Enemies of the People, Essay Example

As noted in the discussion prompt, the very term “popular culture” appears to contain a paradox, to the extent that on a purely intuitive level as well as how we use everyday language, it can be argued that the term culture refers to some type of intellectual, artistic or aesthetic elite, whereas popular is that which is reserved for the so-called lumpen proletariat. However, upon closer examination, why should our preconceived notion of what each word in this term means, determine the concept? In other words, is it not entirely conceivable that cultural projects can be pursued so as to engage the masses, that is, to refine the tastes of the public in line with the definition of both terms? From yet another perspective, is it necessarily the case that all forms of popular art are necessarily devoid of cultural value?

With regards to the first point, the history of approaches to culture demonstrate that cultural projects specifically intended for the audience of the masses may produce works of long-lasting artistic value. For example, in the Soviet Union popular culture had the very specific meaning of creating a culture specifically for the masses, as well as creating a culture that was of high artistic value. As Julcher (2015) notes, “In 1917 the Bolsheviks created the Proletarian Cultural and Enlightenment Organizations (Proletkult) in order to encourage artists of every kind to promote the goals of the Revolution.” (p. 179) This movement produced works of art that are acknowledged the world over as possessing artistic merit, from the poems of Vladimir Mayakovsky to the films of Sergei Eisenstein, who was one of the leaders of Prolekult Theatre in the period before he embarked on his world renowned career in cinema. The Prolekult experiment provides an excellent example of how popular culture may also be high culture.

With regards to the second point, the presupposition of a paradox in the very meaning of the term “popular culture” seems to based on elitist attitudes. Certainly, a counter-argument can be added that according to specific political and socio-economic ideologies, popular culture must always be a form of vulgar entertainment. This is perhaps the case in capitalist societies, where the goal of companies is to make a profit: film companies, for example, will not make sequels of films if they are not financially successful at the box office. This leads to phenomena such as market research, which tries to assess what the public wants, instead of attempting to create something that is of educational and artistic value for the public. For example, the philosopher Adorno believed that much of modern popular music was based on “manipulative market-dominated character” (Witkin, 2003, p. 92), which in turn destroyed the artistic value of popular culture. However, we can also see that in popular culture may produce unexpected works of intrigue, from the margins of what is popular, for example, in the manga genre, and the superb Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou by Hitoshi Ashinano, as just one small example.

In summary, perhaps the problem with popular culture and its lack of artistic value is not necessarily determined by popular culture itself, but rather by which the socio-economic ideology in which popular culture develops. As Adorno argued, popular culture driven by the market will be driven not by questions of artistic value, but rather of presumptions regarding what people want to consume. This is the phenomenon of culture as a product, which in turn devalues culture. However, as phenomenon such as Prolekult demonstrate, a different ideological setting may make popular culture as vibrant and compelling as elitist forms of culture.

References

Julicher, P. (2015). Enemies of the People. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland.

Witkin, R.W. (2003). Adorno on Popular Culture. London: Routledge.