Pierre Bourdieu who?

So i've just about survived a week of lectures. After being utterly and completely baffled by philosophy, strangely interested by law and contemplating suicide after shorthand, we roll back on to our second lecture reguarding key concepts in media. Probably the least challenging module for me with a nice, slow opening into the week.

For this weeks lecture we were asked to read Strinati's theories behind mass culture. Mass culture also meaning popular culture is produced on an enormouse scale through various industrial techniques which is then marketed for a profit to a mass public of consumers. It is a commercial culture, mass produced for a mass market. The growth in mass culture means that there is less room for other culture which cannot make any money or be mass produced for a mass market, an example being art and folk culture.

Photograph taken by myself

However we soon delved into this theory by looking at the concept of "taste". Taste is often categorised into a series of binary oppositions, constructed by what we consider quality. Binary oppositions can be anything from Good VS Bad, High VS Low or Us VS Them. Taste is considered natural, usually as an expression of individuality or of group status, for example "good" taste is considered to be high culture which usually has a limited audience. In contrast what is considered "poor" taste is usually low culture which has a "mass" appeal.

So far not so bad? Relatively simple to understand, however here comes the technical theorist (who would of course have to be French) SO a Mr Pierre Bourdieu decided to challenge how the logic of taste and preference work. He wanted to challenge these pre-concepted ideas of innate taste and authentic sensiblity by looking at how these notions of quality are socially constructed, otherwise meaning how they are used by different social groups to gain status. He soon came to realise that cultural preference works as a form of cultural distinction - this being cultural knowledge and competence being displayed through consumer choices.

The concept of cultural capital soon appeared, referring to the idea of non-financial assets, that may have been educational or intellectual that were likely to promote social mobility beyond economic means, meaning consumption practises could invest into this term. This therefore produced symbollic capital or power that organised cultural tastes and notions of good quality into heirachies of value characterised on how people responsed or percieved this culture. Cultural capital is linked to social status and education, usually aquired through education with ever shifting values.

Boredieu suggested that different forms of culture provide different forms of pleasure, for instance an example being art. The impressionist painting of "Dejeuner sur l'Herbe" painted by Edouard Monet in 1863, depicts a group of scholars sitting on the grass eating breakfast accompanied by a naked prostitute. In that era, the painting was deemed scandalous and inapropriate but is now considered high art in todays society. Compared to the work of Robert Maplethorpe, who produced "Man in a polyester suit" in 1980 which depicts the torso of a man, wearing a suit with the zip undone and his male genitals fully on show. His work again challenges the concepts of high and low culture, sitting on the boarder between high art and poor taste. Is it art, pornography or simply a challenge?

Alternatively another theorist, known as Stuart Hall suggests that all cultural artefacts can shift. An example being The Beatles, a tiny band who turned into cultural icons with mass fans and struggles between identity groups. Thousands of people were influenced whether this be in fashion, music or social aspects by The Beatles. Everybody wanted to be them.

Hall suggests that the boundaries of pop culture become a site of influence, dependent on that individual along with this idea of art becoming mereley weapons in a power struggle, who is it that decides what is good culture and what is bad culture?

To finish (at long last), a quote from Raymond Williams, 1963 that summaries the above... "There are no masses, there are only ways of seeing people as masses" an interesting, eye opening and unusual opinion on mass culture.