Politics of the Popular (Certeau)

In his article “The Practice of Everyday Life,” Michel de Certeau explores the ‘ways of operating,’ or everyday practices, in order to articulate them. Certeau focuses on consumer production, which involves usage, consumption, the procedures of everyday creativity, the formal structure of practice, the marginality of a majority; also, he focuses on the tactics of practices, which involves trajectories, tactics, and rhetorics, and reading, talking, dwelling, and cooking. In the last category, Certeau writes that, “To describe these everyday practices that produce without capitalizing, that is, without taking control over time, one starting point seemed inevitable because it is the ‘exorbitant’ focus of contemporary culture and its consumption: reading” (552).

In continuation, Certeau writes that, “Reading thus introduces an ‘art’ which is anything but passive. It resembles rather than art whose theory was developed by medieval poets and romancers: an innovation infiltrated into the text and even into the terms of a tradition” (553). Because reading does not entail passive consumption, Certeau seems to be arguing that consumers are very involved in their culture, and also contribute to it. Another example of an everyday practices that are not passive are holiday celebrations and parties. They are rooted into tradition and encompass a complex producer-consumer relationship.

Certeau’s article was an interesting read overall, and it seems to be successful in achieving its goal to “make such a discussion possible; that is, by means of inquiries and hypotheses, to indicate pathways for further research” (545). The ideas seem strong, and he gives sufficient examples and thorough explanations. In addition, I enjoyed his closing lines:

“But our research has concentrated above all on the uses of space, on the ways of frequenting or dwelling in a place, on the complex processes of the art of cooking, and on the many ways of establishing a kind of reliability within the situations imposed on an individual, that is, of making it possible to live in them by reintroducing into them the plural mobility of goals and desires – an art of manipulating and enjoying”

Politics of the Popular

Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games series has launched the birth of hundreds of fan sites, a movie series, fanfictions, fan art, and numerous social media pages and accounts dedicated to communicating with and linking together enthusiasts of the popular novels. But what, exactly, is the significance of this fandom, and how does it relate to culture as a whole? John Storey takes into account Henry Jenkins’ theories on “fandom” and fan culture, and he explains:

Fans do not just read texts, they continually re-read them. This changes profoundly the nature of the text-reader relationship. Re-reading undermines the operations of what Barthes (1975) calls the ‘hermeneutic code’ (the way a text poses questions to generate the desire to keep reading). Re-reading in this way thus shifts the reader’s attention from ‘what will happen’ to ‘how things happen’, to questions of character relations, narrative themes, the production of social knowledges and discourses. (229)

Fans of The Hunger Games series have developed a deeper “text-reader relationship” based on the notion that they have spent more time with the novels, and they develop a relationship of symbiosis. The reader-fans rely on the series, and the series’ popularity relies on the readers. As John Storey writes, “Fan cultures are not just bodies of enthusiastic readers; they are also active cultural producers” (229). Because of this, the series’ fan culture is not a passive group by any means – they are constantly creating new materials that keep the popularity of the series alive.

Without the fan base that The Hunger Games has formed, few of these “productions” would exist, and the series might not have ever been brought into pop culture’s eye – dominating magazine covers, tabloids, and countless websites. Henry Jenkins defined the difference between “mundanes” (non-fan readers) and fans as a variance in passion and participation, and Storey adds that, “It is not the commodities that are empowering, it is what the fans do with them that empowers” (230). In this way, The Hunger Games possess the potential to “empower” its readers, but the fans are the source that determines how and allows them to become empowering.

Postmodernism (Hebdige)

In his article, Dick Hebdige explores the concept of postmodernity and the success and problems of the “buzzword” status of the term “postmodern.” Hebdige writes that, “Though classes still exist, there is no guaranteed dynamic to class struggle and no ‘class belonging’” there are no solid homes to return to, no places reserved in advance for the righteous. No one ‘owns’ an ‘ideology’ because ideologies are themselves in process: in a state of constant formation and reformation” (441). Because of this, the term “postmodern” is almost too broad that it becomes unstable and essentially meaningless.  
 

If we apply Hebdige’s ideas to Miley Cyrus’s two music videos, “We Can’t Stop” and “Wrecking Ball,” it becomes apparent that – in today’s world – the sublime is favored over the beautiful. Hebdige writes that, “For Lyotard, a properly avant-garde poem or canvas takes us to this sublime point where consciousness and being bang up against their own limitations in the prospect of absolute otherness – God or infinity – in the prospect, that is, of their disappearance in death and silence” (438).  Though some have been baffled by the contents of Miley’s videos, others have described the videos as artistic and innovative. Without the “ideal” that existed with modernity, it becomes possible for any expression or creation to be labeled as “art.” 

Hebdige also writes that, “the experience of postmodernity is positively schizogenic: a grotesque attenuation – possibly monstrous, occasionally joyous – of our capacity to feel and to respond. Postmodernity is modernity without the hopes and dreams which made modernity bearable” (436). Though this may seem like a pessimistic outlook, what Hebdige seems to be describing is an anything-goes culture that gives power to individual preferences rather than the oppressive “global ideal.” In this way, Miley Cyrus’s videos can be considered “art” and can be respected or appreciated for the experience they offer to the audience – testing the viewer’s capacities of feeling and responding.

Postmodernism (Baudrillard)

It is surprising, in today’s culture, to encounter an advertisement or magazine cover that does not feature a beautiful human with impeccable features: flawless skin, perfect facial symmetry, a pure white smile.  We hold these images to be the ‘real’ faces of models and celebrities that we admire and obsess over in various forms of media, whether it is the web, video, or print. However, is this really the ‘reality’ of these stars?

According to postmodernist theories, the phenomenon of Photoshop and digital editing of images are both examples of the collapse of the aura of the original. In his article, “The Precession of Simulacra,” Jean Baudrillard writes that, “Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal” (409). Photographs of famous celebrities are, in a way, a copy of the “original” image, and when these copies are altered, it creates a simulacrum. 

When regarding the “original” and “reality,” Baudrillard adds that, “It no longer has to be rational, since it is no longer measured against some ideal or negative instance. It is nothing more than operational. In fact, since it is no longer enveloped by an imaginary, it is no longer real at all;” rather; he states, “It is a hyperreal, the product of an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere” (410). In this case, airbrushed and altered photographs that are advertised to the public can qualify as “hyperreal.” Though people may accept these pictures as “reality,” they are not – by definition – real, since they are frequently too skewed to be considered rational or natural. And yet, these photographs are just as “real” to us as the original photos, and we still consider these photos to be the “real” celebrity.

Postmodernism

John Storey writes that, “Another aspect of the postmodern is convergence culture, ‘where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (216). This “convergence culture” is a breeding ground of both “struggle and negotiation,” and it is a result of concentrated media ownership, changes in technology, and media consumers.

An example of the postmodern embrace of this convergence culture is the popular book series The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins. Though the series began as novels, it eventually launched thousands of fan sites, blogs, and even a highly successful movie. The books are considered to be a part of the Young Adult Dystopian genre, and yet they were marketed to both teenagers and adults of all ages and social statuses. Also, the books can be accessed through e-readers and other electronic means – such as audio books, and the movie can be purchased at a local store or purchased online.

 

Currently, the media follows the stars of The Hunger Games movie, and it is nearly impossible to pick up a magazine or check an online entertainment blog without encountering news of Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, or Woody Harrelson – who all play leading roles. Additionally, sites like Facebook and Twitter are outlets that allow the series to gain even more of a following, and to communicate fans’ creations such as fanfictions and artworks depicting the novels’ characters. This juxtaposition of new and old media in production and consumption of The Hunger Games demonstrates the “convergence culture” in postmodernism. The success of this franchise is largely due to its versatility in means of promotion, its appeal to consumers, and its accessibility.

'Race,' Racism and Representation

In Nazi Germany, the concept of the superiority of the ‘Aryan race’ was created and became widely accepted among the population – and the race signified human perfection and purity. Anyone outside of the ‘Aryan race’ was considered to be inferior, and they were often regarded with hostility and distaste.  A number of physical traits were often considered to be the Aryan ideal, and these included: light skin, light hair, blue eyes, and tall height. But how, exactly, did this ‘race’ come to be? In Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction, John Storey writes that, “Whether or not they are made to signify, physical differences between human beings exist. But how they are made to signify is always a result of politics and power, rather than a question of biology” (172).

If we consider the ‘Aryan race’ from this perspective, we can reason that what the Aryan race’s image signified was not truly their biological superiority; rather, the ‘race’ was created in order to establish power and dominance over political opponents. By establishing the concept of a master race, those who fit into the Aryan standards were able to secure their power by ‘othering’ and oppressing those who did not fit into the Aryan standards. 

Additionally, John Storey writes that, “The work of cultural studies, like that of all reasonable intellectual traditions, is to intellectually, and by example, help to defeat racism, and so by doing, help to bring into being a world in which the term ‘race’ is little more than a long disused historical category, signifying in the contemporary nothing more than the human race (185). When we analyze the occurrence of racial stereotypes and racism, we realize that the term ‘race’ exists as a discourse that allows racism to occur. Though it was passed off as the ‘master race’, in reality, the concept of the ‘Aryan race’ is a mere construct – a set of guidelines established in order for Aryan supremacists to gain more power and to oppress any threat to this power.

Videogames, Avatars, and Identity (Waggoner)

In “Videogames, Avatars, and Identity,” Zach Waggoner explores the relationships between humans and the virtual realities that they engage in. The rising genre of “videogame” is – as Waggoner points out – beginning to surpass movies and television in favored form of entertainment, since they allow a person to represent themselves through an “avatar,” or virtual identity. Waggoner writes, “My relationship with my avatar seems more complicated than that. Exactly how I believe it is more complicated (for other videogamers as well as myself) and will take some explaining as videogame technologies offer users interactive and immersive experience that convey verisimilitude and beyond more with each passing year” (488).

This article seems closely linked to Bazerman’s genre theories, since Waggoner explores a particular genre (videogames), and explores the ways in which it organizes and shapes human activity, experience, and the meanings we create. Waggoner seems to be saying that it is possible for us to carry our virtual identities and experiences over into reality, and vice-versa. In addition, he stresses the role-playing aspect of certain video games, and how people often change their behavior in order to adapt to a certain situation, or to adhere to the norms that are expected of them. 

Waggoner’s article is engaging and interesting, and I found it to be a good example of genre analysis. Rather than viewing the subjects of “videogames” and “avatars” through a particular theoretical lens, Waggoner explores them from various angles in order to gather an enriched understanding the relationship between them and people. Also, Waggoner brings up some very cool ideas about reality. Prior to this, we have discussed “reality” and “fantasy,” but Waggoner explores the idea of “virtual reality” – which complicates the question of what is really ‘real?’

Queer Theory (Butler)

In “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” Judith Butler explores queer theory while deriving from it at the same time – pointing out the flaws in using labels that signify a person’s sexual orientation. Butler does not feel comfortable identifying herself as a lesbian because she believes that any label like this is an “instrument of regulatory regimes,” and can be oppressive. In her article, Butler writes that “lesbian sexuality can be understood to redeploy its ‘derivativeness’ in the service of displacing hegemonic heterosexual norms” (227). Because of this, Butler does not address the problems that lie in the oppression that non-heterosexuals face; but rather, she locates the problem in the binary framework of sexuality and pre-existing ideas of what is“normal” and what is “Other.”  

Judith Butler, in this article, seems to express similar ideas that Wallace and Green addressed in “Queer Rhetorical Theory,” especially the concept of “heteronormativity” (certain genders are considered “normal,” while some are considered “others”). While Marxist and Hegemony theorists (namely, Marx and Gramsci) would likely believe that this phenomenon is a result of class conflicts and the struggle for power, and the Psychoanalysis approach (Freud, Lacan, Zizek) would likely believe it is rooted in pleasure, Butler’s ideas seem to be based in Post-structuralism.  In order to change the heteronormativity and the problems it causes, we must deconstruct the system and stop subscribing to its framework and the meanings that it has.

Though this article was a little more complex than Wallace and Alexander’s, it offered a fresh new perspective on the topic of queer theory.  What I enjoyed most about Butler’s argument was her issue with labels and how they create problems because they encourage fabrication and imitation. Each label is volatile, and by tacking one onto yourself, you face the problem of being subjected to this label’s requirements – which can be contradictory and never ending, in addition to oppressive and alienating. Gender labels often create these problems, and Butler suggests the idea of deconstructing them as a solution.

Gender & Sexuality (Radway)

In her article, “Reading Reading the Romance,” Janice Radway seems to be conducting a genre analysis by analyzing and critiquing her own book – recognizing its strengths, weaknesses, and offering a more enriched view of the genre of romance novels. Radway highlights particular ways in which her book can function as a “kind of genre theory”:

1.       “it attempts to understand how the Smithton women’s social and material situation prepares them to find the act of reading attractive and even necessary” (206).

2.       ”through detailed questioning of the women about their own definition of romance and their criteria for distinguished between ideal and failed versions of the genre, the study attempts to characterize the struggle of the particular narrative the women have chosen to engage because they find it especially enjoyable”

3.       “attempts to explain how and why such a structured ‘story’ might be experienced as pleasurable by those women as a consequence of their socialization within a particular family unit” (employing the psychoanalytic lens)

What Radway concludes through this analysis is that, in order to understand the genre, the romance reader/writer’s own individual struggle must be considered (because those who engage in this genre “are themselves struggling with gender definitions and sexual politics on their own terms”). Because of this, Radway emphasizes support more than criticism, and she writes that we could potentially “activate the critical power that even now lies buried in the romance as one of the few widely shared womanly commentaries on the contradictions and costs of patriarchy” (212).

In order to offer differing perspectives and explanations on the cultural value/influences of the genre of romance novels, Radway incorporates multiple voices into her article. She explores the theories of Williams, Thompson, Hall, Marx, Freud, and various feminists/post feminists (notably McRobbie), and she analyzes the genre through their lenses – which offers an enriched perspective on romance novels.  

Though Radway’s article was interesting, it was also very difficult to comprehend in some instances. Because she is analyzing her own work, she is very present in the writing – almost too present. Though this relates to and emphasizes her idea of women’s individual struggle, it also creates a problem by overshadowing much of her analysis.

Wallace & Alexander

In their article “Queer Rhetorical Agency: Questioning Narratives of Heteronormativity,” Wallace and Alexander aim to present an enriched view of “the ways that heteronormativity infuses Western culture and at how we participate in social and cultural practices that maintain heteronormativity” (794). In order to see the effects/influences of “heteronormativity” has on our culture, we must first understand that it is an “invisible system of marginalization” that upholds certain gender traits as normal, while it “others” anything outside of what is upheld as the traditional sexual identity. By understanding the ways in which heteronormativity works, we can discover ways “to move beyond the narrow range of roles that dominant culture allots to LGBT people,” and can also help us to be “better informed about the operation of gender, race, class, religion/spirituality, age, physical and mental/emotional ability, and sexual identity in our culture” (815).

The idea of “identity” has been a reoccurring concept in the arguments of various cultural theorists. Though the ideas of Wallace and Alexander seem to build off of post-structuralism, they place a strong emphasis on the sexual identity. Psychoanalytic theories also placed a strong emphasis on the development of sexual identity; however, Wallace and Alexander would likely disagree with Freud’s theories because they argue that “heteronormativity” shapes sexual identity (therefore, sexual identity is shaped by the social conflict and the ideals of “dominant culture”).

Wallace and Alexander present a very interesting essay, which not only aims to inform readers, but also to encourage change and acceptance in our culture. Personally, I found their argument to be very well constructed, and – by exploring the concept of “heteronormativity” (what they are fighting against) – they are able to expose its flaws, and they also demonstrate the ways in which it is limiting to each individual and culture as a whole.

Gender & Sexuality

Chris Weedon’s “Feminism & The Principles of Poststructuralism” presents an inside look at the ideas of both poststructuralist and feminist theories, but main goal of the article is to understand the relationship between them and to focus on “producing a form of poststructuralism which can meet feminist needs” (321). In order to structure his argument, Weedon presents three main topics: language, subjectivity, and language as discourse. Language, as Weedon reasons, is where subjectivity is “constructed,” and it “offers us various discursive positions, including modes of femininity and masculinity” (324). Also according to Weedon, the term ‘Subjectivity’ refers to the “conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world” (325). Lastly, ‘language as discourse’ refers to the social structures organized through practices/institutions that are initially organized by “discursive fields” (aka competing ways of giving meaning/organizing our world).

The idea of a unified or fixed subjectivity arises often in cultural theory, and notably in Feminist Poststructuralism – which rejects this belief and instead holds that subjectivity is not stable. On one side, those who agree with unified/fixed subjectivity would likely include Arnold, Leavis, Williams, Althusser, Freud, Saussure, Levi-Strauss. On the other hand, those who would side with Feminist Poststructuralism and dismiss the idea of unified/fixed subjectivity might possibly include Bazerman,  Laclau and Mouffe, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault.

Weedon’s feminist take on poststructuralism seems to be an effective cultural lens, and it seems to contain less problems and defects than the theories that preceded it. Because it is a hybrid between two notable theories, it possesses the strengths of both arguments. Personally, I believe that this lens could be very efficient and helpful when analyzing culture – especially since it focuses on the concept of individual “subjectivity,” which I find to be very interesting.

Post-Structuralism

In his article, Signature Event Context, Jacques Derrida explores the word communication – providing lengthy examples and analysis as to why the “meaning” of communication is too volatile and complex to be defined; and, by doing this, he extends his argument to “meaning” itself and investigates how difference creates problems in the standard way of thinking about communication and the definitions of words. Derrida then goes on to explore systems of interpretation, and says that “a context is never absolutely determinable.” Additionally, he makes the argument that we will never get to the true “source” of writing/language because there is an absence, or delay. Because of this, we only have “traces,” and thus, we’ll never be 100% certain of the intended meaning.

Derrida seems as though he branches out in an entirely different direction than his predecessors in cultural theory; while others attempted to discover the order and structure of communication and culture, Derrida acknowledges that it is far too complex to ever truly understand. We will never get to the direct source of “truth,” and in order to understand, we can only follow traces.

Despite the complexity and difficulty of Derrida’s writing and arguments, he seems to have some very interesting theories that can function as effective tools to understand language and communication. Sources, tracing, mark, and absence are all cool concepts, and Derrida seems to be very original (especially since he makes up his own words). Though I have trouble understanding some aspects of his arguments, I think that (judging by his main ideas) post-structuralism is an effective lens of cultural analysis.

Group Response 2

The two sample blog readings – despite focusing on two completely different subjects – both share a common element: they function as a tool that analyzes culture and conveys ideas effectively to readers. The first blog, BitchMedia, states that its goal is to “provide and encourage an engaged, thoughtful feminist response to mainstream media and popular culture,” and the article “The Empowerment Cure: How Teen Sex-Ed Has Undergone a Brilliant and Rapid Revolution” explores the way in which the approach to sex education in schools is vastly changing – as a result of changing values and beliefs. The second blog article is a review of the movie The Conjuring, and it is posted on The Movie Blog – which explores values and beliefs by critiquing an important aspect of American popular culture: film.  

Both blogs explore culture; however, they explore different cultural phenomenon through two different cultural lenses. The first article seems to take a Post-Marxism approach, and seems to take into account the theories of Laclau and Mouffe. It looks at the issue of teen pregnancy within discourse in order to discover its constructed meaning. The “revolution” occurring is the change that comes when people stop subscribing to a particular value, which – in this case – is the traditional method of educating teens. The second blog article seems to take a psychoanalytic approach, and it takes into account the “subconscious” in order to explain why The Conjuring is very frightening to us in some sections, but less frightening in others. 

By looking at the genre of the “Blog” in terms of these two articles, it is easy to see how blogs are a highly effective medium of cultural analysis. To readers, they are easy to digest through their casual, conversational, and engaging language. Also, they are versatile; despite being considered the same genre, these two blogs employed separate lenses and critiqued two completely different aspects of culture. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy reading blogs, and I think they are an excellent (and creative) way of communicating thoughts and ideas.  

Structuralism & Post-structuralism

In “Method,” Michel Foucault addresses the problems that occur when analyzing culture “in terms of power,” since the word power possesses many misconceptions. As a solution to this, Foucault offers “four rules to follow” when looking at a particular discourse:

1.       The Rule of Immanence

2.       Rules of Continual Variations

3.       Rule of Double Conditioning

4.       The Rule of Tactical Polyvalence of Discourse

Foucault writes that, “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere,” and he adds that it is “permanent, repetitious, inert, and self-reproducing, is simply the overall effect that emerges from all these motilities, the concatenation that rests on each of them and seeks in turn to arrest their movement” (313-314). Rather than viewing power strictly as a class battle, Foucault says that power “comes from below,” and he also writes that, “Where there is power, there is resistance” (314-315).

The idea of “power” has arisen in many of the cultural analysis theories that we’ve studied: most notably in the models of Marx, Adorno, Gramsci, and Freud. The Marxist and Hegemony approaches to culture seem to hold “power” as the root of all evil – the cause of class conflicts and oppression. However, Gramsci’s theories did recognize the negotiations that existed between the ruling class and working class when the system provided workers with their basic desires. The psychoanalytic approach to culture also acknowledges power in the form of the “Oedipus Complex,” which results in the formation of the “self.” Like Marxism and Hegemony, this idea of “power” is also considered to be a struggle. Foucault derives from each of these ideas, and instead, he theorizes that “power produces reality,” and he also seems to be saying that it is neither a positive or negative force – but rather – it is a force that “produces the ‘truths’ we live by” (Storey, 132).

Structuralism and post-structuralism, despite being very complex, are both interesting approaches to cultural studies. Personally, I find the post-structuralism approach to be the most useful lens to analyze culture. Derrida and Foucault’s ideas make sense: “meaning” seems too volatile to exist only within a particular structure, and “power” does seem to exist everywhere – producing both positives and negatives. Also, I prefer Foucault’s explanation of “discourse” over Laclau and Mouffe’s explanation.

Psychoanalysis (Zizek)

In “From Reality to The Real,” Slavoj Zizek explores the concept of Objet Petit a (unattainable object of desire), and building off of Freud and Lacan’s psychoanalysis, he also investigates the ways in which fantasy and desire shape our “reality.” Zizek writes that “the objet a is precisely that surplus, that elusive make-believe that drove the man to change his existence. In ‘reality,’ it is nothing at all, just an empty surface” (336). Because of this, ‘reality’ is the “fantasy space” that functions as a blank canvas for us to paint with our desire – thus what we consider to be ‘real’ is what exists in our objective construct and occurs in our everyday life. Zizek also writes that our “social reality is then nothing but a fragile, symbolic cobweb that can at any moment be torn aside by an intrusion of the real” (343). Our desire is ultimately what drives and motivates us as human beings, and as a culture. When the barrier separating our fantasy world from everyday reality is torn down, and when the “real overflows reality,” the result is madness.

Zizek, in his theories, brings up the idea that culture stems from human desire. This seems to parallel not only the ideas of Freud and Lacan, but also the ideas of Leavis, Williams, Marx, and Gramsci. These four theorists all seem to address either the strive for the ideal (Williams) or escapism based on pleasure (Leavis, Marx, Gramsci). Despite this, Williams only views the desire of the ideal as a minor part of culture, and Leavis, Marx, and Gramsci view desire as a tool of manipulation. The ruling class desires power, so they feed pop culture to the working class – creating an inescapable cycle of desire and consumption.

Zizek’s theories – in my opinion – seem to be rooted in truth, and the examples he used in order to support his argument were interesting and shed light on the ideas he was expressing. Though Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis seem far-fetched and contain some flawed thinking, Zizek seems to have adapted psychoanalysis into a way that can be effectively applied to culture. Also, his idea that anxiety results from the lack of “desire” is pretty interesting, and it could potentially explain the mental breakdowns and self-destruction of many famous Hollywood celebrities – since they seem to possess everything anyone could ever desire.

Psychoanalysis

In his article, Jacques Lacan offers a newer, more culturally-geared perspective on traditional Freudian psychoanalysis. By establishing the concept of the “mirror stage,” Lacan is able to identify the “transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes an image” and is therefore able to explore the effects of this essential phenomenon. Before the mirror stage, we have no perception of ourselves, no “image,” and no comprehension of symbolism. Lacan brings up the term Imago in order to describe this, and writes, “The function of the mirror-stage as a particular case of the function of the imago, which is to establish a relation between the organism and its reality” (257). However, there is also the problem of the Gestalt, which “symbolizes the mental permanence of the I, at the same time as it prefigures its alienating destination” (256). Since, in this outlook, there exists both a subjective self and an objective self, feelings of alienation and incompleteness arise in the individual. And in term, this has an overarching effect on culture – namely, the “passions in society” and what we desire.

Lacan’s theories – despite being deeply rooted in psychoanalysis – seem to parallel other perspectives regarding the concept of reality vs. “phantasy.” Leavis, Williams, Bazerman, Athusser, Laclau, Mouffe, and Freud all seem to possess the same belief: that there are objects that can be considered “real” (or objective), and there are also “meanings” that are attached to these real objects (the subjective).  On the other hand, the Marxism and Hegemony perspectives seem to favor the idea that the “meanings” associated with these objects are not necessarily a cultural consensus or derive from each individual, but rather, they are manipulated, controlled, and dictated by the “ruling class” in order to withhold the power.

Personally, I found the psychoanalytical approach to culture to be very fascinating, especially since it explores culture through the individual’s mental processes rather than exploring culture through class relations. By getting to the roots of each individual, we can adjust the scales in order to see how a collective culture might function.

Post-Marxism

In “Post-Marxism Without Apologies,” Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe investigate and critique Marxism through a metaphysical lens. Throughout the article, many philosophical theories are brought up and are applied as a tool of analysis. Also, by bringing the political ideas of Norman Geras into the article, Laclau and Mouffe are able to set up the argument that Marxism must be analyzed through a philosophical lens – in addition to the political lens – in order to assess its own limitation and reach its full potential. By critiquing Geras’ theories, Laclau and Mouffe are able to demonstrate the restrictions that the political lens may have, and thus, they make the argument that discourse theory “implies, by asserting the radical historicity of being and therefore the purely human nature of truth, the commitment to show the world for what it is: an entirely social construction of human beings which is not grounded on any metaphysical ‘necessity’ external to it – neither God, nor ‘essential forms’, nor the ‘necessary laws of history.’

The idea of “discourse” seems to compare to compare to Bazerman’s idea of “genre” and “speech act,” and also to Althusser’s “ideology.” Discourse is described as the “systematic set of relations” that is socially constructed and is used “to emphasize the fact that every social configuration is meaningful” (144-145). Like a speech act, discourse combines the “linguistic” and the “extra-linguistic” in a way that means something to both the auditor and the listener. In his theories, Althusser describes “ideology” as a system of representations that people use to explain real conditions, and also as a social construction. Discourse – as it is described by Laclau and Mouffe – is nearly identical to Althusser’s concept of ideology, since they are both are social constructs with the purpose of giving meaning to objects.

Personally, I found this reading to be very dense and hard to understand. Though I find philosophical theories to be very interesting, the ideas presented by Laclau and Mouffe were difficult to grasp because of the extensive terminology they include in their article. Additionally, since they were criticizing multiple criticisms, I had trouble following who was who and what was what. However, the main point seems to be that: Marxism must be looked upon from a perspective outside of the historical time period in which it was created in order to have significance in our world today. But then again, this article posed difficult to decipher, so I could be completely off mark.

Group Response 1

The first of the two videos, “Is the Internet Cats?” explores the relations between the popularity of cats and the internet. Because the internet is largely dominated by cat content, it can be argued – as stated in this video – that cats are the internet. Not only does the video explore the history of cats in culture, but it also analyzes how the internet has aided in the popularizing this animal even more. The second video, “Kevin Allocca: Why videos go viral” also explores the connections between the internet and popular culture, and also how certain videos possess the ability to shape our culture.

Both of these videos seem to analyze culture with a culturalist approach. Though both are significantly different in many ways, they do possess a shared trait: both videos are geared at deciphering the meaning of cultural phenomenon and what these  trending internet topics might reveal about our culture’s shared values. The first video provides historical background of cat worship, which the culturalist approach would recommend. The second video, however, is a little different, and seems to possess certain Marxist ideas. For example, Allocca says that the “tastemakers” are the ones who decide what videos become viral and which go about unnoticed – because they possess fame and celebrity status. This seems to run parallel to the idea of the “bourgeois” deciding what becomes mass culture.

I found both of these videos to be entertaining and fascinating, and it is interesting that the first video explored the same cultural phenomenon that I chose to focus on in my first analysis. Watching this video gave me a new perspective on cat culture because it explored the topic in relation to the internet, while I explored it in relation to “memes.” Though many of my ideas lined up with the ideas expressed in the video, some were slightly different.

Marxism

In his writings “Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas,” and “Base and Superstructure,” Karl Marx explores the issue of class conflicts and their relation to popular culture. In “Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas,” Marx points out that the material rulers are also – at the same time – the intellectual rulers. Because the ruling class is not trapped in the vicious work-force oppression, they are the main source of creativity and ideas; therefore, their ideas are the ideas that determine the culture – and the culture they create is always in their best interest. According to Marx, popular culture seems to be a result of the ruling class expressing its own interests as the interests of the general population, and it is a way to maintain their dominance and control over the working class. These ideas are further explained in “Base and Superstructure,” as Marx establishes that the “base” refers to means of production within society, whereas the “superstructure” is comprised of a framework of social institutions. It is when “men become conscious of this conflict” that fighting begins and social revolution arises.

The issue of high culture vs. low culture arises in many of the approaches to cultural theory that we have studied so far. On one hand, Arnold, Leavis, Hoggart, Stuart, and Whannel all seem to share the opinion that low culture is detrimental to society; while on the other hand, Williams and Thompson seem to recognize the divisions between high culture and low culture, but do not necessarily believe that low culture is toxic to humanity. However, with the Marxist lens, popular culture seems to possess no dichotomy (high vs. low) because all mass culture is created by the ruling class as a tool to protect their personal interests and control the working class. The hegemony approach views popular culture as a “compromise equilibrium,” and since contradictions are acceptable and recognized, it is the least “disabling” approach to this subject.

In this chapter, I found the section “The English Marxism of William Morris” to be a very interesting approach to Marxism. Since Morris seems to possess a notably different background than the other intellectuals we’ve learned about (formerly a poet and designer), he offers up ideas from a new perspective – an artist’s point of view. In his opinion, capitalism physical exhausts workers and denies their creativity, and – in order to compensate for this – workers seek easily accessible creativity (pop culture) outside of their work to compensate. Morris views art as the substance of what makes us human, and it is a necessity; to him, capitalism threatens humanity’s sense of fulfillment – and this idea, to me, seems to have a ring of truth.

Genre

Charles Bazerman, in Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Sustems: How Texts Organize Activity and People, seeks to explore the influences that written text has upon individuals and society, to identify the reasoning behind these influences, and also to discover the function that text has in our world. In his analysis, Bazerman uses five key terms in order to develop a lens through which to view the argument: social facts, speech acts, genres, genre systems, and activity systems. Each of these, as Bazerman writes, suggests “how people using text create new realities of meaning, relation, and knowledge” (309). In order to effectively explain these terms to his readers, Bazerman frames his article in a structured, articulate way, and he includes the overarching “college” metaphor as a rhetorical tool.

The issue of modern education arises notably in the articles by Greene, Cooper, and Bazerman. Marilyn Cooper, in her writing, seems slightly condemning of traditional, structured education. Rather than listing facts and adhering to the rigidity of traditional writing, she would prefer innovation and freedom. Though Charles Bazerman also seems to desire innovation and new ideas, he admires structure and formality, and he writes “understanding the form and flow of texts in genre and activity systems can help you understand how to disrupt or change the systems by the deletion, addition, or modification of a document type” (311). Greene seems to border between the ideas of Cooper and Bazerman, since he stresses the importance of structure and framing, but he also stresses the importance of establishing a living connection (like Cooper’s ecological web) between writer-reader-past intellectuals through scholarly writing.

While reading Bazerman’s article, I found myself completely engaged and interested in his ideas because he framed his writing in a structured, well-organized way that drew attention to his main ideas and broke them down with explanation and applicable examples. Though Bazerman uses “genre,” “genre sets,” and “genre systems” to apply to written text, he eventually allows it to evolve into a grander scale: culture and society. Bazerman writes that, “Understanding these genres and how they work in the systems and circumstances they were designed for, can help you as a writer fulfill the needs of the situation, in ways that are understood and speak to the expectations of others” (311). This perspective seems as though it can also be applied to the term “culture” and not just “writing.” Additionally, according to Bazerman, “genres are what we believe they are. That is, they are social facts about the kinds of speech acts people can make and the ways they can make them” (317). Personally, I think that cultures function similarly to genres – culture seems to be created by humans through the meanings that they attach and the interpretations that they draw from the world around them.

Culturalism

In the third chapter of Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, John Storey focuses on the “culturalist” approach to understanding popular culture by analyzing the connections between past, present, and future societies, and the ways in which culture is created and consumed by the populations. In order to explore this method, Storey draws upon the ideas of Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, E.P. Thompson, Stuart Hall, and Paddy Whannel. Despite containing their differences, “what unites them is an approach which insists that by analyzing the culture of a society – the textual forms and documented practices of a culture – it is possible to reconstitute the patterned behavior and constellations of ideas shared by the men and women who produce and consume the texts and practices of that society” (Storey 37). Rather than viewing popular culture as a toxin to society, Storey points out that ‘culturalism’ is geared toward recognizing the dichotomy in popular culture – to recognize and decide what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ (56).

Raymond Williams’ The Analysis of Culture explores the definition of ‘culture’ and how it functions within ‘society’ and influences humanity. Similar to Marilyn Cooper in The Ecology of Writing, Williams recognizes that culture is too complex to have an absolute, single definition because it is constantly evolving and adapting to the times. Just as Cooper uses the “ecological model” to describe writing, Williams uses the terms ‘selective tradition’ and ‘evolution’ in order to describe and explore the subject of culture. Also, like Matthew Arnold, Williams views culture as a phenomenon that stems from man’s desire to seek perfection. However, unlike Arnold, Williams does not seem to be elitist in his opinion of who can and cannot achieve cultural perfection.

‘Culturalism,’ in my opinion, seems to be quite an effective method of approaching popular culture. The ideas and three definitions explored by Raymond Williams are interesting and allow for flexibility. He recognizes the complexities and dichotomy within the term “culture,” and he is neither entirely condemning nor praising pop culture. By recognizing the differences and connections in “lived culture,” “recorded culture,” and “culture of the selective tradition,” Williams provides a richer understanding of the term ‘culture’ itself. Additionally, I admire that Williams recognizes the human being’s ‘structure of feeling’, and also that he makes the point – as Storey puts it – that “people are not reducible to the commodities they consume” (48).

Writing Ecologies

In “The Ecology of Writing” Marilyn Cooper explores the subject of writing theory through an ecological lens, and provides information and interpretation regarding the changes in literary theory and criticism over the years. Cooper writes, “What I would like to propose is an ecological model of writing, whose fundamental tenet is that writing is an activity through which a person is continually engaged with a variety of socially constituted systems” (367). Like a web, the “ecological model” can demonstrate and recognize the connections between texts (intersections of the web), while also allowing for individuality (each separate strand of the web). According to Cooper, this particular approach “encourages us to direct our corrective energies away from the characteristics of the individual writer and toward imbalances in social systems that prevent good writing” (373).

Similar to Stuart Greene, Marilyn Cooper stresses the vitality of the reader-writer connection. Rather than listing facts and statistics, both writers aim to create life and engagement within their articles. While Greene stresses “framing” and “scholarly conversation,” Cooper stresses the “web” and the “ecological model.” Though they are not completely identical, both approaches favor a type of overarching, joining structure that links ideas into a working entity. Additionally, like Storey, Cooper recognizes the complexities and instability of the term “culture,” and points out that the “ecological model” is not necessarily an ideal one; however, it is a helpful perspective.

Personally, I find Cooper’s article to be fascinating, fresh, and enlightening. Viewing writing through an ecological lens opens up various ideas and approaches to analyzing text. What I favored most about the approach is that it allows for flexibility while still maintaining a somewhat organized structure. Writing –like nature – is constantly changing and evolving to meet the times, and attempting to approach it in a constrictive, rigid way will not produce the best results. Therefore, I believe that the “ecological approach” is more effective, and is also a great lens for viewing writing.

Culture and Civilization

In Chapter 2 of the text, John Story delves deeper into the subject of ‘popular culture’ and looks at it in relation to the concept of ‘civilization,’ while also stressing the vital role that industrialization and urbanization have played in the formation of this mass culture. In order to explore the roots of this phenomenon, Story includes various theories from intellectuals, and he focuses on the “Arnoldian perspective,” Leavisism, and the American mass culture theory. The two readings, since they were written by Matthew Arnold and F.R. Leavis, provide an inside look at the arguments these two intellectuals posed. Though he includes these perspectives in his writing, Story also notes that these theories can be regarded as too condemning or critical of popular culture.  

Once again, Story seems to employ the necessary strategies of good researched writing that Greene noted in his article. Story provides multiple angles, theories, and perspectives from intellectuals other than himself in order to develop a more enriched understanding of popular culture.

Though I find each perspective to be fascinating, I also find them to be somewhat cynical of popular culture, in addition to being slightly elitist. I admire Arnold’s 4-fold definition of ‘culture,’ and I also admire his idealism and belief in the beauty of human nature; however, he seems to be suggesting that ‘perfection’ is only attainable to a handful of the most educated elite – which I do not agree with. Leavis, in his theories, seems to be suggesting that mass culture is poisonous escapism, and it is a threat to civilization as a whole. This, to me, also seems to be a cynical theory; Leavis seems to neglect exploring any positives that could potentially result from mass culture. On the other hand, I find the theories brought up by the post-war debates to be very interesting, and the ‘model’ established by Leslie Fielder seems to be an effective lens through which to view popular culture. Dividing mass culture into three parts: ‘the ironical-aristocratic sensibility,’ ‘the genteel middling mind,’ and ‘the brutal-populist mentality’ does not entirely condemn or praise the existence of mass culture, but rather, functions as a system of organization. Though this is still slightly elitist, it does not seem as extreme as Arnold, and it does not seem as condemning as Leavis.

Reading Response 2: What is Culture and Society?

In the text Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, John Story explores the definition of the word ‘culture’ and the ways in which the human population both influences and is influenced by culture. Rather than giving an absolute explanation of this word, Story recognizes that it can be defined in many ways because there is no right definition; instead, it varies by perspective. In order to provide readers with an understanding of ‘culture,’ he explores the possible definitions of ‘ideology,’ ‘popular,’ and ‘popular culture,’ and he provides a detailed look at each of these from multiple angles – citing the ideas and opinions of various others who have also studied these topics. In the Reader text, Story focuses on the topic of ‘cultural studies,’ which – like the word ‘culture’ – has no absolute definition. Instead, he draws attention to the fact that the field is ever changing and evolves with time and new ideas and research. However, he does attempt to explain cultural studies through the three ‘significant breaks’ (Leavisism/mechanistic forms of Marxism; French structuralism/post-structuralism; discovery of the works of Gramsci/hegemony). Story notes that, despite the many conflicting and intersecting views of ‘cultural studies,’ today’s understanding seems to prefer the Gramscian approach, but postmodernism continues to seep its way in and challenge this.

Similar to the ideas of John Greene’s “Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument,” John Story seems focused on the importance of recognizing multiple perspectives of an argument. By including various references in his writing, Story inserts himself into the scholarly conversation and is able to arrive at new ideas and ways of thinking. Rather than focusing on a single definition of ‘cultural studies’ and replicating the ideas of past sources, he explores the topics thoroughly in order to develop a deeper, more enlightened explanation. Additionally, like Greene, Story seems to employ inquiry, issue, situation, and framing in his researched writing. He recognizes that the conflicting points of view on ‘culture’ creates a situation that calls for a response, and he sets up questions throughout his text in order to arrive at a new understanding of ‘cultural studies.’

Though I saw both pros and cons within each ‘definition’ of cultural studies that Story explored in his writing, the approach I favor best is looking at the topic through the lenses of structuralism and postmodernism. I agree that the hegemony theory is an excellent way of looking at popular culture; however, I do not think that the ideas of power struggle and class battle can justify every cultural practice. Story briefly mentions the “mass culture perspective” and says that, “In this sense, cultural practices such as Christmas and the seaside holiday, it could be argued, function in much the same way as dreams: they articulate, in a disguised form, collective (but repressed) wishes and desires” (9).  There seems to be much validity in this perspective, and viewing popular culture as a sort of shared human dream world seems less cynical than viewing it in a Marxist way.

Reading Response 1: Greene

In “Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument,” Stuart Greene explores the ways in which researched writing mimics a “scholarly conversation.”  Greene writes, “By this, I mean that making an argument entails providing good reasons to support your viewpoint, as well as counterarguments, and recognizing how and why readers might object to your ideas” (149).  Rather than replicating ideas, and listing them off in an article, good writing should plug itself into an ongoing scholarly argument and twine together different resources – whether it is people or texts – in order to arrive at a new idea or advancement.

In addition to this central topic, Greene explores the importance of inquiry, issue, situation, and framing. From his perspective, these key terms are essential to a good research paper. Asking questions (inquiry) is essential to researched writing, and it is employed when the conflict (issue) and situation calls for some sort of answer. Framing is identified as the perspective that the writer takes when responding to these.

Seemingly, Greene has followed his own advice in this article. His writing draws upon various references and includes the ideas of others, thus engaging himself in a pre-formed scholarly conversation.  The structure of this piece seems to have been created with a strong focus on the idea of framing, since Greene names his position, uses key terms to help the reader, clearly identifies his argument, and organizes his writing in a seemingly helpful way. Additionally, Greene arrives at a place of advancement, and he seems to present new ideas in a way that is engaging to readers – inviting them into the scholarly conversation as well.