A smidgen of Stuart Hall on popular culture

Hall's 'Notes on deconstructing 'The Popular'' focuses on the topic of popular culture; addressing the issues of movements and periodisations linked to popular culture and discussing the problems with definitions of both terms.

Main points (there are lots) argued include:

1. Culture changes in periods but so do people, who are reformed and transformed.
2. Historical changes influencing popular culture such as revolutions, capitalism and changes to press.
3. Definitions of 'popular culture'and the 'problems' with these definitions.
4. There is no fixed category of culture, therefore there is no fixed subject to attach it to 'the people'.
5. Popular culture is about stuggle; for and against the powerful and something which evokes consent and resistant in different amounts.
6.Problem with 'tradition' in popular culture - its vital but meaning changes over time (e.g. the swastika)

Hall combines a historical reflection/critique of ideas on popular culture with his own definitions and thoughts, and then analyses and challenges the cocncepts by highlighting the problems with each of the terms. I think this was a really useful method because although he argued his points well, he remains critical that no definition is infinate and that problems can be found in all studies of popular culture.

Hall's conclusions argue that the term 'popular culture' is and has always been problematic and that there are many other 'factors' which contribute to its definition such as audience, traditions and class. He believes that popular culture is where 'struggle for and against a culture of the powerful is engaged'.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Hall discusses in the article; based mainly on the fact that I found it very difficult to pin a definition on the term 'culture' to begin with (and still do to be honest). I think he is right that there are many contributing relations such as 'the people', historical changes and traditions; which add to and also provide problems when trying to define what popular culture is. I agree that popular culture is about struggle; some people will readily accept what the 'masses' do and others will disregard things that don't 'fit in' with their own interests/ideas.

Several quotes I found useful within the reading because they summarise Hall's main points well and show how the definition of popular culture is difficult to close down:

"The study of popular culture keeps shifting between these two, quite unacceptable poles: pure 'autonomy' or total encapsulation."

"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."

"Culture is not already permanently inscribed with the conditions of a class before that struggle begins. The struggle consists in the success or failure to give 'the cultursl' a socialist accent."

Frankfurt School-style critique of the consumer magazine industry

I have chosen the 'glossy-weekly' magazine industry as the basis of this critique, inspired by the ideas and 'thoughts' of the Frankfurt School scholars Adorno and Horkheimer.I feel that this is one strand of the media industry that demonstrates how mass-produced cultural products are standardized and leave little choice for the reader.

The nature of the women's magazine industry is centred around providing all the latest celebrity gossip, 'real-life' trash, latest fashion and offering reams of useless 'agony-aunt-style' relationship advice. The agenda of every single one of the 20+ weekly mags is to encourage women to buy them and buy into the celeb/lifestyle culture by thinking they have to keep up with the gossip and latest trends.

Adorno and Horkheimer's beliefs that mass-produced culture is standardized can clearly be applied to the 'weekly-mag' market. The shelves of magazines each week are filled with exactly the same stories - all claiming that their's is the exclusive. Take Katie Price - her latest marriage to Alex Reid was splashed over all the mags that week and it's the same for every other celeb drama. They're all talking about Cheryl Cole, Brad and Angelina, who's pregnant this week, who's split up, who's getting it on etc etc etc. If you covered up the name on every cover, you'd never tell which was which - they're all soooooooo similar.

The idea of pseudo individulisation - cultural products made to give the user the impression of choice, when really there is none - can also be applied to the magazine industry. Just count the number of weekly women's mags on the shelf - clearly there is plenty of choice. But is there really? If they're all talking about the same thing and thrusting the same 'must-buys' under your nose, then where's the choice?

The Frankfurt School shared concerns that the 'masses are oppressed through culture' and that cultural products are 'perpetuating false conciousness'. I think these thoughts can be applied to women's mags because the sheer volume of standardized magazines could quite realistically lead readers to accept that this is our culture - everyone's interested in celebs and lifestyle - and that's the way it is.

Benjamin's suggestion that individual reactions to mass products are pre-determined also rings true. We're lead to believe that we must keep up with the latest fashion and celeb gossip else we won't fit in with the rest of society. It's sad but its true - women's mags have their own agenda and ladies, we're falling for it!

Hmmmmm......point proven, I think.

'Sweetness and light' (in the eyes of Arnold)

So, up until last night, I was really struggling to find a media text which I thought offered the 'sweetness and light' that Matthew Arnold - school inspector, minor poet and critic of cultural decline - talked of. Arnold argued that culture is 'the best that is thought or said' and culture improves us and is the key to education.

So, very uninspired at that point, I visited the cinema to see the much-anticipated Clint Eastwood epic Invictus - starring Morgan Freeman as the incredible social and political champion Nelson Mandela.

It took little more than 10 minutes of the film for the penny to drop. The film takes the very essence of cultural and social divide in South Africa and tells the incredible story of one man - oppressed by white South African culture for more than 30 years - and his mission to build bridges and unite the country through its passion for rugby.

So, why does it offer me 'sweetness and light?' Well, I think it can offer all those who see the film an insight into the terrible ways in which cultures can divide a nation and how we should be more accepting of differences in social and political beliefs.

Several moments within the film gave me reason to think 'yes, that is the best that is thought or said'. Mandela utters the words 'I am the master of my faith, I am the captain of my soul' - he sees the wrong committed during the apartheid but he fails to let his own pain and suffering stand in the way of making a change to a whole nation, divided for so long by different cultures.

The film communicates many values which I think make it such a great example of Arnold's 'sweetness and light'.

Forgiveness - Mandela is so openly forgiving of the people who kept him captive for nearly 30 years because of his skin colour and background. I think this is the most valuable lesson we can learn.

Acceptance and tolerance - of other people and their beliefs; race, skin colour and social background should not blur our perceptions of those around us.

Determination and courage - to succeed in our aims in life and overcome the biggest of boundaries to fulfil what we truly believe in.

I certainly came away from the film inspired by the story of such an important figure in democracy, human rights and social reform and I hope that everyone who sees it takes away valuable lessons that Mandela has preached his entire life.

What's cheap and sentimental? The tabloids of course!

Stepping into the shoes of the famous elitist F.R. Leavis, the following analysis will completely rip apart a media text which I think the man himself would do if he was still with us! The question: choose a media text that you think Leavis would consider cheap, sentimental and appealing to base emotions. The answer: tabliod newspapers.

So, why do I (and why would Leavis)consider tabloids to be cheap? Well the obvious answer is they are literally - 20p for the Daily Star, 30p for The Sun - compared to The Times/Guardian (90p-£1). But their content is cheap - rumour-led, celeb-based, paparazzi-style gossip. And that's exactly the point - it's all just gossip (look at so-and-so falling out of London club drunk, another cheating footballer gets found out), who cares? (Except for the few million who buy tabloids daily, obviously.)

The pages and pages of celeb gossip and novelty human interest pieces appeal to the very base emotions Leavis describes. A bit of humour, a snigger at the Page 3 air-head's boobs and a sneer at anything else with a hint of serious-news-issue about it. In the eyes of Leavis, it's a paper for the working class, the unruly 'masses' that he feared were a threat to 'culture'.

So, onto the values of the tabloid paper (this shouldn't take long). 'Great literature has values we all recognise and share, and that makes them great' (Leavis). Well, in that case, I'd say that tabloids aren't great literature as I'm struggling to see the values that I share with The Sun. Does it even have any values? It shows commitment to appeal to the supposed values of it's readers - a light take on life, something to brighten up their day. But actual values - I'm stuck!

If I was Leavis, I would say that tabloid newspapers uphold the 'values' of the middle-aged, working class male (whatever they are!) with an interest in sport, women and a dislike of politics. They provide no educational material (no chance of making the 'canon' then) and have no place in middle-class society. They appeal to the populace, who have no air of culture about them whatsoever!

Sufficiently ripped apart I think!

A spot of reading

F.R. Leavis, in Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture, argues that only a small minority of society are able to appreciate ‘culture’ (art and literature) and offer first-hand judgment, in any period. This minority are depended on to keep the traditions of culture going in the modern day:

“Upon them depend the implicit standards that order the finer living of an age, the sense that this is worth more than that, this rather than that is the direction in which we go...”

Leavis refers to ‘culture’ as language, something he believes the art of fine living depends upon. Culture today is at crisis, he believes. ‘The Machine’ has changed society and it is argued that this transformation will inevitably cause harm to the ‘traditional’ standards of living. The suggestion that we are becoming ‘Americanised’ is exemplified by the Press – mass-produced and standardised and film culture – ‘illusions of actual life’.

Turning to literature, Leavis argues that the benchmark for ‘cultured people’ is not as high as it used to be:

‘...the average cultivated person of a century ago was a very much more competent reader than his modern representative.’

The plight of culture is ultimately blurred. Distinctions and dividing lines (between classes/high and low culture) have merged and the boundaries are no longer set in stone. The prospect of culture, then, is ‘very dark’, as standardisation sweeps across the world. Leavis accepts that a ‘mass culture’ might be better than its predecessor but sees the ‘utterly new’ as a fruitless alternative. So, what are we to do? ‘Keep open our communications with the future’.

This belongs to my culture...

So, we were asked in our first Media Cultures lecture to come up with a media text that expresses or 'belongs to' our culture. As you may know, it took a while to get my head around the word 'culture' itself, let alone find something which represents what I think the word means!

Anyway, I've decided that many of my interests, passions, ambitions and aspirations are encapsulated in Style, the Sunday Times’ magazine. Unlike many of the ‘glossy weeklies’ (yes, I admit to taking a peek now and again), Style offers me everything I could want: fashion, styling, latest trends, upcoming musicians and so much more.

On top of all the fabulous things above, Style appeals to me because it does them all in an interesting, arty, indie-chic way that no other magazine I’ve found does. The photographs are beautiful, capturing beauty, style but more intriguingly, the emotion and feelings of those in the frame. Yes, it addresses the issues that most women’s magazines do (relationships, careers, well-being) but it does so with more imagination, detailed research and creative writing. Another two of my interests feature in Style; interior design and good food! Okay, so I live at home and I’m no Jean Christophe Novelli but a girl can dream can’t she? By not giving me affordable, student-budget lifestyle choices; Style gives me everything I hope to have one day and something to strive for.

I feel that Style is part of my culture in many ways. Firstly, as a figure of the female species, its part of my lifestyle culture; fashion, beauty, living, dining and socialising. Although part of the ‘grown-up’, quality Times family, the magazine is aimed at aspiring young professionals (a la moi) with common interests. And it seems to fit my own approach to culture – a bit of this and that. It dabbles in all circles and its content varies weekly. A final thought is that Style is part of my professional culture – it belongs to the journalist in me. It digs out the real issues behind all the make-up, designer clothes and celebrity frolics and it discusses them in an informed, intelligent yet compelling fashion.

My cultural, social, style, lifestyle and career aspirations all rolled into one magazine – perfect!

Your culture = your identity?

Does it really? I don’t think it does. They’re closely related; your identity and personal interests will clearly influence the forms of culture you engage with and likewise, the cultures you exist within will play a part in shaping your identity. Culture is something we share with other people whereas individual identity is unique to every one of us. But maybe we have more than one identity (stick with me here!)

I believe I’m part of several cultures, and I guess a lot of you feel the same. On a wider scale, I’m part of British culture; I championed Brit-pop when I was a youngster, I love a nice cuppa tea, fish ‘n’ chips, Sunday dinners, country pubs, reading the papers, trawling the high-street and embracing all other stereotypical British connotations. I’m part of student culture (well, I try); socialising, drinking, trying to get discount on everything, being permanently in debt, moaning about being in debt – you get the idea! Music culture - a huge ‘circle’ of its own – is another I dip in and out of. I wouldn’t say it’s my most cherished, but I do engage in irregular bouts when a new band pop up or a song on the radio catches my attention.

I’d say a big part of me is attached to equestrian culture. Something with which I engage because it’s part of my individual identity. But interestingly, there are some aspects of this ‘culture’ which I don’t feel part of. Stereotypically, equestrianism is seen as an ‘elite’ sport, polo for example is traditionally the sport of the wealthy (Charlie, Wills and Harry all do it!) Horses, upkeep, training, competing – all cost money. But I wouldn’t consider my family to be wealthy and so I don’t see myself as fitting in with this ‘elite’ circle. My experience of this culture is different.

So, I think it’s safe to say that there are thousands of ‘cultures’, ‘circles’, ‘groups’ or whatever you want to call them out there and everyone is part of one or a number of them. The extent to which you engage in any particular culture differs, largely due to your own interests and curiosities. Some cultures we know instantly that we ‘fit in’ and many we don’t and probably never will. My closing thoughts then; we’re made up of several ‘faces’ of identity which fit the different cultures we’re part of. Some are personal to us as individuals and some we share within a cultural group – either way, culture and identity fall hand-in-hand, each influencing and shaping the other.

What does it mean?

I hope I'm not the only one a little baffled by the word 'culture'. I mean, I could probably attach a meaning to it but there's so many, and which one is the right one? I'm comforted by the words of theorist Raymond Williams in Keywords:

"Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language." (1978:87)

Williams makes three distinctions of the ambiguous term. Firstly, suggesting that culture can be seen as an ideal - 'the best that is thought or said'. Secondly, culture can be a documentary - 'of how we live or have lived' and finally, he argues that culture is a social term - 'the stuff that surrounds us'.

I agree with all of the distinctions, but for me, the latter closely resides alongside my own understanding of culture. I see culture as being something going on around me, something which I can engage in and with in many ways, if and when I choose to. It's something which has long existed but it evolves as society and people change. I hope, at some point later, to discuss and challenge the traditional binarisms of culture: high vs low, elite vs commonplace and mass vs popular.

But, for now at least, I feel my understanding of the term culture is beginning to take shape. I'm sure this story will change my thoughts and ideas and I hope it will challenge my preconceptions. We shall see...

And so the story begins...

A story of culture. My culture. Other people's culture. British culture. Student culture. The list is endless. My aim however, is to share my thoughts and feelings, questions and answers, ideas and experiments of and about culture in its various forms. I'm looking forward to how the story unfolds...