Postmodernism and 'The other side' By Dick Hebdige

Well, after reading this, I think I'm even more confused than I was before to what postmodernism actually is. Hebdige discusses how postmordernism is a term that is used nowadays frequently and widely in our society. Why then is there no exact determination for what is and what is not postmodern, because to me, it seems it is down to the own individual interpretation, which defines it's true meaning.

Hebdige argues too that postmodernism is referred to as the 'buzzword', because it has so many distinctions. One point he does make is that there are three negotiations, which are as follows -

1. Against Totalisation
2. Against Teleology
3. Against Utopia

His point being that postmodernism applies to several different cultural aspects. Marxism still plays a valid role, in what Hebdige describes as 'explicit renunciation of marxism. Power and structure, and a hierarchical command are present in postmodernism, the guidelines are there, and there are certain rules to follow, yet there is still a sense of ambiguity and inconclusivenss. Which can be slightly unhelpful/ confusing when analysing media texts, yet, bearing that in mind, aren't all media theories just that, theories? Left wide open for discussion and arguement?

"Within this model, there is no 'science' to be opposed to the monolith of ideology, only prescience: an alertness to possibility and emergence - that and the always imperfect, risky, undecidable 'science' of strategy".


"To say 'post' is to say 'past', hence questions of periodisation are inevitably raised. There is, however, little agreement as to what it is we are alleged to have surpassed, when that passage is supposed to have ocurred and what effects it is supposed to have had".

'Distinction and the Aristocracy of Culture' Pierre Bourdieu

What is the Topic and Issue of the chapter?
This was a very in depth piece of writing, and I found it quite difficult to stay focused as Bourdieu was quite repetitive in this chapter. However the main issue here is that our own culture can be determined by many factors, like our family, our education and what we are exposed to, like longer schooling - visiting theatres and museums for a few examples.
What is the autor arguing? what is his point?
As a consumer, we must possess cultural competancy - that is to say if the working class audience refuses any sort of formal experimentation, will distance them as a spectator, which will prevent them from getting involoved and fully identifying the characters and the situation.
What method does the author use to make his case?
I would of thought guessing from his findings Bourdieu would have conducted visual ethnography along with interviews and historiography to accumulate his findings.
What suggestions/ conclusions does the author make?
He concludes with his theory of 'The Aesthetic Disposition' where who judges art and where the only socially accepted 'right' way of approaching the object. He continues to discuss whether it is refusal or privatisation which distances us, that through
deciphering and decoding even the 'ordinary people' adopt the negative conception of ordinary vision which is the basis of every 'high' aesthetic.
Do you agree/disagree with the author?
I strongly agree that what we surround ourselves with, in turn opitimises what our own culture is, however why do we have to understand something to appreciate its cultural value. Who is to say that Museum visits and Ballet trips enrich us as human beings, and why is this categorized as high culture?

"Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier. Social subjects, classified by thier classifications, distinguish themselves by the distinctions they make, between the beautiful and the ugly, the distinguished and the vulgar, in which their position in the objective classifications is expressed or portrayed."

"The denial of lower, coarse, vulgar, venal, servile - in a word, natural - enjoyment which constitutes the sacred sphere of culture, implies an affirmation of the superiority of those who can be satisfied with the subliminated, refined, disintersted, gratuitous distinguished pleasures forever closed to the profane. That is why art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfil a social function and legitmating social differences."

"There is an economy of cultural goods, but it has specific logic. Sociology endeavours to establish the conditions in which the consumers of cultural goods, and their taste for them, are produced, at the same time to describe different ways pf appropriating such of these subjects as are regarded at a particular moment as works of art, and the social conditions of the consitution of the mode of appropriation that is considered legitimate."

Notes on deconstructing 'The Popular' Stuart Hall

What is the topic and issue of the chapter?
Hall discusses popular culture, what he believes it to be, and how it has developed and altered over the years. He has pinpointed precise periods in our history, paying attention in detail to the late 19th centuary (more specifically the 1880-1920's) and the 1930's. The issues he addresses are that of change and restricition, dilemmas and struggle.
what is the author arguing?
A main arguement I sense when reading Hall's work is the issue of class combined with culture, and such a place where socialism might be constructed. Tradition is a vital element in culture is also a key point made by Hall.
What method does the author use to make his case?
Histroriography - it has clear he has researched the past in order to assess culture in today's society.
What suggestions/conclusions does the author make?
That capital is the driving force behind culture, and that the terrain of national-popular culture and tradition is a battlefield. Also that 'popular' can have a number of different meanings.
Do you agree or disagree with the author and why?
When reading this, I felt like Hall is one of the first theorists to actually give the power to the people, I think it's not such a bad thing to be part of the masses like other theorists believe, the minority isn't necessarily the elite either, why can't you be apart of the masses yet still be individual. Most annoyingly - why is there this continuous war between 'class against class'? I like his concept and beliefs in the people, however, in reality - i'm not sure this is really the case.

"I have as many problems with 'popular' as i do with 'culture'. When you put the two terms together the difficulties can be pretty horrendous"

"Culture struggle, of course, takes may forms: incorporation, distortion, resistance, negotiation. Raymond Williams has done us a great deal of service by outlining some of these processes, with his distinction between emergent, residual and incorporated moments. We need to expand and develop rudimentary schema. The important thing is to look at it dynamically: as an historical process."

"The term 'popular' has very complex relations to the term 'class'. We know this but are often at pains to forget it. We speak ot particular forms of working class culture, but we use the more inculsive term 'popular culture' to refer to the general field of enquiry."

Dance: Standard

When I think of The Frankfurt School, I imagine stuffy professors with tweed jackets and a pessimistic view of the rest of the world. I shall attempt to critique in the style of my object of study this week, The Frankfurt School, with my chosen cultural industry of the arts – Dance.
When I think of Dance, I think of highly skilled human beings who can make their bodies move in beautiful, miraculous ways. They condition and train their bodies to be strong and precise, and it is a craft which takes years to develop, grow and nurture – and only the elite few make it to a professional level.
Years ago, being a dancer was only a dream for a few people, not your average family could afford to send their sons and daughters to dance school, or pay for weekly tuition, nowadays it’s readily accessible, with an array of new wacky and wonderful genres, and with a different reality dance show popping up on channels almost as fast as you can blink.
To me this once enchanting art form has been standardized without recognition. It isn’t even as individual as it thinks it is, hybrid genres of dance have evolved over the years. For example, dance used to mean performing Swan Lake in front of The Queen, now you can run across the room, move your head to the left and turn on a light switch and it’s classed as ‘contemporary dance’. (No, it really is!)
Dance has been integrated and standardised into our society, and there is no going back, if I wasn’t discussing this in a Frankfurt school perspective, I would say times have changed for the better and that dance should be accessible and enjoyed by everyone, but a part of me agrees that the skill and commitment that once was given to this art, has not gone just yet – but it is certainly beginning to diminish.

Keeping up with whom?

Tacky, dull, and brainless. These are the first words which spring to mind when I was forced to watch episodes of a so-called hit reality show ‘Keeping up with the Kardashians’. However I am glad to note that this show is not from our soil. Oh no, of course it has been imported from moral-avoiding America.
What is apparent is that the girls featured in the show, are from a privileged barbarian background, yet show no desire to educate themselves in the ways of the world; it’s all about fast cars and false lashes – and the capability to MOAN.
Appealing to the base emotions of the viewer, the shows half hearted attempt to showcase the values and importance of family goes by the wayside and is instead taken over by materialistic self obsessed, scantily clad females with screechy voices who ‘try’ to run a clothes store by means of a career. Or pose nude for playboy – whatever floats your boat.
Suffice to say the show provides no educational purpose, no cultural diversity, and no moral virtues. If shows like this are continually granted permission to be broadcast, than I foresee little hope for the future. The masses indeed will surely find trash such as this appealing and therefore the machine will undoubtedly triumph.

A Pure Woman

‘Culture improves us – it gives us sweetness and light – it makes us better people’. What contemporary media text, then, can provide us with this thing known as culture?
A little while ago I began watching the BBC’s newest adaptation of Tess and the D’Urbervilles. Now knowing that Hardy was on the Leavis’ approved list, will a contemporary version still provide us with the same meanings as it once did?
The heroin of the story, Tess, is from a rural, working class family, who struggle to make ends meet financially. Pretty Tess finds herself in a tragic tale of love, missed opportunities, and of course, loss.
I believe this text to still offer us a sense of culture in the way that Tess still makes mistakes, she isn’t portrayed as being totally innocent, naive, yes, and that something we can all relate to, and importantly, learn from.
It is the best that is thought or said because it tells a story and keeps the audience gripped from start to end. Morals and integrity play a huge part in this story, and these are attributes that we should aspire to have as human beings.
What is also interesting about our heroin is that even though she is from a working class background, she seeks to better herself, although feeling uncomfortable and slightly awkward at being catapulted into a higher class by the love of her life, she handles herself with dignity.
Being set in Somerset, the scenery in the programme is breathtaking. With spectacular views such as these it makes us value who we are, and where we are from, and what higher pastures we can concur with hard-work and nobility.

Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (F.R. Leavis)

Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture
(F.R. Leavis)

Here we read Leavis trying to explain what is meant by culture. It is clear there seems to be a continuing battle between the minority and the masses – to an extent which is described in the reading as a crisis. Culture has always been in minority keeping. Culture has changed and adapted over the years, and indeed, it seems will continue to change in the years to come.

Standardisation and mass-production are looked down upon, including films which are considered to have a much more potent influence, as it is believed that the adult public who can think critically are few and far between.

It is argued in Leavis’ piece that mass culture may be better than the culture we are losing, but there is hope that recovery will come – and has a warning to keep open communications with the future.