The Cult of Midcult
This brief critique by William Deresiewicz is one of the most relevant examples of cultural 'meta-narrative' that I've read in quite a while. It offers a quick paraphrase of Dwight Macdonald's 1960 essay "Masscult and Midcult," which categorizes all of American culture into three classes: 'Masscult' - pop culture, kitsch, or the more recent 'entertainment' (e.g. Kardashians, Fifty Shades of Grey; Transformers); 'Midcult' -- Masscult pretending to be highbrow by injecting perfume into a pile of shit (e.g. Oprah's book club; Tree of Life); and High Culture, which is the truly worthwhile and avant-garde (e.g. we don't currently seem to have any).
The author (and I shall call him 'the author,' because otherwise I will type myself into tangles trying to rewrite his surname [*ahem* excuse me, sir-name] a dozen times), however, adds a fourth level of 'culture' which he names the 'upper middle brow'. It falls somewhere between Midcult and High Culture, presenting itself in examples such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, The New Yorker, and (in his opinion) Wes Anderson. These are genuinely clever, witty, and intelligent cultural progeny, possessing of some real value. Yet they lack true excellence. They are merely satirical, reflecting our culture back to us with some level of criticism and humor; making us laugh at ourselves in a comfortable manner; but failing, ultimately, to introduce a level of real skepticism or originality. In the end, they just reinforce our preexisting ideas and prejudices.
The author also mentions a critique from Louis Menand, who wrote the introduction to a recent collection of Macdonald's essays, and who pointed out Bob Dylan, the movie Bonnie and Clyde, the Beatles, and Andy Warhol as examples that broke Macdonald's model by combining pop culture and high art...much in the way that the author seems to think The Daily Show does. The only difference between their opinions seems to be that Louis Menand thinks his examples break the model, while the author thinks his examples only indicate an extra strata of culture. In my opinion, neither is true. They are all examples of Midcult. As the ranks of college-educated people increase, and as the 'elite' comes to include the upper middle class, so Midcult must also include the upper middle brow. Perhaps this can be thought of as an expansion to the level of Midcult, but I think it would be more accurate to say that the very definition of 'mid', which implies a parallel to middle class, has changed. The 'mid' of the 1960's was not the same 'mid' of the 1990's, and that 'mid' is not the same as in the 2010's. Every generation, every decade even, will have some new cultural progeny, which possess varying levels of quality. That does not mean they are approaching true High Culture.
The more pertinent question is: 'Who gets to decide what is Midcult and what is High Culture?' These are, of necessity, vague, general, and simplistic categories. They do a better job illustrating an author's feeling about his level of 'cultured-ness' in relation to everyone else than in providing an actual scale of quality. They provide a cultural 'meta-narrative,' a general framework that provides fuel for critical thinking. They cannot give specific judgements, as their subject matter relies upon the old adage: 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' Who -- in the cases of Dylan, the Kardashians, The Colbert Report, or Wes Anderson -- gets to decide what is actually beautiful, what is ugly, and what is plain, but covered in makeup? Everyone has a different opinion about what they like and why they like it. I, for example, find things which are of truly high quality very intimidating, and I only like dealing with them on a limited basis, as I find the implosion of knowledge into my brain exhausting and often confusing. Therefore, I do not often read Foucault or James Joyce, even though I believe them to be among the best examples of High Culture, but I often watch movies such as the Tree of Life (although I have not actually seen it) because it is just questioning enough to make me feel like my brain is involved, but not inquiring enough to move me from my comfort zone. IMHO, dealing with High Culture is like marathon training for your brain. You have to work up to it, and it requires no little amount of dedication and time. Even then, only those with real talent can run it in under 3 hours.
Another thing which struck me was how similar this article was to a recent opinion essay that I read on Al Jazeera about the political power of memes. Memes are essentially a way for the upper middle class elite to communicate in a witty, satirical manner by posting clever comments on pictures of cats, dogs, politicians, cars, and random people with funny facial expressions. They make extensive use of the past 'history' of that meme, its origin, and its evolution into whatever version you happen to see. Knowing this history, origin, and evolution is part of what makes the meme so relevant. People who understand it (did you get my allusion to 'sir' above? If you didn't, no worries; it was weak.) get the joke. They laugh at how clever it was, feel happy with themselves for understanding, and move on. It is a way for people to tickle their brains without actually giving them a good work out. It also underlines a certain amount of exclusivity for those who are pop-culture/current events/in-the-case-of-the-recent-election,-politically savvy. I enjoy them. I would assume the author enjoys them, since he likes the Daily Show, which frequently references them. Most college students enjoy them. And most upper-middle class technocrats who haunt the winding corridors of Reddit, 4chan, or 9gag enjoy them. They are, in fact, a perfect example of Midcult.
The thing that scares me is: Why are we so worried about -- and why have I spent this whole blog post talking about -- the various levels and diminutions of Midcult when our current production of High Culture is almost nil...to the extent that I couldn't think of any contemporary examples? If we have lost High Culture while only gaining a 'higher' level of Midcult, then American culture is seriously in trouble.
