tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10166090.post115575691873653824..comments2024-02-17T07:59:18.705-08:00Comments on Grad Student Madness: Cultural ConservativeRufushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17762279210783841414noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10166090.post-1156096839047561282006-08-20T11:00:00.000-07:002006-08-20T11:00:00.000-07:00No, I think that's right. We are de facto the infl...No, I think that's right. We are de facto the influencers and even the enforcers of high culture, which is essentially that culture which is elevated in an intellectual, or even spiritual sense. And even stating that sounds arrogant by the standards of mass culture.<BR/><BR/>What I found in teaching at Mall University was that society at large detests those cultural things that we consider to be most worthwhile, which they consider to be "Boring!" If the values of capitalism ruled completely, figures like August Strindberg would have been long forgotten. So, I'm all for elitism. I know plenty of profs who try to be more populist than I am, but I don't think it works very well. It's uncomfortable in a populist society to take the role of the discerner, which is culturally elitist. On the other hand, a lot of Marxists found that cultural conservatism was very compatible with a critique of capitalism- actually, Marx himself was very culturally conservative.<BR/><BR/>What's funny about it is that so many academics are rather progressive, or even radical politically. But, when it comes to culture, we have to be somewhat conservative. Because, I think we have to be the ones to argue that Strindberg, or Blake, or whoever has merit, and even greater merit than the tidal wave of popular culture. So, we fit the role that William F. Buckley assigned to political conservatives- we stand atop the cultural world, which is enamoured with MTV-popcorn culture and its violence, woman-hate, simplicity and stupidity, and yell 'Stop!' Otherwise, I think the intellectually rewarding texts would be thrown in the garbage.Rufushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762279210783841414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10166090.post-1155952512528881942006-08-18T18:55:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:55:00.000-07:00Perhaps I don’t entirely understand, or maybe I’m ...Perhaps I don’t entirely understand, or maybe I’m oversimplifying... but doesn’t an object maintain its elevated status (its rank amongst the high culture) in part because its worthiness has been reinforced? Aren’t we socialized through Academe, and then we become the influencer? Doesn’t high culture ultimately equate to intellectual (“challenging”, “ennobling”, “hard”)? Thus, isn’t every academic potentially ‘guilty’ (of elitism)?sock monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079390998688740197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10166090.post-1155778650722551572006-08-16T18:37:00.000-07:002006-08-16T18:37:00.000-07:00Well, I'm going to tread lightly here because it i...Well, I'm going to tread lightly here because it is such a contested idea anymore. High culture is usually defined, quoting Matthew Arnold, as "the best that has been thought and said in the world". Certainly, this includes works of literature and the plastic arts too, and it did for Arnold. It is made up entirely of individual examples. As you can imagine though this is a very contested and slippery definition.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that we can assert that there is no such thing as high culture, but still come to the conclusion that there is something about Hamlet that makes it more worthwhile for study than South Pacific. There is something about the play that makes it challenging, enriching, and even enobling to study it. To be honest, I can't imagine the pedagogical value of studying South Pacific, although I enjoy it greatly. So, if we can only study one play, let it be Hamlet.<BR/><BR/>High culture rewards close readings, and repeated readings, in a way that mass culture doesn't. It deepens our emotional responses or our intellectual responses in some way that mass culture does not. It is 'hard' and challenges us to rise to its level. For this reason, it is often valued by a society, so long as they don't have to have any contact with it!<BR/><BR/>Examples of low culture are legion- they do not reward close readings because there's no there there. The Bad News Bears, Horatio Alger novels, CATS, beer hall songs, the Ghetto Boys, Friday the 13th part 56... there is generally an abundance of low culture. It can certainly be studied as well, but I'd be hard pressed to argue that the study of CATS is as spiritually enriching as the study of Ibsen's Ghosts. <BR/><BR/>The conservative argument that there is no Zulu Proust is really bizarre to me- my canon is made up of the greatest works of all cultures. It is inherently multicultural. But, it is a canon, and I don't think the canon is worth abandonning for trivial political reasons, as many have suggested. So, I tend to disagree with conservatives and radicals on the canon.<BR/><BR/>High culture is usually opposed from a number of directions:<BR/>1. It's elitist.<BR/>2. It tends to oppose capitalism, either implicitly or explicitly.<BR/>3. It numerically favors white males who have been encouraged to do philosophy, create art, etc. for several centuries longer than anyone else.<BR/>4. Some of it is perverse or immoral.<BR/>5. It's open to personal opinion.<BR/><BR/>So, most academics are uncomfortable with the idea of a canon. And yet, the more you study individual works of art, the more those hierarchies creep in to your thinking. You start noticing that Proust opens up corridors in your mind that Kinky Friedman does not. You find yourself returning to certain works again and again, and when your time is short, find that you would get more out of watching Persona for the 13th time than watching Mean Girls for the second. The price of erudition and critical thought is this fierce discernment, which is anathema to most populist values.Rufushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762279210783841414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10166090.post-1155765130536828162006-08-16T14:52:00.000-07:002006-08-16T14:52:00.000-07:00In this capacity, is 'high culture' relative, indi...In this capacity, is 'high culture' relative, individually defined? What might be examples of 'low culture'?sock monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079390998688740197noreply@blogger.com