Adam Channel

ENGL 1C - Essay 2
Due 10/1/07

Semantic Trickery
In his 2001 essay "The Tenth Muse" Simon Barzun makes the bold claim that "popular

culture" no longer exists in America and is disappearing elsewhere. His argument is one of

definition; he is not using "popular culture" in the common sense--that is, trends or ideas that are

emblematic of the times--he instead uses the term as though it meant "high cultured art that the

majority appreciates." In his essay he also presents a critical view of the separation of "high-

brow" and "low-brow" culture, or culture that is considered "civil" as opposed to "brutish." He

feels that this separation has caused much culture of value to be snubbed by intellectual elitists.

Ironically this critical view seems to apply perfectly to his own claim that "popular culture" is

disappearing. In this essay I will present a critical analysis of Barzun's view of popular culture

and contrast it with that that is commonly held. I will also examine Barzun's view that art is

disappearing from society.

Barzun fails to distinctly define what he views as popular culture throughout the essay,

but it is clear that his definition differs from what is popularly held. He uses the term popular

culture as though it meant "a cultured piece of work or collection of art that is popular, that is

representative of the people and can thereby speak for them." He wistfully speaks of Greece

during the Homeric Age, claiming that the Athenians raised on Homeric tales have a common

cultural fabric binding them together. Similarly he refers to England during the time of

Shakespeare. Yet how do these examples reflect that the common people had a unanimous

appreciation of them? He appears to be stereotyping the entirety of the populi. Upon critically

examining this "homogenous" Athenian culture, one would find that of the populous only a very
small minority were of the same cultural entity. History tells us that the majority of Greeks were

slaves and of the rest women were considered sub-human. Amongst the portion of males left we

also know that only a small amount of those had enough property to be counted as citizens. With

these restrictions in place the "Homeric Greeks" become the "Homeric Male-Aristocratic-Citizen

Greeks."

To prove that popular culture does not exist in the United States, Barzun sifts through

various artistic mediums present today. He claims "Clearly, in the modern demotic society there

is no art of and by the people." In a single paragraph he lists through music, literature, and

movies and tosses them aside saying that all cultural outlets today are catered to specific

sub-cultures--that variations within a genre are "like standardized products modified only to

compete within an industry." But what are his previous examples? Those that he credits as the

prior existence of "popular culture" are examples of isolated sub-cultures within the populace. To

compare the entirety of the ethnically fluid American population to the Greek elite and say

"popular culture" is disappearing is an irrational claim. To reiterate, popular culture as Barzun

defines it has always been specifically tailored towards the interests of a particular sub-culture,

today and in the past, be it through punk rock, or Greek theatre.

So what is popular culture really? The phrases common meaning would be "trends, ideas,

and habits that are representative of the time." American popular culture of today could be

broadly defined as consumerism, capitalism, and by the same schema; information-ism. Today

we socialize through MySpace, the market has become digital through E-Commerce, and we are

entertained by Reality TV. The contrast may seem disappointing, but one must bear in mind that

popular culture is not synonymous with fine art. Barzun's claim that commoners in any other age

are different than those today is entirely unfounded. It is true that most pop-culture is not
"cultured," but commoners today are just as those of yesteryears. Though the literacy rate may be

higher, there is still a broad distinction between those who are "cultured" and those who are not.

Barzun's original idea can be construed to be that the intellectual and cultural fiber of the

people is deteriorating. He claims this is due to a multitude of factors, urbanization,

mechanization, and poor education. His claim is not without a quality of veraciousness. It is

probably true that we don't have art being produced today that can be compared to that of

Shakespeare or Homer. Yet how often do these masterpieces come about? They are treasures of

humanity, not factory manufactured trash that can be spat out every few years. With the

hodgepodge of cultures present in America, and with the more efficient medias we have today, it

is hardly surprising that popular culture seems watered down and politically correct to the point

of seeming sycophantic. But that hardly means that the modern age is bereft of meaningful art--

to give examples here would be isolating the claim of this essay to my own appreciation of

culture, yet who can say they have never encountered art produced in their life time that they

could appreciate.

In conclusion, Barzun's essay boils down to the pedantic ramblings of a cranky old

intellectual. The essay is not completely lacking of meaningful content, but the essay is so poorly

construed that it is difficult to find. His original claim that what he calls "popular culture" is

disappearing would be better supported if had redefined the term in his opening rather than

tricking us through semantics. His claim would be better served if it were "meaningful high art is

disappearing from society and heres why." Yet even through the mire of urbanization and the

watering down of cultures in the American melting pot, despite what Barzun says, the modern

age manages to produce art that is appreciable. Not comparable with Shakespeare perhaps, but

such art comes about very rarely, and the modern age has not been without its examples of
greatness.