Cultural Theory and Popular Culture and introduction 4th by by John Storey
參賽者：王〇喬（應外三）
名次：第三名
書名：Cultural Theory and Popular Culture and introduction
得獎作品：
After reading Cultural Theory and Popular Culture and introduction 4th Edition by John Storey, I found it particular deep but interesting to discuss about his hegemony theory. The cultural concept of the hegemony theory is introduced by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci defined “hegemony” as a process of negotiation when two parties or cultural groups collide. In other words, hegemony is the result of resistance and incorporation between dominant and subordinate groups. Therefore, the hegemony theory pictures a society in which subordinate groups actively subscribe the values that incorporate them to the prevailing structures of the dominant group, and the people that appear as “dominant groups” are those who function as intellectuals in the society. Moreover, the dominant group does not “rule” the rest of the society, but rather, these intellectuals have reached a high degree of consensus with the subordinate groups. Therefore, the dominant group “leads” the society through moral and intellectual leadership. To make a further and deeper discussion of the concept of hegemony, I can think of three typical examples related to hegemony.
The first example is the dominance and widespread of American culture and the popularity of McDonalds’ can be seen as a typical example of hegemony. To begin with, though McDonalds appears as an international corporation founded in different countries, in each country, there exists a variety of differences when it comes to the food served in the menus. For example, McRice burger, a ground beef burger, or chicken fillet, served with special sauce in fried rice cakes, can be ordered in the Taiwanese McDonalds’ menu. Beer is offered in McDonalds’ in Germany, France, and a few other locations across Europe. Another example is the McTurco sold in Turkey, which is 2 burger patties covered in cayenne pepper sauce, and vegetables, and served on a fried pita. From all of these examples, one can see the widespread of McDonalds’ as a symbol of dominant American culture and the different “local specialties” that appear in the menus as subculture groups. It is a process of struggle and negotiation that brings the two together, and such equilibrium creates a variety of “localized food” served in the menus of McDonalds’ in different countries.
The second example associated with the hegemony theory is another evidence of the successful dominance of American culture, that is, when mentioning about the American film industry. It is evident that American values are diffused worldwide through the film industry, and there are several main reasons that the American film industry has the ability to become a “hegemon”. In terms of ability, one cannot deny that “the Hollywood system” has become a standard for the global motion picture industry because the United States has a solid global network, abundant production resources, such as prominent producers, actors and studios. Furthermore, ever since the early 20th century, the United States has had a great interest in exporting films overseas. This results in attaining the advantage of monopolizing the global film distribution with nearly a market share of over 50 percent. Moreover, the biggest advantage is, through such “filmic hegemony”, the U.S. is able to use “soft power” to maintain global hegemony. Unlike the earlier times when people used weapons (hard power) as a violent force to maintain power and dominance, the notion of “soft power” has flourished in the U.S. through different ways, via culture and ideology. That is to say, the U.S. uses “filmic hegemony” as a soft power to diffuse its values worldwide and make the American influence more continuous and solid. The “filmic hegemony” mentioned above is one aspect of cultural hegemony, for often times, these films tell audiences what the world is or what the world is supposed to be. Therefore, soft power deliberately enables the dominant ideology or culture, in this case, the U.S., to control one’s thinking and helps maintain its own the status quo.
However, some people may be skeptical about the relationship between the spread of films and the control of politics because these people may argue that many Hollywood movies simply function as mass entertainment and do not always reflect American hegemony. Despite such claim, films and politics do have a correlation with each other, whether one is aware of it or not. That is why the American government has always been aware of the political function of Hollywood and maintained close ties with the film industry. Such awareness strengthens the power of “American filmic hegemony” because these films have the potential to represent the political, economic and military aspects of the U.S.
One of the suitable examples of U.S. “filmic hegemony” would a further analysis of the James Bond 007 movie series, which is a masterpiece controlled by U.S. funding and in many ways reflects American perspectives. Over a forty-five year period, the 007 series has achieved tremendous worldwide box-office record and has successfully showed the prevailing American values and cultures. To analyze the 007 series, one can first discuss about the general setting of the series, which is the Cold War, and this holds a premise of “America controlling in the West. Next, one of the series’ specific traits is that the international society is usually divided into “good and evil”, and the nationality of the villains is the key to know who the main enemy of the U.S. is. For example, the Soviet Union plays the villainous role with which the U.S. needs to confront. Furthermore, the American perspective on international politics became more evident after the release of Die another Day (2002). In this film, there was a reestablishment of the villainous role, which was substituted by North Korea. Such switch could not be just a coincidence, but rather an obvious proof of the spread of American political values. Next, understanding the selection of actors in the 007 series is another evidence of American hegemony. The main character, James Bond, appeared to be as a more “Americanized Anglo-Saxon”. Albert Broccoli, the producer of the series, chose Scottish-born Sean Connery to play James Bond instead of choosing the British actor David Niven, and this was a critical act of transforming “British” Bond into an “American” Bond”. Moving to the themes in the series, the core values of the United States are threatened, and the villains’ plans usually include stealing the space shuttle and microchips, which are both advanced technologies of the United States.
In addition, institutions and infrastructure which are important symbols of the U.S, such as the Federal Reserve Bank, are attacked by “the villains”. One might question why do these villains target strongly on attacking the United States, and the answer would be that attacking the U.S. is the most effective tactic to disrupt international order. This shows that to threaten the value of the United States equals threating world peace. Therefore, James Bond holds the responsibility to settle down such chaos and restore international peace. Simultaneously, the high-tech equipment and the U.S military are keys to maintain world peace because James Bond is only able to complete his missions through these facilities. This fact can be explained as the superiority of the U.S. over Britain when it comes to science, technology and national defense. The last interesting point to mention about American hegemony inserted in the 007 series is that the U.S. is seen as “good” in a rather unspoken manner, with which terms such as “safe”, “world” and “best” the U.S. would be associated. Such purpose is to reassure the positive values of the United States. Therefore, the 007 series is a typical example of American “filmic hegemony”.
The last example of the hegemony theory is adopted through the historical case of British hegemony in the Caribbean. In order to avoid conflicts and maintain control over the indigenous people, the British rulers instituted a “transformed English” as the official language. The so-called “transformed English” was a combination with new stresses and new rhythms introduced by the indigenous tribes, such as introduced from the African languages. Therefore, this combination is another example of hegemony, which shows through the process of resistance and incorporation comes negotiation and the result of a combination of the dominant language culture and the subordinate language culture.
In conclusion, Gramsci’s hegemony theory allows one to view “popular culture” as a negotiated mix made from both “above” and from “below”, both “commercial” and “authentic”, which shows that it is a compromise equilibrium of forces between resistance and incorporation.
沒有留言:
張貼留言