Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Culture Industry
The Frankfurt School; a predominant left wing group of intellectuals gathered from the middle and upper classes of German society in the early twentieth century are popularly associated within the ‘development of critical theory and research’. (Strinati:2004). The most significant critique concerned highlighting the apparent ‘social contradictions underlying the emergent capitalist societies of the time, and their typical ideologies’ (ibid). The Frankfurt School – within a metaphysical paradigm – described such contradictions, ‘the very nature or essence of the social phenomena’, as present within the reality of The Culture Industry (Cohen et al:2007).
The Frankfurt School adopted several Marxist theoretical principles implying that ‘the Culture Industry reflects the consolidation of commodity fetishism, the domination of exchange value and the ascendancy of state monopoly capitalism’ (Strinati:2004). Indeed, the classical Marxist conflict model provides the basis for the Culture Industry paradigm. This conflict model – Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat – derived from observations that ‘capitalists appropriated a disproportionate share of society’s total income solely by their virtue of being owners of the means of production’ is the essential analytical tool in terms of understanding that the ‘dominant ideas in any society are those which are drawn up, distributed and imposed by the ruling class to secure and perpetuate its rule’ (Cypher & Dietz:2004), (Strinati:2004). The Culture Industry, therefore, is a cultural phenomenon initiated by the ruling class to maintain social order.
The Frankfurt School adopted several Marxist theoretical principles implying that ‘the Culture Industry reflects the consolidation of commodity fetishism, the domination of exchange value and the ascendancy of state monopoly capitalism’ (Strinati:2004). Indeed, the classical Marxist conflict model provides the basis for the Culture Industry paradigm. This conflict model – Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat – derived from observations that ‘capitalists appropriated a disproportionate share of society’s total income solely by their virtue of being owners of the means of production’ is the essential analytical tool in terms of understanding that the ‘dominant ideas in any society are those which are drawn up, distributed and imposed by the ruling class to secure and perpetuate its rule’ (Cypher & Dietz:2004), (Strinati:2004). The Culture Industry, therefore, is a cultural phenomenon initiated by the ruling class to maintain social order.
A mockingbird will never strike back
According to Bourdieu, (in Jenks:2004) Cultural Capital is ‘diffused within a social space…. transmitted by inheritance and invested in order to be cultivated’. Furthermore within his theory of Cultural Reproduction, Bourdieu believed that; ‘differentiated and stratified, socialisation practices, in combination with the system of education, function to discriminate positively in favour of these members of society who, by virtue of their location with the class system are the natural inheritors of cultural capital’ (Jenks:2004). Therefore, this statement suggests, within a Marxist discourse, that Cultural Capital – the demonstration of social and economic status and power - is a privilege, exclusive to the higher tiers of the social stratification paradigm, which is perpetual and must be tolerated by the masses.
Furthermore, cultural capital is only one facet within a trinity of ‘major types of capital’; the others being economic – ‘high levels of income and property’ - and social – ‘stems not so much from what you know but who you know’ capital (Thornton:1995) (ibid1) (ibid2). In addition, within contemporary society there exists a manifold of consonant and dissonant relationships pertaining to such a trinity. Of course, within the elite of society – the royal family provides the best example – there will be a harmonious consonance of the trinity paradigm. However, there are increasing instances of dissonant relationships within contemporary society such as; ‘those rich in economic capital but less affluent in cultural capital’ (ibid3). Indeed, the opportunist markets of economic opportunity – professional sport, media and reality shows – will perpetuate such dissonant relationships and, indeed, the rejection of new money celebrities by the hereditary social elite.
Furthermore, cultural capital is only one facet within a trinity of ‘major types of capital’; the others being economic – ‘high levels of income and property’ - and social – ‘stems not so much from what you know but who you know’ capital (Thornton:1995) (ibid1) (ibid2). In addition, within contemporary society there exists a manifold of consonant and dissonant relationships pertaining to such a trinity. Of course, within the elite of society – the royal family provides the best example – there will be a harmonious consonance of the trinity paradigm. However, there are increasing instances of dissonant relationships within contemporary society such as; ‘those rich in economic capital but less affluent in cultural capital’ (ibid3). Indeed, the opportunist markets of economic opportunity – professional sport, media and reality shows – will perpetuate such dissonant relationships and, indeed, the rejection of new money celebrities by the hereditary social elite.
Identity Positions
Within this presentation exists a myriad of identity position dichotomy. The initial, and indeed most apparent, concerns male versus female sensibility – of which a female bias is evident criticising a series of stereotypical generalisations – and, secondly, an emphasis regarding the gender specific processes of economic labour (Men – Police and Women – Office). Both contribute to an overall sense of social and economic inequality towards women. Therefore, the presentations ideology demonstrates a shift from ‘Female Passivity’ to a collective stance of objection towards the implied dominant patriarchal society (Frith & McRobbie:1978). This is exemplified in two particular strong instances. The initial example concerns the MTV video scope of role reversal and, secondly, the presence of an all female band within a rock setting.
The question as to its relevancy to general society will, inevitably, lead to great debate. Indeed, if we analyse this from an economic standpoint, since the advent of a post-industrial society in the UK in the 1970s and the shift from mass production to more flexible forms of production (i.e. Fordism to Post-Fordism), women left what was regarded as the fifth world - the kitchen, garden and nursery – to participate in the service sector and indeed achieve greater levels of economic equality. Prior to this point in time, this theme of passivity would achieve greater relevancy as Strinati (2004) describes the industrial epoch of the UK as the ‘symbolic annihilation of women…. that the roles of wife, mother and housewife, etc., are the fate of women in a patriarchal society. Women are socialised into performing these roles by cultural representations which attempt to make them appear to be the natural prerogative of women’. This demonstrates, quite considerably, that over the past 50 years great strives towards the symbolic annihilation of women have been achieved without the help of Beyonce. However, in terms of social rituals, her mimesis does, to a large extent, achieve greater relevancy as Frith and McRobbie (1978) ‘boys can express their sexuality more directly than girls; they are allowed to display physical as well as spiritual desire’.
Another interesting and valid point made by the presentation, particularly by the live clip is with regards to the ensemble – an all women rock group which defies the view that ‘women musicians who make it are almost always singers’, (ibid). Indeed, if we analyse women within contemporary music, does the theory of Frith and McRobbie still retain relevance today? Beyonce as well as other female ‘artists’ such as Shakira, Leona Lewis, Britney Spears would certainly support this theory. Furthermore, the identification of a prominent women within rock instrumentation eludes me as it’s by far easier to identify classical women performers such as Evelyn Glynnie. This can be attributed to many reasons such as the assumed male dominated, testosterone fuelled realms of rock or as Bayton (1988) simply concludes; ‘Women are much less likely to be able to play already’.
The question as to its relevancy to general society will, inevitably, lead to great debate. Indeed, if we analyse this from an economic standpoint, since the advent of a post-industrial society in the UK in the 1970s and the shift from mass production to more flexible forms of production (i.e. Fordism to Post-Fordism), women left what was regarded as the fifth world - the kitchen, garden and nursery – to participate in the service sector and indeed achieve greater levels of economic equality. Prior to this point in time, this theme of passivity would achieve greater relevancy as Strinati (2004) describes the industrial epoch of the UK as the ‘symbolic annihilation of women…. that the roles of wife, mother and housewife, etc., are the fate of women in a patriarchal society. Women are socialised into performing these roles by cultural representations which attempt to make them appear to be the natural prerogative of women’. This demonstrates, quite considerably, that over the past 50 years great strives towards the symbolic annihilation of women have been achieved without the help of Beyonce. However, in terms of social rituals, her mimesis does, to a large extent, achieve greater relevancy as Frith and McRobbie (1978) ‘boys can express their sexuality more directly than girls; they are allowed to display physical as well as spiritual desire’.
Another interesting and valid point made by the presentation, particularly by the live clip is with regards to the ensemble – an all women rock group which defies the view that ‘women musicians who make it are almost always singers’, (ibid). Indeed, if we analyse women within contemporary music, does the theory of Frith and McRobbie still retain relevance today? Beyonce as well as other female ‘artists’ such as Shakira, Leona Lewis, Britney Spears would certainly support this theory. Furthermore, the identification of a prominent women within rock instrumentation eludes me as it’s by far easier to identify classical women performers such as Evelyn Glynnie. This can be attributed to many reasons such as the assumed male dominated, testosterone fuelled realms of rock or as Bayton (1988) simply concludes; ‘Women are much less likely to be able to play already’.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
