Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Populist-Elitist Paradox

While reading An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture by Dominic Strinati this fall break, I began to wonder if the theories of populism and elitism are not a contradiction, but instead a paradox in constructing popular culture. The author describes that through populism, popular culture is not viewed as “an imposition, but as a more or less genuine expression of the voice of the people” (234). Populism understands popular culture gives the public what they are asking for. On the contrary, elitism is one theory that perceives the public as powerless to the influence of the media and popular culture. Strinati states “[elitism has] often seen audiences as full of passive unthinking dupes, open to manipulation and ideological control by the mass media and the culture they spread” (236). Through the elitist lens, there is a shift of power from the public to the media. Now we are amidst a battle – who is in charge of popular culture?

The new idea is that both, ordinary people and the influencing media are equally powerful but perhaps each group vests their interests in different aspects of popular culture. Strinati argues in a postmodern world, “we increasingly consume images and signs for their own sake rather than for their ‘usefulness’ or for the deeper values they may represent” (207). As a whole style and aesthetic appeal have become more and more important, swaying the public in what they choose to consume or not to consume. Possibly in packaging is where the “voice of the people” is being heard and represented. We want beautiful, thin, flexible pop stars. In our favorite television dramas, the characters are well-dressed and live in equally trendy apartments. The packaging has embodied exactly what we would want for ourselves. But as Strinati questioned earlier, what about the content?

As the public has created and satisfied itself with a lovely sense of style, I suggest that the mass media and larger institutions of power (government, churches, etc) have been able to fill are beautifully crafted vessels with whatever they choose. Popular culture in America is still loaded with messages promoting a patriarchal, white dominance. That issue is too large to delve into here, but in the diverse culture we live in, I question that those are messages the public demanding. It seems like an ideal opportunity for the dominant culture to sneak in and fill the empty space with its own agendas.

The populist-elitist paradox is maybe nothing more than supply and demand. It will be interesting to see whether the public takes complete control of popular culture, fully realizing the populism theory, to demand more than good-looking outer appearances.

1 comment:

Beth H. said...

I think your analysis ties in well with the recent reading we did by Strinati in regards to Marxism, particularly your point about people consuming various signs for their own sake. The upper-classes, who, in Marxist theory, disseminate popular culture to the masses, disseminate certain symbols of their own privilege to be consumed by the masses, which only, in turn, fuels the capitalist system. In essence, the upper-class hold up certain symbols or accessories (coach bags, fur coats, jewelry) and the members of the proletariat work harder and harder within the system thinking that if they have attained the symbols, this means they have the wealth. Never mind the fact that they are flushing their money away on the symbols, thus making them poorer and forcing them to remain longer in the economic system.