Postmodernism and 'The Other Side' - Dick Hebdige (1986)

Hebdige identifies the term 'postmodern' as a 'buzzword'; broadly used over a number of disciplines and for a number of reasons and therefore explains that it is an incredibly ambiguous term which is difficult to define.

Consequently, he doesn't bother and instead creates an endless list of ideas set out by other theorists without ever seeming to reach his own conclusions. He does however provide a good reference of important points from postmodern theorists such as Lyotard and Gramsci and provides a positive spin on Marxism;

"A Marxism without guarantees is a Marxism which has suffered a sea change... a Marxism more prone perhaps to listen, learn, adapt and to appreciate, for instance, that words like 'emergency' and 'struggle' don't just mean fight, conflict, war and death but birthing, the prospect of new life emerging: a struggling to the light."

Hebdige suggests that postmodernism, although over-used, is still relevant and important and forms a lot of important cultural debates. This may have been the case in the 1980's however, in 2010 we need to look ahead to the new theories which are emerging all the time.

The question now is; what happens post-postmodernism?

Notes on Deconstructing 'The Popular' - Stuart Hall

Finally, a theorist who doesn't believe that popular culture is the end of a civilised and educated society! Hall makes it clear that cultural struggles and the transformations of cultures and traditions are necessary and acceptable.

He begins the chapter by talking about 'periodisation', in other words, the historical theories based around popular culture and the problems that arise from those theorists speaking only from a certain time. Hall does not really seem to reach a conclusion of any sort about these issues, he merely points out their existence, therefore warning us of cultural theories from the past which may not have so much relevance or truth today.

Hall then goes on to discuss the meanings of the word 'popular' when put together with the word 'culture'. He gives us two fairly basic definitions. First a 'common-sense' meaning:

"The things which are said to be 'popular' because masses of people listen to them, buy them, read them, consume them and seem to enjoy them to the full."

Second, a more 'anthropological' meaning:

"Popular culture is all those things that 'the people' do or have done."

However, he explains that these two definitions have many flaws and are too general when describing such a complicated theory. He therefore goes on to give us a far less concise, but apparently more accurate, definition of popular culture:

"Those forms and activities which have their roots in the social and material conditions of particular classes; which have been embodied in popular traditions and practices."

Suggesting that modern day culture is often closely linked with traditional values instead of being, as many of the cultural theorists I have read seem to think, a modern disgrace and mockery of traditions.

One point on this chapter which I think is important to highlight is that Hall, quite unlike the Frankfurt School theorists, says that you cannot generalise a cultural form as a whole:

"Is the novel a 'bourgeois' form? The answer can only be historically provisional: When? Which novels? For whom? Under what conditions?"

This shows that generalising cultures in their many forms can be harmful. Forming a prejudice against a particular industry or form of entertainment is unreasonable and unnecessary and it is important to look at all facts and be far more specific when making that type of judgement.

Hall's writing about popular culture seems far less critical and pessimistic and gives me the impression that, while he is perhaps not much of a popular culture consumer, he does understand its meanings and relevance to the masses. I believe that this comes from writing in modern times, when class distinctions are a lot less obvious and widespread political unsettlement and post-war worries are of the past. That being the case, I look forward to bringing cultural theory into the 21st Century, as the more up-to-date it gets, the more accepting theorists may become of popular culture and its consumption.

Hollywood Through the Looking Glass

The theorists associated with the Frankfurt School seem to firmly believe that when it comes to popular culture there is no such thing as an original idea. They argue that popular music, for example, is an ever repetitive form of entertainment and that even when a song or piece of pop music presents itself as new and fresh it is merely demonstrating 'pseudo-individualization', in other words, it pretends to be different but is really just the same as all the others.

I personally find it hard to agree with this pessimistic view that the type of culture which has surrounded me my entire life is stuck in some mass-produced rut. However, there is one industry for which their theories may in fact be true.

Hollywood churns out hundreds of films every year, each one competing to win the most Oscars, spend the most money, make the most epic use of special effects and use the biggest stars. It seems that the Hollywood studios are less concerned with producing quality entertainment than they are with backing the biggest blockbusters in order to make the most money. Even when a film-maker attempts to create something different they still tend to adhere to the same old rules. Take Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland for example, a dark and surreal film ought to differ from the mainstream, however his keen application of CGI and special effects and his use of 3D images just goes to show that even oddball Burton conforms to the Hollywood formula.

This unintelligent method of film-making is disheartening for a film fan. Cashing in on the latest technological advances and making movies with the same worn-out plots and the same tired actors causes the industry to lack excitement or originality. Independent cinema, despite having less money to do so, seems much more likely to take risks and produce some thought-provoking films which the audience haven't seen before. Unfortunately, as the cinema-going audience have been dumbed-down by Hollywood, independent films are hardly ever really given the chance to be seen. Instead they are hidden away in art house cinemas and specialist DVD shops.

This cycle means that the uneducated masses rarely have the chance to watch more intelligent, original cinema and are instead force fed the same old money-making blockbusters time and time again.

A Disney Revival

Fairytales have always been best told by the Disney studios but I was beginning to believe that the days of a wide-eyed princess and her tales of love and ambition were over, that was until the hand-crafted magic was reawakened by The Princess and the Frog.

This film pays no attention to the demands of the 3D era nor does it succumb to the thralls of CGI, it takes us back to the basics of hand-drawn animation, catchy songs and the well known fact that wishing on the biggest and brightest star in the sky will make all your dreams come true.

I would definitely say that the Disney classics are deeply embedded into my culture, one of my favourite pastimes was prancing around the family kitchen singing Disney songs with my sister. There were some films we watched so many times that we knew the scripts off-by-heart and I'm happy to say that, finally, Disney have produced another classic that we can appreciate as adults as much as we would have done as kids.

The engaging storyline and loveable characters of The Princess and the Frog are entertaining at any age. Brought to life by Ron Clements and John Musker, the writer/directors of two of my all-time favourite films (The Little Mermaid and Aladdin), this film is sure to join the Disney hall-of-fame as a modern classic with all the touches of romance, fantasy and magic we have come to expect from the iconic studios. It's a dream come true and if you wish hard enough on that star, then maybe they won't ruin it with a tacky sequel!

'Sweetness and Light'

Today's cultures and their perceptions differ hugely from those in Leavis' time and even more so from Matthew Arnold's (Culture and Anarchy, 1869) so when considering a text which demonstrates 'sweetness and light' and the 'best that is thought or said' I decided to step it up to the 21st Century.

I have therefore chosen to look at a production of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew which I saw a few years ago at the Globe theatre in London. You may be questioning how on earth I can be suggesting that discussing a Shakespeare play performed in a theatre made up to replicate that of the Elizabethan period can possibly be bringing the idea of cultural greatness into the 21st Century. However, this particular production was performed by an all female cast.

A satirical view of a rugged man taming a 'wild' woman brought a whole new light to Shakespeare's misogynistic play. The grotesque portrayal of a brilliantly unintelligent Petruchio made his efforts to woo Kate a hilarious farce. Moreover, Kate's independence and sarcasm as she gives her final speech of 'submission' gave the whole production a real feminist vibe. Despite the fact that I had spent two and a half hours on my feet as a groundling I remember leaving the production feeling thoroughly entertained.

To me a huge part of a successful contribution to our culture is something that raises real issues, makes an intelligent contribution and has a lasting effect on the emotions or thoughts of an audience. This production certainly did all of these things for me, it sparked real debate about the historical and ongoing gender differences and inequalities, made good use of clever satire and parody and left me feeling empowered as a member of the female sex. Did this production of a much loved play provide 'sweetness and light'? I believe that it did, but in a thoroughly modern sense, I'm not sure that Leavis would have approved!

A Touch of Levisism

F.R. Levis, a key cultural theorist, was, at times, an incredibly cynical man who would, together with his wife, Queenie, rip cultural texts apart and attempt to discredit the creative minds behind them. In this post, I do the same for a media text which I consider to be amongst the lowest of the low in cultural terms. The media text I have chosen is the film Invictus, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon.

The object of this film appeared to be to portray the cultural differences between the black people and the white people living in South Africa and how the great Nelson Mandela overcame these issues and created his rainbow nation. I believe this to be a great premise for a film with optimistic views on a difficult political situation. I do not, however, as the film appears to suggest, believe that the cure for the conflicts between the races was the rugby world cup.

A film made by Americans, starring American actors, albeit those with relatively convincing South African accents, maintains the arrogance we now associate with America. Rewriting another country's history and retelling the tale of another culture's hero is just the sort of thing we have come to expect from them, particularly after the absolute shambles that was Valkyrie.

This film neatly ties up the story of the culture clashes by suggesting that South Africa's world cup victory in 1995 solved all the problems faced by the country and glazed over the fact that it is still a country facing widespread discrimination and poverty. This 'happy ending' approach seems a cheap way to satisfy a westernised audience and offers no further insight into the facts, the history or the future of a troubled country placed in an even more turbulent continent.

1930s to 2010s - how do the theories of Leavis relate to the cultures of today?

The article, 'Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture', (Leavis, 1933), left me a little unsure of the point. Leavis seems to introduce the 'machine' in this article as something which is destroying our culture and which is 'levelling-down' the press, film industry, broadcasting, etc by its abilities of 'mass-production and standardisation'. However, it is then indicated that the 'machine' is our future and something which one ought to be open to.

Leavis does raise some interesting points, such as the fact that high culture is only really available to the minority of people with enough education to appreciate it, with the example of the works of Shakespeare. However, in Shakespeare's time, his works were available and appealing to all classes. Leavis also talks about 'high-brow' culture, separating the minority which is able to appreciate higher levels of culture and placing them in a state of 'conscious(ness), not merely of an uncongenial, but of a hostile environment.'

This chapter also includes key points about the purposes of film and advertising as manipulations of the masses and distractions from real life, this, it seems, is frowned upon by Leavis. Further from this, Leavis suggests that due to the rise in distractions such as these and the mass-production of books, the majority of which are not very well written, people in the 1930s are not as well read as those cultured members of previous generations.

The most interesting thing to consider about this reading, to me, is that this was written in the 1930s with fears of what was to come as a result of mass-production, the dumbing-down of the media and this country's Americanisation. I feel that today we live in a world were 'low-class' culture is everywhere, it dominates our televisions in the forms of X-Factor and The Jeremy Kyle Show, it is portrayed in films such as This is England and Trainspotting and is dominating the press, The Sun being one of the UK's most popular newspapers. However, I do not feel that this means that the cultures which Leavis cares so much about are lost.

A much better and more equal education system means higher levels of culture are readily available to those who wish to enjoy them. Perhaps it is still a minority of the population who choose to outside of school and college but it seems that segregation in classes and levels of culture are on the decrease and the freedom and ability to enjoy a range of different types of entertainment, education and lifestyle choices is on the rise, suggesting that the hostile high-brows and the manipulated masses can be a thing of the past as we all work together for an equal and more culturally rounded society.