As a general definition, culture is something that can be defined as a shared knowledge,

values and beliefs within the members of society (Cohen, 2020). It is precisely this method of
thinking that ‘culture’ becomes contested since there is no dominant definition of what
culture should be and what isn’t culture. This essay attempts to define culture from
Conservatism, the British Cultural Studies (BCS) and Adorno and why the definitions of
‘Culture’ are contested.

I
Arnold (1869) defines high culture as “the disinterested endeavour after man’s perfection”.
High culture is more commonly defined as a culture for the elite where its interests are based
on the “high arts”. Arnold defines this as visual arts (especially painting), traditional forms of
the performing arts and even music from the classical era (Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart) High
Culture is essentially these great works of arts and the values they embody. On the other
hand, Low Culture (a derogatory term) for popular culture typically involves mass produced
items (CD’s DVD’s and social media). The main difference between High and Low Culture is
that, High culture caters for the Elitist in society. A very select few in the high class of society
who take part in exclusivity when it comes to their values and their knowledge. Low or
Popular Culture is aimed at the working class. Low Culture appeals to the very basic and
simplest of human needs. High Culture is therefore objectively defined and absolute and in
contrast, low (popular culture) is mediocre and mundane entertainment by uneducated
individuals. Arnold and Leavis both share some similarities on their respective views of
culture. Arnold claims the best which has been thought and said when it comes to culture in
society. His view involves profit gaining without taking into account the future of society.
Therefore, the solution would be to educate the masses. Leavis (1930) maintains a
discernment and appreciation of the arts and literature which is dependent on the language
and that there has to be a cultural context. Leavis argues that there is an organic community
with a living culture (Leavis and Thompson 1933: 1). During the Pre-industrial society, there
is a minority culture of elitism (educated elites) and an authentic and common folk culture or
the working class. Contrary to this, industrialisation replaced this with inauthentic mass
produced culture and as a result, the masses have become alienated from their own culture
(Cohen, 2012 p13). Thus, commerce is a threat to culture. From this, there are two critiques
about Arnold and Leavis: Culture is static and measurable category and cultural
conservatism is elitist (Cohen, 2012). Shakespearean plays were often regarded as High
Culture. Yet, Shakespeare also wrote for the masses. This suggests that Culture is in a state
of flux – it is always moving and evolving with respect to time. Cultural conservatism is elitist
and only a select few can testify and comprehend what high culture actually is. However,
because Culture moves with respect to time, questions such as who defines culture are
ultimately answered by those in society who have power (elites). As a result, there is a
struggle for power in terms of being able to agree collectively on what really culture is. There
is a dominance by the elites over those in the working class and over others.
 II
BCS essentially aims to challenge the notion that the authenticated and elitist culture of the
high class and the unrefined, industrialised and mass produced culture of the masses does
not define what culture is Williams and Hall (1988). Hall argues that lived experiences that
are interpreted and defined are far better indicators of what culture is as opposed to the
elitist “high art” culture of Arnold and Leavis. Williams (2009) argues that the primary
argument is that the mannerisms, behaviour and lifestyle of the members in society are the
primary definers of what a culture is. The BCS takes on a Marxian approach with a focus on
hegemony. BCS concluded that the mass culture played a pivotal role in integrating the
working class into an already existing capitalist society (Holm and Duncan, 2018). Thus, a
new form of media culture and consumer culture formed a new capitalist hegemony (Keller,
n.d).

III
Marx and Engels (1848) have this idea that each age has always been the ideas of the ruling
class. In the 19th Century, the first industrial revolution happened in the UK. This industrial
revolution promoted the growth of a capitalist society in Europe. Alongside this, the ideas
capitalism saw an entry from all fronts into our lives. Gramsci’s Hegemony is essentially a
form of control which is exercised through society’s superstructure. Our civil society plays an
integral role in class domination (Bates, 1975). Adorno (1930) utilises Marxism and
psychoanalysis in developing his theory. His primary driver was Nazi propaganda. Adorno’s
theory encompassed Western Culture Hegemony of which this was influenced by the
experience of Nazi propaganda and utilised Marxism. Adorno utilises Pseudo-Individualism
where the definition of authentic culture typically seeks to challenge the audience and that
the culture of authenticity is one that presents a level of seriousness and a challenge.
Adorno argues that mass produced culture was predictable, standardised and with no sense
of originality. Adorno believes that highly standardised commodities that predisposes
authoritarianism and conformism ultimately dominate the western culture. Culture takes
place of economics and production and is the main science between hegemonic rule of the
working classes against the ruling classes. Cultural Industry disseminates ruling class
ideologies. Working Class – filled with cultural ‘dupes’ of the culture industry (Barkers, 2004).

There many definitions of Culture. There is no one right way of defining what Culture is.
Arnold and Leavis defines culture through the definitions of High and Low Culture on the
premise that culture is static and does not change or move with respect to time. BCS
challenges the idea that elitist culture of the high class and the unrefined, industrialised and
mass produced culture of the masses does not define what culture is Williams and Hall
(1988). This is argued by Williams who suggests that behaviour, mannerism and lifestyle
play an integral role in defining what culture is. Adorno approaches Culture in such a way
that hegemonic rule of the working classes disseminates ruling class ideologies (Barkers,
2004). It is difficult to define culture and even more difficult to pinpoint what culture actually.
This is precisely the reason why culture is contested.

Bibliography:
Barker, C. (2004). The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Bates, T. R. (1975). Gramsci and the theory of hegemony. Journal of the History if Ideas.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708933

Cohen, B. M. (2012). Being Cultural. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Holm, N., & Duncan, P. (2018). Introduction: cultural studies, marxism and the exile of
aesthetics. Open Cultural Studies, 2(1), 746-757. doi:10.1515/culture-2018-0067

Kellner, D. (n.d.). The Frankfurt School and British Cultural Studies: The Missed Articulation.
Retrieved from https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell16.htm