Page 31 - Decoding Culture
P. 31

24  DECODING�CULTURE
           rough distinction among three levels of culture, which are levels of
           quality measured by aesthetic, intellectual,  and moral standards.
           These are "superior" or "refined" culture, "mediocre" culture, and
           "brutal" culture' (Shils, 1961: 4).
             Superior,  mediocre, and brutal.  Quite extraordinary  terms for
           any analyst, let alone for a sociologist who might in other contexts
           aspire to some degree of descriptive neutrality. Yet, at the time, this
           usage attracted relatively little attention in as much as such bluntly
           evaluative distinctions were common currency in almost any dis­
           cussion of culture. Hierarchical assessments were constitutive of
           thinking about culture,  and inevitably  such judgements carried
           with them a broadly elitist attitude to those whose taste was thus
           evaluated. 'Proper' culture, wherein our accumulated aesthetic and
           moral achievements were gathered, was seen to be at risk from the
           culturally impoverished mass  and from those  who  pandered  to
           their tastes in the media industries. Accordingly, for thinkers who
           accepted these terms, there was a duty to discriminate so as to pro­
           tect the storehouse of human achievements and values.  In some
           versions of the argument  (well exemplified in the Leavisite work
           that I shall consider later) discrimination was to be cultivated with
           the aim of sustaining an elite capable of defending the great cul­
           tural traditions. And even those marxist theorists who saw mass
           culture  as  a  tool  of  mass  repression  - as did  members  of  the
           Frankfurt School who had fled to the USA from Hitler's Germany ­
           found themselves caught in essentially elitist attitudes by virtue of
           the  concepts  that  they  and  others  routinely  used  to  theorize
           culture.
              So  far,  so  familiar.  But behind  this well-known topography  of
           the mass culture analysis lies a distinctive, if inconsistent, social
           ontology.  It is distinctive in its emphasis on the determination of
           action  by culture. As  in the  quotation  from  Mills  above,  social
           actors  are largely  presumed to  be  passive victims of the mass





                              Copyrighted Material
   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36