What is culture?

Answer in relation to at least two of the weeks covered in this

course.

Culture is a complex concept that is forever evolving as knowledge is being refined

and developed. It is clear that the meaning of culture has changed dramatically over
time in order to explain and further our understandings as society is becoming more
and more sophisticated. This fluidity that surrounds the notion of culture makes it a
challenging concept to explain, as Raymond Williams famously stated, “culture is one
of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” (1976 p.87).
Culture is a problematic and “a deeply compromised idea” (Clifford 1988 p.10) that is
highly debatable which makes it an interesting and difficult concept to comprehend.

The first uses of the word culture were in reference to the process of cultivation or
tending to something namely animals or crops, implying growth and improvement. It
was “with the transfer of this set of meaning from the nourishment and growth of
individuals to that of society that the most decisive change underlying modern usage
occurs” (Bennett 2005 p.65). From the early 18th century culture began to be
connected with the spiritual and moral development of people and implied an end
product. “For example the term culture is often used to mean actual products such as
operas, concerts;…and mass culture is often applied to television.” (Giles &
Middleton 1999 p.10). It is apparent that today the concept of culture is far removed
from this original definition of cultivation, embodying the progress of modern society.
As nation states developed from the 19th century, cultures were referred to in the
plural form, in order to differentiate between specific cultures of and within different
nations. Thus culture in the modern context is commonly described by the
anthropological definition as “the whole way of life of a particular society” (Kuper &
Kuper 1985 p.27) or the “production and circulation of meaning” (Giles & Middleton
1999 p.25). These definitions demonstrate the shift toward culture representing a
broad process of social improvement and display the complexity of the concept as it
has evolved over time.

What is clear in many early definitions of the word culture is the distinction between
high and low or popular culture. “High culture is often understood in terms of a
classical tradition literature, philosophy and the arts” (Lynch 2005 p.4). Advocates of
high culture assert that maintaining such culture represented the only secure base for a
civilised society. This is evident in Matthew Arnold’s definition in which he makes a
plain distinction between mass culture and high culture, describing that culture is “the
best that has been thought and said in the world” (Arnold 1869 p.3). For Arnold and
cultural critics such as Leavis, the notion of culture inferred that a major division
existed between culture and mass culture, “in which the term mass culture signified
an inferior and debased form of culture” (Giles and Middleton 1999 p15). Harrington
and Bielby explain that popular culture was seen as inferior to high culture, stating it
is “everything left over after we have identified what constitutes elite or high culture”
(Harrington & Bielby 2001 p.2). In reference this definition it is claimed (Lynch
2005) that Leavis saw the rising entertainment of popular or mass culture as a serious
threat to cultural judgement, refinement and morals. Similarly Arnold also believed
that popular culture was far inferior claiming “literature and theatre, in order to
maintain their high mission, must not pander to the masses but must seek to raise their
intellectual level” (Landy 1991 p.16). It is apparent from these definitions that in the
early 17th-18th century high culture was seen as a civilised entity to be valued whist
popular or mass culture was for the working class, hedonistic and anarchist.

It is interesting to note that Myers (1992) argues that a distinction between high and
low culture still exists in contemporary society. He asserts, “I see no reason why I
should pretend that there is no difference between low culture and high culture. There
is a vital difference” (Myers 1992 p.2). He then goes onto differentiate between the
two claiming “a novel by Patrick White or David Malouf is in terms of spirituality
and aesthetic complexity a product of high culture, whereas…a rock concert or a
discotheque is a product of low culture” (Myers 1992 p.1). However Myers’ claims
about this once highly important division between the value of high and low culture is
not commonly accepted in today’s modern society. “By and large the belief that a
particular canon of literary, music, or artistic works can claim a monopoly of cultural
values is no longer widely supported” (Bennett 2005 p.64). This is evident in the
more recent, social definition of culture as a term which “expresses certain meanings
and values not only in art and learning but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour”
(Williams 1961 p.57). Williams’ definition suggests that culture is a much more
inclusive and everyday phenomenon, countering Arnold’s notion of culture as the
‘best that has been thought and said.’ Such all-encompassing definitions of culture
demonstrate the diminishing recognition of the distinction between high and low,
mass or popular culture in contemporary society and the convergence of many old and
new notions of culture. This breakdown of the division between high and low culture
is evident in today’s modern society through the popularity of reality television
shows. “Popular series such American Idol… have attracted over 50% of the market
share, which means more than half the population of viewers tuned into these
programs” (Hill 2005 p.2 ). It is clear that in today’s contemporary context the notions
of high and low culture no longer exist as they once did and popular culture has
unmistakably been embraced on a large scale.

Culture is inextricably related with the groups and institutions that make up society as
well as the interactions and shared meanings between individuals and groups.
Corresponding definitions of culture as ‘a way of life’ and ‘shared meanings’ describe
the way in which individuals with commonalities come together to form groups and
shared identities and meanings. As such “culture comes to be associated with that
which differentiates us from them…culture is in this sense a source of identity” (Said
1993 p.157). It is through culture that many individuals develop a sense of identity via
shared meanings and differentiation from others. Similarly popular culture has been
defined in the same way as “the everyday culture of a group... It is the way of life in
which and by which most people in society live” (Browne 1992 p.22). Popular culture
as a way of life has allowed the grouping of individuals to occur and thus the
emergence of subcultures, adding another dimension to the overall notion of culture.

Subcultures have been described as “distinguished by not one or two isolated traits…
they are worlds within the larger world of national culture” (Yinger 1960 p.625).
Subcultures are thus a major source from which individuals form an identity based on
shared meanings and identity. Vučković argues that members of a subculture can be
defined as “individuals whose social identity is partially based on the belonging to a
group focused on some interest … such as music, sport fandom, graffiti” (Vučković
2003 p.34). From this definition it is clear that subcultures have a strong affinity with
popular culture and are often based upon elements of popular culture. For example the
punk subculture is explicitly derived from the punk rock music genre with “punks and
pundits agreeing that punk started out as a music based subculture” (Leblanc 1999
p.33). Further to this it is argued (Gunde 2002) that subcultures such as punk with its
wild, rebellious hairdos, fashion and lifestyle hold an appeal for youth. “Youths are
prone to joining subcultures as a means of…developing a sense of identity” (Brake
1985) and it is clear that subcultures like punk can provide a unique identity. This
illustrates that subcultures such as punk are a key way in which shared meanings and
identities are produced and a way of life is created for a collective group within a
culture. Through the increased consumption of popular culture and the widespread
development of subcultures derived from popular culture it is apparent that the
distinction between high and low culture is no longer significant in modern society. It
is also clear that the notion of culture is increasingly diverse and complex,
incorporating ‘production and circulation of shared meanings and ‘a way of life’ of a
particular group.

Culture is undeniably one of the key concepts used in our understanding of the way
modern society operates and the difficulty of defining the term is obvious, with
diverse and evolving meanings that have developed over time. “On the one hand there
is a concern with artistic expression and creative, aesthetic, representational activity
and on the other with ways of living, organization and nature of social activity”
(Scannell & Schlesinger 1992 p.1). Culture is constantly evolving and in modern
terms has progressed to describe the sophisticated networks and composition of
society and consequently further complicated the definition of culture. There is no one
single definition of culture that is universally accepted, rather many overlapping
definitions that act to enhance our understanding of culture. It is plain that culture is a
concept that is extremely complex and problematic but it is one that we “cannot yet
do without” (Clifford 1988 p.10).
References:

Arnold, M. 1869, Culture and Anarchy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Bennett, T. 2005, ‘Culture’ in New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture &

Society, Blackwell Publishing, Carlton Victoria.

Brake, M. 1985, Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Culture and
Youth Subcultures in America, Britain and Canada, Routledge, London

Browne, R. 1996, ‘Internationalising popular culture studies’, Journal of Popular

Culture, vol.30, pp.21-37)

Clifford, J. 1988, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century Ethnography,

Literature and Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Giles J. and Middleton, T. 1999, Studying Culture: A Practical Introduction,

Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Gunde, R. 2002, Culture and Customs of China, Greenwood Press, Connecticut

Harrington, C. & Bielby D. 2001, Popular Culture: Production and Consumption,

Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Hill, A. 2005, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television, Routledge,
London

Kuper, A. and Kuper, J. (eds) 1985, The Social Science Encyclopaedia, Routledge,
London.

Landy, M. 1991, Imitations of Life: A Reader on Film & Television Melodrama,

Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan.

Leblanc, L. 1999, Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boys' Subculture,

Rutgers University Press, London

Lynch, G. 2005, Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, Blackwell

Publishing, Oxford

Myers, D. 1992, ‘High culture, low culture and no culture literature in the mass media
of Australia,’ Social Alternatives, vol. 11, no.1 pp.1-5

Said, E. 1993, Culture and Imperialism, Routledge, London

Scannell, P. & Schlesinger, P. 1992, Culture and Power: A Media, Culture & Society
Reader, Sage Publications, London

Vučković, T. 2003, ‘Role playing games and subculture,’ Diskrepancija, vol.4, no.7-
8, pp.31-42
Williams, R. 1961, The Long Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London

Williams, R. 1976, Keywords, Fontana Press, London

Yinger, J. 1960, ‘Contraculture and Subculture’, American Sociological Review, vol.

25 no.1, pp.625-635.