Is Lowbrow Culture Bad?
There's a good debate on "lowbrow" that's started in the comments section of another post--it's entirely unrelated to that post, but it's very interesting . Right now it's somewhat buried under other comments on a different, older topic, so people may not know it's there. That's a shame, so I want to bring it into the light of day so more people can contribute to the discussion.
It involves all things "lowbrow" and if such things are, by their very definition, bad. If you want to follow the whole evolution of how the topic came up (it involved a discussion of visiting strip clubs), you can check out the comments of this post. I'm going to post the initial comments that sparked the discussion here, paste the rest of the comments related to it in the comments section below, let you read through all of it, and then I hope you'll weigh in.
From Miss Syl:
I have a fascination with the lowbrow; and I don't think "lowbrow" is necessarily a negative--just different. But then, I grew up in an extended family that loved professional wrestling and the Three Stooges.
From Hiromi:
I'm throwing down the gauntlet.
Lowbrow is bad. Even worse is the fear of criticizing that which is lowbrow for fear of being called "elitist."
If lowbrow were self-contained, I can overlook it. But it isn't. It metastasizes. It proliferates. I'm sick of living amongst dumbasses in a dumb culture, where a misplaced sense of egalitarianism has produced a nation of people unable to correctly identify on which coast the U.S. capital lies, but are able to correctly identify porn stars.
So what do you think? I'd suggest reading the whole discussion that follows in the comments before reacting just to what's above, or you may not understand some clarifications that have since been made. And just because I worry that such a discussion could veer off into the personal, please keep comments responsible and on topic and NOT personally directed or insulting.
Okay, now have at it.
(Also note: This is a discussion that seems more group oriented, so I'd rather you all talk to each other all together. Because of this I may not respond to everyone one-to-one, but will just weigh in with my own thoughts in general as I have them--if I have them. Carry on.)
Comments (15)
Hiromi: See, you're equating lowbrow with stupidity and I don't believe they are one and the same. There ARE people who ONLY enjoy lowbrow things and who CHOOSE to be ignorant and proud of it. I'd argue that there are ALSO people who ONLY enjoy highbrow things and who CHOOSE to be ignorant and proud of it. The immediate image that comes to my mind for that one is Paris Hilton, but there are many non-famous examples.
To me, you can eat caviar and you can eat a corn dog on a stick and they can be equally liked and appreciated despite one having "highbrow" and one having "lowbrow" associations. I think it's the same with cultural aspects other than food. This does not mean that there are no stupid or narrow lowbrow activities. But then again, so is foxhunting stupid and narrow.
I don't mean to imply anyone has to like all of them or any of them--it's a matter of personal taste. Any activity that is harmful or prejudiced or limiting deserves criticism. Pride in ignorance deserves crticism. But not everyone who enjoys lowbrow culture is also proud of being ignorant--and in fact they aren't all ignorant just because they enjoy it. Lowbrow simply can't be used as a measure of intelligence, any more than highbrow can. I'm not saying you were necessarily implying this part, but I have majojr issues with this area, probably due to my own family history. It bothers me that people are assumed to be not as intelligent merely because they didn't have the financial means or access to formal education or highbrow activities. Perhaps their experience is forcibly not so broad as it could be, therefore they don't know some things. But it doesn't mean they're unintelligent or unwilling to learn. Just because the person can only afford to go to NASCAR rather than Ascot and chooses to allow him/herself that outlet so he/she has SOMETHING to enjoy in his/her hard life doesn't mean he/she deserves to be treated with disdain and like he/she is an idiot.
Note, this is not a DEFENSE of all lowbrow activities or culture as all good. For instance, I wasn't saying in the case of the strip club I thought I would necessarily like that particular piece of lowbrow. I was only saying that I'd like to see it to know what it's about. This is the case with all things, low and high brow. I like experiencing things to see what they're about. This may come from being a writer. I can't write as accurately if I don't experience the things.
But it IS an acknowledgement that they are not all harmful, and they do not all bring us down into the gutter. And this is not because I'm afraid of being called elitist. I'm not standing outside of the lowbrow and looking down at it and saying, "let the poor folks have their trash, dear things." I'm saying there are reasons these cultural activities evolved as they did, and in many cases they DO contribute to the social fabric. Think jazz, for instance. NOW it's highbrow. It USED to be lowbrow.
1. Posted by Miss Syl on October 13, 2006
I think we're talking about two different things. I don't object to the mere presence of lowbrow-ness, nor do I object to people engaging in them, because that would be hypocritical.
What I object to is this:
We have a culture of "egalitarianism" that has equalized all things and all opinions. Everyone's opinion is given the same weight, despite the quality of said opinion.
This has evolved out of a (rightful) move away from prudery and censorship and the like. However, it's gotten out of hand.
I'm in no way advocating the elimination of these places. What I'm objecting to is the way that "egalitarianism" has allowed these places to become public, mainstream, and ubiquitous.
This matters to me because I don't want to live in that kind of country. I don't want to live somewhere that the commodification and homogenization of sex and its public consumption is acceptable. This is affecting the quality of our culture, just like the ubiquitization of pre-processed food is ruining our food culture.
This does not mean that I'm advocating a return to Victorian ideas about sex, that it's shameful and we need to put covers on piano legs forthwith, or that we need to revert to growing our own food. The choices aren't that stark.
2. Posted by Hiromi on October 13, 2006
I'm pausing, because I don't have my asbestos suit handy. And I'm not convinced I fully understand everything that's been written in the comments. But I suspect that Hiromi is in fact talking about two different things. because the lowbrow she threw down the gauntlet on wasn't the same as the egalitarian she argued in her later comment, based on what I've read.
Which drew me in, because I AM a hypocrite, and I loathe most forms of lobrau culture (and where's the umlaut key when you're trying to be ironic?) and was prepared to help defend that particular gauntlet. Yet, at the same time, I don't mind strippers. Which might not be as incidental here as I would like it to be.
"lowbrow" is an aesthetic term. It's been defined many times, including wikipedia if you care. Personally, I prefer Art history/philosophy prof Wendy Stiener's version. Either way, it's separate from the idea of social egalitariansim.
S.E. as applied to culture and specifically sexual mores leads to an (incidental) overlap with the concept of low brow culture. I seriously object to the idea of social egalitarianism as well, and I am an elitist, but that's beside the point (my point anyway).
The real point is the problem of lowbow culture itself. I'll grant Syl's argument that there's no correlation between culture preference and intelligence/ignorance/whatever yardstic of astuteness you wish to pick; Larry Flynt was an excellent example of an extremely smart guy with aesthetics that literally make my skin crawl. Likewise, Princes Phillip and Charles, both connosieurs of highbrow culture, both incredibly worthless individuals on the whole. But these are exceptions that prove the rule. On the whole, Low brow or "popular" culture promotes the idea of instant gratification of base desires without effort or consequence. There is no restraint. For most people, that turns out to be bad; it encourages intellectual (and moral) laziness.
For example, I could now continue this discussion and get into the whole porn star/stripper thing, but instead I'm gonna go and watch CSI Miami because that's how lazy lowbrow culture has made me. I should be spanked. No, really.
3. Posted by Buck on October 13, 2006
Hiromi, Buck: I do believe that Hiromi and i are using different definitions. I'll grab from the Wikipedia defnition, since Buck mentioned it.
This list above would include the Beatles, Ray Bradbury/Kurt Vonnegut, folk art, drag culture, and Shaft. Personally, I don't think enjoying any of those things lowers my worth or is ANY different in terms of the "instant gratification factor". If I see a popular music concert or an opera, I don't believe either is any difference in the time at which gratification hits.
Further, I don't see how this opinion has anything to do with egalitarianism. Insisting everything is the same value as everything else and nothing is better or worse, and nothing has negative consequences, whether you're talking about low OR high culture is stupidity. I'm not arguing egalitarianism, which would imply everything has equal value (assuming GOOD value). I'm arguing there is NO correlation between there being MORE positive or negative value in either state, low or high. Both have both. If you want to call that egalitarianism, fine, because I am saying they are equally worthy of value judgement, and some things will come out positive or negative on either side. But I think that's something else entirely.
To me, the labels lowbrow and highbrow are besides the point. The POINT is, is there some value there? If there is, then fine. If there is not; and instead is destructivness, racism, hatred, ignorance, exclusion...then it's not acceptable.
So using Hiromi's example, yes, if her value judgment is that the commodification of sex is negative, then that part of lowbrow is bad.
We should also note that both "lowbrow" and "highbrow" are subcultures. MASS culture, I believe, is what you two are really talking about: brainless, formulaeic things that are made with no creativity or artistry, but solely to appeal to the widest possible audience and make the most possible money. And THIS, yes, I object to. But that's not lowbrow. There is an incredible amount of thought and artistry that goes into SOME lowbrow activies.
I'm not convinced, by the way, that there IS a spirit of feeling one MUST insist on social egalitarianism around either low OR mass culture. I think people would like us to THINK there is, because it suits certain agendas. But I think that public sentiment proves time and time again that people DO appreciate quality over mass production, when it comes down to it AND THEY ARE AFFORDED ACCESS TO IT (as in, they can both afford it and aren't kept out, either literally or by attitude).
In line with that, I also think that taking pride in one's eliticisim is as narrow-minded as taking pride in one's "lowbrow-ness." Sorry, Buck. Either position negates the ability for growth and is by nature exclusionary of others and THEIR growth and understanding and I simply can't support that.
Most cultures, whether academic or otherwise, are not so difficult to understand as they are exclusionary to make themselves feel special. If they took away the deliberately culture-centric, obfuscating jargon designed specifically to keep themselves "in the group" and keep others "out," most people would be able to grasp these things, and enjoy them as well. I will always argue for the kind of inclusionary culture that would be represented by things like Shakespeare back in the days of the Globe theater. Just because it entertains the elite and challenges the intellectuals, doesn't mean it can't also reach and touch those with mainstream or "low" cultural orientations. This, to me, is the ultimate form of expression and communication.
4. Posted by Miss Syl on October 13, 2006
Sigh. It's early in the morning, and I just rambled on when really I could have summed up by saying "egalitarianism" is not always bad, but yes, bad in this context if no value judgment is allowed. But that works both ways. Lowbrow is no more guilty of it than anything else.
And in my mind, egalitarianism doesn't have to do with the acceptance of harmful things. Though it's true that others may think that's what it's about.
5. Posted by Miss Syl on October 13, 2006
Don't be (sorry, that is). I said I was an elitist; I didn't say I was proud of it. But I do think it's important in any discussion to recognise your biases and to "own" them, so I like to be up front and honest about these things.
I'm going to argue with the line you draw in some other post, as soon as I've dusted off my social anthropology/culture books (all 2 of them).
But in the meantime, While my elitism might be bad for any number of other reasons, it does the exact opposite of "negate the ability for growth", and some things need to be excluded. I don't drink beer at all, but I have friends who are beer snobs - they claim that molson/kokanee/bud/etc are not fit to be drunk by real people. You couldn't get more elitist. Does their position "negate the ability for growth"? nah. They want growth. If it's new, they'll try it. They'll even try new products from the big brewing companies on occasion. But they would argue that "Kokanee culture" stunts growth by offering (and imprinting through marketing) a cheap alternative to actual craft and actual taste, and I'd tend to agree.
The same arguments can be translated easily into more "cultural" aspects of culture. I mean look at Britney or Paris Hilton. the only growth you're ever gonna see from either one of them will be artificial and involve silicone. The fact that schoolgirls across the US look up to these women as role models is either ludicrous or terrifying and possibly both. Is that exclusionary of me? Well, fuck.
Even so, Paris has her place in society - I just choose not to associate as much as possible. I'm not arguing for a mass burning of Benny Hill videos, much as I might like the thought occasionally. And you're absolutely right that from within low brow culture, great things sometimes happen - Even the beatles started with crap like love me do, and about half their stuff I simply cannot stand - but the other half is sublime. We need low culture as a kind of compost heap from which the flowers grow. But that by no means obviates my placing a value judgement on said low brow culture: it *IS* bad. In fact, most of it is awful.
6. Posted by Buck on October 13, 2006
I'm going to have to clarify my position, because I pretty much rambled in my above comments.
1) It bothers me not at all that lowbrow culture exists, in whatever form, however it is defined.
However, in my argument below, when I say "lowbrow culture," I mean stupid crap without artistic or educational merit.
2) However, there is a phenomenon I call "misplaced egalitarianism." I define it as assigning all levels of taste and all opinions as equal; i.e., they should be given equal weight, equal importance, and deserve to be seen and heard. Not all people feel this way, of course; elitists such as Buck and myself being examples.
3) There is a third variable: the ever increasing atomization of individuals at the cost of a cohesive society in which we strive for the common good. Please keep in mind that I assign no value judgment on this -- it has good and/or bad points depending on your POV. I believe the atomization of individuals has reached a very high degree in the U.S. I pose this as a result: private choices and private interests have been pushed into the public sphere, and have become sacralized as rights.
Misplaced egalitarianism plus our atomized society causes debate to devolve into "let's just agree to disagree," which makes the creation of a vision of a "good society" damn near impossible.
Again, not everyone feels this way, and there are those who insist on a debate regarding the state of our society, intellectuals and highly religious people being two examples. However, there is a vast middle ground filled with people who "agree to disagree" and "live and let live."
4) There is a fourth variable: our culture of consumerism. And the ever-strengthening norm of "profit at all costs."
The above factors have combined to produce what I called a dumbass culture. Lowbrow culture + lack of debate + consumerist/profit-driven norms = lowering of the overall tone of our culture.
7. Posted by Hiromi on October 13, 2006
By the way, misplaced egalitarianism plus "we all agree to disagree" has resulted in a SORRY FUCKEN STATE in our science classrooms. There should be NO FUCKEN DEBATE over whether evolution should be taught.
8. Posted by Hiromi on October 13, 2006
Damn. Ya'all need to come on down to NOLA and stop thinkin'& agonizin' so much! We would embrace ya'all because we embrace the diverse; the weird, wild, low-brow AND even the elitists. Live and let live. It's just not that difficult.
Reading all this makes me tired. ;)
9. Posted by TravelingMermaid on October 13, 2006
Mermaid, I'm tired tonight, too, so I'm going to attempt to be brief and then go chill out and go to bed early.
Buck, you're right--I don't know where I read the "pride" thing in there. Sorry about that. I was writing fast this morning and only had the chance to read once, and quickly.
I don't drink beer at all, but I have friends who are beer snobs - they claim that molson/kokanee/bud/etc are not fit to be drunk by real people. You couldn't get more elitist. Does their position "negate the ability for growth"? nah. They want growth. If it's new, they'll try it. They'll even try new products from the big brewing companies on occasion.
No, it doesn't negate their ability for growth because they are not elitists--as is eveidenced by the last line you wrote above. One who tries anything and makes a choice/value judgment based on experience and knowledge can not be termed elitist, even if they should end up choosing to prefer a beer that appears to be more "highbrow" (if beer can ever be considered "highbrow"). If they chose to say they only liked "high end" beer because they thought it made them seem more special than or better than other people, then they would be elitist. They are also not denying others the right to enjoy whatever beer they prefer.
Hiromi: I was clear on #1. I was just rambling, mostly, jamming on ideas yours and Buck's posts brought up until I came to my more concise summation. You said:
When I say "lowbrow culture," I mean stupid crap without artistic or educational merit.
That's why I was saying I think you're misusing the term "lowbrow" (which is a subculture, with areas of value and artistic merit) with "mass culture," which I think fits your definition. "Don't make me think, just stimulate me, and let me pay for it." (Though in limited usage, I don't think that's ALWAYS bad, either. Just not the majority.)
I think there are times when "agreeing to disagree" is entirely valid. There are other times when it is not.
I see egalitarianism as the right for everything to have the opportunity to be heard and considered should pepople be interested in hearing or considering it, but that doesn't mean they can't be negated or proved as wrong.
I know the kind of thing you're talking about, and it drives me nuts. It's like the environmental debate: 99% of scientists agree, yet the rogue dissenters get equal time to spout their theories. I think there IS a danger in summarily silencing any minority entirely, but if and when their views are considered, I think people have a responsibility to ensure views are not faultily presented as having equal support. They should be presented accurately, in context, if and when they are.
The faulty presentation of the above is not really egalitarianism. So yes, "misplaced egalitarianism" would be one term. "Incorrect egalitarianism." Whatever, anything like that.
In any case, I don't think making value judgments is the sole domain of elitism. think it spans across all cultures. I think elitists tend to think their value judgements are "more correct," but I hold that's also a faulty assumption. Elitists hold no patent on being mistake free.
Anyway, it's clear the term "elitism" means something different to you and Buck than it does to me. I don't think making educated decisions and value judgments makes one elitist.
To me elitism means putting oneself on a higher plane than others, and usually involves those of wealth and privilege who believe as a result of that, their opinions matter more.
I believe everyone's opinion matters, but it just doesn't always merit.
Or maybe I'm full of shit and I'm just debating for the fun of it.
I'm too tired to tell anymore.
10. Posted by Miss Syl on October 13, 2006
Good-god you guys are smart!
And you spell really well, too.
xooxoxoxo
11. Posted by Circe on October 14, 2006
The correct answer is, "Why are both of those opinions totally correct?"
And I'll take "Potent Potables" for $500, Alex.
12. Posted by Brandon on October 15, 2006
To continue a meme from Karl's blog, here's a timely Bukowski quote:
There's nothing to mourn about death any more than there is to mourn about the growing of a flower. What is terrible is not death but the lives people live or don't live up until their death. They don't honor their own lives, they piss on their lives. They shit them away. Dumb fuckers. They concentrate too much on fucking, movies, money, family, fucking. Their minds are full of cotton. They swallow God without thinking, they swallow country without thinking. Soon they forget how to think, they let others think for them. Their brains are stuffed with cotton. They look ugly, they talk ugly, they walk ugly. Play them the great music of the centuries and they can't hear it. Most people's deaths are a sham. There's nothing left to die.
(bold emphasis is mine.)
Or, perhaps a Bill Hicks quote:
"Wouldn't you like to see a positive LSD story on the news? To hear what it's all about, perhaps? Wouldn't that be interesting? Just for once?
'Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration … that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.'"
13. Posted by Brandon on October 15, 2006
...They don't honor their own lives...There's nothing left to die.
Wow. On bad days, I believe this.
But most of the time, I don't think that our society is what it is because the individuals themselves are somehow...defective. Our crap society is the result of a lot of variables, not all of which are under the control of individuals.
I'm not saying that we are all merely subject to huge forces beyond our control, but I honestly think that most people try their best, struggle with their consciences, and want more from life but simply aren't sure how to do that.
14. Posted by Hiromi on October 15, 2006
Hiromi said: But most of the time, I don't think that our society is what it is because the individuals themselves are somehow...defective.
I have to agree with you - maybe i've been reading too much Richard Dawkins, but i have to say, i think the major single factor that causes our modern society to be so utterly defective is - religion. The great evil; "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
That, certainly, is not the only thing. But if one looks at who we are today and how we got here, there's one thing that jumps out as having been done wrong, and that's the idea of faith over rational, questioning thought. Track back the lines of our culture's fucked-ness and you see the lines all intersect there.
As to the 'brow' aesthetic, i think it's a load of bollocks. The question comes down to "what sort of people like this." I do not bow to the aesthetics of others when I make my own choices. I like it, that makes it good to me. 'highbrow/lowbrow' is an extention of class thinking, and has no relevance in my aesthetic choices.
15. Posted by Elvis on October 16, 2006