‘High Culture’: An elitist constructMy mother’s insistence that she only engages in ‘high culture’ and considers ‘mass culture’ to be something meaningless, formulaic and completely redundant is a dramatic claim, and despite her left wing protestations holds some controversial social connotations.
The distinction she makes between culture of the ‘masses’ and the culture she regards to be superior, alone implies a social distinction between the two, and hence the existence of some sort of cultural elite, perhaps socially superior to the ‘masses’ who cannot see further than conventional, and in her opinion superfluous and mechanical, culture. The argument that this cultural hierarchy is unrelated to the class system seems completely absurd: she is perhaps unaware that the term ‘high culture’ itself refers to the ‘cultural consumption of a western society’s upper class’ (1) and originates among the upper classes during the Renaissance. This alone proves that this term implies that the division between mass and high culture is influenced, and perhaps even defined by class.
For me the suggestion that high quality entertainment should only be recognised by some sort of elite, of which my mother would perhaps claim to be a member, and which is also associated with the bourgeoisie, seems a completely pretentious and patronising approach, for the obvious reason that it discriminates against a large section of society not because of the cultural boundaries that are found there, but due to the class system. That class should play the immoral, restrictive role that it does already in society is bad enough, but the idea that our conceptions of film, music and literature should be dictated by it is fundamentally wrong.
Even if in using the term ‘high culture’ my mother was not aware of its unambiguous links with social class, and was merely using it to emphasise the distinction between normal, conventional culture and something more meaningful her argument is still unavoidably elitist.
I understand her infuriation with formulaic Hollywood films and what she would call ‘trashy’ novels with the same, calculated plot structure and basic, unelaborated language: the typical ‘chick flicks’ which are often considered shallow and superficial. What I object to is the seemingly clear-cut line she draws between ‘mass culture’ and the culture that she (and perhaps the rest of her cultural elite) appreciates. Perhaps the ‘high culture’ to which she refers does hold particular cultural significance according to her, but this should not mean that anything that does not possess the exclusive status of ‘high culture’ is somehow redundant, or meaningless, or any less worthy of cultural merit and appreciation. Culture cannot be seen in black and white: intellectually and culturally significant art does not, and cannot, hold a different status to everything else. If it did, who would be the judge of these two cultural groups? The aristocracy who defined the ‘high culture’ of the Renaissance? Western society’s upper classes? Or does everyone hold their own personal representation of these two cultural categories? If so, this system of judging art and literature is by no means consistent, and arguably not important if it is based on the individual’s interpretation, and hence lacks prestige and consensus.
The very nature of ‘high culture’ is of unquestionable acceptance of the great works of art that have been appreciated and even canonised by the world’s intellectual elite. With ‘high culture’ the essence of cultural participation is shifted from a personal, intellectual and insightful reflection and response towards a work of art, which can freely challenge and question the ideas that it examines, to a contrived dictation of what culture is and should be. Rather than challenging and expanding our intellectual conceptions it restricts them. Surely engaging and analysing ‘mass culture’ is not futile, as what matters is not the status of the art we engage in, but how we respond to and evaluate what we see. Someone who had read all the renowned classics ever written but who lacked any profound or original response to them would be just as ignorant, in my opinion, as someone who hadn’t read any of them. Engaging with culture without being able to respond to it is like reading the words on a page without absorbing their general meaning: futile.
In researching this topic I came upon an essay which exactly conveys my criticisms of ‘high culture’: Joe Sartelle argues that ‘objects possess no intrinsic value, whether those objects are rare metals or great works of art. Rather, value is to be found in the ways in which those things are used.’ (2) Hence it is the subjective aspect of culture which makes it interesting or useful and not its objective canonisation by the superior ‘high culture’ movement. He also compares the categorical emphasis of ‘high culture’ on intrinsic rather than subjective value to the ideology of capitalism, saying that the subjective view of art which criticises the concept of ‘high culture’ is ‘contrary to what aesthetics (like capitalism) encourage us to believe’: a justified comparison in my view.
My mother’s approach therefore comes across as one deeply embedded in upper class snobbery, which condemns subjectivity and instead promotes an elitist, capitalistic and almost totalitarian view of exactly which culture is significant and which is worthless. This is why I dispute her.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture
(2) Joe Sartelle 1994, http://bad.eserver.org/issues/1994/11/intro.html
