مطالعات فرهنگی درباره ی فرهنگ عامه

by John Storey, حسین پاینده (Translator)

For students new to the field, the book provides instantly usable theories and methods; for those more familiar with the procedures and politics of cultural studies, the books provides a succinct and accessible overview.

The second edition has been revised, rewritten and expanded throughout. More specifically, the book now includes new sections on television audiences, reception theory and globalisation.

Genres: Nonfiction, Cultural Studies, Sociology, Philosophy, Cultural, Theory, Reference

372 pages

First published August 1, 1993

About the author

Professor John Storey, Professor of Cultural Studies, Director of Centre for Research in Media and Cultural Studies, University of Sunderland.

Reviews

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

نویسنده‌ی کتاب تزی دارد بر این مبنا که فرهنگ، از بالا به مردم حقنه نمی‌شود؛ بلکه عامه کالای فرهنگی را می‌گیرند و تغییر می‌دهند؛ به عبارتی مصرف را تولید می‌کنند. بعد این را در همه‌چیز سعی می‌کند اثبات کند. هر قشری از سریال‌های تلویزیونی یک معنا استخراج می‌کند. بسته به طبقه و دسترسی به اطلاعات، یکی اخبار را ایدئولوژی حکومت و دیگری حقیقت می‌پندارد. جهانی‌شدن فقط گرفتن از آمریکا نیست بلکه تبادلی است بین فرهنگ محلی و جهانی. موسیقی پاپ فقط گول خوردنِ سرمایه‌داران نیست، بلکه گاهی اشکالی از مقاومت هم در آن هست (راک اند رول).
این‌که نویسنده ایده‌ای دارد که مطالب را حول آن می‌گرداند، حسنش این است که نقل‌قول‌های متعددشْ بانظم و منسجم هستند و از نوک زدن به تئوری‌ها جهت اظهار فضل پرهیز می‌شود. از طرفی هم باعث می‌شود نویسنده از نظریاتِ مورد دفاعش نقل کند و ایده‌های مخالفش را نبیند (مثلا این ایراد به شدت به فصل جهانی‌شدن وارد است).

[Amir · Rating 4 out of 5]

یه کتاب مفید و به دردبخور که باید تو هر کتابخونه ای باشه

[Christine Goudroupi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αν έχετε ασχοληθεί ποτέ με την κουλτούρα (ή κάποιο συγκεκριμένο μέρος της, λογοτεχνία, κινηματογράφο κλπ) και τις θεωρίες προσέγγισής της, μάλλον θα έχετε βρεθεί κάποια στιγμή βαλτωμένοι κάπου ανάμεσα στη σχολή της Φρανκφούρτης και το Μεταστρουκτουραλισμό, τον Μαρξ, τον Φουκώ και τις φεμινιστικές προσεγγίσεις.
Μάλλον θα έχουν δημιουργηθεί στο μυαλό σας μέρη ενός παζλ, του οποίου όμως τη συνολική εικόνα δεν μπορείτε ποτέ να ανακαλέσετε πλήρως, γιατί λείπουν κομματάκια.
Αυτό το βιβλίο μπορεί να μαζέψει, να συνθέσει και να επανατοποθετήσει κάθε ένα από αυτά τα κομματάκια, καθιστώντας το παζλ όσο πιο ευδιάκριτο γίνεται για ένα τόσο αφηρημένο θέμα.

[Fatemeh Eftekhari · Rating 4 out of 5]

هرچند برای خواننده ای با فرهنگی متفاوت از اروپا و آمریکا
فهم برخی مثال ها دشوار است اما همچنان نقطه قوت کتاب در مثال ها است!
این کتاب دقیقا همانی بود که من از مطالعات فرهنگی انتظار داشتم
حتی اگر در رشته ای مرتبط بااین کتاب تحصیل نمیکنید
ولی سرگرم تولید محصولات فرهنگی مثل موسیقی و فیلم و کتاب و شعر و ... هستید
حداقل بخش هایی از این کتاب را بخوانید!
مخاطبین شما موجوداتی منفعل نیستید....

[sabisteb aka callisto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Das Buch umfasst folgende Themenbereiche:
1. Introduction
2. Television: Recht klassisch, normale discourse analysis und der Hinweis, dass die Zuschauer eine Sendung durchaus anders als gewünscht dekodieren können… Das bekommt die aktuelle Medienlandschaft, Stichwort „Lügenpresse“ gerade gehörig zu spüren. Hätten die eingeschnappten Reporter doch zumindest mal eine Einführung in die Kulturstudien besucht, wüssten sie, dass das kein neues Phänomen ist und man damit immer rechnen muss, wenn man keinen Bezug zur Basis mehr hat. Als Beispiel wird hier eine Studie zu „Dallas“ genommen. Der erste Hinweis, dass das Buch doch ein klein wenig veraltet ist.
3. Fiction: Man muss den Text interpretieren der nicht da steht und verschwiegen wird… Passt meiner Meinung weniger zu Fiction als zur aktuellen wirtschaftlichen Berichterstattung. Einerseits jammern, dass da keine Inflation in Sicht ist, andererseits verschweigen, dass Inflation direkt an Lohnerhöhung gekoppelt ist. Aus dem Verschweigen kann man herauslesen wessen Sprachrohr die deutschen Medien sind: Das der Arbeitgeber. Weniger gut funktioniert diese Methode jedoch für nicht Sachbücher.
Interessant in diesem Kapitel ist das perfekte Rezept für eine Romanze: „the ideal romance is one in which an intelligent woman with a good sense of humour is overwhelmed, after much suspicion and distrust, and some cruelty and violence, by the love of an intelligent, tender and good.humoured man, who in the course of their relationship is transformed from an emotional pre-literate to someone who can care for her and nurture her in ways that traditionally we would expect only from a woman to am man.“ (p 48)
Und ja, das ist ein einziger Satz. Das Buch ist voller Bandwurmsätze, die teilweise verschwurbelt und unnötig verkünstelt sind, so dass man den Autor eingentlich nur gegen einen Wand klatschen möchte aber in Ermangelung dessen eher das Buch gegen die Wand wirft.
Auch schön die Begründung warum Frauen Romanzen lesen: „In ordert o experience this regression to maternal emotional fulfilment, she has three options: lebianism, a relationship with a man, or to seek fulfilment by other means. The homophobic nature of our culture limits the first; the nature of masculinity the second; romance reading may be an example of the third.” (p 49)
4. Film: Flucht aus der Realität, das übliche Blabla + man kann sich mit der „modernen“ Hollywoodfrau identifizieren und so gegen die restriktive britische Gesellschaft rebellieren. Blablabla.
5. Newspaper and Magazines: „According to Fiske, the official press articulates the interests of the power-bloc in a top-down flow of information. […] The official press provides the information and knowledge necessary to ensure maintenance of the prevailing structures of power.” (p 77) => Die Kulturstudien haben die Mainstreammedien schon 1996 als Lügenpresse angesehen, die nur den 1% als Sprachrohr dient. Warum sind die Mainstreammedien so überrascht, dass nun auch den Normalbürgern klar geworden ist, was in den Kulturstudien schon lange Grundwissen ist?
6. Popular Music: Und täglich grüßt Adorno. „Work under capitalism is dull und therefore promotest he search for escape, but, because it is so dulling, it leaves little energy for real escape – the demands for „authentic“ culture; instrad, refuge is saught in forms such as popular music.“ (p 94).
7. The consumption of everyday life: “Youth cultural styles [as] […] symbolic challenges, but they must end by establishing new sets of conventions; by creating new commodities, new industries or rejuvenating old ones.”

Das Buch hat seine Momente. Insgesamt ist es stilistisch aber echt grausam. Der verschwurbelte Stil der Geisteswissenschaften treibt hier einige sinnfreie Blüten, die einem Naturwissenschaftler die Haare zu Berge stehen lassen.
Teilweise ist es auch massiv veraltet, besonders der Popmusikteil, den kann man vergessen. Youtube hat die Künstler vom Joch der Musikindustrie befreit und die Macht der Musikkonzerne und auch der Verlage, wenn auch nicht komplett gebrochen, so doch deutlich unterminiert.

[Slade Barret Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Supremely overlooked, Storey both introduces the basic principles of cultural studies while gently critiquing the cynicism of postmodernists who ascribe too much cultural power to institutions and corporations and too little to the average worker

[Minnie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3*

This is the standard introductory work to cultural studies at my university, and it does its job pretty well. I do think that there could have been a little more effort put into the graphics (e.g. how the Id, Ego and Superego relate to the Conscious, Subconscious and Unconscious in the chapter on Freudian psychoanalysis), but the language is clear, unpretentious and direct, which is a major plus point in such a work. I recommend!

[Em · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a great introduction to Cultural Studies in general, covering key theories and main scholars very well. It is a good starting point for people with not much knowledge on the subject, with references to do further research depending on individual interest.

I loved the nuance of the author, how every argument had a counter-argument: Storey showed different perspectives on the issues discussed. It is also nice how the books throws light into the evolution of Cultural Studies, and into the tensions within the field. By the end, it makes sense the book focuses on Popular Culture, a field full of conflict, and more nowadays.

Only issues I had with the book is that I wish the queer and race theory sections were longer, they felt rather quick and not as considered as others. More depth in those areas would be nice.

Overall, a must-read for people interested in culture and issues surrounding it. Even as an International Development student, it made me think a lot.

[Robshelton365 · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty useful reader that introduces students to post-structuralism and post-modernism.

[Kayle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read for a uni assignment, wasn't the worst thing but it can be a bit confusing

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this text for a sociology course and it covered the various schools of sociological thought on popular culture. The main concept that I emerged with after this read was a keen understanding between organic popular culture and the more dominate inorganic mass produced popular culture created by the corporate entertainment industry.

While researching for definitions and concepts of popular culture, I noticed that most modern sociologists center their definitions, compiled in a text that they are selling, around multiple concepts of already established theories on popular culture. These rehashed and watered down views on the existence and evolution of popular culture all seem to be based on the ideological maxims of either core conflict theory between proletariats and bourgeoisie, which has termed in many different terminologies such as rich and poor, or the optimistic humanist view that popular culture is organic in nature and created by society and the majority of people within a society. The sociologist Shirley Fedorak pointed out two schools of thought, ‘mass culture theory’ and ‘populist theory’. She describes mass culture theory as a division between high culture and popular culture, the later belonging “to the ‘mindless masses’ who accept and absorb it without question or critique” and that popular culture is an “opiate for the masses” (Fedorak, 2009, p. 4). The populist theory, on the other hand, views popular culture as “a vibrant pursuit that offers intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and an opportunity to escape from the stress of everyday life” (Fedorak, 2009, p. 4). The two ideologies resemble the pessimistic and optimistic views of humanity, does it not? One is clearly a conflict theory, while the other is optimistic with only subtle traces of conflict between the economic classes. Interestingly enough, both schools of thought here seem to agree that popular culture keeps the masses dreaming, diverted and unfocused on important social and political issues that impact their society and the future of their society.

Briefly touching on previously established concepts on popular culture, Storey opens with the definitive statement that popular culture “is in effect an empty conceptual concept” (Storey, 2009, p. 1). While I do not completely agree with or disagree with every school of thought that Storey brushes over in chapter one, I disagree with his statement here in favor of a more Marixst view on the matter. Popular culture may be damaging and distracting to society, but I do not believe it to be an empty conceptual concept. I suspect that if popular culture was ever actually organic in nature, that the controlling forces of it changed as technology expanded, over the past 500 years or so, and the means of production for mass-producing popular culture was stripped away from once independent origins of the majority working class. The most alarming point that Storey makes to support this view is that “whatever else popular culture is, it is definitely a culture that only emerged following industrialization and urbanization” (Storey, 2009, p. 1). As most of us realize, capitalism came out of industrialization and urbanization, and with it expanded a great disproportion of wealth distribution which is the basis for consolidated ownership in means of production, and the chasm widened with every new developed technology from the Industrial Revolution to the recent Internet Boom. Not only did the distribution of wealth and means of production become concentrated into the ownership of a few over a many, as the classic writings of Marx teach, but the advancing stages of technology offered more and more opportunity to mass produce so-called popular culture text. Once possibly innocent forms of text, such as Charles Dickens readings or Shakespearean sonnets on London stages, are now five hundred satellite channels on every television, endless webs of Internet pages, mass marketed music and movies, and video game systems that glamorize meaningless violence. Storey (2009) notes, “They produce what is sometimes called ‘false consciousness’. Such distortions, it is argued, work in the interests of the powerful against the interests of the powerless. Using this definition, we might speak of capitalist ideology.” (P. 3). In the case of American society, the massive modern distraction caused by so-called popular culture leads to apathy toward, and desensitization of, very serious issues in our American society such as the current fifteen trillion dollar deficient and what that massive deficit means for our children, the high murder rates and drug rates in American cities, constant corporate and foreign lobbyist manipulation of Congress, and many other serious issues in our society that need, at the very minimum, the attention of America’s majority population. Instead, the majority of Americans have their concentration diverted after working long hours by a designed popular culture. Not a popular culture created by the working masses, but created for the working masses. This, the distraction factor, is the most obvious comparison between the emphasis points I have put forth by Fedorak and Storey. Popular culture is a drug-like distraction for the working and lower economic masses, and this dream-like distraction that promotes apathy and stagnation is especially debilitating to social advancement of the masses for the better of society when it is mass-produced by an elite group of profit-driven economic resource owners.

The text made me contemplate the larger picture of popular culture as a massive inorganic beast with many arms stretching to the masses. While some arms reach every human who is a part of the mass society, other arms only reach certain ethnicities, religions, or others categories of demographics. I believe it is still possible for an occasional organic form of popular culture to emerge, but it is impossible to prevent the owners of the means of production from hijacking, manipulating and mass-producing those sporadic anomalies in a hybrid form with hidden economic or political motives. I feel that popular culture is inorganic in nature and created for the masses to fallow like sheep. Before you deny the possibility, please take some time to notice the self destructive, immoral, and selfishly individualistic nature of most of our mass produced popular culture in the United States.

1. The definition of Culturalism, like the definition of popular culture, has been analyzed to the point of having an unclear definition. Many sociologists have conducted researches and developed scholastic text in efforts to define the concept. I agree with E.P. Thompson’s position that culture is “a historical phenomenon” (Storey, 2009. P. 49). I also support the view that, both historically and currently, the historical phenomenon of culture is defined by two polarities, the human agency and the structural detriments. While Thompson leaned toward the ‘human agency’ as the major motion in culturalism, I tend to follow the Marxist ideology that considers the ‘structural detriment’ of society the dominant factor, especially within an ultra-capitalistic, highly technological society such as the United States, that defines the ebb and low of culturalism. In order to understand this view, one must understand the reality of wealth distribution, means of production and production distribution. Storey quotes Raymond Williams on page 48: “…In fact the main source of this ‘popular culture’ lies outside of the working class altogether, for it is instituted, financed and operated by the commercial bourgeoisie, and remains typically capitalist in its methods of production and distribution. That the working-class people form perhaps a majority of the consumers of this material…does not, as a fact, justify this facile identification.” (Storey, 2009, P. 48). With the mass production of so-called popular culture, the human agency or human element is heavily influenced and manipulated by the structural detriment, which could also translate to the judicial and legislative components put in place, or purchased in place, by those who possess the means to mass produce so-called popular culture in order to protect those who possess and who have consolidated the means of production.

2. Hoggart makes a rather keen observation of the early stages of mass produced popular culture, during its early stages during the 1950s, when he writes about the Milk Bars and the Jukebox Boys “putting copper after copper into the mechanical record player” and waggling one shoulder or stare “…as desperately as Humphrey Bogart” (Storey, 2009, P. 42). Keep in mind how this early stage of mass produced popular culture centers around the newly developed technology of the jukebox and the recently enhanced silver screen (with audio). With each decade that follows the 1950s, we can see new technologies that enhance the mass production of so-called popular culture. As the technology grows and is produced in higher volume, the lower the price becomes on the technology and it becomes more available to the ‘popular’ working class. • Juke Box joints to 8 track players, record players, and tape decks • Video game arcades to video game systems • Movie theaters to VCRs-DVDs • Basic cable to 500 channel satellite systems • Home computers to the Internet boom. Again, as the price of technologies become affordable to the working class, as a result of mass production by those with means of mass production (capital), the influence of mass produced popular culture becomes stronger on the human agency (the working class people).

3. After 1950 and the beginning of the technologic quickening, and mass production of popular culture, it appears fine culture was still a reflection of the shrinking upper class, but the only distinction of value between the two categories would be that fine culture is overall organic in development, since it generally developed among economic peers in the upper class, while popular culture has been, and still is, manufactured by the highest element of upper class (those with means of mass production) for the working class population in order to influence economic consumption (purchasing) and influence multiple areas in human agency. It is evident to me that the continuous moral decline over the past five decades has been heavily impacted by three factors: 1) the advancement of technology for mass producing popular culture by those with means of production. 2) The influence of developing technology for mass production of popular culture on the human agency has produced a vicious cycle within the working class of mental and routine dependence on mass produced popular culture. 3) The weakening and declining social awareness (politically and economically), the stagnation of intellectual abilities (critical thinking), the moral degradation and unconscious euphoria of apathy caused by routine addiction to mass produced popular culture, especially when heavily force fed in glamorized images of self-destruction are focused on the youth (future adults and parents). It produces a degenerative generation cycle that weakens all positive strengthening of family and community with each generation, and quite frankly weakens the ability to parent, guide and mentor. If popular culture is, and has been, such a natural phenomenon instead of a manufactured drug designed to numb the masses, where are all the mass produced popular culture text that encourage the advancement of families and communities? Are these vulgar mass products of immoral humor really a reflection of a popular culture that the majority of Americans have created on our own? Is popular culture in the United States really a reflection of who we are as a people?

During the 1970s and 1980s, popular music often addressed social issues in the communities and the nation. Music was used in many cases to address and bring about political, economic and community consciousness in order to change various negative issues. This was especially the case in musical genres of the black communities. In the 1970s, popular artists such as Gil Scott Heron, Curtis Mayfield and Marvin Gaye addressed issues facing the black community and the nation at large. In the early period of hip hop music during the 1980s, artists such as Grandmaster Flash, Public Enemy and Boogie Down Productions spoke out through their music to address and bring awareness to social issues that troubled the black community.

Many people who listen to popular music in the Hip-Hop genre of music today often ask, “What ever happened to the positive messages in black music?”

The answer can be found in the corporate consolidation of mass produced popular Hip-Hop music. After the genre of Hip-Hop music proved, in the late 1980s, its potential for profit, it was not long before the corporate conglomerates began mass producing the genre of Hip-Hop music and either forcing the independent hip hop music labels out of business or controlling which types of products would be created, funded and mass distributed. The trend today in mass produced Hip-Hop music is no longer the identification of negative and community destroying issues, such as drugs and murder, that need to be countered and address. The trend in mass produced hip hop music today amplifies, promotes and glamorizes the negative, community impacting issues and problems, especially in urban and lower economic communities. In order to illustrate this trend, we will select one negative issue and critically analyze five recent chart topping Hip Hop songs, and the artists who perform them, within the mass-produced music production machine. Considering all the forms of glamorized self-destructive trends that are mass produced and placed into heavy repetitive rotation, we will focus on one area of promotion: the glamorization of drugs. Drugs in the United States destroys communities, increases the prison population, increases crime rates, has been argued to increase violence, lowers property values within neighborhoods and communities and drains state budgets for mass incarceration and private prisons.

The first popular artist we will look at is 2 Chainz and his so-called hit song “No Lie”. The lyrics in his song clearly promote drug usage, among other negative behavior patterns: “I am smoking on that gas, life should be on Cinemax, Movie, Bought my boo bigger tits and a bigger ass, Who he's, not I, I smoke strong, that Popeye, Louie V's in my archives, black diamonds, apartheid, Bread up and my top down, On the block with a block out, Hit ya ass with that block out, Dope enough to go in yo nostrils, I take ya girl and kidnap her, Beat her to my mattress” (Epps, 2012).

The promotion of drug usage, especially in lower economic communities, is not only destructive to individuals and communities; it promotes a much larger political problem. The influence of drug usage and drug selling, since, regardless of individual opinion, are illegal acts, produces a rise in incarceration rates and quickly fills state prisons. In the past fifteen years, the vast increase has opened a lucrative business in the form of the private prison industry, which has several corporations available for investment on the New York Stock Exchange. When state prison facilities become overpopulated, the state is required to move incarcerated inmates to privatized prisons, which increase the fiscal drain on state budgets. The funding paid to privatized prisons from the state budget could be used on positive areas such as education, community improvement and job creation. The promotion of drugs in heavily promoted and repeated glamorized images, along with other crime-promoting fads, not only influences the individual consuming listener consciously and subconsciously, it creates several cause and effect reactions and implications impacts as high up as Congressional budget cuts under a fifteen trillion dollar debt.

The following chart-topping artists promote the same negative trend of drug glamorization:

A. In the Kayne West song “Mercy”, we once again see the artist Big Sean promoting the same negative excess, this time using sex appeal to glamorize the negative element: “Make that ass shake, Woah make the ground move, that’s an ass quake, Built a house up on that ass, that’s an ass state, Roll my weed on it, that’s an ass tray” (West, 2012).

B. The artist Whales, in his chart topping song “Bag of Money” follows the same tired trend with his repeated hook: “And I like my marijuana bright, And I like my window tinted out, Shout out them strippers who hustle” (Ross, 2012)

C. Not wanting to be undone, the artist Meek Mills gets to the top of the genre chart with his promotion of drugs and excess in his song titled “Amen”: “Bottle after bottle, drink until I overdose, Pull up in the Phantom watch them bitches catch the holy ghost, Everytime I step up in the dealer I be goin’ broke, Shorty wanna fuck me I say get on top and rollercoast” (Mills, 2012) and “Just bought my niggas some cane, so much it came with a plane, Bought my niggas some dope, so much it came with a boat, I just bought me a crib so big it came with a moat” (Mills, 2012).

D. Last, but not least, we end near the place that we began with the ultra-popular Lil Wayne rapping over the 2 Chainz instrumental “No Lie”: “I got them yellow Zanax, I slipped on a banana pill, Trukfit t-shirt, blunt dripped in syrup, pass that weed around like some fuckin’ hors d’oeuvres” (Carter, 2012) and “Shout out to my weed man, shout out to my lean man, I’m sitting on these motherfuckin’ millions like a beanbag, fuck you, don’t judge me, drug me then love me” (Carter, 2012).

These are the artists that have their material constantly played in heavy rotation on the Viacom video channels, radio, and the Internet with corporate money behind them to ensure it reaches the masses in repetitive consumption. The messages of self-destruction are clear and the selected songs from 2012 can be easily replaced with different selections from 2012 and will more often than not reveal the same promotion of negative materials. Just how much of an influence does this heavy dose of mass produced repetition have? A 2006 study by the nonprofit organization Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation revealed that “almost 70 percent of the students who listened to music "daily or almost daily" listened to rap and hip-hop, and when that data was compared with the students' answers about alcohol, drugs and violence, the survey found that "substance use and aggressive behaviors among young people were significantly associated to certain genres of popular music," mainly rap” (Montgomery, 2006).

The same point of realistic disenchantment is echoed in a 2010 dissertation by Dr. Boyce Watkins. Watkins points out the systematic influence factor on targeted consumers by pointing out that currently “black males listen to hip-hop in a way that is different from nearly any other group of people in America. We don’t just listen to the artists, we imitate them. Millions of black boys want to be like Lil Wayne, copying every tattoo, gesture and ridiculous punch line. When he goes to jail and brags about it, we end up bragging about it ourselves. Therefore, hip-hop has done its share of work to sustain the perpetual love affair between African American males and the systems designed to destroy them” (Watkins, 2010).

[Shoon Teoh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Relatively comprehensive introduction to many key concepts of cultural studies. I found the first two chapters tedious as they serve mostly as a historical account of the theoretical foundations upon which British Cultural Studies is built on (literary criticism dating to the 19th century) and their subsequent development. These chapters provide context for understanding culture from different historical and theoretical viewpoints, exploring various iterations of the base/superstructure model and examinations on the production of meaning but I would suggest briefly reading these initial chapters and then starting in earnest on the third chapter, which covers contemporary British Cultural Studies' major thinkers (Hoggart, Hall, Wiliams).

Throughout the remaining chapters, Storey curates and elaborates upon select concepts in Cultural Studies, giving succinct explanations for concepts such as Ideology (Althusser), Hegemony (Gramsci), Discourse (Foucault), Ego (Lacan) and how these concepts impact the reproduction of Culture. The book does stay very true to its title, selecting only concepts that are relevant to popular culture as well as academia that has impacted the masses. Storey covers a fairly large range of topics with relevant thinkers from the US, France and UK although I will say that the selection of writers is obviously based more towards thinkers who are British.

Standout chapters include 3: Culturalism, 4: Marxisms, 9: Postmodernism. The final chapter, Politics of Popular also raises some interesting points about how consumption might be configured to resist capitalism although Storey seems to stop far short of much further exploration, no doubt to maintain academic distance (although the chapter also bizarrely starts with what feels like a critique of a fellow academic).

Certain chapters are a bit thin, notably the chapter on feminism and sexuality, where the section on men's studies and masculinities is barely more than a paragraph long and queer theory is confined mostly to Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity. The chapter on race has a good section on whiteness and Orientalism but is otherwise lacking more about post-colonial theory or a more comprehensive section into media theory and representation (Hall's theory of encoding is noticeably absent a proper breakdown)

The major criticisms I have however is that while the book introduces readers to the many potential forms of relationships consumers and producers of popular culture might have, it does so in a rather scattered manner, exploring mostly how different cultures such as feminist reading groups or celebrity fans might create meaning when consuming popular culture without ever properly providing a supporting theoretical framework to analyse the production/consumption relationship. A section to recap the various examples would be useful.

Lastly, while the book explores the more recent development of globalisation to some degree in its later chapters, the book is noticeably absent more recent cultural texts with no examples of newer popular culture such as ANY POP MUSIC FROM AFTER 1980 or like, y'know, youtube videos of cats, emojis, memes?

Overall, this book does give a pretty accessible introduction to some rather complex theoretical concepts and I would recommend it to anyone looking to get a good, understandable overview. That said, be prepared for some rather outdated references.

[Javad · Rating 2 out of 5]

این کتاب مروری است بر پژوهش‌هایی در حوزۀ مطالعات فرهنگی. موضوع این پژوهش‌ها تلویزیون است و داستان عامه‌پسند و فیلم عامه‌پسند و نشریات عامه‌پسند و موسیقی عامه‌پسند و مصرف کالا. جان استوری در هر بخش به یکی از این موضوعات می‌پردازد و در آن ابتدا نظریات مختلف دربارۀ آن موضوع را طرح می‌کند و سپس چند پژوهش انجام‌شده در آن باره را مرور می‌کند. فصل آخر هم دربارۀ این است که پدیدۀ جهانی‌شدن چه تأثیری بر فرهنگ عامه داشته است و فرهنگ‌ها چطور با این مسئله مواجه شده‌اند.

خواندنی‌ترین فصل کتاب برای من فصل هفتمش بود که به موضوع «مصرف کالا در زندگی روزمره» می‌پردازد. از منظر مطالعات فرهنگی، مصرف‌کنندگان کالاها پذیرندگانی صرف نیستند که منفعلانه مصرف می‌کنند، بلکه کنش‌گرانی خلاق هستند که مصرف را نوعی تولید می‌بینند. مطالعات فرهنگی، در مقابل رویکردهای نخبه‌گرایانه و ساختارمحورانۀ بدبینانه به مصرف، بر پیچیدگی فعالانه و کنش‌گری موقعیت‌مندِ مصرف تأکید می‌کند. در این رویکرد، «فرهنگ» محصول پیشاپیش ساخته‌وپرداخته‌ای نیست که ما صرفاً آن را مصرف کنیم، فرهنگ آن چیزی است که ما با رفتارهای گوناگونِ زندگی روزمره، از جمله با مصرف کالا، می‌سازیم.

ترجمۀ کتاب را حسین پاینده انجام داده که حوزۀ تخصصی‌اش نقد ادبی است و در پیشگفتارش نیز توضیح می‌دهد که چرا سراغ ترجمۀ این کتاب آمده است و نقد ادبی و مطالعات فرهنگی چگونه باهم پیوند می‌یابند. البته ترجمه‌اش ترجمۀ خیلی خوبی نیست و عناصر غیرفارسی در آن زیاد دیده می‌شود. نیز پیکربندی نقل‌قول‌های تورفته خواننده را آزار می‌دهد، چراکه بسیاری از آن‌ها مستقلِ از متن قبلشان نیستند و درواقع از میانۀ جملۀ قبل شروع می‌شوند. صحافی کتاب هم کیفیت نازلی دارد.

[Nico Gavino · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this but I wish I could say I enjoyed it more. While I am very interested in the field and an familiar with some key theorists, I am no cultural studies or theory expert but I found this book and thought it would be a good foundation. I thought it was very very accessible and easy to follow. I also appreciate the emphasis that consumers are not passive slaves to ideology, but are productive players in the making of culture. However I was disappointed that the author seemed to a have a bias against more left leaning theory which from my knowledge is such a huge part of the foundation of the field— some of the most prominent cultural theorists I know were barely included in the text. Terminology like “pessimistic left” and “elitist left” were used several times which definitely rubbed me the wrong way. I think the author is far too optimistic about consumerism and globalization. He seems to paint over a lot of more critical theory. That being said I still think its worth reading but it is not by any means a sufficient or unbiased overview of cultural studies.

[Albemarle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing read for me, mainly because I didn’t agree what seemed to be the main concept of the book – namely, that popular culture is changed so much by the public who read/listen/watch it that it is incorrect to suppose that the privileged elite can dictate ideas to and therefore spread meaning in this way. Of course, I agree that the receivers of culture change and finalize the content and thus the meaning. However, the book seemed to indicate that elitist propaganda or controlling through information was too simplistic a notion. I disagree. It may well be more complex than simplistic propaganda, but nevertheless there was not enough discussion on who owns the main media sources and how that ownership can control.

[Hosein Ghezelbash · Rating 3 out of 5]

این کتاب حرفی دارد که مطابق با حرف خودش چندین معنی دارد و باید هم زمینه و هم پیشینه نظری و طرز تفکر نویسنده را در معنی متن در نظر گرفت.
متن کتاب برای من خیلی سخت بود و واژه های سخت زیادی و البته جدید و نه روز مره درونش بود که مترجم میتونست کمی متن را آسان تر کند.
در کل کتاب متوسط و تخصصی هست که افراد متخصص باید این کتاب رو مطالعه کنند.

[Charlie Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provides an excellent crash-course on popular/mass culture theory, involving a variety of theorists, concepts and genres of discourse in the book.

The study by Storey is extremely verbose, however, and found myself zoning out quite often, as I passed the half-way point. An issue on my part, surely :(

[Emily · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was unsuitable for my first & second year college students. That was too much assumed knowledge, but enough definition of terms etc. An unnecessarily challenging read that didn't feel like an intro.

[Dinu Guţu · Rating 3 out of 5]

okeish, but too theoretical

[Rebecca Dunbar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great intro. Readable. Praise Jesus.

[Meghan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of various schools of thought and their views about popular culture.

[Sin Iranpour · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب خوبیه. مخاطب رو با حوزه‌های مختلف مطالعات فرهنگی و فرهنگ عامه آشنا می‌کنه.

[Håvard Bamle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Et oppslagsverk

[Ammar Eslamkhah · Rating 5 out of 5]

درباره تولیدات فرهنگی، مصرف و جایگاه تاثیر گذاری. مصرف تولیدات فرهنگی. تاثیرات مصرف فرهنگی

[晓宇 杨 · Rating 4 out of 5]

对文化理论的不错介绍，涉及了理论之路的各个角落，适合作为教科书和入门书

[Paul Dilley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most theories of popular culture are responses to modern communications technologies, but some have definite relevance for antiquity

[Rafaela Morelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

meu deus faz seis meses que eu comecei a ler esse

[Jackie]

Read it for school, Theorizing and media class.

[academic witch]

Read for research purposes (MA).

[Nora Winckler · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have PTSD. I’m so sorry for anyone who’s had the displeasure of encountering this book.