Until I read Popular Culture by John Fisk my understanding of such an idea was skewed and inaccurate. Before my so called “enlightenment,” I defined popular culture as ideas, entertainment, and music enjoyed by the masses, rather than art or discourse “serve[ing] the interests of the people” defined by a “shifting set of social interests” (Fisk, 322). For myself, “popular” described what the social majority enjoyed and valued, a status quo of sorts. In analyzing the Fisk piece, however, it became apparent that my conceptualization of “popular” was really a definition of mass acceptability, what the masses recognize, take pleasure in, and consider worthy of their time and effort. Instead “popular,” as defined by Fisk, functions as a method of revolution in which new ideas and concepts are brought forward, explored, and injected into dominant culture and if successful, accepted by the masses. Popular culture is generated by what Fisk terms the “people,” those detached or alienated from the majority, and through their revolutionary thinking permanent social change and momentum can be created. It is this introduction of innovative concepts that revitalization of the masses can occur. For example, in the 1950’s white domination and supremacy, as well as racial discrimination was practiced by the social majority; however, it was the ground-breaking ideals of individuals like Martin Luther King that racial equality was introduced and accepted by the social majority. The civil rights movement granted African American rights and freedoms but can also be remembered as a point in history in which popular culture functioned as a source of social inspiration, awakening the masses and creating a niche for new and novel thought. It is my challenge, this week, that those reading this blog (maybe no one) evaluate their own understanding of popular culture and its potentail for social change.
Kelly Mac.
No comments:
Post a Comment