Cultural Theory and Popular Culture
Cultural Theory and Popular Culture
Cultural Theory and Popular Culture
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
68<br />
Chapter 4 Marxisms<br />
Adorno claims? Simon Frith (1983) provides sales figures that suggest not: ‘despite the<br />
difficulties of the calculations . . . most business commentators agree that about 10 per<br />
cent of all records released (a little less for singles, a little more for LPs) make money’<br />
(147). In addition to this, only about another 10 per cent cover their costs (ibid.). This<br />
means that about 80 per cent of records actually lose money. Moreover, Paul Hirsch<br />
has calculated that at least 60 per cent of singles released are never played by anyone<br />
(cited in Frith, 1983: 147). This does not suggest the workings of an all-powerful culture<br />
industry, easily able to manipulate its consumers. It sounds more like a culture<br />
industry trying desperately to sell records to a critical <strong>and</strong> discriminating public.<br />
Such figures certainly imply that consumption is rather more active than Adorno’s<br />
argument suggests. Subcultural use of music is clearly at the leading edge of such active<br />
discrimination, but is by no means the only example. Finally, does popular music<br />
really function as social cement? Subcultures or music taste cultures, for instance,<br />
would appear to consume popular music in a way not too dissimilar to Adorno’s ideal<br />
mode for the consumption of ‘serious music’. Richard Dyer (1990) argues that this is<br />
certainly the case with regard to the gay consumption of disco. He detects a certain<br />
romanticism in disco that keeps alive a way of being that is always in conflict with the<br />
mundane <strong>and</strong> the everyday. As he explains, ‘Romanticism asserts that the limits of<br />
work <strong>and</strong> domesticity are not the limits of experience’ (417).<br />
The analysis offered by the majority of the Frankfurt School works with a series<br />
of binary oppositions held in place by the supposed fundamental difference between<br />
culture <strong>and</strong> mass culture (Table 4.2).<br />
Walter Benjamin’s (1973) essay ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’<br />
is much more optimistic about the possibility of a revolutionary transformation<br />
of capitalism. He claims that capitalism will ‘ultimately . . . create conditions which<br />
would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself’ (219). Benjamin believes that<br />
changes in the technological reproduction of culture are changing the function of culture<br />
in society: ‘technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations<br />
which would be out of reach for the original itself’ (222). Reproduction thus challenges<br />
what Benjamin calls the ‘aura’ of texts <strong>and</strong> practices.<br />
Table 4.2 ‘<strong>Culture</strong>’ <strong>and</strong> ‘mass culture’ according to the Frankfurt School.<br />
<strong>Culture</strong> Mass culture<br />
Real False<br />
European American<br />
Multi-dimensional One-dimensional<br />
Active consumption Passive consumption<br />
Individual creation Mass production<br />
Imagination Distraction<br />
Negation Social cement