Showing papers on "Sociology of culture published in 1990"
Book•
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: In this article, the authors introduce the mass media and the political economy of mass communication in the United Kingdom, focusing on the role of public service broadcasting and the information market in the media and public sphere.
Abstract: Part 1 Methodology and the mass media: contribution to a political economy of mass communication film and media studies - reconstructing the subject the myths of video - a disciplinary reminder Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture - an introduction politics and the mass media in the United Kingdom. Part 2 Policy and politics - public service broadcasting and the information market: the media and the public sphere public service versus the market telecommunications policy in the United Kingdom. Part 3 The political economy and the production of culture: public policy and the cultural industries the economics of the US motion picture industry.
453 citations
47 citations
31 Dec 1990
27 citations
TL;DR: The authors look back at the early criticism of Jean-Luc Godard, and then point out the paradoxical "survival of the author" in contemporary film criticism, pointing out that writing about directors still exists, and discussion of authorship is not incompatible with theory.
Abstract: Film study in the United States owes a considerable and frequently acknowledged debt to the French romance with Hollywood auteurs during the late fifties and early sixties. From the time auteurism entered universities, however, it came under attack from both the right and the left, and it was soon displaced by successive waves of radical theory. Two forms of theoretical intervention exerted especially strong influence on the field. During the seventies, a conjuncture of Sausserian linguistics, Althusserian Marxism, and Lacanian psychoanalysis led to a rigorous investigation of the cinematic "apparatus" and its constructions of subjectivity. During the eighties, film theorists grew increasingly skeptical of authoritarian models of communication, and at the same time curious about popular reception or "resistance"--consequently we heard less about the poststructuralists and more about Gramsci, de Certeau, Bourdieu, and the British exponents of cultural studies. Today, the typical essay about film or television tends to swerve between two poles; on the one hand, it alludes to the ideologically pernicious, "interpellating" effects of Hollywood, and on the other, it argues that meaning is unstable, open to populist readings or "poachings."' No matter which side of the argument it emphasizes, this sort of essay is usually concerned more with textuality than with authors or individual workers. Even so, as I shall indicate shortly, writing about directors hasn't disappeared, and discussion of authorship isn't incompatible with theory. In fact, given the current situation, which is also characterized by a renewed interest in history and the sociology of culture, a space has been opened for us to reconsider the contributions of the original auteurists, noticing a certain tendency of their work that's still relevant. I want to begin that reconsideration here, although I hasten to add that an essay of this size can't attempt a full-scale review. (Fortunately, we already have important studies of the topic by John Hess and Edward Buscombe, together with John Caughie's anthology, Ideas of Authorship, and Jim Hillier's annotated collection of writings from Cahiers du Cinema in the fifties and sixties.2) Instead of surveying the entire ground, I propose to glance back at the early criticism of Jean-Luc Godard, and then to say two or three things about the present scene. It isn't my intention to provoke a nostalgic revival of high auteurism, nor do I want to reinstall the analysis of directors at the center of film studies. Nevertheless, a brief look at Godard's critical strategies will enable me to challenge at least one hoary assumption about the auteurists. In addition, it will provide me with a starting point for some observations about a much larger issue: the paradoxical "survival of the author" in contemporary film criticism.
24 citations
TL;DR: Mittelberg's "Strangers in Paradise" as discussed by the authors provides a massive amount of current data on Jewish and non-Jewish volunteers, division of labor by sex and language of origins, demographic characteristics of Kibbutz hosts and recruits, and a variety of attitude measures.
Abstract: The literature on the Kibbutz is large and sprawling. This stands in marked contrast to the intimacy and proximity of the individuals who have actually participated in the life of the Kibbutz. In this quite remarkable work, David Mittelberg succeeds in capturing the specific life styles and aspirations of the Kibbutzniks. And he does so by integrating this within the broad and rich traditions of the sociology of culture and religion. "Strangers in Paradise "provides a massive amount of current data on Jewish and non-Jewish volunteers, division of labor by sex and language of origins, demographic characteristics of Kibbutz hosts and recruits, and a variety of attitude measures far beyond any other work in the literature. But what gives special value to this effort is its unusual utilization of the phenomenological tradition - from Simmel to Schutz, to Berger and Luckmann - along with recent efforts in organization and negotiation theory - from Blau to Goffman - in order to explicate this massive data. A special element in this volume is the central place accorded to voluntarism in an open culture. For Mittelberg, membership in the Kibbutz is at its core a voluntary act of individuals who commit their lives, or a portion thereof, to a collective movement in a strange land. This is a study then in "intentional communities" rather than Utopian organizations. The synthesis of the concrete and the abstract, the empirical and the theoretical, will establish Mittelberg's volume as a new standard in Kibbutz studies.
17 citations
TL;DR: The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists by Raymond Williams; Tony Pinkney as mentioned in this paper, and The Homo Academicus: Culture, Democracy, Socialism by Pierre Bourdieu; Peter Collier.
Abstract: Reviewed work(s): Homo Academicus. by Pierre Bourdieu; Peter Collier Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. by Raymond Williams; Robin Gable; Robin Blackburn The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists. by Raymond Williams; Tony Pinkney
10 citations
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: Among the classical sociologists Georg Simmel is the major figure who can be said not only to have contributed to particular aspects of a new sociology and philosophy of culture, but to have self-consciously developed an explicit, general theory of culture and modern life as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Among the classical sociologists Georg Simmel is the major figure who can be said not only to have contributed to particular aspects of a new sociology and philosophy of culture, but to have self-consciously developed an explicit, general theory of culture and modern life. The theory consisted of an interconnected conceptual language and a perspective for ordering, understanding, explaining and judging our experience of culture. Simmel’s achievement was recognized by some of his colleagues in the universities and the new German Sociological Association, among students who flocked to his popular Berlin lectures, and by those who participated in his private seminar. In the words of one member of these audiences, the young Georg LukFacs, “a sociology of culture, as it was taken over by Max Weber, Troeltsch, Sombart and others [including Lukacs himself] surely became possible only on the basis established by Simmel”.1 Today the originality, comprehensive¬ness and deep attraction of Simmels theoretical purpose still recom¬mend him as one of the truly significant primary thinkers on questions of culture.
4 citations
3 citations
TL;DR: Kurauchi as discussed by the authors argued that social culture means patterns of social action and ways of life among people, and treated it in sociology of society, which is different from that of American sociology of culture which, closely cooperating with anthropology, chooses the ways of human life as its main subject.
Abstract: Dr. Kazuta Kurauchi established his theory of the sociology of culture under the influence of German sociology of 1920s, especially Max Scheler's sociology of knowledge and forms of sympathy. Dr. Kurauchi insisted upon the importance of the idea that sociology of culture forms a part of general sociology and social culture (institutional culture) should be excluded from the objects of the study of culture. He distinguished “sociology of culture” from “sociology of society” by the difference of the character of culture treated in the respective fields. Since social culture means patterns of social action and ways of life among people, we should treat it in sociology of society. This view is different from that of American sociology of culture, which, closely cooperating with anthropology, chooses the ways of human life as its main subject.Dr. Kurauchi was the first Japanese scholar who studied Japanese art from the sociological viewpoint. According to Dr. Kurauchi, the characteristic way of expression in Japanese art is a symbolic mode, which is realized by the similarity between artists' and appreciators' experience in human community and in their attitude towards nature. Dr. Kurauchi reached the conclusion that Japanese art is gemeinschaftlich in its essence.
TL;DR: The recent interest in cultural policy by those who place themselves within the field of cultural studies marks an ironic return to the neglected concerns of one of the founders of that field, Raymond Williams.
Abstract: The recent interest in cultural policy by those who place themselves within the field of cultural studies marks an ironic return to the neglected concerns of one of the founders of that field, Raymond Williams. Despite his evident theoretical capabilities in the sociology of culture, policy questions were always at the fore of his formations. Williams' particular interest in the invasive capabilities of advertising provides a means of discussing the author's submission to the ABT's review of the trial of deregulated television advertising time standards. The ABT's omission of qualitative programming research from its monitoring allowed the extraordinarily destructive practice of 'running time editing' to go unnoticed.