Page 39 - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture an Introduction

CULT_C02.qxd 10/24/08 17:10 Page 23

Leavisism 23

decline. What had been identified by Arnold as a feature of the nineteenth century, it
is argued, had continued and been compounded in the twentieth: that is, the increas-
ing spread of a culture of ‘standardisation and levelling down’ (Leavis and Thompson,
1977: 3). It is against this process and its results that ‘the citizen . . . must be trained to
discriminate and to resist’ (5).
The work of Leavisism spans a period of some forty years. However, the Leavisite
attitude to popular culture was formed in the early 1930s with the publication of three
texts: Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture, by F.R. Leavis, Fiction and the Reading Public,
by Q.D. Leavis and Culture and Environment, by F.R. Leavis and Denys Thompson.
Together these form the basis of the Leavisite response to popular culture.
Leavisism is based on the assumption that ‘culture has always been in minority
keeping’ (Leavis and Thompson, 1977: 3):

Upon the minority depends our power of profiting by the finest human experience
of the past; they keep alive the subtlest and most perishable parts of tradition.
Upon them depend the implicit standards that order the finer living of an age, the
sense that this is worth more than that, this rather than that is the direction in
which to go, that the centre is here rather than there (5).

What has changed is the status of this minority. No longer can it command cultural
deference, no longer is its cultural authority unchallenged. Q.D. Leavis (1978) refers to
a situation in which ‘the minority, who had hitherto set the standard of taste with-
out any serious challenge’ have experienced a ‘collapse of authority’ (185, 187). Just
as Arnold regretted the passing of ‘the strong feudal habits of subordination and
deference’ (see previous section), Q.D. Leavis is nostalgic for a time when the masses
exhibited an ‘unquestioning assent to authority’ (191). She quotes Edmund Gosse to
5
confirm the seriousness of the situation:

One danger which I have long foreseen from the spread of the democratic senti-
ment, is that of the traditions of literary taste, the canons of literature, being
reversed with success by a popular vote. Up to the present time, in all parts of the
world, the masses of uneducated or semieducated persons, who form the vast
majority of readers, though they cannot and do not appreciate the classics of their
race, have been content to acknowledge their traditional supremacy. Of late there
have seemed to me to be certain signs, especially in America, of a revolt of the mob
against our literary masters. . . . If literature is to be judged by a plebiscite and if the
plebs recognises its power, it will certainly by degrees cease to support reputations
which give it no pleasure and which it cannot comprehend. The revolution against
taste, once begun, will land us in irreparable chaos (190).

According to Leavis and Thompson, what Gosse had only feared had now come to pass:

culture has always been in minority keeping. But the minority now is made
conscious, not merely of an uncongenial, but of a hostile environment. . . .