The Production of Culture

In MFA vs NYC, Chad Harbach explores the two literary cultures that predominate the American publishing landscape. As the title suggests, Harbach presents the clear divide between the NYC agents and publishing houses versus the MFA degree programs in academic America. As a student uninvolved and without aspirations for the professional writing world, this paper gives me insight into sub-cultures that I would have otherwise remained ignorant of.

As an indifferent party, far more then the distinction between two publishing cultures,to me this paper brings attention to the phenomenon that is the sub-culture. Sub-culture is all pervasive and at the same time integral to the development of ideas, art, sophistication, and all the other elements that brings about value in greater society. But also, there is the primal need to belong, to belong to a larger social group. So it can be said sub-culture is no more then the union between the need to be a part of a tribe and the interest in refining a certain skill or interest.

The very nature of the tribe; an allegiance to one’s tribe versus the outsider, should be looked at critically and a cause of concern. If the tribal attribute of sub-culture is left unchecked and given the right catalyst, a divide such as that Chad Harbach is making might cause more harm to the greater society then good. Creating the MFA vs NYC distinction could insight these primal tribal urges and cause more harm within the writing world, as opposed to the critical lense into publishing culture as Harbach might have intended.

In art, we as artist have a similar goal: to share the way we see the world through of our own eyes. This could be through painting, architecture, writing, etc. These forms of art date back far before the beginning of technology. Although the art of writing predates technology, its mass production was only possible through the evolution of technology.

With that being said, many will argue that the evolution of technology has destroyed the quality of words. Hugh McGuire defines the quality of words as words “which are written, researched, edited, marketed for books” versus “ego noise” for the Internet. However, the start of the Internet was exactly that; it was seen as a way to share quality work with those around the world with a click of a button. Although that was the goal, the internet has now expanded to both intellectual and recreational purposes (recreation has taken the forefront at times).

As the use of the internet continues to expand so has its impact on the publishing industry. However, with the start of ebooks, the publishing realm has been able to stay current. As pointed out in McGuire’s article Why the Book and the Internet Will Merge, he points out the large increase of ebook sales over a 10 year span. From 2008 to 2011, ebook trade sales have increase from 1% to 20%. It is projected that trade sales will increase to 50% percent by this year. So why must we fear the rise of technology?

In his article What Is the Business of Literature?, Richard Nash discusses the connection between the preservation of literature and the business of publishing. He discusses the theory that if we lose publishing, we lose books. I do not agree. I agree that the rise of technology means an decrease of physical paper or hardback book copies. However this same rise provides us the luxury of reading on multiple devices (such as Iphones, Kindles, Tablets, and Ipads); ultimately making it more convenient. I also believe that the convenience provides us with the option to read in all situation, therefore giving us the option to read for our own leisure.

Removing the physical book from the forefront of entertainment allow elevates the creative aspects of its digital presentation. The content will not be lost, only elevated by its presentation. No longer do we simply open a book and depend of the book flap for a look into the purpose or plot of a story. Technology provides us with new was to not only present ebooks, but newspapers as well as magazines. It seems as if magazines have began to embrace technology before other forms of publications. In 2013, Vogue featured Beyonce Knowles of the cover of their January Power Issue. Although the published a paper copy, the digital version was seen as innovative. As you open up the digital copy, Beyonce turns in the sitting position in slow motion, ultimately looking at directly in the eye. The cover was not the extent of their creativity; offering both interactive videos and links to the vogue website throughout the digital copy. 2 years later, magazines like Garage, present us with the future of digital publications. Click this link to catch a glimpse of the 3-D covers presented by Garage to present the supermodels of our generation in a new form. Garage 3D Teaser

What is Business Literature?:

Exceptionalists . This is the word Richard Nash uses in the article to describe the “defenders” of the book. We have all encountered people like that in our lifetime. The ones who say, “technology is the devil! Print is dying and it is all technology’s fault”. I agree with Nash, in that the book does not need to be protected. The physical invention of the book was the way literature began to solidify. It was the turning point where people began to trust words on paper than just words coming from people’s mouths.

 ??????

*”Business of literature is publishing”: It is true. The actual money is within the publishing system. These companies are the middle men and it is understandable why they feel threatened by the increase in digital print.

Nash makes another excellent point when he remarks: “First, prior to recent innovations, manuscripts not published were unavailable for analysis. So the universe of knowledge we have about books, literature, and publishing excludes that universe of books that were never published”.

Everyone obviously knows that not all works get published. But if you really think about it, there are hundreds maybe even thousands of books that were not published because companies (The Big Six), determined they weren’t “commercial” enough.

What if some of that literary work had revolutionary ideas? Readers (us) would never know. This reminds me of “The Canon” and how the selection of these books were made while others just faded away.

Book Publishers Scramble to Rewrite Their Future:

Evan Hughes points out the flaws of publishing companies now and how they must adapt in order to flourish in this new digital print era. With more writers self-publishing and actually making more money, what future do these companies even have?

Although Hugh makes a good point that they have the connections, manpower and marketing strategy to blow up a book, it still might not be enough.

Anyone can self promote their school, job, or any organization they are a part of through social media and other channels. All it takes nowadays is enough “likes” and you can be getting interviewed by Ellen Degeneres the next day.

Why the Book and the Internet Will Merge:

The book and the Internet have already merged through Ebooks. All three of these articles are positive that technology, most importantly the Internet will actually build this new experience for readers everywhere. It creates a new type of market where the literary world meets the Internet. It will inspire people to be more creative and to do a lot more with the ideas from a book than just discussing it. Again, publishing companies may be in danger if they do not adapt but books will still be around for a very long time.

I thought these were some interesting articles on reading e books vs print books:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120765/naomi-barons-words-onscreen-fate-reading-digital-world

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation

This is a great video!:

The Aristocracy of Culture

After reading Bourdieu’s essay one can easily tell why Bourdieu was considered to be a renowned public intellectual. In the essay, The Aristocracy of Culture, Bourdieu draws a link between taste and culture, how consumers’ taste for the goods that they purchase on a daily bases is shaped by the culture they live in and the culture that they live in is shaped by what they consume. Furthermore, Bourdieu argues “that legitimate culture and the scientific observations it brings show certain cultural needs and based on the consumers upbringing determines their understanding.” I think that Bourdieu’s argument is not sound.  For example, Bourdieu’s would argue that a person of the upper class would be drawn to eating high end foods such as organic or very expensive foods, foods considered to be delicacies. But the following pictures show otherwise.

The people pictured above are all considered to be of the upper class due to their financial status, and yet they are all eating fast food. Bourdieu’s argument cannot really apply to these people, of course if one was to play the devil’s advocate it could be argued that eating fast food is a cultural norm for everyone. But why then is fast food associated to people of the lower classes, since it is priced down?

So even though taste and culture are very much connected the connection is not black and white. Culture can be defined in different ways based on the perspective of the person defining it.

According to Adorno and Horkheimer, the production of culture follows the rudiments of factory production as an industry derived from the rise of Capitalism. The whole concept of culture is aligned with a commercial structure, where media content is mass produced for the mass consumption of an audience of non-discriminating consumers. This type of content, or commodities, is streamlined to appeal to the masses and thus, the distinctions between what can be considered “high” and “low” culture begin to blur as leisure time becomes expendable and there are aspirations to be acquainted with high society. As an industry, culture is connotative of the active participation of the consumer to create demand. However, Adorno and Horkheimer suggest that the system has already influenced the tastes of consumers – through the manipulation of advertising what it can supply – to create a false consciousness of false needs and thus creates a cycle that is automatic and passive.  Ideologically, culture is a type of mechanism in which the totality is driven by repetition and as consumers, we are merely the victims of a monopoly.

Although Adorno and Horkheimer wrote this through the lens of of a socio-political environment after WWII in which the remnants of the totalitarian regimes influenced intellectual discourse, and the concept of the Culture Industry appears pessimistic and extreme, there are warnings that contemporary Capitalist society should still consider. The Culture Industry was meant to distract us from other obligations, to permit us a chance to become “enlightened” during our spare leisure time. However, Adorno and Horkheimer has proposed that finding an outlet in entertainment has become a prolongation of work. They claim that the type entertainment produced no longer needs the consumer to have thoughts of their own – “the product prescribes each reaction” for them (109). It comes to the point in which:

distraction becomes exertion. No stimulant concocted by the experts may escape the weary eye; in face of the slick presentation no one may appear stupid even for a moment; everyone has to keep up, emulating the smartness displayed and propagated by the production. (110)

In society there is a perceived need to conform to belong and through the production of mass culture, the strategic influence of advertising, a fantasy is created; the culture industry reinvents the “same everyday world as paradise” (113). Cultural products enable consumers to escape into “utopian” versions of our selves (the promotion and attention to self through such medium as selfies and social media is considered.) In this way, Adorno and Horkheimer believe the industry has cheated the consumers into being played into propagating the process.

I do disagree on the premise that consumers become merely passive automatons. Part of our contribution to culture derives from our own enjoyment and it is not the case that we are not interpreting the cultural works we engage with. However, with the exponential rise in the various stimuli that vie for our attention, there is a risk that we would soon become numb to mass culture.

I will end with this image because as an advertising product, it speaks loudly of what I think Adorno and Horkheimer believe how consumers are being subjected to the Culture Industry and it itself is indicative of products that are part of aspired “needs” that is promoted by the industry. (And the bold red color recalls Marxist ideology…)

One could argue that the cannon theory presented in the reading could be reflected into other realms of popular culture today. Let’s discuss the cannon theory recently created in the realm of hip-hop ( to continue my ongoing rant on how hip-hop affects culture today and its place within it. With the Grammy’s approaching many begin to speculate hip-hops place on the nationally televised award show. Last year’s recipient of Best Rap Album began to put hip-hops racial controversy on full display, when Macklemore won with his independent album, the Heist with Ryan Lewis.
Although, Macklemore had accomplished great things with his album, especially with no label backing and a few number one hits, mainstream American may have believed that he deserved it. That was not the case for those who are a part of the Hip-Hop community created an uproar. What’s the reason for his uproar? His competitor was none other than Kendrick Lamar. The Compton born rapper took over Hip-Hop with the release of his certified Platinum album good Kid M.A.a.d city. His innovative flows and his ability to use his lyrical poetry for story-telling created a new wave of hip-hop. Many believed that his unique style and ability to take the genre by storm would guarantee him the Grammy of Best Rap Album of the year. And when Macklemore admitted within a text to Kendrick that he had robbed him of the award and then choose to make it public the social conflict of race and its place within the industry was confirmed by none other than the winner himself. So why did Kendrick lose?
The Voters Committee is a select group chosen through extensive and stuffy qualification that chooses the nominations and the winners for the Grammys with no help from the public. They must have an extensive list of credit nods; As well as affiliations or a place within the higher rankings of the music industry. Although the voters are affiliated with the music industry that does not guarantee that they are in touch with current music. This has been clear on many occasions when those nominated (not only in the hip-hop genre) have been overlooked despite their public success, and instead overshadowed by other nominations.
It has been said that the age as well as the race of the majority of the committee members is the source of the problem. Most voters are White males over the age of 50. With that in perspective, could you really ask them to consider Kendrick Lamar’s raw and honest album, when they can’t even relate or understand his quick and note-worthy lyrics. Among the voters bias, is their ability to control the nomination to create a national audience for the screening of the award show, however, their interior agenda to please their connections within the industry prevails as they choose the winner, regardless of society’s choice.
This then explains this year’s winner for Best Rap Album, Eminem, a Hip-Hop heavy weight with a noteworthy-presence. With the release of Marshalls Matters LP2, we begun to obsess over his thought provoking lyrics once again. However, no one can compare to J. Coles hard hitting third album, which sold millions without any pre-released singles or videos. This album showed the power of pure artistry. With lyrics like, ‘watch Iggy win a Grammy as I try to crack a smile, I’m just playing”, he challenges the cannon head on addressing the glass ceiling any of us are blind to. His public expression of outrage for our President as well as police brutality also makes him a politically controversial artist. When compared to Kendrick, the similarities of political controversy, lyrical punch lines, and alternative story telling them creates a separation between them and mainstream America. Therefore, adding more controversy to their lack of Grammy recognitions. Although Eminem has been controversial at times, his controversy only extends to the realms of sexuality and feminism, never expanding to the current problem of racism in America. Therefore the cannon is put in full affect to protect the integrity of the committee, while still satisfying their affiliations within the industry.

Schumpeter believes there is a need for leaders in the business world who are either already at the top or rising in that direction to have discourse in the “classics”, subsequently it seems this will change the unethical behaviors and practices that subsist in the business world. We can safely say Schumpeter does not believe top business leaders are well read, however unlikely that may seem let us presume for a second that is in fact the case.

If we look at many of the top CEO’s in any business space, they seem to fall into three categories. The first would be your industrialists your innovators, your Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, John D Rockefeller, J.P Morgan. These individuals revolutionized their respective industries in a way that forced others to recognize their importance and contributions within and outside industry. The second type is the “puppet”. individuals installed to their position at the discretion of shareholders and their interests. The third is the CEO of pedigree; the individual who exhibits all the traits required to excel at the task of being a CEO. Often these are the persons who also display psychopathic tendencies; egocentric, ruthless, lack of empathy and conscience.

Jumping back, if we apply the advice of Schumpeter and immerse these business leaders in the “classics”, what is the likely outcome on these three personality types? The revolutionary industrialist would no doubt benefit and society as well, but it is also very likely these type of individuals have taken it upon themselves to read material that may aid them on their own time, prior to Schumpeter’s mandate. On the second type[puppet], immersed as they may be in great literature, it may be beyond their reach to apply what they have learned given their circumstances. On to the third personality type, given their ingrained personality type, this type of individual might nitpick and hold onto only knowledge that furthers their individual ambitions.

So then what should be proposed instead of Schumpeter’s classics mandate?
I do not deny the importance and power of great classic literature in nurturing and fostering virtuous minds. But I believe experience is also as powerful of a tool in aiding the development of character. Experiencing and seeing 3rd world poverty first-hand, partaking in psychedelics, and meditating have probably been the three most transformative experiences of my life. There might be a similar need of business leaders to live through the effects of their policies on “the other end”, eg: Steve Jobs first hand seeing the squalor and conditions of those working at iphone factories, Cargill CEO’s seeing first hand the effect of GMO and subsidized American wheat on the livelihood of the subsistence farmer, Real Estate moguls seeing the conditions of slaver-labor in UAE and other infrastructure heavy focused economies.

Another common example of dissipation in empathy can be widely seen on online forums and chatboards. The Anonymous nature and physical distance of these web-boards seems help people dissociate themselves from a certain human element that would otherwise restrict from making outlandish,cruel, and even psychotic comments.

So here my psuedo-scientific theory on leader personality types, the effect of distance on individual empathy, and the power of experience!