).
I do acknowledge (and challenge you to do the same) that there are several historical dramas that don’t function in this “authentic” manner and instead make us content with our current situation. Anybody notice the recent cycle of WWII films (i.e. The reader, Defiance starring Daniel Craig, The Black Book, the Counterfeiters, etc. )? Or have any of you noticed that ever since the USA went into Iraq there have been a lot of historical films about times when America was “fighting the right fight” or when we persevered against all odds (i.e. Civil Dawn, or less recent films like Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbor)? I’m sure you can think of more examples, but my point is this – historical dramas (or products of the culture industry in general) can also reinforce the dominant ideology of the dominant ideological forces of the present.
And, finally, I also find it interesting how a lot of these films try to act as if they are impartial and that the ideas they express, as Marx puts it, “take on the form of universality.” This is a really important topic I think we will encounter frequently in our cultural and social studies. Can a text ever truly represent the interests of all members of society as some many of them claim to? If not (and I think this is the more probably answer), we must think about whose interests are being represented and what those controlling the means of cultural production stand to gain from presenting their position as “the only rational, universally valid one”?
Because I fervently reject most Marxisms, I found it difficult to accept any relation between true Marxism and modern popular culture. With the advent of pieces of pop culture produced by anyone and everyone to share on the internet, it is hard to accept that any one group controls the means of production. The ideas that the ruling classes (now the government and Forbes 100 business board members) could still control what media we encounter every day has been thoroughly debunked by the success of YouTube, Hulu, and other online media outlets. If the masses were still being subjected to the will of the ruling classes, “Evolution of Dance” wouldn’t have 20 million hits.
I find marxism both essential and outdated in the study of popular culture.
In my opinion, by far the most compelling concept to derive from marxist theory is Hegemony. This balance of dominant culture being met with resistance and acceptance is fascinating and I believe it to be incredibly relevant in the field of cultural studies.
Much though the post-modern populist in me wants to give power to the masses, destroy the author, and deny the existence of the divide between high and low culture. There is something to be said for superstructures and bases. There is a balance of top down/bottom up culture that I believe will exist as long as the masses consume popular culture in a capitalist society.
In regards to the similarities between C&C and Marxism, they seem to reach different conclusions from what is more or less the same theory. They both understand the value of high culture, yet at the same time believe it needs to be kept separate from the masses. The difference arises in their reasons for separation, C&C think playing Beethoven in a night club in Manchester will cause social anarchy, Marxist believe it will cause social complacency. I’m not sure I believe either.
Also, this is just a pet peeve of mine but globalization is not “essentially the spread of American culture and ideologies throughout the world”. Globalization is partly to do with time-space-compression but is also a process of hybridization (not cultural imperialism) that creates a kind of culture blur across the globe. But maybe I missed the memo on Hollywood and Baseball copy-writing hegemony.
In their essay Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas, Marx and Engels make an interesting remark as they suggest that pop culture is a tool by which the elite maintains cultural dominance and social control over the masses. This point does not conflict with the Culture & Civilizationist ideology which suggests that mass culture only takes away elements from but does not contribute anything to high culture. This one-way cultural movement enables the elite to use pop culture as means of cultural domination and to suppress the masses.
The concepts of standardization and pseudo-individualization from Adorno’s essay on popular music also fit into the general scenario conveyed in this post. In his essay, Adorno claims that the elite is responsible for the standardization and simplification of popular music. Although the masses are given the right to choose what they want, this choice is an illusion because products of pop culture are similar in essence due to their standardized forms. This standardization enables the elite to dominate over the masses culturally and create a problematic but common sense of individuality. Adorno names the formation of this problematic sense of individuality as pseudo-individualization.
There is something very negative about culture of the masses that I find in Adorno’s statements that is reminiscent how ‘passive’ cultural and civilization theorists like Leavis and McDonald claim the masses are. I find it interesting that Adorno states that the products and process of mass culture, or what they called ‘cultural industry,’ are marked by two features: cultural homogeneity and predictability. Adorno also states that popular music promotes passive listening and that extensive and boring work of the masses causes them to be passive for plain satisfaction of popular music in their leisure time.
It’s as almost if there isn’t a novelty or creativity in products and that there will be a constant reproduction of the same thing. It makes you wonder who it is up to create a novelty and if the masses are the ones that are supposed to and tend to keep things going the same mundane and predictable way, will there ever be anything different and new? It also makes you wonder if anything will match up to the original or become as creative as the original, referring back to that feeling of nostalgia.
Correction: as of right now, 114 million.