It is remarkably easy to believe that we live in a culture of trash. Every day we are inundated with poorly-recycled styles, bland and unoriginal pop music and advertisement after advertisement featuring some overzealous spokesman convincing us of something we don’t need. It’s discouraging — without a voice or a cause for our generation, and without proper regard to the tribulations we face, popular culture is losing its meaning.
The way we live now, there are two ways to react to pop culture: consume it or scorn it. Consumers are traditionally regarded as low-brow, mindless zombies who follow trends without question, allowing the synthesized rhythms of Top 40 music to flow through their iPods, which are probably contained in varying forms of tacky cases. The scorners hold themselves above this, criticizing or ignoring the mainstream and mourning the loss of quality entertainment.
But in these reactions, there is a third option missing: the academic response. See, pop culture is more than just a money-making machine — although it certainly is that as well. It is the formation of culture around us, and whether or not the result is low-quality trash, what we’re observing is living anthropology. We are more than just consumers subject to advertisement, we’re the subjects of developing culture, and the interesting part is figuring out just what that means.
In a recent media studies class, when discussing the current state of the music industry, my professor asked the class if we believed Britney Spears is the death of democracy. Although the notion seemed absurd at first (wrapping oneself in a snake doesn’t traditionally make for a radical deconstruction of the two-party system), it became clear that my professor had a point: Spears is more than just a pop star, she is a symbol. And more than just a symbol of what our modern culture is, she is representative of everything that previous generations were not.
Sure, people may criticize the state of music, but is that really due to a lack of talented musicians or a lack of true alternative voices? Or is it due to industry control of what can and cannot be released, what will or will not make record companies money? Critics can complain that there is no quality music being made right now, nothing with a message, but this isn’t true. That kind of music is being made, but companies are not picking it up. And why should it be? Why should record companies, which are essentially giant corporations, encourage voices of dissent?
So yes, in this way, Britney Spears kind of is the death of democracy. Not because she’s promoting promiscuity in young girls or because she sexualizes herself as an object. Not even simply because she puts out bad music. It’s because said bad music is a straw man for the actual problems within the music industry. Yeah, we’ll complain about low quality, but eventually we’ll either absorb it or write it off, and, in the end, enough of us will consume it so that the industry can keep chugging. And churning out meaningless pop music is a lot more lucrative and a LOT safer than taking on an artist who’s going to question this system.
Instead of criticizing the immediate result of popular trends, we have to consider the societal factors that lead up to their creation. Our generation has depth; our struggles, but our ideas aren’t being adequately reflected by our culture because our culture is based on revenue.
But we can’t blame it all on “the man” or “the machine.” As a generation, we’ve become complacent, and we’ve come to expect less. Because the creators of our culture are industries, their policies are built off of supply and demand. The creation of culture is in our hands, and we just need to realize it and create it for ourselves. We are a generation that deserves a higher quality of legacy, but we need to demand it first.
You can reach this staff writer at
kcasino@theeagleonline.com.
