introduction
TRANSCRIPT
INTRODUCTION
By THOMAS FREEMAN
he following collection of papers on foreign popular culture consists of individual studies on widely diverse topics. The papers chosen represent a wide geographical distribution of cultures con- sidered from the points of view of several disciplines. Included are papers on France, French-Canada, England, East Germany, West Germany, Spain, Latin America, the Soviet Union, India and China. The papers promised on Africa and the Arab world
were not completed, but perhaps a future supplement can be centered on the cultures of these countries. Most of the articles are written by scholars whose discipline is English or other languages; however, historians, political scientists and anthropologists are also represented. In selecting the papers preference was given t o those dealing with contemporary popular culture, but historical studies were also included, so that the time span of the papers actually ranges from Homer to the present. Several papers deal with the impact of one nation on another - the French reaction t o American films, the changing treatment of Voltaire in the British popular press, the East German view of American minori- ties, the West German appreciation of American country music, popular concep- tions about American Indians in West Germany, the French-Canadian view of the United States and the American response to stereotyped images of the Germans.
This collection is envisioned as the first in a number of studies of foreign popular culture each with a differing emphasis. A second collection, for ex- ample, could consist of papers which trace the international popcultural cross- currents of the media - films, comics, TV or advertising. These could be compared and contrasted as they are adapted and modified in specific foreign cultures. Another series could be devoted to different aspects of one particular foreign popular culture, in order to enhance our understanding of the culture as a whole. In the present collection each of the essays offers us a glimpse into the complex matrix which makes up a culture. We are introduced, for instance, t o minute fragments of French, or German, or Spanish popular culture which, like
742 JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE
the individual lines in a TV image, or the dots in a newspaper photo do not by themselves make a picture. One of the goals of further studies might be to give readers a sense of the “total picture” of a culture that would go beyond the ob- vious differences between cultures and furnish a comparatively sound basis for making generalizations about cultures. It is our hope that future studies will be able to progress beyond the stage where we are merely describing the popular culture of a foreign nation. Ideally, these studies should seek t o explain how and why new developments occur in popular culture, and to assess critically their developments.
The present papers throw new light on the important question of just what popular culture is. What is the difference between so-called “high culture” and “popular culture”? Can a great, immortal work of art be part of popular culture? The Bible is the best seller of all time. Is it popular culture? The Beatles have en- joyed worldwide popularity, bu t are not yet part of high culture. Beethoven is part of our high culture, bu t isn’t his music becoming a part of our popular culture as well? Not only were popular lyrics written to some of his immortal melodies, but T-shirts with the Master’s picture have been worn by his “fans.” Everyone knows who Mickey Mouse is, but now that the Mona Lisa and the portrait of Whistler’s Mother have been parodied in TV commercials, aren’t they also part of popular culture?
I t would appear from these examples that items of “high culture” can be- come part of “popular culture.” Conversely, items of “popular culture” can be- come accepted by the elitists of “high culture” and incorporated into the aristo- cratic ranks of “high culture” itself. An example of this evolution from merely “popular” t o both “popular” and “high” can be seen in the increasing stature of jazz in the world of “high culture.” Perhaps the outstanding example of the achievement of high culture status by popular culture music was the acceptance of the music of George Gershwin as not merely popular jazz but as high culture music of the first quality. This acceptance was dramatically announced t o the world by the concerts of Paul Whiteman and Benny Goodman at Carnegie Hall. The concerts also signalled the acceptance of jazz performers by the elitists of “high culture.” More recently this trend has been continued with the Boston Pops concerts featuring artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, and Judy Collins. These “popular” performers are seen as having outstanding “quality” according t o the taste of those who set the standards for “high culture.”
It seems that what actually defines a work of culture as “popular” is in the end not how good or bad it is, or why people like it or don’t, but rather whether it is liked by the many or the few. Thus in the end the distinction between “popular” and “high” is numerical instead of qualitative. It is of course interest- ing and challenging to get beyond mere numbers and try t o speculate on the “qualitative” reasons for them. However, the way we deal with this question of “high” versus “popular” culture will ultimately depend on whether we believe that there is such a thing as “greatness” o r “aesthetic quality” in any absolute sense. In other words, the search for a definition of “popular culture” brings us up against a fundamental philosophical problem that has nevet been solved.
INTRODUCTION 743
Thomas Freeman is Associate Professor of German at the State University of New York, College at Brockport. He is currently on leave at the University of Pittsburgh, where he is Andrew Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures. He is completing an authorized bio- graphy of the German writer Hans Henny Jahnn.