Pop Mid Term

American Popular Culture Name : Muhammad Rizqi A. NIM : C0306035 1. How do you define popular culture in the commitment to break with the formulation which depend on a high/low, elite/mass distinction? Defining popular culture to break the distinction between high and low, elite and mass culture is needed to give a clearer understanding of the overlapping concept of high/low, elite/mass and popular culture. From this point, I shall refer cultural products made by elite as high culture and low culture to refer products made by mass. Then, I want to deliver some definitions of popular culture. In this paper, I would like to refer to Tony Bennett’s definition of popular culture that is opposed by Collin MacCabe.. He identifies four elements to define popular culture. However, Bennett’s definition of popular culture is overlapped with definition of high/low culture as following. Firstly, popular culture is defined in terms of descriptive definition. It defines popular culture in terms of television ratings, record sales, and other elements that are quantifiable. He argues that popular means having many spectators, sold-out, etc. Collin McCabe argues that this definition is unsatisfactory since, for instance, a highly watched serial does not merely refer to popular culture. It could also include forms of high culture. For example, some theater performances may talk about high subjects that are not easy to be enjoyed, and yet, the audience is still tremendous. Secondly, pop culture is defined as a culture that is more modern, not traditional. It is a culture having no traditional elements in it. This definition is also arguable since popular culture is very rich. It is rich for its heterogeneous elements that could only be obtained by adding traditional elements in it. For example, a science fiction movie, Star Wars. The

traditional side is represented in the use of sword (even though it has been modified to be a saber sword, yet it is still a sword). The values of samurai with their pride as a knight who uphold their sword very high as their dignity is also represented in the form of Jedi Knights. The next is the definition of popular culture as a culture generated by capitalist movement. This kind of culture make audience passive and they can take meaning from elsewhere. It means that the audience has no power to control how the story goes. McCabe opposes this culture to an older popular ‘folk’ art. It is a culture that makes audience active and no distinction between performer and audience. The last is the definition of popular culture as a new art that has more performer-audience relationship so that people’s creativity could be transmitted through this new art. It emerges from the working-class people that resist the dominant people. The definitions offered by Tony Bennett clearly show that popular culture is often overlapped with high/low culture. It means that for this present day life, a highly appreciated work of art cannot be merely considered as a high culture work. It may be included in popular culture and vice versa. Popular culture’s commitment to break the old formulation of culture is needed since the old formulation is no longer suitable with the developing culture as what we have now. The so-called high culture works may not be separated from ‘pop culture’ elements, even though the amount is very limited. Hence, what popular culture attempts to do to break the old formulation of culture is something needed to provide the rightful position of culture as what they are made and enjoyed.

2. What does it mean by ‘left popular culture’?

To answer the question of what left popular culture means, I shall refer to the examples provided in the book for a better understanding. It is told that the ‘stop’ sign could be reused to express different meanings. It originally functions to make people stop driving when they meet this sign. However, when words such as ‘rape’ or ‘war’ are attached to this sign, a completely different meaning and interpretation is generated. Another example could be found in the story of the use of dead fetus in a painting. These kinds of ‘refunctioning’ the already existing cultural product are one of what ‘left popular culture’ does. They use an existing product (the stop sign and dead fetus) to express their antagonism to the dominant power. Feminists express their antagonism through ‘stop sign’ to express their disagreement to raping. While fetuses are used to express anti-abortionist. Abortion is legalized by government. Abortion is ‘provided’ by government. Therefore, dead fetuses are also considered by ‘left popular culture’ as a product provided by dominant power, in this case is the government. They ‘refunction’ what exists so that those tokens have different and even antagonistic meaning. ‘Left popular culture’, as what has been argued by Laura Kipnis, is a form of ‘refunctioning’ the existing popular culture to express the antagonistic ideas to the system (government, corporate, technology, etc). ‘Left popular culture’ cannot be assimilated by powers of the dominant bloc. The concept of ‘left popular culture’ is the same with the concept of populism (Ernesto Laclaus). Populism deals not only with a particular class, but it deals with the antagonistic expressions people have towards the dominant power. In this extent, populism shares the same feature as the ‘left popular culture’. In short, left popular culture is a form that articulates antagonism toward the dominant power using the existing popular culture product. It is also often

used to express their political and ideological struggle toward the hegemony. Even so, popular culture itself could be used to make a group of people become the object of the hegemony.

3. Andrew Tolson differentiates between the particular definition of culture by teachers and researches and the universalist discourse. In what way is the definition different? Culture is defined differently in the perspective of teachers and researches, and universalist discourse. To understand what they are, we shall refer to a moment when popular culture is institutionalized. Study of culture for a long period has been under the scope of the universalist study. It lies on the study of social commentary and ethnography as the traditional study of sociology. However, these two have limitation in terms of two factors as has been argued by Paul Willis. Firstly, he argues that ethnography cannot provide an objective and thorough understanding. Ethnography gives understanding in terms of “subjects speak for themselves”. It neglects other factors while culture is not as what ethnography argues. Culture is not only for a certain group of people. It is wider than ethnography argues. Secondly, social commentary is also not satisfactory since the Marxist theory is not included in this type of study. Social commentary is always produced in accordance to Marxist theory since talking about culture is also talking about contest of struggle where theories of it could be generated from Marxist study. It is clear then that cultural studies under universalist umbrella can no longer be acceptable. Study of culture is then shifted into academic scope or in other word, institutionalized. Teachers and researches are then asked to define

what culture is. Study of culture is then directed to study of struggle and alliances. It transcends the study beyond meanings. They study the technique to develop culture. Teacher and researcher also study what marginalized people do to make their culture popular. The study of culture is then more elaborated with the hope to find a definition of culture. In conclusion, the different definition of culture from teacher and researcher and universalist discourse’s point of view is located from the way they study culture. The universalist moments when culture should be studied under ethnography and social commentary is over since its subjectivity. From now on, the study of culture is included into academic study where teachers and researchers can generate meaning of what culture is, based on a more elaborate and objective way to look culture as a rich element.

4. Why is the discussion of popular culture related to cultural politics and cultural struggle? Discussing popular culture is always related to cultural politics and cultural struggle. Why could it be so? It all may occur if we go back to the definition of what popular culture as what has been stated in the point number one. I define popular culture as a culture emerging from the working-class people that resist the dominant people. One word is very important to relate this definition to the discussion of popular culture in the terrain of cultural politics and cultural struggle. That word is resist. When we talk about popular culture, we will always remember that it is a site of struggle of a working-class people to resist the dominant culture. At the same time, their cultures make not only resistance but also power to emerge as a

new form of culture. For this thing is going to happen, contest of ideology is needed. During this contest, the more powerful ideology is going to win. Then it will become a hegemony. A light example could be generated from the Levis Strauss’s denim (jeans). It was originally directed to miner workers since the cloth is very thick, cannot be torn easily. However, after a moment, it becomes the ‘obligation’ for you to wear denim. Many people use it disregarding their class. There is a power struggle from a low ideology (cloth for working class) that interfere the high-class people. Therefore, popular culture is related closely to cultural politics and cultural struggle. Within popular culture, power and ideological struggle always occurred. These two are included in the domain of cultural politics and cultural struggle. These struggles always occur not only from popular culture to dominant culture ideology but also inside popular culture itself. It is then what triggers piracy to occur. One want to become ‘popular’ but does not want to be the object of popular culture itself, in other words he resists to become the object. Hence, he creates another product which has similarities as the product of popular culture. The more powerful ideology in a given society, the more powerful the ideology of this new product to resist the hegemony. In conclusion, contest of ideological and power struggle always happen in the popular culture. Hence, discussing popular culture is inevitable from cultural politics and cultural struggle.

5. “Teaching popular culture is like teaching pleasure”. How do you understand this statement? I will define some keywords of the statement “Teaching popular culture is like teaching pleasure”. The first one is ‘teaching’. When it comes to my mind, I

get a boring concept of teaching. It is going to be theoretical and is not going to be pleasurable. However, the next two keywords ‘popular culture’ and ‘pleasure’ are two terms refer to an upside-down nuance with teaching. The two refer to movies, music, television series, fashion or other popular culture products that are meant to be enjoyed. So, how can we teach these enjoyable things without stripping the enjoyable factors implemented in popular culture? If teaching popular culture is like teaching pleasure then it simply means that we have to teach what we like, what others like. Therefore, subjectivity is something that should be avoided when one discusses about popular culture. It is all because everyone has the right to generate meanings and interpretations of the popular culture that is being observed. It all may base on the nature of popular culture as sites of ideological struggle. One person may interpret a different ideology from others when discussing popular culture. They are free to express their likes, feelings, thoughts, appreciations to given product. However, there are still certain boundaries that exist. These boundaries function to limit the discussion in order not to go beyond what it should be. The boundaries are methods of how to study culture as what have been explained in previous points. In conclusion, teaching popular culture is like teaching what we like, what other people like. We teach something pleasurable and enjoyable. In my opinion, in order to make it still as the way it is, we should not strip the ‘popular’ factors that make it enjoyable. We have to teach it as what it is made, based on theoretical framework of how to analyze popular culture.