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.