Explain and briefly evaluate why high culture is seen as superior to low culture.

Marxists say that the difference between cultures makes that seen as “high culture” seen as superior because individuals are told as such through socialisation. For example in certain agents of secondary socialisation such as education. In education a person’s social class (upper class = high culture, working class = low culture) determines all sorts of things. For example, those in high streams, or band in school are seen as superior. Those who are from upper class backgrounds are often it the upper streams and bands. Those from working class backgrounds are often in the lower streams or bands.

Primary socialisation also has different ways of socialising individuals dependent upon their social class. For example, the upper class are socialised into deferred gratification (planning for the future) whereas the working class are socialisation into immediate gratification (having fun here and now). Those values (deferred gratification) are seen as superior.

However, some sociologists say there’s no such thing as “low culture”.  The ideas of mass culture and low culture are very negative. Some sociologists have argued that this view is based on an elitist perspective. For example, Bourdieu (1984) says the whole idea of “high culture” is just a way of giving status to elite groups – he says that status is maintained by passing on cultural knowledge. Marxists argue that high culture is just ruling class culture, and that the ruling class have imposed their idea of culture on the rest of society, and defined it as “better” than working class culture. Some Marxists argue that so-called “low culture” is just as complex and sophisticated as “high culture”. For that reason, they prefer to use the term “popular culture”, which is more of a positive idea.

Popular culture has arrived due to technological change that has led to globalisation. Goods can be transported to anywhere in the world, and information can be quickly transmitted across the globe. This has meant that cultures that were once local have become global. For example, British and American pop music is everywhere. American and Indian films are popular internationally. Thus, there is no “high culture” or “low culture”. This is because Popular Culture theorists emphasise that the Audience is Active “Mass” and “Low” culture are both concepts that are based on the idea of a passive audience. They assume that the audience is being manipulated by the media and doesn’t have much control. “Popular” culture is a concept that is based on the idea of an active audience. This audience shapes and changes the culture. The CCCS has done a lot of research into the way this happens in youth fashions and subcultures.

In conclusion, although culture may have been separated into “high” and “low”, this divide does not appear to exist in today’s society. I have looked at the division of high and low culture (what sort of thing fits into which category – high culture, opera, low culture, bingo). I have look at agents of primary socialisation (the family) and secondary socialisation (education) and looked at what is seen as low and high culture within those and why it is seen that way. I have also examined the view that there is no such thing as high or low culture, and finally I have criticised it.