As During (1999) astutely noted, the “discipline (of culture has) become internationalised,” (p. 13) reflecting how culture itself, has also been internationalised by a globalised media. (p. 14) This process underscoring the homogeneity displayed in both the content and platforms of mass culture.
This implication is aligned with my own perception of mass culture, particularly from social media and its accessibility. Whilst designed as communication platforms, they also reflect the amalgamation of trends that are inherently temporary in nature.
The temporality of the trends reiterates the dynamism of mass culture and its capacity to contain and accommodate shifting trends. Trending hashtags on Twitter only have a shelf-life of about 11 minutes. (hashtags.org) Yet 140 characters can still impart values to a global audience- Donald Trump’s tweets being the best/worst example.
The plurality of the words “mass culture” however, betrays the singularity society has been reduced to today by the media. They point towards a larger narrative behind the creation of culture.
During’s point that “culture is neither an end in itself nor the product of autonomous agents… but a mechanism for transmitting forms of governmentality,” (p. 16) highlights the ideological nature of culture. This is only supported by Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) who use the film production process as a metaphor in their essay for the manipulation that goes into the creation of culture by those in power.
Adorno and Horkheimer’s example remains applicable in today’s world. Interestingly, while the film still holds relevance in imparting values, the shortening attention span of individuals (The Huffington Post, 2018) insists that content be delivered shorter and quicker but at a greater frequency which allows for better retention. As a daily consumer of mass media myself, I am intrigued to see how this affects the capacity of mass culture and its creators.
Word count: 299 words
Author: Samantha Loh
Theory and Practice in Cultural Studies 
I do agree that culture has been internationalised and internalised, especially with the proliferation of social media. I was reminded of Durkheim’s concept of “Collective effervescence” when reading your post as social media has had the power to communicate ideas globally and empowers individuals to participate in the same action in unison. We can see examples of this from events like the Olympics or new social movements like #MeToo.
Another interesting point of yours was when you wrote about the contradiction between the plurality of the words “mass culture” and the singularity in the meaning it attempts to imply. The term “culture” is a polemic and contradictory. However, we cannot deny that when we use the word “culture,” we are inclined to define it as something intangible that’s imbibed or learned through the transmission or induction to a singular group. In my opinion, even though there are many definitions, we can find a commonality in the meaning behind the nuanced definitions.
LikeLike
Mass culture certainly has become globalised, especially with online platforms enabling mass consumption of the same content, whether through social media such as Instagram or streaming sites such as Netflix. This suggests that mass culture’s transmission of ideals and values, whether through tweets or films, is now on a global scale.
The dynamism of mass culture postulated here seems to refer to how “hegemonic forces constantly alter their content as social and cultural conditions change” (During, 1991:4). In other words, mass culture functions as hegemony. Coupled with the global scale on which mass culture works, mass culture’s dominance certainly seems undeniable.
However, mass culture’s influence is not absolute. Even if most people have been conditioned in certain ways, such as to desire consuming content in frequent small doses as pointed out in this post, society has not been reduced to a singularity. Resistance and contestation exist. Mass culture products may contain a dominant reading, but individuals can and do formulate their own different interpretations. To illustrate, though there were people who accepted the preferred reading of Nationwide (a BBC news-magazine programme widely watched in the late 1960s and 1970s), there were also those who flatly opposed it and those who negotiated with it (During, 1991:8). In fact, the temporality of trends contained by mass culture may point towards the continual resistance and contestation of it – it is forced to keep changing, to be dynamic in order to impose ideals on its consumers.
LikeLike
It is indeed true that as an individual, our attention span may be shorter and hence contents need to be delivered quicker and shorter with greater frequency to allow better retention of information. Some people may be more visual than the others and so the contents being shown is critical in stirring their interest. I am also a daily mass culture consumer and having read and understood the gist of it now, I find it more intriguing and meaningful.
LikeLike