(no subject)

[ivyfic]

In the United States, making hierarchical distinctions about culture [is] the only acceptable way for people to talk openly about class. ... [T]he American cultural hierarchy [is] not a hierarchy of taste at all, but a hierarchy of power that use[s] taste to cloak its real agenda.

--Nobrow by John Seabrook

Discuss. :)

Comments

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

He seems to be talking like this is something unique to our culture. But it seems to me that any culture in which it is at all possible to change class does this. Only in a culture where birth absolutely dictates class would the upper classes not use manners and taste as a shibboleth to keep upstarts from trying to infiltrate their ranks. Taste is almost never solely about aesthetics, but is almost always about power - "tasteful" requires having access to resources and also insider knowledge about what's acceptable.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

He's discussing it in contrast to English culture. Specifically, he's talking about Tina Brown's editorship of The New Yorker, which transformed that magazine from an example of rarified culture--deliberately inaccessible and uncommercial--into a synthesis of high-brow commentary on low-brow subjects. His thesis is that, for her as a Brit, that's much more natural.

You know how I mentioned that I picked discussion topics for a certain gamer who shall remain nameless cause I don't like using real names on lj? Oh, I think she would hurt herself trying to prove an absolute taste hierarchy to contradict this statement, and, in the view of the author, just prove her complete adherence to the hegemony of taste.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Well of course there's a hierarchy of taste. If there wasn't an absolute, she couldn't be right.

Besides that - I'm not sure I buy it. Americans love high-brow versions of low-brow things - our colleges delight in media studies of stuff from spy novels to fast food. Most of the fancier restaurants contain "deconstructed" versions of traditional things - Oreos, meatloaf, peanut butter sandwiches. And I don't think our upper classes are any more snobbish than the British upper classes.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I buy the comparison (and his book is a meandering mess, so I'm not inclined to), but I find it very interesting how he framed the argument: as Americans, we don't talk about class, we talk about taste. We, in fact, talk about taste to disguise the fact that we are talking about class, even from ourselves.

For example, I was just retelling the story of the guy I dated (shy guy) who claimed on his profile to like classical music, but turned out to know jack shit about it. Clearly, he posted that because that's what he thinks he's supposed to like, not because all girls love classical, but because it's a signifier of class. Pure affectation. Of course, if he truly was of the class he pretended to be, he wouldn't need to point it out in such a vulgar manner. :)

Or, take Real Housewives of New Jersey. On that show, all of the women are fabulously wealthy (because of men, obv). But when I discuss the show, I'll point out that one of them is a horrible interior decorator. (Horrible. Tacky as hell.) The subtext is not just that I disagree with her tastes, but that she's clearly noveau riche.

Of course, I don't think any of this subtext is particularly sub. We all know we're talking about class, power, ideas of superiority. The unnamed person is certainly aware of this. But I like his pointing out that these distinctions are arbitrary (which is not to say unimportant), not aesthetic. Much the same way as I was arguing about how we use textbook grammar.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Oh, also, he had a very interesting point about New Yorker subscriptions falling because people felt like they should enjoy reading it, but don't actually, and just feel very guilty having the magazines sitting around. In that case, New Yorker so effectively tying itself to the mythical idea of American aristocracy backfired spectacularly.