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.