Looking Past Marxism

Laclau and and Mouffe explain why Marxism needs to be altered to become more modern and allow for the globalization of culture and the economy. They discuses the flaws which hold back Marxism and they spend some time critiquing Geras' views.
They explain that Marxism expected a uniform society, but this is just not possible, though they do believe each person should be involved in this transformation. To change our perspective, Laclau and Mouffe suggest we all must be aware of history in order to participate in change.

Laclau and Mouffe clearly get their ideas from Marx, but want to improve his view. They recognize that not everyone will have the same ideals. Their ideas of change and being a part of culture, display a view very similar to that of Williams. Leviasites and Arnold would be unlikely to agree that this change is necessary, though would probably agree that the homogeneity of society is impossible and that political struggles are inevitable. Bazerman would probably take interest in their ideas. Their consideration that we should all be participants follows in line with Bazerman's ideas of a psych-social recognition phenomena. This can be applied to the way people take part in culture and become a part of the changes.

I think Laclau and Mouffe are wise to think of globalization. Certainly it has an effect are our society. Also, it seems much more logical to recognize that a uniform ideal isn't going to exist, unlike Marxism.

Influences on Culture

Many writers have been trying to determine the relationship between culture and the people who either consume or make it. Marx viewed this in a way that some them closely related. He explains that at some point, it will be inevitable for society's views to affect the production of culture in its current form. Following Marx, Engels discussed culture in relation to economics. While many people would assume economics to be the sole force of influence in the production of culture, he disagrees and explains that there are many other things that influence this including politics, philosophy and religion. Gramsci discuss the relationship between the dominate class, intellectuals and culture. He explains the function of the dominant class to lead its allies and dominate its enemies. He then explains that while everyone can be an intellectual, not all of them can influence society. As the dominate class tries to dominate its enemies, they must conquer the old intellectuals in order to spread new ideas. One way of doing this, is by creating new thinkers and spreading culture by means of education.

Levisites, Arnold and Hoggart would likely consider the economy to be one of the main influencing factors, unlike Engels. They would consider the close tie between the economy and production of culture to be its downfall. Williams and Thompson, however, would not consider this a bad thing. Wiliams would agree that the economy is not he sole contributor because he considers culture to be a part of the people. In this same mindset of culture as a part of your experiences, he would likely also agree with Gramsci about the dominate class because they would be spreading their experiences. Levisites, Arnold and Hoggart would not have liked the ideas of Gramsci because they would not want to get rid of the old ideas. They would likely consider these ideas better. Arnold, however, would have agreed with the close tie between education and culture.

I like the idea that culture is not only influenced by economic factors, however I do think it is one of the largest contributing factors. By recognizing that there are other factors, we are forced to consider the values and ideals the people are working towards. I also think while the dominate class will try to conquer other ideas in order to keep their own dominate, we should consider how those ideas rose up to become dominant in the first place. To do this, we can probably look at the factors discussed by Engels (politics, history, philosophy, religion).

Can Nerd Culture Still Be Considered a Culture?

The term ‘nerd’ has taken on a number of meanings over time. It was once used to refer to a person who is socially inept or exceptionally good at science or math. It sometimes still is used in this way; however, a much more common understanding is that it refers to a person who is exceptionally passionate about a subject. This vagueness has led an increase in the number of people who classify as a nerd and the values within ‘nerd culture’ are causing conflict. 

One video, where Wil Wheaten, a fellow nerd, discusses why being a nerd is awesome. He defines a nerd as not what you love, but how you love it. He discusses the idea that anyone can be a nerd and there are subgroups for everyone with other people who “love the same things in the same way you do.” This is a more contemporary view which shows how being a nerd has become is more mainstream and less of a negative connotation. He discusses being a nerd in a very positive light which is exactly what you would expect from a welcoming community. 

Next, from the Geek and Sundry channel on Youtube, two of the vloggers discuss “Nerd on Nerd Hate.” Like Wheaton, they expect the community to be welcoming to newcomers, but explain that it isn’t always the case. If we understand being a nerd to mean someone who is passionate about something, conflict arises between nerds when someone is less passionate or knowledgable than them, or even if they are passionate about something else. These differences are understandable because, as they explain, every community has its own form of diversity. But diversity can sometimes lead to problems. 

The last text, by Benjamin Woo, discuss a study done which tries to understand the nerd community. He interviewed several self-identified nerds and asked how they would define it, but the results were very inconsistent. Sometimes it can be considered positive and in some instances nerd is still considered an insult. He generalized the definitions to come up with the idea that nerd refers to people who are “particularly enthusiastic about their hobbies” (660). He also found that two of the main values of nerds are knowledge and collections (661). Nerds try to prove themselves by being the most knowledgable or having the best collections. It is a way of showing their self-worth. Woo then explains that nerds have become a larger part of popular culture; they are more “mainstream, perhaps even ‘cool’” (665). This has led to more diversity and new genres. With this, values are changing and vary from person to person. It even leads to rivalry between subgroups of nerds. 

The problem with the nerd community is also what makes it so great. It is accepting of all types of people and has become very diverse, but this has led to the misinterpretation of values. The term nerd is hard to define and means something different to each person. By being passionate about different things and more or less knowledgable, nerds think less of other nerds. Knowledge and passion are difficult values to assess because they mean different things to different people. It is their greatest triumph which is also the greatest downfall. Rather than creating a welcoming group, they are isolating each other. There are many subgroups within nerd culture that create a place for each other. For example, the Doctor Who fandom values this show and knowledge about it. However, its members may look down on people who enjoy Firefly and not Doctor Who or people who just started watching the show and know less about it. 

We can use Williams’ lens to understand this problem further. He defines an ideal as a way the culture works toward perfection. In relation to the nerd culture, this would be their goal of having the most knowledge on a subject. The documentary Williams refers to can be the many types of texts and genres that are produced. It only depends on the group and subgroups passions. Episodes of Doctor Who is only one example. Another may be the Lord of the Rings series. Other nerds may be passionate about physics. Because of the nature of this culture, it is hard to create a tangible list of its documents. The social aspect of his lens is the way nerds absorb the documents. It is the way they demonstrate and live their passions. Bias is a huge problem, certainly part of the larger issue, because each subgroup within nerd culture will explain being a nerd in a different way. They will have different passions and different ways of life. Because of this, it is hard to describe the ’style’ of nerd culture other than a passion for knowledge. By defining these elements we can see that the shared belief of nerds has become a source of contradiction. It was only inevitable that once a group which started small and had shared bonds grew so large, the people in it can no longer feasibly share all of the same values. I question whether nerd culture can remain as it grows to be more mainstream. If being a nerd means to be passionate about something, aren’t we all nerds? Certainly we don’t all share the same values and if this is the case, a culture without the same values can no longer be considered its own culture any longer. 

Sources: 

Nerd on Nerd Hate

Why it's awesome to be a nerd

Alpha Nerd: Cultural Intermediaries in a Subcultural Area

Genre as a Loose Frame

Bazerman outlines the ways texts are classified into genres and discusses the methodologies necessary to understanding these texts when they may fit into multiple or no set genre which provides a way of thinking about the organization of the texts and the way they affect social groups. He gives several terms which can be used to understand this process such as social facts which are the things people believe to be true and speech acts which lead to a person or group taking action based on what has been said. These terms, along with the others he discusses, can be applied to spoken word or written texts. In addition to these, Bazerman defines genre as a category that gives us expectations for a specific text, but notes that not everything fits into a set group. Because of this, he discusses several methods which can be used to understand the text if the genre is unclear. These include asking why you are studying the text, what you hope to answer and examine and the need to select appropriate tools.

Bazerman's focus is on both the categorical nature of texts and their effect on social groups. He even states that the social groups may be formed based on the texts. This suggests that they go hand in hand, much like Williams believes. He ties documents into people's experiences which reflects similar views of Bazerman. Arnold would have also agreed with several of these views such as using culture as a way of education, reflected in Bazerman's classroom example, and his need for organization. Along with these two, Bazerman states that the texts you introduce influence different activities, which is a lot like Greene's idea of furthering the conversation.

I liked the distinction that Bazerman made about texts not always fitting into a specific genre. This is important as we consider texts because if we try to fit something into a specific perspective that it doesn't necessary align with, we will obtain the wrong understanding. Also, Bazerman gives clear examples of how one text can influence several others and how the readers will be called to action. I also liked the distinction that sometimes the readers may not take action and others may take an unexpected one. This are important for writing about culture, because we have to expect that people will interpret our writing in a number of ways and some may misunderstand it. This forces us, as writers, to put further effort into creating a clear perspective, but also to understand that the conversation we add to cannot be predicted.

Breaking Away From Leviasism: Cultural Analysis of the 1950s-60s

In his chapter on culturalism, Storey discusses the writings of several authors regarding their views on the subject and how they follow some of Leavisism's ideas and where they separate from it. First, Hoggart talks about the way culture changed from the 1930s to 1950s. In the 1930s he thought it lead to "the rich full life" but no longer held the same view about the 1950s. It had changed into something that the industries could use to exploit the masses and was much more shallow. Next, he looks at Williams' ideas on culture. He considers three categories: a process of human perfection, historical documents, and culture as a way of life. He gave the idea that the purpose of cultural analysis is to understand what culture is trying to convey regarding a group's shared experiences. Hall and Whannel look at quality within popular culture rather than it versus high culture. In doing so, they define popular culture as 'popular art' in order to create a working definition for the audience.

Hoggart's view used the same strategies as Leviasism but his dedication to the "working-class culture" separated him from it. Also, Leviasism would have scorned the rich full life and comradery that Hoggart praised of the 1930s. Williams' categories of culture are similar to the definitions presented by Storey in chapter 1 but Williams presents them in categories rather than separate definitions. Also, unlike Leviasism, Williams views art and culture not as a separate entity, but as a part of the human experience. He also wants to spread this culture to everyone, rather than the hierarchy Leviasism expects. Hall and Whannel's definition of popular culture as 'popular art' draws from one of Storey's definitions presented in the first chapter. Storey discussed the struggle with defining this but Hall and Whannel settle not the idea that popular art is not 'failed art' but art that "operates within the confines of popular."

I find Williams' and Hall and Whannel's ideas easier to follow regarding defining culture and popular which results in the definition of popular culture. Storey gave complex explanations regarding the difficulting of defining them in addition to several different definitions. However, by giving culture different categories rather than definitions, the concept is simplified, but not too general.

Writing: A Web of Conversation

Cooper discusses the ecological model of writing, which she considers to be an ideal. She explains problems that arose as the way writing was taught shifted. Writing was seen as a reclusive task. It gave writers the ability to only consider their ideas and to know they were original ideas. This has shifted, however, into the ecological model which considers the importance of the social aspect of writing. It can be used as a means for students and teachers to connect in the classroom. She suggests that the ecological model is a way for people to be captivated in the social system of writing. She then explains that writers need to consider their audience as they create their works.

Cooper's ideas seem mostly in line with Greene's. He suggested that writers should write with a perspective in mind that they want the reader to grasp, much like the way Cooper suggests writers should write with an audience in mind. I think Greene would agree with the ecological model, because he also saw writing as a social process. Because of Greene's idea that writing is a means of having a conversation, the students and teachers in Cooper's example are able to communicate. I think Arthur would both disagree and agree with these ideas toward writing (as a form of culture). While he would want the benefit that the conversations that writing promotes and its ability to educate people, I think he would be against the idea that students are being taught to focus on content and not form. This goes against his value of structure and order. Also, if students are taught to think to freely, they might not think what he would consider ideal.

Much like Greene and Cooper, I think writing should be a social process. It was originally meant as a form of communication, and is still necessary for this purpose. It is a means of promoting ideas, both new and old. I like the idea that it lets students and teachers communicate. It is just one more way for a student to make their opinion known. I also agree with the idea the we must write with an audience in mind. Certainly, we can write without one, but the writing will be lacking. How far can a conversation go if it is only with yourself?

United... Separately

These chapters provide an overview of the changing opinions of culture. What stuck out most to me was the idea that culture can bring people together or separate them. I immediately thought of an example of pop culture regarding this idea. Within pop culture there are many fan bases which bring the fans of those shows, movies or artists together. They are able to unite over a common idea, but when another fan base seeks to threaten the existence of another, they are no longer united.

Arnold suggests that culture can be a fix to problems and work to unite people. He even goes on to say that culture "… seeks to do away with classes." I had trouble agreeing with this. While culture can certainly bring people together, I think there will always be wealthy classes that value tickets to the metropolitan opera, while middle class teenage girls get excited to go see Justin Bieber. Certainly, the lines are becoming blurred, but I found it improbable that culture could ever do away with classes. This also brings us back to the difficulty in defining culture and what we consider popular culture. Different definitions could lead to different discussions regarding culture's affect on the classes.

Arnold also argues culture, as of the twentieth century, has become 'standardized' and 'leveled down' so people need to learn to abstain from this kind of culture. This connects to Leavisism which blames marketing for the decline of culture. As marketers learn what people like, less effort goes into the craft and more effort goes into creating a formula for what people like. My issue with the Leavisism viewpoint was that in talking about literature, it suggests that "culture itself, lost its authority" and that "mass culture undermines the vitality of high culture… while offering nothing in return." This statement overlooks the ideas presented in the previous chapter which suggests that high art can become low art and low art can become high art. Shakespeare was used as an example to show that low art can become high art. Certainly Shakespeare has given us a lot. Thus, I must disagree that low art offers nothing.