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.