Popular Culture
James B. Gilbert
American Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1/2, Special Issue: Contemporary America. (Spring - Summer,
1983), pp. 141-154.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0678%28198321%2F22%2935%3A1%2F2%3C141%3APC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
American Quarterly is currently published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Fri May 25 17:56:58 2007
POPULAR CULTURE

JAMES B. GILBERT
University of Maryland
IN 1970 HOLLYWOOD GESTURED IN A DIRECTION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
unthinkable ten years earlier. In Norman Jewison's The Landlord, a jarring
film filled with confrontation and suppressed violence, the camera recorded
scenes of passionate love-makingbetween a white man and a black woman.
However, what the movie seemed to embrace-the resolution of racial
conflict through intermarriage-was not something that American audiences
were prepared to accept. The film fell flat. This was perhaps something
of an omen, for in the next decade popular culture expressed a keen
awareness of the limitless varieties of conflict and discord in American
society, not the resolution of social contradiction in love or politics. This
emphasis upon social tension formed a major contour of popular culture in
the seventies.
Three of the most popular television seriesof the earlyseventies,"Ironside,"
"Kojak," and "The Streets of San Francisco," indicate why this was so.
Although they sometimes paid lip service to understanding the sociological
or psychologicaloriginsof socialdisorder, these showsstripped law to naked
power and order to the implicit threat of violence. By implication, society
lacked moral and ethical cohesion. Underlying sources of tension were
rarely uncovered and never resolved. The resulting picture was of a society
without shared ideals or respected institutions.
Norman Lear's "All in the Family" expressed this same vision in comic
form. Each week Archie Bunker denounced some minority or liberal cause.
In each episode, he lost (temporarily) in a struggle of values with his
instinctively liberal wife. Yet the following week he returned to test new
prejudices. Like the enormously popular daytime soap operas, "All in the
Family" exposed the deepest problems of society,but never hoped to ameliorate
them.
Of course, police dramas almost always use force and firepower-and
rarely sociology-to end the careers of criminals. Situation comedies and
soap operas require stereotyped characters. These are the requisitesof each
genre. Nonetheless, the changes in popular culture over the last thirty years
142 American Quarterly
suggest that these genresmay havedifferent meaningsin differentperiods. In
the seventies the prolonged attention to unresolved antagonisms in society
has a special place in the popular culture of the era. As if to underscore this
point about the inability of contemporary society to solve its problems, the
three most popular television serialsof the 1970srelied heavilyupon nostalgia.
In "All in the Family," Archie Bunker is a character out of place,belongingto
a time when, as the show's theme song put it, men were men and girls were
girls. Nostalgia shaped "Happy Days" and its spin-off,"Laverne and Shirley,"
even more explicitly. Both were set in the late fifties. Other very popular
programs such as the "Waltons" and "M.A.S.H." were also placed back in
time. These examples point to a central characteristic of popular culture in
the seventies: itsyearningfor eraswhen recognizable moral systemsprevailed.
This is not to argue that popular culture of the seventieslacked any identifiable
moral code. Yet it does suggest that beneath the new tolerance of
heretofore disapproved behavior,audiences responded to an imaginary past
of traditional values. They felt steadier in the roots of contemporary experience
than in the confusion and conflict of the present. As the most popular
song of 1972 put it, "Those Were the Days, My Friend."
The value structure in these nostalgic shows depended upon the belief
that the 1950s in particular was a time when political, social, and family
valuesformed a coherent moral order. Theword "code" isparticularly apt to
describe this order because it suggests an element of social coercion that
censored films, television programs, comic books, and political expression
during that era. Since the 1950spopular culture has largely emerged from the
lingering censorship, of that decade, although the contemporary Moral
Majority would like to reimpose it. Since the decline of explicit censorship,
recognizable standards of behavior have become confused. Obvious symbols
of community control, like the everpresent "voice of authority" in
Hollywood feature films, have disappeared. Popular culture has inceasingly
depicted American subcultures (such as the world of juvenile delinquents,
for example) without judging them. Archie Bunker's confusion in such a
world is easily understandable.
The heroes and heroines (wherethere were any)of Hollywood filmsin the
seventies showed a similar discomfort in the contradictory moral present,
and they often lived above or beyond the law. Several of the Academy
Awards for best picture of the year went to movies that set men against
society,fromPatton (1970)to The Godfather,parts one and two (1972,1974),
to Rocky (1976).In such films, society is little more than a backdrop and
sometimes an obstacle. By necessity,ethical behavior is generated to fit each
specialsituation.Heroesachievesuccessby struggleagainstsocialinstitutions,
not through them. Thus society is either irrelevant or menacing, as in One
Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975).
There is, of course, much in this posture of exile and alienation that is
traditional. Popular culture has long celebrated the individualpitted against
143Popular Culture
society, from Tarzan to the Electric Cowboy. Yet the outsiders of seventies'
filmswere not traditional heroes. They were men (women rarely appeared in
such roles) who stepped into the spotlight for a moment, not to be emulated,
but merely to be exposed to public attention. Notoriety came from the fact of
their exposure, not necessarily from their achievements. They were, like so
many other public figures of the era, made important through their appearance
in the media. As such they belonged to a celebrity elite including movie
and television stars, politicians, and sports figures who participated in talk
shows, celebrity sports events, quiz shows, and endless interviews or features
in weekly magazines.
Even the ordinary citizen could enter this celebrity world through the
inquisitive eye of the media. For those willing to endure the humiliation,the
"Gong Show,"a self-mockingand crudely satiric television show,offered an
opportunity for momentary celebrity status. Another route was the invidious
comparison to real achievement. This is most notable in the GuinnessBook
of Records, updated annually. In a section featuring "Human Achievements,"
genuine accomplishments in sports are listed next to endurance records for
activities that intentionally have no other purpose than to establish a record.
It was also possible to purchase the trappings of celebrity life. For example,
an advertisement hawking Puerto Rican rum often run in Rolling
Stone Magazine in the 1970s began: "Liza [Minelli]introduced us to white
rum and soda at an Andy Warhol Party. She was wonderful and sincere and
became one of our best friends." Of course the drink was superb. The message
was simple and old-fashioned: vicarious access to celebrity life was as
easy as a sip of a swank drink. This sort of enticement is as old as the English
Royalty's endorsement of tea biscuits, but the aggressive intimacy was new.
Mention of Andy Warhol, the leading creator of instant celebrity,made it all
believable.
Looked at another way, celebrity was a celebration of the individual ego
identified by Tom Wolfe in his phrase, "the me decade." Attention to the self
gave titles to magazines likePeople and Self;it also provoked sharp criticism
from Christopher Lasch in his book the Culture of Narcissism (1979). The
self and its neuroses held the center of popular attention in the seventies,
from "liberation" movements to songs in Broadway musicals that proclaimed,
"I am me," to the mirrored refractions of disco dancing. Such messages of
personal witness came from the "new journalism" and the proclamations of
born-again Christians. In one sense or another each of these defined personal
experience as self-contained,intrinsicallyinteresting, and almost inevitably
hostile to the surrounding society.
The depth and extent of this self-absorption can be seen in the list of
best-sellers from 1973 and 1975. In 1973, nonfiction best-sellers included:
TheLiving Bible, Dr:Atkins'Diet Revolution,I'm OK, You'reOK, TheJoy of
Sex, Weight Watchers Program Cookbook, and How to Be Your Own Best
Friend. Two years later, the list offered the same sort of variety of self-
144 American Quarterly
improvement books: Angels: Goďs Secret Agents, Winning Through
Intimidation, TM:Discovering Energy and Overcoming Stress, TotalFitness
in Thirty Minutes a Week, and the Save-Your-Life Diet.
The lack of any overt censoring ideals upholding community standards of
behavior, the easy achievement of celebrity status, the celebration of the
self, and the liberation and public attention demanded by a great variety of
subcultures underscored toleration during the seventies for behavior that
had formerly existed at the edges of American popular culture. Elements of
culture that seemed revolutionary in the sixties were absorbed, transformed,
and legitimated. The disapproved behavior and language of the fifties became
standard fare for the seventies.
There are several ways to understand how this ambiguous tolerance took
hold of American culture during the seventies. I intend to pursue only one:
by looking at the seventies as the third stage in the postwar development of
American popular culture. Seen in historical perspective, the seventies were
the result of the dialectic between earlier popular culture and the vast
changes in the media and the audiences of the years after 1945.
Following World War I1 and up to about 1960,popular culture and the
producers of films and television programs made self-conscious gestures
toward supporting traditional institutions. The largest commercial producers
of popular culture (Hollywood, television networks, comic book
publishers, and record companies)paid attention to various official production
codes drawn up by each industry. These codes were ostensibly designed
to censor culture, to eliminate overt sexuality, obscenity, and perversion in
order to create a saleable commodity for the entire family. They were also a
response to pressure on the media from organized religious and civic interest
groups who wished to uphold traditional values. Homogenized ethical virtues
attached themselves to popular culture like antibodies to an invading
organism. Studio blacklists in Hollywood and the unspoken assumption that
popular culture should not express controversy formed another line of the
informal censorship of culture. Thus shared opinion, backed by vigilante
interest groups and formalproduction codes,helped shape a popular culture
that risked little. Countless movies, television programs, and comic book
charactersadhered to the minimal values expressed by censoring agencies-at
least in the final moments. Even in the most violent crime comics, the last
two or three panels generally contained a warning that crime does not pay.
In fifties' films, immoral behavior, adultery, or crime was almost always
punished by society or some sort of natural retribution in which the offender
was destroyed.
Nevertheless, much of this censorship was superficial and one can find
elements contrary to the established picture of popular culture in the fifties
145Popular Culture
as benign and acceptable. A broad group of culture critics from Dwight
Macdonald to Ernest Van den Haag argued that popular culture, despite its
lip-service to traditional values, was, in fact, subverting such values. These
critics of mass culture attacked the vulgarity and escapism of popular
culture. In making this argument they were continuing an interpretation of
Nazi propaganda developed during World War 11. They theorized that
violence celebrated in culture would debase culture, citing the history of
Germany as their proof. Others, such as psychologist Fredric Wertham,
relied upon psychology to make the same argument. Wertham's attacks on
comic book violence rocked the entire juvenile publishing industry and led
to the adoption of an industry code.
Critics such as Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, once associated
with the Frankfurt School of German exiles located at Columbia University,
identified mass culture with political conservatism and cultural lethargy.
Popular culture, they declared, had become an opiate of the masses,
destroying working-classculture and blunting the development of revolutionary
politics.
Traditionalists also worried that mass culture had uprooted Americans. As
they often had in the past, these critics blamed popular culture for the
misbehavior of children. This accusation dominated the hearings held by the
Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency in the mid-fifties.
First headed by Senator Robert Hendrickson of New Jersey and then by Estes
Kefauver of Tennessee, the committee heard long, impassioned testimony
that blamed films, radio shows, television, and comic books for the postwar
rise in delinquency.
Sometimes popular culture itself reflected this criticism. Ray Bradbury's
widely read Fahrenheit 451 sketched a terrifying utopia where the debased
valuesof masscultureguided allpoliticalandsocialregulations. Theenforcers
of order in this society were firemen, hired to burn books: "Those who don't
build must burn. Iťs as old as history and juvenile delinquency," says one
character. No books were allowed in this society, only radio, photographs,
movies, and television. Indeed, television, with its "parlor families" (soap
operas), is so pervasive that it absorbs and distorts real life. The result is a
world of total cultural homogenization where "you can stay happy all the
time."l
The implicit elitism and conservatism of such critiques of mass culture are
obvious, and defenders of popular culture emphasized this point.2 Nonetheless,
critics had raised an important and perhaps unanswerable problem:
if popular media shaped society, shouldn't society exercise some control
'Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451 (New York: Ballantine, 1953). 57, 61.
2Bernard Rosenberg and Davld Manning White. Mass Culture Revisited (New York: Van
Nostrand. Reinhold, 1971).
146 American Quarterly
over this shapingpower?Because mass culture was believed to have a serious
impact on society, this problem touched the relationship between moral,
cultural, and economic assumptions of society. Should mass culture reflect
accepted values or should it be limited only by economic considerations?
Was mass culture merely a commodity?
As important as these considerations were in the debate over mass culture
during the fifties, they were set aside by several important Supreme Court
decisions that judged the First Amendment to be superior to the rights of a
community to impose its values on culture. The Court gradually undercut
censorship codes and brought the popular media under the protective
umbrella of the First Amendment. This loosening of the power of local
authorities encouraged the film industry itself to modify the production
code. Gradually, important "don'ts" involving sexuality and drug use were
removed from the Hollywood censorship code. This movement was speeded
by the desire of the film industry to compete with television. Self-censorship
codes in other media industries were also ~oftened.~
The forces behind such transformations in popular culture during the
fifties were also demographic and economic. The decline of family-oriented
and community-approved popular culture came in part from the disruptions
of World War 11, in part from increased affluence among large segments of
the population, and especially from the discovery and growing exploitation
of the teenage market. Added to this were important technological
developments: advances in television, long-playing records, and widespread
ownership of automobiles by teenagers. The result was a fracturing of
cultural unity and the emergence of a full-blown adolescent culture that
reflected and caricatured adult culture.
The hasty reaction of many adult critics to this teenage culture was to
brand it as delinquent. Rock and roll, new clothing styles, hot rods, and
customized cars (which tampered with America's most important symbol of
success and mobility) were denounced because they did not coincide with
middle-class norms. They derived, instead, from working-class sensuality,
urban gangs,juvenile delinquency, and black culture. As Dwight Macdonald,
one of the principal critics of mass culture, put it: rock and roll "is the
teenagers' link to the nihilism of our time." Despite the stridency of such
critics, this new adolescent culture possessed three important dynamics: it
displayed enormous creativity, it challenged middle-class morality in popular
culture, and it provided a new field for commercial exploitation.
What critics wrongly identified as a delinquent subculture during the
fifties, they later began to recognize during the sixties as a major force
affecting not just youth,but allof American culture and much of the popular
culture of the world. This sudden turnaround of interpretation occurred as
'Garth Jowett, Film: The Democratic Art (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976).passim.
147Popular Culture
adolescent culture pushed to the center of American popular culture. In the
new, more liberal political climate of the sixties, the creativity of the fifties
exploded as a new force expressing not just teenage alienation and selfconcern,
but a positive vision. With the proliferation of musical forms and
social experimentation and the gradual politicization of leading sectors of
popular culture,youth culture proposed a different vision of life. It assumed
a moral imperative distinct from what had prevailed during the fifties. It
affirmed a self-consciousdesire to changesociety. This tendency can be seen
particularly toward the end of the decade in the music of Phil Ochs, the
Jefferson Airplane, and Bob Dylan, or more generally, in the vast underground
press that grew up in the late sixties.
In response, many cultural commentators stopped criticizing and started
explaining. Most of the older arguments about mass culture disappeared,
and discussion now focused on "popular culture." This change in terminology
symbolized the important shift in attitudes. The growing legitimization
of popular culture occurred for several reasons. Perhaps the greatest was
commercial success, pushed by a demographic crest. As the largest age
group in society after 1962, young people asserted the hegemony of their
own youth-oriented culture. The advice not to "trust anyone over thirty" was
as much the arrogance of superior numbers as it was a political slogan.
Another push, however,came from political liberalism,which attached itself
to popular culture in this decade. This complicated development came in
part because of the growing recognition of the legitimacy of the black
experience in America and its contributions to culture and politics. Indeed,
certain aspects of popular culture (particularly music), because they were
identified with black liberation struggles or the antiwar movement, claimed
to be the only authentic voice of the American masses.
Intellectuals, critics, and academics also changed their opinions about its
meaning. Marshall McLuhan's several startling books at the beginning of the
sixties proclaimed the revolutionary character of modern communications
technology. The predominant culture of the day,he declared, was the sort of
popular culture that enthralled American youth, not the linear, literary
culture preached by their elders.
Two short-lived movements in art and criticism validated popular culture
in another way. The first of these, "Pop Art," affirmed that everyday symbols
of American commercial life, from Campbelľs Soupcans to photographs of
Marilyn Monroe, had intrinsic artistic value. This brief reign of "camp"
reversed the scorn criticsof the 1950shad poured upon the popular commercial
arts and "Kitsch" culture. The aesthetics of camp declared that
objects and symbols in popular use had important and refreshing meanings.
By reconsidering older forms of popular culture-old movies, songs, and so
on-camp rescued and validated the history of popular culture and helped
establish a financial value to collections of the artifacts of past mass art.
Camp also had its commercial successes. The most obvious among these
148 American Quarterly
were paintings by Andy Warhol, whose studio, "The Factory," reproduced
hundreds of commercial images from Brillo soap pads to images of celebrities
like Elvis Presley and Jacqueline Kennedy. Another successful camp
production was the television series "Batman" (1966-68), derived from the
old comic book series and purposely exaggerated to call attention to its
origins in popular culture. Indeed, the show depended for its success upon
audience familiarity with the history of recent popular culture.
The founding of the Journal of Popular Culture in 1967 signalled the
professionalization of the study of popular culture. Thus the fifties' argument
about the vulgarity or "totalitarian" overtones of mass culture was
transformed: academic studies now interpreted popular culture as symbolic
or coded language that could help reveal the mind of the masses. These
studies emphasized the origins of popular music, art, sports, movies, and
television, and tried to propose reasons for the success of some of the most
important examples. By the end of the sixties, structuralism elaborated the
tools available for serious study of popular ~ulture.~Bolstered by the antielitism
of the era, a great many serious studies moved away from emphasizing
literary sources to a more energetic and creative use of popular culture.
Despite the fact that much of the mass culture of the sixties continued to
be packaged inside traditional values, or, as in the case of television's innumerable
broken family dramas, tried to explore what had gone wrong with
traditional values, the leading edge of popular culture became charged with
politics. In part, this came about because of an intolerable paradox of the
age: a liberal society betrayed by an illiberal war. The contrast between two
declared "wars," one against poverty in America and one against Vietnamese
revolutionaries, intensified the politicization of American youth culture.
American young people who had been in the forefront of the struggle
against racial segregation were, after 1966, called upon to fight a war in
southeast Asia that they neither supported nor understood. This sudden
shift in social priorities deeply affected youth culture, and pushed college
students in particular to assert their separation from adult society and to
proclaim the revolutionary implications of their music, drugs, and mystic
religions. Their vision of a regenerate community existing inside a corrupt
society exaggerated the srnse of confrontation. Thus the pleasure principle
of the counter culture purposely flouted the traditional stringencies of the
work ethic. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this was the widespread
movement to "drop outn-to abandon the world of getting and spending.
Politicization of youth culture also proceeded from the decline of censorship
and a proliferation of opportunities in the culture business. The explosion
of rock music coincided with a rapid growth in small record companies.
Enforced separation of AM and FM programmingon the airwavesafter 1966
jRoland Barthes. Writing Degree Zero (New York:Hill and Wang. 1968);and Elements of
Serniolog~(New York: Hill and Wang. 1968).
149Popular Culture
helped (temporarily) to diversify radio broadcasting, segment audiences,
and increase attention to the rich varieties of popular music. Beginning in
1964with the Berkeley Barb and spreading to most major university campuses
and large cities, a new underground journalism preached a culture revolution
based upon opposition to the war in Vietnam, while celebrating rock
music, drugs, and lifestyle radicalism. This short flirtation with agitprop,
particularly in the late sixties, affected both popular youth culture and
middle-class culture (whichmet in the 1967-68 musical production "Hair").
Even American comic books, most of them notoriously conservative and
even racist, began to respond to the new political orientation of young
readers. Yet the result was not a revolutionary popular culture, only an
apocalyptic one that anticipated a radical transformation of consciousness,
much as Charles Reich predicted in the Greening of America (1970).
If the fiftieswas an era of transition from a family-oriented mass culture of
middle-class ideals and the sixties was a decade when a small but significant
element of popular culture reflected political and moral radicalism, then the
seventies represented a time when the collapse of radicalism left benign
tolerance in its wake. Rapidly changing and always creative, popular culture
in the seventies nonetheless reflected overtones of retrenchment, tinged by
nostalgia, sometimes haunted by alienation, and often unconcerned with
solving problems. Unlike that of the fifties and sixties, popular culture of the
seventies often expressed hesitations about the future, something that was
rendered allthe more ironic because of the enormous technological progress
and growth of free expression in the decade. At the same time, the mass
media became more pervasive and central in American life. The decline of
large urban newspapers and Hollywood films was more than made up by the
increasing importance of television. As the Watergate scandal proved, even
the American presidency was a poor match in a serious confrontation with
an irrepressible and curious mass media. The power of the president could
not squelch the drama that the media created as it gradually destroyed the
credibility of the leading elected officer of the nation.
By the mid-seventies, benign tolerance characterized the moral content
of popular media. Yet as the influence of the political and moral liberalism of
the sixties declined, other factors shaped the content of popular culture:
economic changes, growing ethnic and class self-consciousness, demographic
changes, and the long-range, cumulative effects of the media revolution that
followed World War 11.
From the end of the sixties through 1980,the American economy grew by
fits and starts in a pattern distorted by recession, inflation, and intense
international competition. Limitations in the success of the economy meant
that adjustment of social inequities could not be accomplished merely by
increasing the available goods of society. Instead, limitation intensified
competition between special interest groups clamoring for compensatory
treatment and a fair share of the whole. White ethnic groups, religious sects,
150 American Quarterly
women, blacks, and gays all demanded attention. Each group succeeded in
turning the spotlight of the media on its special needs, but none could
dominate or shape national politics. This stalemate often found its way into
popular culture.
Technological advances, particularly in television, allowed a great deal
more individual choice in programming during the seventies. Cable television
began in earnest around 1972,and video cassettes became available in
the same year: both loosened the hold of networks over programming. This
gave each individual consumer more freedom, without, however,fundamentally
changing the nature of choice, since many of the new sources of
broadcast featured reruns or copies of standard network fare. In addition,
producers of popular culture were increasingly absorbed into conglomerate
ownership. Integrated ownership and production speeded the disintegration
of boundaries between various media until many movies, novelized films,
record releases, and television programs were planned and produced in the
same offices-and by the same committees-creating a culture of common
denominators and interchangeable parts.
Depite the rising costs and consolidation in television,film, recording,and
publishing, popular culture during the seventies still had crevices through
which unanticipated successes could slip. Independent film productions
such as Star Wars are a case in point. Moreover, amateurism flourished
particularly in documentary filmmaking. In general, however, high costs,
centralization, and the shrinking audience for youth culture diminished
some of the energy of the sixties. The high costs of live music production, for
example, helped stimulate the rise of disco; the central musical events that
occurred outdoors as rock concertsduring the sixties moved inside and onto
the dance floor with recorded music in the seventies.
The makeup of American audiences for popular culture also shaped the
direction of the seventies. The baby boom cohort during this ten-year span
aged accordingly; this graying of the popular culture audience,followed by a
much smaller and less self-conscious young generation gradually refocused
attention on more conservative lifestyles, yet not before restructured images
of families and sexual habits had been thoroughly explored by the media.
American filmsand television showsof the seventiesoften rejected marriage
as the central event of adolescent and adult life and broadened the list of
appropriate livingarrangements.Numerous examples of this can be found in
television soap operas in which every form of human and social problemand
living arrangement- appeared with regulnrity.
Producers of popular culture during the seventies became increasingly
conscious of the segmented audience to which they offered their products.
Whether they werejoggers,liberated women,housewives,apartment dwellers,
gourmets, or ethnic or religious groups, these audiences were earmarked by
interest, purchasing power, and taste. Magazines in particular were eager to
exploit this self-consciousness. General interest periodicals such as Look,
151Popular Culture
Life, and the Saturday Evening Post (althoughLife and the Saturday Evening
Post were begun again) all disappeared by the seventies to be replaced by
special interest journals devoted to apartment living, diet, single sports, etc.
Using the New York Times as a platform, magazines described the profile of
the readers they could deliver to a prospective client in full-page advertisements.
Thus even the audience could be transformed into a commodity.
Race and ethnicity were particularly sensitive areas of audience interest.
The highly charged, self-conscious atmosphere of the sixties became less
acrimonious in the seventies, but still electric with racial, sexual, and social
tension. Three of the most widely watched television events of the decade
exploited this tension and the interest in the racial and social origins of
American society.Three historical dramas,"Roots" (1977),"Holocaust" (1978),
and the serial showing of the film, "Gone with the Wind" (1976),attracted
immense audiences. Each one of these ethnic or regional pageants portrayed
what might be called founding myths of contemporary social groups. Each
authenticated and legitimated a form of special historical experience that
had a profound impact on contemporary society. Each group- American
blacks, Jews, and southerners-achieved certain claims upon the present
because of the transformation of their unique history into contemporary
popular culture.
In other television series and films, the same attention to diversity occurred
as ethnic groups, women, and other interest groups made public
claims to attention. While almost none of these dramatized confrontations
resolved themselves in social action, the repeated stress upon self-consciousness
and toleration underscored the diversity of the American population
and popular culture.
In part, this agreement to disagree evolved from the political confrontations
of the sixties. What began as counter culture was absorbed back into
the mainstream of popular culture. The enormous success of "Saturday
Night Live" illustrates this point. Beginning in 1975,this television show built
its audience on four foundations: political satire, the exploitation of in-jokes
about the drug culture of its audience, an acute sense of the direction of
popular music, and an acid wit directed against television itself. Woven
together with immense skill and played with refreshing enthusiasm, the show
gradually sank into sentimentalism, eventually parodying itself. Before the
original show folded, however, it had constructed a broad bridge for the
counter culture to move into the mainstream.
Other elements of the underground political culture of the sixties either
died out, which was the fate of most underground newspapers (theBerkeley
Barb ran from 1964to 1980),or were born again in new movements stressing
consumerism, natural life styles, or evangelical religion. Certainly most
young people did not turn from politics to religion, but the Jesus movement
of the early seventies and the conversion of a few significant youth leaders
like Rennie Davis linked ex-radicals to a rising tide of religious fundamen-
152 American Quarterly
talism. Conversely, the growing movement of fundamental Protestantism
absorbed some of the energy and concerns of the counter culture, including
its confrontation tactics and its emphasis upon personal witness. It also
reflected the energy and self-righteousness that had characterized sixties'
radicalism.
Radical feminism, too, helped shape popular culture in the seventies. The
woman's movement of the early seventies had enormous success in altering
the styles, subject matter, and language of popular culture, although at a
price. Manners, language, and images of women in the media changed to
accommodate women's liberation. Even "Charlie's Angels," one of the most
exploitative shows ever to appear on television, used independence and
women's new lifestyles as dramatic pegs upon which to hang traditional
portrayals of women as sex objects. In effect a version of women's liberation
that reduced freedomto libertarian sex,this showwas only the most extreme
in a group of programs that attemped to merge old and newer visions of
female roles into a saleable commodity.
With the decline of censorship and a rise in tolerance, other sexual
subcultures became a more explicit part of popular culture. The most
important of these,gaylife,deeply influencedthe fashions, dance,and music
of the seventies. Pornography, although never really a part of sexual
liberation-and perhaps its opposite-also emerged as part of acceptable
popular culture.Themost successful venture of this sortwas "Deep Throat,"
a low budget, slightly satiric hard-core pornographic film produced in 1973
which played in scores of legitimate theaters across the country. Its popularity
and acceptance were indirectly affirmed by the name "Deep Throat,"
given by Washington Post reporters to their secret source in uncovering the
Watergate conspiracy.
If any single factor helps explain the tolerant frankness of the seventies,it
is the tendency of the media to focusattention upon and absorb the novelties
for which it is constantly searching. With the decline of any explicit, external
censoring standards for popular culture, this power of the media to transformall
aspects of American behavior into popular culture became stronger.
Thus even revival religion, the electronic ministry, which purported to
oppose much of the new toleration, adopted the variety showformat and talk
show styles of television. Politics also came to depend upon the media's
ability to create celebrities who increasingly have replaced older, professional
politicans. These developments illustrate what Kenneth Tynan once
called the layered effects of modern mass media, which have created a
generation whose sense of place and time belongs not to lived experience,
but to film and television history. Perhaps this is one reason why Americans
chose a hero out of its media past for president in 1980.
Popular Culture
During the eighties popular culture will follow the same structural contours
as in previous decades,depending upon the demography and prosperity
of the consuming public, upon the desultory struggle of social groups to
control the media, and upon technological advances in communications.
Demography, of course, is predictable just as prosperity is not. Thus it is
likely that the continued aging of the population will exercise a stronger
influence upon the media, as the popularity of On Golden Pond demonstrates.
Problems of economic growth which sharpened class, ethnic, and sexual
tensions during the seventieshave continued to intensify during the eighties.
How they will be translated into popular culture is still uncertain, although
positive attitudes toward social equality seem to have diminished.
It is also uncertain which, if any,of the contending special interest groups
will be able most to influence the media. Already, the threat of a Moral
Majority boycott has cut into the sexual explicitness and perhaps the political
frankness of network television, forcing commercial television to rely
more and more on violence to attract audiences. Yet this censoring influence
still remains marginal and depends a great deal for its success upon what
happens in the American economy and in American politics.
Thisconnection between culture and politics should not be underestimated,
if only because politics has become so intertwined with the media. The
electronic media assault on politics is already an accomplished revolution.
Politics is now defined in terms of new categories: image-making, polling,
and fund-raising-all heavily computerized and placed in the hands of
experts.
Just as politics now relies increasingly upon communications technology,
advances in media technology have continued to effect popular culture. The
affordability of private media systems- home computers, video equipment,
and the like-will continue to undercut the old public mass media, particularly
movies and network television. If the workplace and employment
follow new information instruments into the home, this will accelerate an
already apparent trend toward the contraction of the sociability of American
cultural life. It will increase the segmentation and privatization of audiences.
In effect, popular culture can follow two basic routes. At this writing, it
appears that segmentation and privatization might prevail. Political culture
under the first two years of the Reagan Administration has been particularly
divisive. The attack on "big government" is one manifestation of a decline in
a senseof community. Sois the banal dispute over the virtues of rock and roll
versus disco music versus the imported nihilism of punk. In another sense,
this assult upon shared values has accounted for the successof two nighttime
154 American Quarterly
soap operas, "Falconcrest" and "Dallas." In both of these serials,the central
character is a single-minded,perversely narrow and self-interested capitalist
whose only duty is to self.Each iswilling to destroy family members and even
unravel the fabric of society to achieve power and private ends. Neither has
the remotest interest in community. Yet it is not clear that audiences view
such characters with much empathy. Other popular television soap operas
like "Hill Street Blues" express much the opposite sentiments. In the terrible
social disintegration that the police teams encounter, their commitment to
comraderie is strengthened.
This then, is probably the question that will concern much of the popular
culture of the eighties: will it express the disintegration of community or its
reestablishment? The answer, of course, can only be found in the larger
choices that society makes in the next few years.