02.07.2013 Views

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

38<br />

Chapter 3 <strong>Cultural</strong>ism<br />

studies approach to popular culture. The institutional home of these developments<br />

was, especially in the 1970s <strong>and</strong> early 1980s, the Centre for Contemporary <strong>Cultural</strong><br />

Studies, at the University of Birmingham (see Green, 1996).<br />

Richard Hoggart: The Uses of Literacy<br />

The Uses of Literacy is divided into two parts: ‘An “older” order’, describing the workingclass<br />

culture of Hoggart’s childhood in the 1930s; <strong>and</strong> ‘Yielding place to new’, describing<br />

a traditional working-class culture under threat from the new forms of mass entertainment<br />

of the 1950s. Dividing the book in this way in itself speaks volumes about<br />

the perspective taken <strong>and</strong> the conclusions expected. On the one h<strong>and</strong>, we have the<br />

traditional ‘lived culture’ of the 1930s. On the other, we have the cultural decline of the<br />

1950s. Hoggart is in fact aware that during the course of writing the book, ‘nostalgia<br />

was colouring the material in advance: I have done what I could to remove its effects’<br />

(1990: 17). He is also aware that the division he makes between the ‘older’ <strong>and</strong> the<br />

‘new’, underplays the amount of continuity between the two. It should also be noted<br />

that his evidence for the ‘older’ depends, not on ‘invoking some rather mistily conceived<br />

pastoral tradition the better to assault the present, [but] to a large extent on<br />

memories of my childhood about twenty years ago’ (23, 24). His evidence for the cultural<br />

decline represented by the popular culture of the 1950s is material gathered as a<br />

university lecturer <strong>and</strong> researcher. In short, the ‘older’ is based on personal experience;<br />

the ‘new’ on academic research. This is a significant <strong>and</strong> informing distinction.<br />

It is also worth noting something about Hoggart’s project that is often misunderstood.<br />

What he attacks is not a ‘moral’ decline in the working class as such, but what<br />

he perceives as a decline in the ‘moral seriousness’ of the culture provided for the working<br />

class. He repeats on a number of occasions his confidence in the working class’s<br />

ability to resist many of the manipulations of mass culture: ‘This is not simply a power<br />

of passive resistance, but something which, though not articulate, is positive. The working<br />

classes have a strong natural ability to survive change by adapting or assimilating<br />

what they want in the new <strong>and</strong> ignoring the rest’ (32). His confidence stems from his<br />

belief that their response to mass culture is always partial: ‘with a large part of themselves<br />

they are just “not there”, are living elsewhere, living intuitively, habitually, verbally,<br />

drawing on myth, aphorism, <strong>and</strong> ritual. This saves them from some of the worst<br />

effects’ (33).<br />

According to Hoggart,<br />

working class people have traditionally, or at least for several generations, regarded<br />

art as escape, as something enjoyed but not assumed to have much connexion with<br />

the matter of daily life. Art is marginal, ‘fun’. . .‘real’ life goes on elsewhere. ...Art<br />

is for you to use (238).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!