The concept of culture: Are you high or low?

4/3/2019

In our first class discussion today, we brought up the concept of culture and how it can be divided into different levels, which can then be claimed (ideologically) by certain social groups. In other UCSD comm courses, you've likely encountered the work of Stuart Hall, who was instrumental in creating the scholarly field of cultural studies — one of the first academics to suggest that the study of popular culture was as important as examining so-called "high" culture.

Consider that (alleged) difference between "high" and "low" culture, how those delineations have been presented to you, and where you straddle that line in your daily experience.

Previously, on my personal blog, I looked back at a 1915 essay that was influential in establishing that binary — and the lasting effect it has on America's view of itself and its culture.

Participation! Read the Van Wyck Brooks essay linked there (or here). What do you think about his perspective on American culture? Do we still divide the culture between this binary? For what purpose — what work is that doing, and for whom?

9 Comments

Emily Beihold

4/4/2019 11:42:01 pm

Van Wyck sees American culture to be split between Highbrow and Lowbrow culture. He states that Jonathon Edwards and Benjamin Franklin are at the forefronts of highbrow and lowbrow, respectively, as one practiced a more theoretical approach to thinking, and the other more practical. I believe that culture is definitely still divided into this binary as we can see through examples like classical vs. popular music or baroque art vs. graffiti. Van Wyck does not necessarily believe that one is better than the other. He also claims that there is no real "middle ground." When he talks about Highbrow culture, he uses the term "priggish" and makes such culture sound almost stifling while Lowbrow is something to be "scorned." By having these divisions, society establishes a curtain between traditionalists and the common people. These divisions can also be age-oriented as tastes and interests change over time.

CFord

12/8/2022 09:13:35 am

Funny, as much as people ,regardless of age, strive for assets, wealth, or status world wide, Americans are still described as a nation of shop keepers. Lol even the "Founding Fathers" were just English men trying to get rich and gain status in England. It wasn't until the English king started treating them like crap, that they began to concider the ideology of independence. Before that those Founding Fathers would have happily become Lords of the Realm.

Most all of us are immigrants or children of immigrants trying to gain "royalty" status of the old country using the wealth of the Americas. Just look at the branding on your feet.

Art is Art. A language to speak culture. Just sayin'

Ori Faigon

4/5/2019 11:41:08 am

To be frank, I see Van Wyck's views to be ludicrous, and our existence as university students prove this. The idea of dividing "highbrow" as those who engage with the theoretical, with "lowbrow" as those who engage with the practical can not exist. We as students are expected to engage with both, and I honestly believe that every person whether of higher education or not, engages with both at some time in some way. The practical application can not exist without the theoretical understanding behind it, and theoretical discussion and study serves no purpose without practical application. There is no division between them because they depend on each other. Of course there are members in our society who engage more in one than the other but to say that "... mutual contempt between theory and practice, is in the very nature of things." to me is a view that can only come from someone who lacks an understanding in both community and society. I do not believe that a solid separation between the two can truly exist in a modern western culture such as that which is in the United States. Only those who many would consider to be "elitists" (whether believing that theory is superior to practice or vise versa) would go as far as to locate this separation in society and apply it's rules to their lives, however I see those people as misguided and ignorant. I believe that for the most part, the members of our society understand the significance of both the theoretical and the practical and those who engage more in one than the other have a mutual respect for the other. Only the outliers which there will always be in any society would go as far to draw such a division.

Yilin Wang

4/5/2019 11:50:30 am

Van Wyck divides the culture into two parts: High brow and low brow. In my understanding, the high brow culture is usually costly and hard to obtain for most people such as classical music concert. High brow culture need some extend of education. On the contrary, low brow culture is easy to obtain and understand such as popular culture around us. I do not agree with Wyck's idea about culture because I think popular culture is around us, and it has a large number of audiences who are caring it. And it deserves the serious study since we cannot ignore the power of the public.

Tori Woollett

4/7/2019 08:59:31 pm

Van Wyck divides culture between those who deal with practical and those who deal more with theoretical knowledge. This is a basis for the divide of low culture and high culture respectively.I do believe that we still divide culture this way, whether most people do so consciously though is debatable. I personally feel like there is a sort of unconscious divide even still in highbrow culture and lowbrow culture. Not in so much as causing or creating scorn for the low brow or high brow, but in the sense that there is a sensed divide in one's belongingness in certain events and locations. For instance, the uneasiness and sense of not belonging, felt by most people at an event like an opera or an orchestral performance is an example of this divide even today. I think those who perpetuate these binaries gain from keeping these two separate, there is always something from high brow culture that those of lowbrow culture can aspire to.

Faith Bender

4/7/2019 09:24:49 pm

Van Wyck suggests in his essay that the terms highbrow and lowbrow "divide American life between them". I agree that while these terms are still used today to divide culture between them, I think they are merely a classification technique and not a true binary reality. To assume that a person or element of society is exclusively highbrow or exclusively low brow is impossible. There is nothing in the world that is that black and white in my opinion. He claims that the middle ground does not exist but I argue that the majority of our society, myself included lie within the middle ground. He also suggests that neither one is desirable and that their is no feasible way of moving from one to the other, which I find to be untrue. The idea that highbrow means living in a state of elitism and ideologies or theories about the lowbrow, without having the practical elements of the lowbrow goes against modern society. People today strive for balance, looking towards education and ideologies while existing simultaneously in the popular culture. One must exist in both to be fully knowledgeable, which is why we study both. It serves the highbrow to think of the lowbrow as uneducated or living too much in the literal world, influenced by popular culture, but it serves the lowbrow to think the opposite, and neither have it figured out, which is why they are both considered undesirable. Though there may be certain elements of society or groups of people that act this way, and the distinction of the two classes are necessary, the world is aware that you exist in the middle ground, which is beneficial.

Ziwei Wang

4/9/2019 04:11:55 pm

Van Wyck says the American culture is divided into highbrow and lowbrow cultures distinctly with no middle grounds. He suggests universities like Harvard Yale, and Princeton are not the ideal American colleges. They were founded by the elite, which is the highbrow culture. Typical Americans can not easily get in. Van Wyck believes a person cannot change his/her high/lowbrow culture by acquired efforts, I personally do not agree with him. A person can always changes his/her future by putting in hard work. However, I do agree with the author that in modern time, there are highbrow and lowbrow cultures, but there is also middle ground for the combination of both.

Mariam Abdul Shakoor

5/3/2019 03:31:00 pm

In my opinion when you talk about culture, there is no such a thing of division of cultures of being low and high. Culture is culture. The divisions occurs when people in power create a society that cracks that culture and make two side of it. Highbrow culture meaning high class and well off while lowbrow culture is low class and low life. According to the readings it emphasizes the American dream of you can reach highbrow culture if you put in work. You have an opportunity. The message that was displayed, kind of reminded me of the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness' displaying the American dream and displaying the American land the land of opportunities for dreams to come true.

CFord

12/8/2022 09:15:15 am

music as social action ::
the Blog