In the text Mix it Up, Grazian first explores the definition of popular culture or "pop culture." He breaks it down into what is well known, liked, and dumbed down enough that they are understandable and relate-able to the masses. He also looks at the ritualistic exercises of society in the US, drawing connections to today's use of sports. Grazian claims that sports allow people to commune without distractions that otherwise obstruct communication. He also talks about celebrity gossip and things of this nature that are not particularly thought provoking but draw people together without any other facts that would otherwise hinder their convergence with others. Regarding these outlets, Grazian assimilates them to folklore and says, "...They give tangible form to otherwise abstract ethical dilemmas concerning the nature of human relations and social behavior" (33). He also touches upon the negative aspects of pop culture, for example, the common objectification of females of all ages, schools building facilities for sports and, hence, not emphasizing education as much as recreation, etc. Today's culture seems to be dominated by products and company names. There is manipulation of the basis of greed. Grazian basically notes that capitalism is sucking culture dry by taking away tradition and promoting, in the words of Marx, "inequality between labor and capital" (56). Lastly, in chapter four, he discusses how things are passed along not on the mass scale but in smaller communities like groups of friends, families, etc. There is a small scale to popular culture. Overall, from these four chapters, one may say that there is a hierarchy to pop culture.
What I found most interesting was Grazian's approach to analyzing sports. I had never looked at this convention in this way. It is true that they serve as a meeting point for a lot of different people who would, perhaps, otherwise be too caught up in other factors to talk to one another. Consider that sports really have no social-class standards. EVERYONE can be a Steelers fan in Pittsburgh, regardless of how much money they make a year. (And they are.)
My question is then, are there any social outlets like this that aren't so shallow? We have celebrity gossip, sports - I guess what also brings people together is tragedy and current events, especially when considering things as recent as September eleventh. But even this didn't last very long and ended somewhat poorly. What do you think?
A. Gorno
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really can't understand people's fascination with celebrities and the stupid stuff they are often doing. In the morning when I eat breakfast I turn on CNN to see what happening in the world but the time that I usually do this they're doing entertainment news for like a half hour. Who cares what these people are doing.
ReplyDeleteLou
I think people are drawn to these highly shallow outlets. There are plenty of tv shows that solely gossip about others, not to mention the thousands of blogs and articles on the internet.I think people drawn together from mutual interests like cinema, food, plays or books may be less shallow social outlets
ReplyDeleteKayla O