Studies in the Culture of Capitalism - Term Paper Example

 Is Capitalism good for popular culture? The intimate relationship between popular culture and the economic conditions known as capitalism which has emerged since the inception of the industrial revolution remains a source of constant debate among political and social theorists. In this essay, I argue that these two phenomena are intimately (and ultimately positively) linked. My argument is divided into three sections. In Part 1, I show how traditional Marxist and Whig views of culture which see the relationship in terms of how capitalism has damaged popular culture are built on a misunderstanding of popular culture and its economic life. In Part 2, I show how the views of Benjamin appear to offer the opportunity to develop a positive relationship between culture and the means of capitalist and mass production. In Part 3, finally, I argue that the global capitalism provides an opportunity for the expression of artistic endeavour and intellectual culture on a mass level. Capitalism, in other words, facilitates the development and the effectiveness of popular culture. What is popular culture? In this essay, I want to mobilise multiple definitions of culture, which are often associated with different schools of political and philosophical thought. Having said this, it is still necessary to outline a basic theory of culture relevant to this discussion. In what follows, I understand culture to be both (a) a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development; and (b) the production and practices which describe artistic, intellectual, and religious endeavour (Storey 2006, 24-5). Popular culture, specifically, concerns that form of cultural practice and its sum of artefacts that are associated with mass culture; it is culture associated with the massive or the popular classes. This is traditionally associated with the culture of the working class or the masses, and is opposed to that which is normally considered ‘high’ culture. What interests me is the way in which culture can be expression, collective or otherwise, of the intellectual, spiritual, or emotional activity of a popular community. It is also important to recognise that in this sense of being associated with the masses—and especially the working classes—popular culture is co-extensive with the emergence of capitalism and especially the development of the Industrial Revolution. Not only did the Industrial Revolution, as it was experienced in Europe, create the very notion of the working classes, or indeed the masses by bringing large numbers of peasants and country folk together into the cities; but also created the idea of the masses. At another level, the Industrial Revolution also facilitated the possibility of mass culture. The capacity for the production of cultural artefacts and the economic conditions which allowed for their mass distribution and consumption was fundamental to the economic changes wrought by the revolution. This is evident for instance in the increasing availability of published works such as Broadsheets, or novels, or revolutionary pamphlets. The capitalist process of economic development during the 19th century in the European and American worlds created the possibilities of mass or popular culture. Section 1: Traditional Marxist views of Capitalism Just as it is true that the industrial revolution was coextensive with the emergence of the working class and, indeed, popular or mass culture, so it is also true that a number of political and cultural ideologies argue that there is an inherent disjuncture between culture and capitalism. In this section, I turn to predominantly Marxist views of culture and capitalism. Traditionally, Marxist interpretations—stretching as far back as Marx himself—have seen the relationship between these two phenomena as destructive. Capitalism inherently destroys culture—in both the sense of cultural production by artists, and by the views and practices of a certain way of life or consciousness--of the working classes. In this section, I show how this view, while expressing some valid concerns about the relationship between culture and capitalism, fails to understand the complex (and as I stated above, positive) relationship in an effective way. This is particularly true in the case of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer who argued that modern capitalist society actually destroys popular culture (Adorno et al 1997, 120-67) . They suggested in their work The Culture Industry that the capitalist system manipulates the masses into political passivity and subjugation by two means. Firstly in creates false desires (masquerading as needs) and reproduces those desires so completely that we are deceived into thinking that such needs represent genuine ones. These ‘false’ needs are in contrast to the real needs of the individual, such as freedom, or intellectual fulfilment. At the same time, by facilitating and enforcing the consumption of the products which fuel these desires they reduce the political awareness and capacity of the working classes to resist the ideological impositions of the capitalist system (Adorno et al 1997, 120-67). In this sense, the capitalist system undermines the cultural system of the working classes and masses by replacing it with a consumerist ideology; and this stands in contrast to the individual and the artist to produce or engage in high forms of culture (Adorno et al 1997, 120-67). This view of the disjuncture between capitalist system and popular culture is based on a fallacious division between ‘high’ culture and the populist elements of the capitalist system. Section 2: Walter Benjamin: Art and Capitalism While traditional Marxists downplay the productive relationship between capitalism and culture, some left wing scholars have actually seen the relationship in very positive terms. In this section, I turn to analysis of art within the world of capitalism which promotes a positive relationship between capitalism (and the mechanical mass production on which it is based) and artistic production. As we shall see this positive view is based on a slightly different reading of the notion of popular culture. In his work ‘Art in the Age of Mass Production’ Benajmin famously argued that the process of mass mechanical production had disastrous effects on the production of art. He argued that a work of art has a certain degree of ‘impactfulness’ which is lost in the age of mechanical reproduction (Benjamin 1999, 214-5). By creating the circumstances in which art can be endlessly reproduced in different contexts, capitalism reduces art to an endlessly reproduced image which is removed from its original impactful context, and the opportunity for the authorial meanings are reduced: its ‘aura’ is undermined (Benjamin 1999, 216-9). Ostensibly, this view denies the positive relationship between capitalism and culture. However, Benjamin contends, although it denies the originality and uniqueness of artwork, and hence the original authorial meaning, it creates the possibility for audiences to understand and negotiate artwork on their own terms: it frees art from tradition, and from ritualistic practices of production and viewing which leaves the viewer free to negotiate artwork on their own terms. This kind of analysis is particularly relevant to, for example, the artwork and images of war, atrocity and suffering that permeate the news or public media. Discussions of images of suffering within televised mass media culture have emphasised how the mass media has turned suffering into a spectacle and desensitised audiences: artwork has lost its original impact because it is reproduced everywhere. In one famous photo taken by Kevin Carter during the Rwandan civil war and famine in which a vulture stands only yards away from a child about to die of malnutrition, this is particularly true (New York Times, 26 March 1993). The photo has been reproduced endlessly to communicate the suffering of war and the hardships endured by the poorest humans. On one level, it can be said to have lost its original impact through the continual reproduction of the image: suffering here is simply a reproduced image, the image has become a commodity which can be sold and resold, produced and reproduced without the original intentions of the photographer or indeed the original impact of the situation being communicated to the viewer. However, at the same time, it is clear that the process of reproduction of commodisation has allowed viewers to make up their own minds about the picture (Kleinmann et al 1996). A good example of this process is the fact that there have been multiple views and reactions to this picture, which range from condemnation of the photographer (for taking the photograph rather than helping the child), to condemnation of western powers for failing to help; moral outrage at the civil war (Kleinmann et al, 1996, 3-7). As a result of the power of the capitalist market—with its power to endlessly reproduce and re-contextualise images; to turn images and experiences into commodities—this image has entered popular culture and developed a range of multiple and meaningful nuances. As Benjamin argues, then, the possibilities of the capitalist system are nuanced and often ambivalent. They can reduce the impactfulness of art, and undermine its original force, yet at the same time, it facilitates a process of continual re-contextualisation, and re-negotiation which produces a multiplicity of views. Benjamin’s approach, here, is fundamentally based on a positive view of culture and capitalism. Capitalism’s mass production has facilitated the creation of mass culture, by making possible the incorporation of art into system characterised by various and multiple subjective reactions and negotiations to an act of artistic production. In this context, capitalism operates the fundamental condition of popular culture. Section 3: Blue Jeans and Capitalism We saw in the last section that Benjamin’s view of the age of mechanical reproduction facilitated a view of culture and capitalism in which the latter contributed to the very creation and diversity of the former. In this section, I build on this conclusion and show that popular culture and capitalism are inherently linked. I do this in two ways. I argue that popular culture is the space in which resistance to dominant ideologies, economics, and politics can be played out (in other words, popular culture is the space in which we give voice to our negotiation and reaction to the world around us). I show secondly, how this is dependent on, and facilitated by, the global capitalist economy: pop culture is about our reaction to, and is dependent on, the capitalist economy. One of the primary examples of popular culture is the rise of the blue jean or Levi jeans. Levi jeans in particular maintain a particularly ambivalent relationship with the capitalist market. On one level, economic developments have facilitated their increasing production since their initial development in the 1850s (Quinn 1978, 14). These jeans were originally sold to poor workers and cowboys in the American west, for whom the jeans operated as a type of hard-wearing, long lasting item of clothing. (Quinn 1978, 35). During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the expense associated with these jeans ensured that they were often purchased once by individuals and worn for long periods of time. Concomitant to this, a reduction in the manufacturing costs of these jeans has ensured that they have become available to an increasingly broad section of the population. At the same time, the ability of manufacturers to produce this item in large numbers for relatively low cost has also changed the way such items of clothing a worn and used by the general population. The widespread and easy availability of these jeans since the 1950s has dramatically changed their role and place within mass society. They have since become increasing popular with a range of sub-cultures and youth cultures such as  greasers, mods, rockers, hippies (Quinn 1978). Within these cultures the jeans operate not as a symbol of poverty, or indeed did not operate as a functional uniform, but rather served as an expression of identity. And in the case of hippies and rockers as expressions of beliefs and rejections of the normal economic superstructure (Quinn 1978). Another important example of the intersection of capitalism and culture in the case of the levis concerns the way in which advertising for these jeans have been incorporated into popular music and television. Levis have become iconic sex symbols through their place in US advertising campaigns; indeed their place in youth culture and their role as symbols within sub-culture appears to have been shaped by some of these advertisements. These ads have allowed the jeans to become symbols adopted by youth culture through their incorporation into the mechanisms of the capitalist system. No longer are they seen as an item to be bought once and then worn for long periods of time to work. The capitalist system has facilitated the process by which jeans can be used by different people to express their identity, and resist the capitalist system. The capitalist system of mass production has facilitated the creation of an essential element of pop culture, allowing people to express themselves and engage in everyday aspects of culture central to our system. Clearly, then, the relationship between capitalism and popular culture is intricate. A number of social and political theorists have seen this relationship as negative—capitalism has undermined mass culture. However, it would be simplistic to view relationship in such straightforward terms. It appears rather that mass culture depends on capitalism. The multiplicity of views, individual expression, political and social resistance, intellectual practice associated with mass culture are in fact dependent on the capitalist superstructure. At the same time, capitalism—through its increasing capacity to produce goods cheaply, market and sell them to increasingly broad audiences—has created the conditions under which popular culture has flourished. References Adorno, T. & M. Hoekheimer [1944] (1997) ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ in The Dialectic of Enlightenment, Verso, pp. 120-67. Kleinnmann, A &Kleinmann, J (1996) ‘The Appeal of Experience and the Dismay of Images: The cultural appropriation of Suffering’ Daedalus 125(1), 1-24. Storey, J., ed., 1998, Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall. The New York Times, 26 March 1993, A3. Quinn, C (1978), ‘The Jeaning of America—and the World’ American Heritage 29(3). Cruz, O (eds.), (2005), Popular Culture: A Reader, Sage. Williams, R (1976), Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Fontana. Zorn, H (1999), Walter Benjamin Illuminations, Pimlico. Read More