When the beauty of old definitions finally fade, one is confronted with the doleful prospect of creating new meanings, and in the process he is moved to excavate a feeling of what has gone before. Thus, it is worthy to note that in defining the word “culture,” it is impossible to avoid confusion. Moreover, various definitions from different periods imply that there is no pure measure to it because the word itself can be analyzed using several perspectives as noted by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan in an article called “The Politics of Culture.”
Furthermore, in the eyes of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, “mass culture—the culture of television, radio, film, and cheap paperbacks—is a tool of domination.” Instantly, a response formulates, whether these “ingredients” of the above noted term—mass culture—refine the mind, as massively they appeal to the mind. One perspective is that this “mind pollution” is a less appeasing byproduct of industrialization. It is ironic that technology in its high contribution to the fragmentation of life is also, from another perspective, responsible for its amplified relevance. Television, for instance, is a form of technology with its fair share of audiences. So, is it cogent to say that the “amplified relevance” of life, caused by technology is perhaps because audiences, as Rivkin and Ryan assert, “decode’ the cultural messages in ways that allow them to think resistantly about their lives’?”
As the older attractions (religion, conventional family) lose their vibe and “ancient” curiosities seem satisfied, our lives become filled with the mentioned earlier—“mind pollutants”—ignited by ever-alerted cutting-edge industry.
Works Cited
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology.
Evidence is mixed that audiences use oppositional decoding to go against the "preferred reading" of a text... It has been shown that conservative audiences report they believe Stephen Colbert is on their side, where it is plain to anyone paying attention that his shtick skewers the Right. Also, my own racist stepfather *loved* "All in the Family" because he *agreed* with the opinions of Archie Bunker, who of course was always shown to be the buffoon because of his backwards attitudes.
ReplyDeleteI have not heard much about audiences reading "against" pro-war, pro-police state, pro-corporate news and programming, however.
So can audiences resist a dominant reading? It seems so. It also seems they do this at exactly the wrong times, when the preferred reading is progressive, and the audience goes against the grain in order to remain stuck in a retrograde mentality.
How else to explain the enduring popularity of *Scarface*? It seemed to me like a satire on the excesses of the 1980s, and capitalism run amok. Yet the violence and misogyny of the main character has been embraced by the generations of young men who've come after - it seems they all missed the joke.
Such is the danger of satire. One has to commit the sin one is attempting to satirize. Thus every war movie, which seems in its horror to hold an anti-war message, can also be read "oppositionally" as a pro-war film.
Horkheimer and Adorno make for dense reading. Good on you for tackling them!
Thank you for your insights, and sharing.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the culture industry is admittedly autonomous. Most are prepared to secure the ‘values’ of dominant strata, once again showing the peculiar willingness to take the ‘morality’ imposed upon them. What does the audience get? A refuge? An escape? Counterfeited catharsis, perhaps? What a desensitized state!
And about satire—well-pointed—only through it can cynical brutalities be revealed; unfortunately, quite often, audiences miss the punch in the gut.