politics of popular culture

One cannot currently live on a myth; The tradition is constantly being transformed; The old is giving way to the new in more ways than one. New changes, or crossovers of trends and fashions, can create a sense of existential urgency; The sublime seems to coincide with the traditional with the trivial and with the creative. A kind of re-orientation is going on so fast that classical concepts of culture seem to be out of date.

It is also a fact that the greatest number of new ideas in contemporary art, literature and culture are emerging from the West. Western artists and cultural leaders have been expanding the concept of contemporary art. It is important to note the convergence of new perspectives, especially when there has been a marked shift from idealistic to materialistic perspective.

The fabric of popular culture, which is now a celebration, coincided with changes in the media world, with much soap operas, MTV musicals, McDonald’s fast food, sexist jokes, designer-label jeans, and aerobic sports-wear. Is – an approach to maintaining ‘standards’ all along. The so-called ‘cultural industries’ have been discredited as tools of the hegemonic class, which imposes passive subordination on the majority of the people, be it Europe, America, Asia or Africa. They manipulate the multilayered site of contemporary consumerist culture as well as the emerging hybridization of cultural identity.

An examination of the ‘popular’, its texts and practices should help us negotiate a profound shift in culture studies as well as the post-Cold War developments (in the former Soviet bloc, and/or in the East) to postmodernist conservatism. should be related to. European countries), post-apartheid developments (in South Africa and elsewhere on the African continent), post-colonial developments (in Asian and African countries), and more recently, events after September 11, 2001 (South/South -East/West Asia, Middle East, USA and Europe).

The politics of popular culture, whether postmodernist or postcolonial, is essentially the politics of the ways in which we see ourselves, such that cultural, social and economic are not readily distinguishable from each other. The relationship between popular culture and its two arms, commerce and profit, is highly problematic. Instead of passively consuming a product, users now actively absorb it and regenerate it to build their own sense of self, social identity and group cohesion.

After the September 11 terrorist attack on American soil, the political and economic presence of American hegemony has become more frequent in every country: TV programs, newspapers and magazines replete with American style and vision. Gradually, American dominance here, there and everywhere has resulted in subordinate and subservient forces, even terrorist forces, struggling to demolish it.

There is a slow ideological principle (to maintain a consumerist culture) of the masses, especially of the middle class, fueled by powerful interests. Middle class culture is often less concerned with specific class, religion, race, country or politics, and is also informally indifferent to ‘national’ questions, as far as consumerism is concerned, a type of ‘international’. ‘ Practice solidarity. American popular culture has engendered economic exploitation not so much as the ability to represent something or someone, in a peculiar way: as symbolic power; As popular culture in the realm of power. Media society – whatever its form, shape, size or colour – expresses this power, perhaps selectively, in a contrarian fashion, open to others to decide who to associate with or Have sympathy. It uncovers the mechanisms of identity-building, participating in identity politics, creating awareness of exclusion or inclusion, and creating counter-narratives with new important spaces and social practice. It acts as the “central political agent” of the powerful.

The politics of popular culture reveals the conditions under which the relations of power in different parts of the world have been shaped and apparently developed in a free way as in everyday culture, or high culture, where new Things are popping up and creativity is flourishing. In music, for example, since the mid-1990s, musicians have been more attractive. Choreographers have developed a new sense of body movement and dance aesthetics. The development of computers has already given rise to a ‘net culture’ that combines different art forms. Literature is already rooted in this world today and trends in the fashion industry are determined by FTV models.

Sometimes art may find it difficult to reconcile the various impressions, including the desire to be free from all constraints or the destruction of its intrinsic significance. The inherent contradiction and diversity of the ‘melting pot’, which has been replaced by popular culture, may not help us open the way to human consciousness or start an intellectual debate. But who is to blame when “art blends so effortlessly into the utilitarian”? To quote Hanno Reuterberg, “After all, art is not dead, it is in a state of self-induced paralysis.”

We are heading towards an unclear future. We experience the effects of globalization in areas such as communications, media and financial markets just as we are experiencing the fragmentation of politics with widespread religious, racist and ethnic conflict, secular nationalism and regional fundamentalism. At the same time, we are going through the poverty and economic marginalization of a large section of the society. Almost all accepted norms and values ​​are being questioned, as standardization and discrimination are attained at the same time. However, almost everywhere the struggle for the coexistence of the glorious past and naked modernization continues.

What seems more appropriate is the need to appreciate the emergence of a greater degree of interculturalism. Ruling politicians must respect the right to be different and help create new cultural spaces for others. They should help reduce, absorb and avoid conflicts arising from the clash of world religions and cultures, which are rigidly separated and social differences should be respected and dogma should give way to dialogue needed. It is not possible for us to live together in a global civilization without some kind of global ethos from the politicians of our country.

–Dr R K Singh

Source by Ram Krishna Singh

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: