1. High Culture versus Popular Culture
1.1 Intro: What is culture? Sociological roots
(Durkheim, Weber)
Definition: Shared beliefs, values, norms, and social actions that give meaning in an (otherwise) meaningless world.
Human condition: Unlike other animals (instinct-driven), humans are culture-creating beings.
Social function: Culture creates order and meaning (e.g. religion as shared beliefs + rituals).
Durkheim: Being outside culture = anomie (madness, loneliness, dissatisfaction, higher risk of suicide).
Culture as a social construct: Not about “what is real” but how we define ourselves.
o We shape culture/culture shapes us: language evolves socially; inventing your own makes you “outside culture.”
o Culture liberates & limits: Enables expression/connection but also imposes rules (e.g. correct language use in
exams).
Variation: Culture differs across time, place, and social groups (e.g. Flanders 100 years ago vs. today).
In-group cohesion vs. out-group conflict: Creates cohesion within, exclusion/conflict outside.
Studying culture: Neutral, not about truth/falsehood.
Methods: Mainly qualitative (meanings are hard to measure via surveys, easier with interviews), though quantitative is
possible.
1.2 High culture (HC) vs. popular culture (PC) - Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process
Analysis: Cultural elite/aristocracy shaped Western cultural standards (values, manners, taste, style) since the Middle Ages.
Elite view of PC: Seen as uncivilized, vulgar, uncontrolled, anarchistic (same disdain toward non-Western cultures).
o Example: French Revolution (1789) – elites looked down on the masses.
Distinction: HC maintains difference via high art, refined manners, and emotional control.
o Elite obsessed with discipline (e.g. Cambridge etiquette as status markers).
o Contrast: Middle Ages = impulsive sexual/violent behaviour.
Trickling down: Over time, ordinary people adopt elite standards (e.g. sex/violence became taboo).
Spiraling up: Overall rise in “civilization” (greater self-control, refinement).
Key tension: Ongoing opposition between HC and PC; HC continues to set the “standard.”
Cultural elite (High culture / Highbrow) Ordinary people (Popular culture / Lowbrow)
Art, abstract art → shows refined taste. Folklore, realistic art.
Civilized: rational, controlled, not showing emotions. Uncivilized: raw, emotional, uncontrolled.
Visible in dress, posture, and faces. Shown through quarrels, accidents, crying children.
Core idea: High culture = refined, abstract, emotionless; Popular culture = realistic, emotional, expressive.
1.3 High culture vs. ‘mass (media) culture’
Continuity: Still elite disdain for “ordinary” people.
Shift: Now based on media consumption (seen as vulgar/problematic).
20th century: Rise of mass media
1920s: Golden Age of Hollywood → mass consumption of film, radio, advertising, celebrities.
Celebrities (e.g. Ingrid Bergman, Marilyn Monroe) reshape culture → suddenly society/culture changes through mass media
Elite concerns: Mass media seen as a threat to art, values, and lifestyle.
o Classical art (music, ballet, literature) “under threat.”
o Audiences = passive, happy consumers.
Critical Theory about the “culture industry” – Horkheimer & Adorno (1944)
Elitist critique:
o Standardization: Hollywood formulas repeated; art loses authenticity.
o Commodification: True art = authentic, not for sale; film = commercial product.
o Passive audiences: Masses “enchanted,” living in false consciousness.
o Decline of culture: End of real art, philosophy, literature?
,Other intellectual critiques:
Walter Benjamin (1935): Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction → loss of authenticity, aura.
Herbert Marcuse (1968): One-Dimensional Man → media + capitalism reduce thought/behavior.
Neil Postman (1984): Amusing Ourselves to Death → entertainment dominates public discourse → risk of “culture-death.”
Neal Gabler (1998): Life: The Movie → reality filtered through film imagery (impossible to see NY without Hollywood
associations).
1.4 The relevance of studying media culture
Historically excluded/seen as trivial in academia (linked to cultural inequality, Bourdieu: cultural capital & distinction).
Since 1970s/80s: focus on media culture as everyday meaning-making.
Key approaches:
Text & audience studies: What meanings do individuals/groups assign to media?
Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (1964–2002):
o Critique of passive audience models (behaviourism, psychology, neo-Marxism).
o Stuart Hall (1980), Encoding/Decoding model: Audiences actively interpret texts (readings vary by ideology,
gender, etc.).
John Fiske (2010): Understanding Popular Culture
o Culture is active, not sold “ready-made” to the masses.
o Popular culture is created by the people, not simply imposed by the industry.
Takeaway: Importance lies not in judging good/bad, but in analysing the meanings people make from media.
1.5 The societal relevance of studying media culture - Sociological background
Since 1960s/70s: erosion of traditional cultural values (church, ideology, politics).
Pillarization (1950s): strong alignment with social/religious “pillars” (socialist, liberal, religious)
Today: tradition less binding → identity becomes reflexive.
Self-identity:
o Reflexive project (Giddens) → individuals define who they are (partner, career, friends) rather than tradition.
o Multiple choice biography (Beck) → not one fixed path but choice-based life trajectories.
o Community: from traditional to “light communities of choice.”
Conclusion: Even as tradition declines, popular media culture now plays a crucial role in shaping identity, community, and society.
Studying it reveals how meaning, belonging, and identity are constructed in contemporary life.
, 2. Ideology and hegemony
2.1 Intro: The four dimensions of media sociology
Media sociology studies media in a societal context (different from media psychology, which focuses on individual
cognitive/behavioral effects).
1. Media technology – infrastructure shaping culture (film, TV, social media, games).
o McLuhan: “the medium is the message.”
2. Media industry – political economy: organizations producing media and exploiting audiences.
3. Media content – cultural narratives that reflect & shape society.
4. Media audiences – people interpret and appropriate texts, guided by gender, class, ethnicity, etc.
Ideology
Set of beliefs/values shaping how people see the world.
Influences views on politics, society, culture.
Hegemony
Dominance of one group through consent, not just force.
Certain ideas become the “norm” (e.g. consumerism, individualism).
Makes alternative views less visible.
Media & culture
Media texts (fiction or not) reflect and shape society’s norms/values.
They show cultural narratives, even when original/creative.
Audiences consume and internalize these values.
Ex: Mocro Maffia → fiction, but reflects issues of crime and drugs in society.
2.2 Media and Inequality in Neo-Marxism & Neo-Liberalization
Neo-Marxism: Media & Inequality
Marx: Economy = basis, Culture/Ideology = superstructure.
o Inequality in capitalism: workers exploited by owners.
o Ideological hegemony: dominant ideas benefit the powerful.
o False consciousness: lower classes accept inequality as “natural”.
o Function ideology = conceals inequality and hides exploitation (e.g. child labour in clothes/phones).
Neo-Marxists (Gramsci, Althusser):
o Shift focus from economy → culture/ideology.
o Inequality not only about class, but also gender, race, ethnicity.
o Ideology spreads via state apparatuses (schools, journalism, media).
o Mass media reproduces dominant ideology → normalizes inequality.
o Research agenda: analyse media texts for hidden ideologies & inequality.
o Political goal: emancipation & equality for minorities.
Examples in media:
o Gender roles: men superior, women objectified/sexualized.
o Heteronormativity: heterosexuality = “normal”; queer identities marginalized.
Neo-Liberalism as Ideology
Since 1980s (Thatcher, Reagan → Clinton, Blair).
From one political choice → hegemonic worldview.
Core ideas:
o Free market, minimal state, global capitalism.
o Individual responsibility for success/failure.
o Disciplining the self (mind/body) → “you can do it”, constant competition.
1.1 Intro: What is culture? Sociological roots
(Durkheim, Weber)
Definition: Shared beliefs, values, norms, and social actions that give meaning in an (otherwise) meaningless world.
Human condition: Unlike other animals (instinct-driven), humans are culture-creating beings.
Social function: Culture creates order and meaning (e.g. religion as shared beliefs + rituals).
Durkheim: Being outside culture = anomie (madness, loneliness, dissatisfaction, higher risk of suicide).
Culture as a social construct: Not about “what is real” but how we define ourselves.
o We shape culture/culture shapes us: language evolves socially; inventing your own makes you “outside culture.”
o Culture liberates & limits: Enables expression/connection but also imposes rules (e.g. correct language use in
exams).
Variation: Culture differs across time, place, and social groups (e.g. Flanders 100 years ago vs. today).
In-group cohesion vs. out-group conflict: Creates cohesion within, exclusion/conflict outside.
Studying culture: Neutral, not about truth/falsehood.
Methods: Mainly qualitative (meanings are hard to measure via surveys, easier with interviews), though quantitative is
possible.
1.2 High culture (HC) vs. popular culture (PC) - Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process
Analysis: Cultural elite/aristocracy shaped Western cultural standards (values, manners, taste, style) since the Middle Ages.
Elite view of PC: Seen as uncivilized, vulgar, uncontrolled, anarchistic (same disdain toward non-Western cultures).
o Example: French Revolution (1789) – elites looked down on the masses.
Distinction: HC maintains difference via high art, refined manners, and emotional control.
o Elite obsessed with discipline (e.g. Cambridge etiquette as status markers).
o Contrast: Middle Ages = impulsive sexual/violent behaviour.
Trickling down: Over time, ordinary people adopt elite standards (e.g. sex/violence became taboo).
Spiraling up: Overall rise in “civilization” (greater self-control, refinement).
Key tension: Ongoing opposition between HC and PC; HC continues to set the “standard.”
Cultural elite (High culture / Highbrow) Ordinary people (Popular culture / Lowbrow)
Art, abstract art → shows refined taste. Folklore, realistic art.
Civilized: rational, controlled, not showing emotions. Uncivilized: raw, emotional, uncontrolled.
Visible in dress, posture, and faces. Shown through quarrels, accidents, crying children.
Core idea: High culture = refined, abstract, emotionless; Popular culture = realistic, emotional, expressive.
1.3 High culture vs. ‘mass (media) culture’
Continuity: Still elite disdain for “ordinary” people.
Shift: Now based on media consumption (seen as vulgar/problematic).
20th century: Rise of mass media
1920s: Golden Age of Hollywood → mass consumption of film, radio, advertising, celebrities.
Celebrities (e.g. Ingrid Bergman, Marilyn Monroe) reshape culture → suddenly society/culture changes through mass media
Elite concerns: Mass media seen as a threat to art, values, and lifestyle.
o Classical art (music, ballet, literature) “under threat.”
o Audiences = passive, happy consumers.
Critical Theory about the “culture industry” – Horkheimer & Adorno (1944)
Elitist critique:
o Standardization: Hollywood formulas repeated; art loses authenticity.
o Commodification: True art = authentic, not for sale; film = commercial product.
o Passive audiences: Masses “enchanted,” living in false consciousness.
o Decline of culture: End of real art, philosophy, literature?
,Other intellectual critiques:
Walter Benjamin (1935): Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction → loss of authenticity, aura.
Herbert Marcuse (1968): One-Dimensional Man → media + capitalism reduce thought/behavior.
Neil Postman (1984): Amusing Ourselves to Death → entertainment dominates public discourse → risk of “culture-death.”
Neal Gabler (1998): Life: The Movie → reality filtered through film imagery (impossible to see NY without Hollywood
associations).
1.4 The relevance of studying media culture
Historically excluded/seen as trivial in academia (linked to cultural inequality, Bourdieu: cultural capital & distinction).
Since 1970s/80s: focus on media culture as everyday meaning-making.
Key approaches:
Text & audience studies: What meanings do individuals/groups assign to media?
Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (1964–2002):
o Critique of passive audience models (behaviourism, psychology, neo-Marxism).
o Stuart Hall (1980), Encoding/Decoding model: Audiences actively interpret texts (readings vary by ideology,
gender, etc.).
John Fiske (2010): Understanding Popular Culture
o Culture is active, not sold “ready-made” to the masses.
o Popular culture is created by the people, not simply imposed by the industry.
Takeaway: Importance lies not in judging good/bad, but in analysing the meanings people make from media.
1.5 The societal relevance of studying media culture - Sociological background
Since 1960s/70s: erosion of traditional cultural values (church, ideology, politics).
Pillarization (1950s): strong alignment with social/religious “pillars” (socialist, liberal, religious)
Today: tradition less binding → identity becomes reflexive.
Self-identity:
o Reflexive project (Giddens) → individuals define who they are (partner, career, friends) rather than tradition.
o Multiple choice biography (Beck) → not one fixed path but choice-based life trajectories.
o Community: from traditional to “light communities of choice.”
Conclusion: Even as tradition declines, popular media culture now plays a crucial role in shaping identity, community, and society.
Studying it reveals how meaning, belonging, and identity are constructed in contemporary life.
, 2. Ideology and hegemony
2.1 Intro: The four dimensions of media sociology
Media sociology studies media in a societal context (different from media psychology, which focuses on individual
cognitive/behavioral effects).
1. Media technology – infrastructure shaping culture (film, TV, social media, games).
o McLuhan: “the medium is the message.”
2. Media industry – political economy: organizations producing media and exploiting audiences.
3. Media content – cultural narratives that reflect & shape society.
4. Media audiences – people interpret and appropriate texts, guided by gender, class, ethnicity, etc.
Ideology
Set of beliefs/values shaping how people see the world.
Influences views on politics, society, culture.
Hegemony
Dominance of one group through consent, not just force.
Certain ideas become the “norm” (e.g. consumerism, individualism).
Makes alternative views less visible.
Media & culture
Media texts (fiction or not) reflect and shape society’s norms/values.
They show cultural narratives, even when original/creative.
Audiences consume and internalize these values.
Ex: Mocro Maffia → fiction, but reflects issues of crime and drugs in society.
2.2 Media and Inequality in Neo-Marxism & Neo-Liberalization
Neo-Marxism: Media & Inequality
Marx: Economy = basis, Culture/Ideology = superstructure.
o Inequality in capitalism: workers exploited by owners.
o Ideological hegemony: dominant ideas benefit the powerful.
o False consciousness: lower classes accept inequality as “natural”.
o Function ideology = conceals inequality and hides exploitation (e.g. child labour in clothes/phones).
Neo-Marxists (Gramsci, Althusser):
o Shift focus from economy → culture/ideology.
o Inequality not only about class, but also gender, race, ethnicity.
o Ideology spreads via state apparatuses (schools, journalism, media).
o Mass media reproduces dominant ideology → normalizes inequality.
o Research agenda: analyse media texts for hidden ideologies & inequality.
o Political goal: emancipation & equality for minorities.
Examples in media:
o Gender roles: men superior, women objectified/sexualized.
o Heteronormativity: heterosexuality = “normal”; queer identities marginalized.
Neo-Liberalism as Ideology
Since 1980s (Thatcher, Reagan → Clinton, Blair).
From one political choice → hegemonic worldview.
Core ideas:
o Free market, minimal state, global capitalism.
o Individual responsibility for success/failure.
o Disciplining the self (mind/body) → “you can do it”, constant competition.
