Postmodernism

This weeks reading is by Mr Dick Hebdige and is entitled, 'Postmodernism and 'The Other Side'. I did find this reading a little bit baffling at times; as i just couldn't see what he was trying to conclude: one minute i thought he found Postmodernism to be a bad thing and the next it seemed like he was a fan.



Main Points

• Many things are referred to as being Postmodern: it's a bit of a buzzword
• Post can be different in different national contexts e.g UK vs USA and London ICA vs Gallic anti-populism of Lyotard
• Postmodernism can fracture through negotiation and be seen as a form of change
• There are 3 negotiations of postmodernism: Against Totalisation; Against Teleology and Against Utopia
• Against Totalisation - the abandonment of universal change; rejection of Marxism. Growth of 'representation' and 'ideology'?
• Against Teleology - use value is completely absorbed into exchange value - knowledge is more important than production.
• Against Utopia - close to 'anti-teleology'; there is no perfect state of being. the sublime is beyond our grasp.
• Gramsci focuses upon the multiple axis' of power and the popular. Importance of ideology and articulated speech.

Method

• There isn't a clear pinpointed method; but Hebdige has built upon other theorist' work and drawn his own conclusions; particularly based around Gramsci.

Conclusions

• Postmodernity is good in some ways as it tends to get rid of Marxism; but the ideas of the lack of Utopia; show postmodernity to be depressing and worse than modernity.
  

My Opinion

• I found the extract to be a little confusing. I like the idea of Marxism and classes being irrelevant in the Post but I don’t believe this will ever happen
• I agree that Utopia is near impossible to achieve and that we are fooling ourselves by believing in it, but am unsure of what was meant by Against Totalisation

Quotes

• 'Postmodernity is modernity with out the hopes and dreams which made modernity bearable'.
• ‘No one owns an ideology because ideologies are themselves in process: in a state of constant formation and reformation’.
• ‘hegemony is a precarious, ‘moving equilibrium’ achieved through the orchestration of conflicting and competing forces by more or less unstable, more or less temporary alliances of class fractions’.
  

Stuart Hall: Deconstructing 'The Popular'

Main topic and issue

• This extract focuses upon actually defining what popular cultre means by looking at the many definitions for both words.
• The reading also looks at periodisation and movements, throughout time such as the emergence of the popular press.

Main Points

• Reformation and transformation changes people: therefore it changes culture
• Revolutions and Capitalism along with the emergence of the popular press; influenced popular culture
• There are many definitions of the terms 'popular' and 'culture'. All are correct in their own way, but it is difficult to pinpoint one definition which sums up 'Popular Culture'.
• There are many different categories to 'culture'; it's always moving and always changing
• Culture = struggle: mainly class struggle, resulting in resistance (mabye even anarchy?)
• 'Tradition' is difficult to have in 'culture' as everything is constantly changing and the meanings of signs and words always change.

Methodology

• Not really mentioned - but i might suggest a form of historiograpghy as Hall discusses different eras and cultre then.

Conclusions

• 'Popular Culture' matters as it is where the struggle for and against the powerful takes place. 'It is the arena of consent and resistance'.
• 'Popular Culture' constitutes socialism and secures hegemony.
• Without 'Popular Culture' the mass would be living in a state of 'false consciousness' or does popular culture really create this?

My Opinion

• In some senses i agree with Hall, especially with the fact that 'Popular Culture' is very hard to define. However, i still don't understand whether 'Popular Culture' is a good or a bad thing: people enjoy 'Popular Culture' but is it just really being used to oppress the masses further.
• It is true that we think of things as either being a cultural object or being uncultural; there's a definate blank space inbetween which many things fit into; like Hall's example of the 'Daily Mirror' - it's not working class; but it's not fleet street level, so where does it fit in?
• Personally, i feel that 'popular Culture' and 'Culture' in general is a very complicated chasm, which once opened and the further and further you dig the more complicated it gets!

Useful Quotes

• 'The study of 'Popular Culture' keeps shifting between these two, quite unacceptable, poles: pure 'autonomy' or total 'encapsulation'.'
• 'Actually it recognises that almost all cultural forms will be contradictory in this sense, composed of antagnostic and unstable elements. The meaning of a cultural form and it's place or position in the cultural field is not inscribed inside it's form. Nor is its position fixed once and forever'.
• 'There is a continuous and necessary uneven and unequal struggle, by the dominant culture, constantly to disorganise and reorganise popular culture; to enclose and confine its definitions and forms within a more inclusive range of dominant forms. There are points of resistance; there are also moments of supersession. This is the dialectic of cultural struggle.'

Week 3: The Frankfurt School

This week in Media Culture, we looked at The Frankfurt School: a ‘school of thought’, comprising of individuals connected to the Frankfurt University.

The main theorists we looked at were: Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Jurgen Habermas.

My task for this week is to construct a Frankfurt School critique of a culture industry.

The industry I’ve chosen is that of online celebrity gossip such as: Perez Hilton, Mr Paparazzi and TMZ.

This industry would be a concern to the Frankfurt School as it epitomises all of
their shared concerns for society and culture:

• Mass Production - most of the stories featured are reproduced; mainly as they're all from the same sources and the sites tend to copy off one another. As Horkheimer would say it has 'the same stamp on everything'.
• Culture Industry - this form of 'culture' is very negative to the Frankfurt School.
• Mass Oppression - the position of those featured in these websites is a frequent reminder of our positions in the superstructure and how they will not change. The mass production of the stories also supports this and highlights this fact even more. To readers the view is that only the elite are allowed to appear on these websites.

Online celebrity gossip websites do not contain the social needs which Habermas states are importnat to a cultural society. These are aesthetic, theraputic and explicative discourses: that focus upon the importance of the curator and critic; self knowledge and the use of language. The language used in the gossip websites is very informal; with many posts simply being a question and a large image or video. Not that cultrual if you ask me.

These online gossip websites are extremely standardised in their relationship to the industry; as they form the basis for many celebrity magazines and all place high importance on embaressing images of celebrities and scandals. The style of the websites is that of a tabloid newspaper.

Pseudo Individualization is also apparent in these celebrity gossip websites; as they all attempt to be individual; whilst they try to make there readers forget that what they are reading they have read before. Perez Hilton does this by grafitting the images on his website; TMZ create their own videos and Mr Paparazzi man uses his own 'Paps'. However, this still does not take away from the fact that what we are reading is regurgitated.

The Leavis' and The Canon - my interpretation

This week in Media Culture; we studied F.R and Queenie Leavis; looking in some detail at The Canon.

The Canon was created to contain a list of 'authoritative' examples of work and authors; which contained Universal Values which were shared and upheld in society.

In class we came up with lists and films and bands which we thought the Leavis' would choose to be in The Canon; which made me realise how difficult it is to choose a 'sweetness and light' text and to put your own opinion to the back of your mind.

So, my task for this week was to attempt to write a Leavis style analysis of a media text; similar to what would have been seen in 'Scrutiny'.

The media text I am going to scrutinize is.............'The Sun' newspaper.

The Sun newspaper is a disgrace to modern journalism. All it is concerned about is Sex, Celebrity and Sport. Politics is rarely featured (unless a politician is involved in a sex scandal) and finding a business story is like finding a needle in a haystack.

The average reader of 'The Sun' is part of the Populace, who likes nothing more than to shout, swear and drink: therefore it's not surprising that this newspaper is known for it's Page 3 girls and has a reading level of an 11 year old.

The style of 'The Sun' is all about the images and not about the text; the only text they place importance on is the headlines; as they try and fail to make them as witty as possible.

All in all, this newspaper is a disgrace and has no cultural importance to it. Culture to 'The Sun' is a high class Porno!

Matthew Arnold (Culture and Anarchy) claims that culture, ‘has one great passion, the passion for sweetness and light’ and ‘the passion for making them prevail’. Culture is ‘the best that is though or said’. When this is achieved the whole of society is in the fullest measure of real thought, real beauty, real sweetness and real light. Speaking of classes Arnold says culture:

‘seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been thought
and known in the world current everywhere; to make all men live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light, where they may use ideas, as it uses them itself, freely – nourished and not bound by them’.

Based on Arnold’s distinctions; I’ve found it really hard to try and find a media text I thought epitomised ‘sweetness and light’ as everyone’s idea of what contains ‘sweetness and light’ differs not only based on their culture but based on personal opinion.

After much deliberation; I believe that Slumdog Millionaire is a media text that contains, ‘sweetness and light’. My reasons for this: the film shows that anything is possible if you put your mind to it; it doesn’t focus upon class – it may focus upon a young boy’s struggle, but the ending is a traditional happy ending. Another way in which the film contains ‘sweetness and light’ is because it allows for insight (for me) into another’s culture and it made me appreciate the things I have in my life more.

The film shows real thought in it’s scripting and the way every answer to the ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire’ leads to a story. Real beauty is seen through the backdrop of the film, but mainly through the love story and how Jamel will do anything to find Latika. Finally real sweetness and light are seen in the feel-good feeling or atmosphere the film ends with, making it the best that is thought or said.

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding

I wouldn't say that the 'Gypsy/Traveller's' culture was a part of my culture but i really fancied watching 'My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding' on Channel 4 this week just to gain a bit of an insight. By the looks of things i wasn't the only one as 4.5million people watched the programme.

I have to say my eyes have been well and truly opened to aspects of the Gypsy/Traveller's culture and to be completely honest, i think we could all take notes form them: the children don't drink, smoke or do drugs and they do not have sex before marriage. These rules are actually stuck to, which really surprises me.

There may be aspects of their culture that i find wierd such as the young ages at which they marry, but it seems to work for them and as divorce is not accepted in their culture; the couples have to work at their marriages and aren't able to take the easy way other through divorce; like people who i'd associate with my culture do.

The only thing i can't quite put my finger on and fully except is the style of clothing the young girls wore and the reason's behind it. I know certain meet-ups were used for the girls to find suitors; but i suppose that not to dress in very little is something so heavily embedded in my family culture; that i will find it hard to accept.

However, i do feel like i'm starting to realise what culture is and how accepting other cultures and embracing aspects of other people's cultures may improve my own.

Culture according to F.R.Leavis and Raymond Williams

Raymond Williams describes culture as ‘one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language’. I have to admit it agree. I asked my mum and my boyfriend what they thought culture meant; to which my mum replied, ‘I suppose culture is described by what you believe in and the things/hobbies you do’ and my boyfriend replied, ‘I’d say it’s something people want to have. You associate culture with rich people; art, books, theatre’. This led to a great discussion about the classes and turned into a bit of a Marxism rant!

However, Richard Williams does give a good description of culture in Keywords by splitting it into three categories: ‘Ideal’ which is ‘the best that is thought or said’; ‘Documentary’ which responds to ‘how we live or have lived’ and ‘Social’ which is described as ‘the stuff that surrounds us’. Knowing this description helped me to better understand the F.R.Leavis reading, ‘Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture’.

One of the clear messages I got from this reading was similar to that of Matthew Arnold’s ‘Culture and Anarchy’: class is everything and class is minority keeping. Whether culture is trying to do away with classes to create an atmosphere of sweetness or light or whether by splitting the population into Barbarians, Philistines and Populace, culture is really highlighting the class differences: a person’s class is important to a person’s culture.

So to F.R.Leavis himself; who seems to look in detail at language and culture through literature. Firstly Leavis states that he believes culture to be in a crisis. I got the impression he blames Americanisation for this. Leavis looks at how Americanisation has impacted on films; taking a very negative look in my eyes; suggesting that Americanisation has led to the dumbing-down of films and literature and therefore the lowering on culture.

Leavis states how because the variety and number of types of literature has increased since Wordsworth’s time; meaning one has to be especially gifted or favoured, before he begins to discriminate. I understood this to mean that nowadays in order to discriminate against another’s culture; you yourself must be of a high class or of a high culture. This maybe harder to achieve nowadays if high culture is becoming harder to find or attain.

‘High-Brow’ is also touched upon by Leavis and I have to admit this term confuses me as I always though high culture and high-brow were more or less the same thing. In the reading high-brow is said to cut off the minority from the powers of the world as never before: once again the idea of class is being thrown back into the works.

The conclusion is simply, that culture is in trouble. Mass culture will not save the culture we are losing. Modern life and Americanisation seem to be the reasons for the loss of culture. Add the importance of class into this and the ever widening boundaries between classes and culture really is in trouble.