Bigger if you click on it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
"Anything But Heavy Metal" ... - Bethany Bryson
On p.894, Bryson notes that "What is surprising is that country and gospel music are two of the three most favored genres among the general population, while they are the two genres most likely to be rejected by tolerant respondents." Yet, she equates education and political tolerance as being associated with decreased overall exclusiveness, but caveat to that, it's patterned in a specific way that seems to cast off genres like country and gospel as the pursuits of uncultured, enclaved Philistines. Might the country and gospel genres visible ideological associations with Christian Evangelism be responsible for this? What else could account for their seemingly purposeful exclusion from the tolerant crowd's pool of acceptable genres?
Craig Morgan's uplifting hit, "That's What I Love About Sunday" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyVKUJYHNk I figured this may be a case in point as to what Bryson is referring to.
"Understanding Audience Segmentation"... - Richard A. Peterson
It's interesting that Peterson concludes elite taste "is no longer defined simply as the expressed appreciation of the high art forms and a corresponding moral disdain of, or patronizing tolerance for, all other aesthetic expressions."(252) In situating this comment within a 21st century context(YouTube, mashups, mixtapes, the iCulture), what are some specific examples of this union between revered, high art and pop culture? (ex. The Grey Album - Beatles/JayZ)
"Changing Highbrow Taste"... - Richard A. Peterson, Roger M. Kern
Peterson and Kern seem to chalk up the erosion of rigid, exclusionary cultural affinities to an "increasingly global world managed by those who make their way, in part, by showing respect for the cultural expressions of others."(906) But is cultural omnivorism really about respect and this "elective affinity between today's new business administrative class and omnivorousness" or does it simply tie back into one of the many narratives of this course discussed throughout the semester: In order for the dominant groups to maintain their position, they have to neutralize the threat posed by movements coming from within the dominated classes by reappropriating them within a consumer-culture context...a la The Gap using The Ramones in TV ads, etc. In light of this, wouldn't it render the supposed element of "respect" in cultural omnivorism moot?
On p.894, Bryson notes that "What is surprising is that country and gospel music are two of the three most favored genres among the general population, while they are the two genres most likely to be rejected by tolerant respondents." Yet, she equates education and political tolerance as being associated with decreased overall exclusiveness, but caveat to that, it's patterned in a specific way that seems to cast off genres like country and gospel as the pursuits of uncultured, enclaved Philistines. Might the country and gospel genres visible ideological associations with Christian Evangelism be responsible for this? What else could account for their seemingly purposeful exclusion from the tolerant crowd's pool of acceptable genres?
Craig Morgan's uplifting hit, "That's What I Love About Sunday" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyVKUJYHNk I figured this may be a case in point as to what Bryson is referring to.
"Understanding Audience Segmentation"... - Richard A. Peterson
It's interesting that Peterson concludes elite taste "is no longer defined simply as the expressed appreciation of the high art forms and a corresponding moral disdain of, or patronizing tolerance for, all other aesthetic expressions."(252) In situating this comment within a 21st century context(YouTube, mashups, mixtapes, the iCulture), what are some specific examples of this union between revered, high art and pop culture? (ex. The Grey Album - Beatles/JayZ)
"Changing Highbrow Taste"... - Richard A. Peterson, Roger M. Kern
Peterson and Kern seem to chalk up the erosion of rigid, exclusionary cultural affinities to an "increasingly global world managed by those who make their way, in part, by showing respect for the cultural expressions of others."(906) But is cultural omnivorism really about respect and this "elective affinity between today's new business administrative class and omnivorousness" or does it simply tie back into one of the many narratives of this course discussed throughout the semester: In order for the dominant groups to maintain their position, they have to neutralize the threat posed by movements coming from within the dominated classes by reappropriating them within a consumer-culture context...a la The Gap using The Ramones in TV ads, etc. In light of this, wouldn't it render the supposed element of "respect" in cultural omnivorism moot?
Questioning Omnivorism
1. Forgetting habitus - In a footnote on page 886 Bethany Bryson entirely sets aside what she calls "an important mediating variable in [her] description of Bourdieu's theory." This seems to me a crucial concept for her discussion of 'cultural tolerance' and knowingly ignoring it to make her argument 'simpler' seems like quite an oversight. Does Bryson's critique of Bourdieu's study stem mainly from this simplification?, that is, does American class mobility (at least for upper & lower ends of the middle class, which is really all we're talking about here) account for the perceived 'increase' in cultural omnivorousness?
2. Eclecticism vs. Omnivorism - To what extent do our authors (Peterson, Kern & Bryson) and/or do we truly believe in the cultural omnivore? It seems to me what the authors are really talking about is cultural eclecticism (which Peterson makes a very fleeting reference to in "Changing Highbrow Taste, p. 900). Bryson bases her use of the term omnivore on cultural tolerance, which doesn't seem like the same thing to me. Just because i don't dislike (or disdain) country music, and may even have a song or artist or two that i like does not make me a connoisseur (or even really a consumer) of it.
3. Social Taylorism vs. Social Darwinism - What is generally overlooked in each of these articles is Bourdieu's (and Veblen's) central Marxist critique about the commodification of leisure time. In "Understanding audience segmentation" R.A. Peterson paints a very simplistic picture for explaining discrepancies found in leisure activities (and by some extension musical tastes) (p.251). I would suggest two alternative explanations for our author's findings:
ST - Given the increased commodification and organization of leisure time & activities, lower class/less educated workers spend less time (if any) pursuing their 'actual' cultural interests and so can be conversant in only one or very few as opposed to Peterson's model of the inverted pyramid (254-5).
SD - The discrepancy between high-end omnivorousness and low-end univorousness might be explained by relative 'coolness' or the security each has in their social stature, so that a high-class/highly educated person can 'take the risk' of enjoying lower-class endeavors, because they have enough cultural capital to do so, whereas an attempted move in the other direction is more likely to get you branded a wannabe.
What do you think?
Bonus Question (Meta-Question) - To what extent do sociologists (or social scientists in general) take into account the question of how honest their survey respondants are? When answering surveys or interviewers about any sorts of questions (but particularly relatively 'personal' questions) to what extent are people likely to answer with (a) what they 'want' their answer to be, rather than what's true, (b) random answers just to get through/get finished/get paid, (c) what they think the interviewer 'wants to hear', particularly if there is some potential reward, but only if they fall into the 'correct categories', (d) outright lies, because they don't want to support the seemingly corporate causes most of this 'market research' seems to be for? In the articles, i only saw one brief indication of this possibility in Bryson's "Hypothesis 6" (p. 888), when some people are "less likely to report they are unfamiliar with any music genre", and even this is likely a result of phrasing and not any kind of doubt in the systems of data collection.
2. Eclecticism vs. Omnivorism - To what extent do our authors (Peterson, Kern & Bryson) and/or do we truly believe in the cultural omnivore? It seems to me what the authors are really talking about is cultural eclecticism (which Peterson makes a very fleeting reference to in "Changing Highbrow Taste, p. 900). Bryson bases her use of the term omnivore on cultural tolerance, which doesn't seem like the same thing to me. Just because i don't dislike (or disdain) country music, and may even have a song or artist or two that i like does not make me a connoisseur (or even really a consumer) of it.
3. Social Taylorism vs. Social Darwinism - What is generally overlooked in each of these articles is Bourdieu's (and Veblen's) central Marxist critique about the commodification of leisure time. In "Understanding audience segmentation" R.A. Peterson paints a very simplistic picture for explaining discrepancies found in leisure activities (and by some extension musical tastes) (p.251). I would suggest two alternative explanations for our author's findings:
ST - Given the increased commodification and organization of leisure time & activities, lower class/less educated workers spend less time (if any) pursuing their 'actual' cultural interests and so can be conversant in only one or very few as opposed to Peterson's model of the inverted pyramid (254-5).
SD - The discrepancy between high-end omnivorousness and low-end univorousness might be explained by relative 'coolness' or the security each has in their social stature, so that a high-class/highly educated person can 'take the risk' of enjoying lower-class endeavors, because they have enough cultural capital to do so, whereas an attempted move in the other direction is more likely to get you branded a wannabe.
What do you think?
Bonus Question (Meta-Question) - To what extent do sociologists (or social scientists in general) take into account the question of how honest their survey respondants are? When answering surveys or interviewers about any sorts of questions (but particularly relatively 'personal' questions) to what extent are people likely to answer with (a) what they 'want' their answer to be, rather than what's true, (b) random answers just to get through/get finished/get paid, (c) what they think the interviewer 'wants to hear', particularly if there is some potential reward, but only if they fall into the 'correct categories', (d) outright lies, because they don't want to support the seemingly corporate causes most of this 'market research' seems to be for? In the articles, i only saw one brief indication of this possibility in Bryson's "Hypothesis 6" (p. 888), when some people are "less likely to report they are unfamiliar with any music genre", and even this is likely a result of phrasing and not any kind of doubt in the systems of data collection.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Cultural Omnivore Questions
1. In "Understanding Audience Segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore," Richard Peterson claims that contrary to previous studies which have claimed that the upper class are elite in their tastes and lower classes like a lot of different low brow entertainment, it is actually opposite in a way. It is now the upper classes which have a wider array of tastes while the lower classes tend to like only one or a couple things. However, he bases this theory primarly on music tastes and the fact that the upper class respondents were far less likely to be able to name one favorite type of music, while the lower class (determined by occupation) could. Is that a good enough measure? Could there results be different if they took into account other measures?
2. In the second article, "Changing Highbrow Taste:From Snob to Omnivore," Peterson and Kern discuss some of the reasons for the shift from elitism to omnivorism. Are there reasons comprehensive? As I was reading the list, I kept thinking of the whole atmosphere of change in our country surrounding how important and politically correct it has become to be open-minded.
3. As I was thinking about the high culture versus low culture, I couldn't help thinking about independent cinema, and how even though one of their characteristics is poor film quality and low budget (something which might be considered low culture), there is a certain high culture attached to liking independent cinema (at least in my opinion). How might this new theory of culture discussed in these two articles account for it?
4. The articles talk about how ominovirism is replacing snobbery among the high class, but I wonder if there really isn't as much difference between the two as the authors would have us believe. Could not omnivorism be a new form of snobbery? While obviously omnivorism isn't exclusive in the classical sense, doesn't it in effect still distinguish them from the lower cultures, and isn't that overall the purpose of elitism?
2. In the second article, "Changing Highbrow Taste:From Snob to Omnivore," Peterson and Kern discuss some of the reasons for the shift from elitism to omnivorism. Are there reasons comprehensive? As I was reading the list, I kept thinking of the whole atmosphere of change in our country surrounding how important and politically correct it has become to be open-minded.
3. As I was thinking about the high culture versus low culture, I couldn't help thinking about independent cinema, and how even though one of their characteristics is poor film quality and low budget (something which might be considered low culture), there is a certain high culture attached to liking independent cinema (at least in my opinion). How might this new theory of culture discussed in these two articles account for it?
4. The articles talk about how ominovirism is replacing snobbery among the high class, but I wonder if there really isn't as much difference between the two as the authors would have us believe. Could not omnivorism be a new form of snobbery? While obviously omnivorism isn't exclusive in the classical sense, doesn't it in effect still distinguish them from the lower cultures, and isn't that overall the purpose of elitism?
Questioning the Omnivore
"Changing Highbrow Taste"
Paterson and Kern seem to attribute growing omnivorousness to increasingly tolerant values and "rising levels of living" (905). They even go so far to say that this omnivorousness is "antithetical to snobishness, which is based on... exclusinon." What do y'all think about this in relation to their characterization of the omnivore as appreciating and critiquing low-middle brow culture "in light of some knowledge of the genre and its great performers - they do not embrace the music as representing how they identify themselves" (904). The power of distinction provided by Cultural Capital seems to loom like the elephant in the room. Does the sophisticated enjoyment of country music for the snob really put her on equal terms with the "real" fan - or are class distinctions maintained by this relationship?
"Understanding Audience Segmentation"
While cultural taboos may have dissolved for the upper classes allowing them to partake in low-brow pleasures, what are the implications for lower class cultural univores? Do the univores mainly like one genre by choice? Or, might they still be systematically excluded from omnivorousness using the old barriers, like education and wealth, to obtaining cultural capital? Considering this, can omnivorousness really be called a step forward, away from "taste-exclusive highbrow snob," and toward a more egalitarian culture (252)? As Bryson's reference to Jackman and Muha in her "Anything but..." article says, "political [& cultural?] tolerance displayed by educated responents is, in fact, only a carefully cultivated status symbol."
"Anything But..."
Bryson says that rather than being "indiscriminately broad, omnivores' tastes may include high-status types of music that are popular among non-whites, while excluding low-status genres like gospel" (887). Thinking critically of our own tastes, do you see this pattern in your own preferred types of culture? How much of this is really "symbolic racism" that subconsciously excludes culture of undesirables and how much of this pattern relates to the way different types of culture are marketed? I seem to see those Putomayo world CD's in a number of higher-class places and they are not placed beside Dangdut albums - mainstream music of indonesia that developed from the Muslim working class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwlkSy1Dn9M
We should always be wary of the way we unconsciously reinforce the domination of groups of people but at least some of the responsibility for patterns in taste must be attributed to marketers and taste-makers. But how much responsibility?
Paterson and Kern seem to attribute growing omnivorousness to increasingly tolerant values and "rising levels of living" (905). They even go so far to say that this omnivorousness is "antithetical to snobishness, which is based on... exclusinon." What do y'all think about this in relation to their characterization of the omnivore as appreciating and critiquing low-middle brow culture "in light of some knowledge of the genre and its great performers - they do not embrace the music as representing how they identify themselves" (904). The power of distinction provided by Cultural Capital seems to loom like the elephant in the room. Does the sophisticated enjoyment of country music for the snob really put her on equal terms with the "real" fan - or are class distinctions maintained by this relationship?
"Understanding Audience Segmentation"
While cultural taboos may have dissolved for the upper classes allowing them to partake in low-brow pleasures, what are the implications for lower class cultural univores? Do the univores mainly like one genre by choice? Or, might they still be systematically excluded from omnivorousness using the old barriers, like education and wealth, to obtaining cultural capital? Considering this, can omnivorousness really be called a step forward, away from "taste-exclusive highbrow snob," and toward a more egalitarian culture (252)? As Bryson's reference to Jackman and Muha in her "Anything but..." article says, "political [& cultural?] tolerance displayed by educated responents is, in fact, only a carefully cultivated status symbol."
"Anything But..."
Bryson says that rather than being "indiscriminately broad, omnivores' tastes may include high-status types of music that are popular among non-whites, while excluding low-status genres like gospel" (887). Thinking critically of our own tastes, do you see this pattern in your own preferred types of culture? How much of this is really "symbolic racism" that subconsciously excludes culture of undesirables and how much of this pattern relates to the way different types of culture are marketed? I seem to see those Putomayo world CD's in a number of higher-class places and they are not placed beside Dangdut albums - mainstream music of indonesia that developed from the Muslim working class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwlkSy1Dn9M
We should always be wary of the way we unconsciously reinforce the domination of groups of people but at least some of the responsibility for patterns in taste must be attributed to marketers and taste-makers. But how much responsibility?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Indie changes!
Since we reported on indie culture a couple months ago, two places have closed and another has moved out of its indie neighborhood.
- Broad Vocabulary on KK is closing, and Atomic Records on Locust/Oakland is closing. Plus, the tool shed moved to the Eastside (I guess its been there for a while now).
Interesting.
- Broad Vocabulary on KK is closing, and Atomic Records on Locust/Oakland is closing. Plus, the tool shed moved to the Eastside (I guess its been there for a while now).
Interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
