Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Popular Culture, Geography and

The term popular culture is often used colloquially and by commentators in ways that are complex and contradictory. Common to all definitions, though, is the idea that popular culture is associated with mass consumption. Popular culture can thus be seen to include everything from magazines, movies, and television to Internet phenomena such as Facebook and MySpace. Popular culture generally refers to the field of material culture and practice that is associated with everyday people, usually in opposition to “high” culture, which refers to the material culture and practice associated with socioeconomic elites. Alternatively, popular culture can refer to a globalizing Western culture that is seen in opposition to local folk cultures. In either case, popular culture is usually framed in negative terms, although this has changed in the social sciences and humanities over the past few decades.

Geography has engaged with popular culture in two ways. In the first, popular culture is theorized as a commodity, with a few sites emerging as sites of production, complemented by broader patterns of consumption. In the second formulation, popular culture is theorized as a purveyor of ideology, with geographers considering the messages and ideologies contained within it—either as a source of anxiety and danger or as a tool for creating communities. This entry first examines the origins of popular culture and then discusses the popular geographies of production and consumption. It then explores the ways popular culture is theorized in opposition to folk culture as part of the larger analysis of globalization and concludes with a look at poststructuralist approaches to popular culture and its meaning.

Origins of Popular Culture

In its original usage, popular culture was pejorative, referring to the culture of the masses, which was seen as normatively inferior to that of socioeconomic elites (high culture). This social denigration and devaluation by and large continue to the present day in popular discourse and to a certain extent in academic discourse as well. However, as cultural authority has been increasingly undermined in Europe and North America since the 1960s, the line between popular and high cultures has become increasingly difficult to define. Indeed, the rise of technologies associated with Web 2.0 (including user-generated fare) has ostensibly led to a process of aesthetic democratization, with fans now exerting more and more control over creative processes, and even populist cultural commentators such as Rolling Stone magazine and MTV are losing their authority. This relationship between high and popular culture, however, is not static. High culture draws inspiration from popular culture and vice versa, thus blurring the distinctions between them. This is most apparent when these two form of culture share a medium. When opera legend Luciano Pavarotti performed alongside the rock band U2 (in “Miss Sarajevo,” 1995), was the performance popular or high culture? While aesthetic quality is purportedly the criterion on which such a distinction is based, in reality, it has more to do with market segmentation. The more popular a cultural artifact becomes, the more “debased” it is perceived to be. Thus, the aesthetic assessment of culture should be understood to be just as much about identity and subjectivity as it is about the cultural artifact itself.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading