Mass Madness: Part I

This piece, devoted to the supposed death of mass culture, and this piece, discussing another down year for the motion picture industry, got me thinking. Is mass culture really dead? Have consumers finally grown tired of stale, repetitive Hollywood fare?

Part I

The basic argument underlying the notion of mass culture isn't difficult to understand. In the early 20th century, largely as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the United States experienced a significant population migration from agrarian to urban communities. When this shift occurred, and continued through most of the 20th century, people lost many of the socializing institutions and organizations that contribute to the development of cultural attitudes, values, and beliefs. Becoming increasingly distant from our comrades, we see a reduction of face-to-face interactions (e.g. cell phones, email, text messaging), have less contact with extended family, and we might not know our neighbors (e.g. tall fences separate property where there used to be known). As a result of this atomization, mass culture theorists argue we've become more susceptible to the influences of institutions like popular culture. With fewer friends, family members, and socializing institutions in our lives, we turn to popular culture to learn appropriate behavior, fashion, and the like.

With me to this point? Okay, the culture industry, the producers of cultural products for consumption by the masses (e.g. television programs, films, books, music), have one basic goal: profit. As such, the powers-that-be within the culture industry almost always strive to make their product as consumable by as many people as possible. More people buying a product = more profit. Economics 101. Here's the rub: most people within the culture industry don't care that popular culture has become a major socializing institution. Money becomes the driving force and healthy cultural values, a sense of ethics, takes a back seat.

What we wind up with, and I think there's evidence of this just about everywhere we turn, is a kind of cultural homogeneity; our cultural products become vapid and vacuous, devoid of any significant meaning. The trend is toward producing another highly consumable My Humps, The Dukes of Hazzard, or yet another horrifyingly bad reality television show, rather than a product that asks us to consider important moral or ethical questions. In the hopes of making loads of money, everything starts to look the same. We see one boy band start to cash in, we see a dozen boy bands flood the market. Art, music, and fashion that doesn't prove immediately profitable gets pushed to the side making it more difficult for consumers to procure. The end result is bland, non-intellectual, morally ambiguous fare foisted upon a consuming public comprised of cultural dopes. In essence, people within the culture industry say to the consuming public, "If you'll keep lapping this crap up, and pay big bucks for it, we'll keep pumping it out."

Ultimately, mass culture critics ask a fundamental question: if our society lacks significant socializing influences and popular culture has become a major variable in socialization, should the cultural industry be more congnizant of their role in society? Should the culture industry strive to produce quality material that takes more than the bottom line into consideration? This doesn't mean the culture industry has to agree on what values are good for our society; a variety of viewpoints encourages consumers to engage in public dialogues about issues of importance.

Time for a break and some holiday errands. In Part II I'll return to the original question at hand: Is mass culture dead?