
life is not self-evident or necessarily “given” in the programs themselves. Thus mass
culture is the objective repertoire from which people create subjective, popular
meanings—albeit meanings inevitably circumscribed in key ways by the repertoire itself.
This meaning-making not only acknowledges an active dimension to consumption, it
requires us to consider popular culture in a more local, personal and political sense. As
Hall insists, the making of popular culture involves an ongoing negotiation or struggle
between people’s needs and desires (what he calls the forces of resistance) and the needs
of the culture industries (what he calls the power bloc, or the forces of incorporation). O
course, this is hardly an equal struggle, for the power bloc by definition has
disproportionate clout in establishing the terms and limits of the cultural terrain in the
first place. Popular culture is contradictory in nature: both constraining and enabling;
limiting how we think about the world and offering opportunities for creative social and
personal expression within those limits.
Popular culture is therefore not a fixed set of objects and practices, nor a fixed
conceptual category but something constituted both through the act of consumption and
through the act of theoretical engagement. Scholars have focused on different aspects o
popular culture, some turning to texts (
romance,
television, film, pop music, etc.), others
examining lived culture such as holidays, hobbies, or fandoms. Different scholars have
employed distinct theoretical approaches, most of them “structuralist theories” that
generally claim that forms of popular culture—
food,
clothing, sports,
games,
rituals,
entertainment—help reveal the underlying rules, structures and values of a society. For
example, Marxists emphasize the relation between popular culture and the capitalist
mode of production, suggesting that popular culture reproduces class inequality by
generating enormous profits for those who control the culture industries while inculcating
in consumers the values and ideology necessary to justify this—and other—unjust social
arrangements. Psychoanalytic approaches tend to see popular culture as symptomatic
expressions of society’s “collective unconscious,” as articulating indirectly through the
symbolic language of entertainment our collective fears, anxieties, fantasies and desires.
Ethnographic approaches investigate how forms of popular culture are produced and
consumed in everyday life, what it means to people, how they contribute (or not) to the
formation of individual, group and community identities. What all approaches have in
common is the assumption that objects and practices taken to be part of popular culture
are “readable,” that they “speak” to us and that they tell us important (though not
necessarily positive) things about the society in which we live.
Further reading
Fiske, J. (1989)
Understanding Popular Culture,
Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Hall, S. (1981) “Notes on Deconstructing the Popular,” in Samuel, R. (ed.)
People’s
History and Socialist Theory,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Levine, L. (1988)
Highbrow Lowbrow,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Mukerji, C. and Schudson, M. (eds) (1991)
Rethinking Popular Culture,
Berkeley:
Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture 896