Monday, June 13, 2011
FOURTH BLOG, Taste Hierarchy
From pages 200-260 of the assigned reading in the Gans' text, in about three paragraphs and 350 words (minimum), discuss Gans' concept of the Taste hierarchy, and how it compares to the existing U.S. Social Class hierarchy. Give appropriate detail when describing the social classes and the taste cultures. This blog is due on Friday, June 17, at 9:00 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gans discussed taste hierarchy and class hierarchy with several interesting comments in his book. I found his discussion on culture mobility intriguing. He mentioned cultural icons that appealed to different audiences, spotting Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin as examples who did this well. I tried to think of a modern day example of a piece of media that crosses cultures for the current U.S. class hierarchy. I decided that the movie, “The Hangover” could fulfill this criterion. Passed the vulgarity and shocking subject matter, there is a reason for its success. The low culture appeal to this movie is obvious, given the movie is about partying in Las Vegas and features drunkenness, slapstick humor, and countless “only in Las Vegas” type moments. The high culture appeal is more subliminal, but in my opinion undeniable give the movie’s widespread success. The use of non-chronological events creates a surprisingly unpredictable plot. In addition, the movie shows blatant consequences for the idiotic actions of the partiers and therefore provides a chance for a plethora of redemptive qualities about characters in their most flawed moments.
ReplyDeleteA quote I found interesting was found on page 144. “Film, theater, and television critics writing for newspapers and mass magazines…. criticize mainly high and upper-middle standards despite the fact that much of their audience is lower-middle. In relation to the current American society, I find this accurate. I think of politicians and how they receive criticism from the media as well as low and high culture members alike. His statements therefore are accurate in this sense. Those in who are in high culture can receive negative attention from any member of culture, often due to their public visibility.
Overall, Gans’ comments about the relationship between lower and high taste and cultures is accurate, in my opinion, and applies to the current state of U.S. culture. They made me realize how all of these elements relate to one another. Before reading this excerpt, I had thought of these cultures and tastes as independent of one another. I realize now that not only is mobility between them possible, but their relationship is important. In addition, low and high cultures and tastes can share likeness for the same object and have an interaction that I previously had not recognized existed.
Gans discussed taste culture as the ability to make discriminating judgments about aesthetic and artistic matters. Taste is part of the process by which social actors construct meaning about their social world, classifying people, practices, and things into categories of unequal value. It is a key part in picking which different themes or different styles are in and which ones are out. Taste culture must follow a few ground rules these ground rules are described on pg. 164. It must respond to and exemplify the ideals and demands of its users. Must offer rewards to its creators there must be some sort of incentive set in place. A good taste culture must not at any time be harmful either socially or psychologically harmful to its users or the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the quote on pg. 165 that says, “Culture should not be harmful, but beyond that, it should serve its users and creators, and it should not become a Platonic ideal which must be served by its users and creators.” I liked this because in the end culture should benefit us not harm us, but it is a give and take relationship in which there must be give and take so that the foundation of the users and the cultures grow and develop.
I think that when Gans talks about Taste culture what he describes is very much what is happening in today’s U. S. culture. Low and popular taste cultures are always changing and growing just like all other things especially in culture as it stands today. With the flexibility of culture today it impacts many thousands of people meaning that all of their taste cultures. This means that U.S. culture is always being altered by people’s different tastes and ideas. The taste cultures and taste publics are key parts of U. S. culture and allow for a greater mobility and the ability to adapt. I thought that the way Gans displayed this relationship is very intriguing and exciting. I have gotten and insight into the cultural aspect of sociological cultures and cultures that are present in U.S. society today.
For the purpose of this exercise, I will begin with a summary of each of the taste cultures.
ReplyDeleteThe first, high culture, consists of people who create and critique things such as writings, art, and the like. There are also people who are like-minded, but instead do not create, they merely enjoy. There are also users that are not able to create, but they just enjoy. These people are serious about what they do and enjoy.
Secondly, upper-middle culture is comprised of today's working professionals. These professionals "do not find high culture satisfying. . . . and prefer a culture that is substantive, unconcerned with innovation in form, and uninterested in making issues of method and form a part of culture." (Gans, p. 107)
The third taste culture is lower-middle culture. It contains individuals that are common to America right now: middle- and lower-middle class people in lower-status professions.Lower-middle culture previously did not have an appreciation for high culture, but as of late they have come to enjoy a few high culture things.
Fourthly is low-culture. Low-culture can be surmised as having “skilled and semiskilled factory and service workers, and semiskilled white collar workers, the people who obtained nonacademic high school educations and often dropped out after the tenth grade.” (Gans, p. 115) Low-culture finds “culture” boring, and feminine. Gans also says on page 116, “[Low culture] limits itself primarily to familial and individual problems and to values which apply to such problems; low culture content thus depicts how traditional working-class values win out over the temptation to give in to conflicting impulses and behavior patterns.”
Finally, quasi-folk low culture. This taste culture is mainly composed of poor individuals. Their principal source of entertainment are gossip magazines, melodrama, action comedies, and comic books.
While this is a beautiful arrangement, the United States today does not follow it exactly. There is a lot of overlap that is connecting the cultures. Gans says on page 106 that “this pattern of [high culture] straddling cultures is universal.”
I like Dave's example of “The Hangover”. I think it is a prime example of “straddling cultures” because many different cultures are able to enjoy it.
Another example I can think of that relates to this topic, is the idea of field trips in middle school. When the youngsters of this nation are taken to places like history or art museums, they are exposed to high culture. I think this is a beautiful concept, and I appreciate our teachers being willing to make our children aware of different levels of this hierarchy.
Gans makes several good points in his evaluative discussion of taste hierarchy and class hierarchy. On page 141, he makes note of an obvious and important difference in the power that each holds. The upper classes are generally more important in the class hierarchy (with the exception of the middle and lower classes’ higher population, which aids in political issues), while the middle and lower classes reign in the taste hierarchy because the media must appease the widest audience possible.
ReplyDeleteGans makes a statement on page 142 regarding the mobility of taste culture: “When people obtain more income and status, they often remain in their original taste public.” I think the reasoning behind the static nature of taste culture has to do with how the person is raised. Unless they already have an interest in high culture, they aren’t suddenly going to start listening to Bach just because their social status has changed.
I like to think of myself as an omnivore when it comes to taste culture. I’ve been trying to figure out which social class I belong in, but I’m still not sure. However, I think that my family in its current state would probably fall into the lower class (or working class, not really sure). We generally don’t have a lot of money and we live pretty much in the middle of nowhere, so the more expensive high culture “luxuries” aren’t as readily available to us. However, every now and then, I do like to indulge myself with something high culture, like going to see a play or musical at the Fox Theatre in St. Louis. Less to do with affordability, my taste in music also implies my omnivorous nature. I like to think of my music collection as schizophrenic because it contains anything from Metallica to Carl Orff, and I will listen to two seemingly different styles back-to-back. Because I like so many different things, I have difficulty agreeing with some of Gans’ statements about class and taste, but I can see that there is somewhat of a correlation. Like I said above, we have a lower income and can’t afford many high culture things, but this could be what he is referring to. Lower classes don’t necessarily prefer lower culture, but lower culture is all they can afford.