Untitled - Memorial University's Digital Archives Initiative

implicit in the selection ofa canon of literary works considered worthy ofstudy, In
practice. however. such judgments are relegated to the infonnal realm ofcorridor
com'ersation. as academic cultural studies gropes for a way to speak meaningfully about
good and bad in culture (Frilh. 1996: 11-12). Subcultwal theory. as represented by Dick
Hebdige's Subculture the Meaning ofStyle. ofTerred one solUlion 10 this problem by
providing an evaluative framework for cultural texts based on their polilical or
ideological underpinnings. Frith ""Tites. "Cultural value is being assessed according to
measures oftrue and false consciousness; aesthetic issues. the polilics ofexcitement. say.
or grace. are subordinated 10 the n«essities of interpretations. to the call for
'demystific3tion'''(\996: 14).
In time. however. as Frith admits. this politicized critique was abandoned in favor
ofthe punchless. celebrator)" orientation 10 popular cullUre that cUlTently enjoys
mainstream StalUS in the cultural studies literature (1996: 14-15). Now value judgments
were push(.'Ci unequivocally to the forefront of the analysis. only there could no longer be
any question ofdistinguishing the bad from the good: rather. all cultural goods were
judged equal in their empowering \'alue. and any second·guessing ofthe consumplion
choices ofthe people was denounced as old·fashioned academic elitism. The problem
with this entirely positive appraisal ofpopular culture, in Frith·s view. is thai it neglects
the aesthetic discrimination practiced by Ihe popular culture audience (1996: 16). The
people - whoever they may be - certainly do nOI judge all cultural goods equal or in the
same manner. and to ignore this fact is to arrive fuJI circle at the very same high·minded
dogmatism anributed to the mass culture theories. To digress somewhat, it is intriguing
55