Sociology of Popular Culture: The Other Side

of a Definition

By David F. Gillespie

One of the first requirements in developing a new discipline,

or in setting apart a common area of interest t o be studied by a
number of disciplines is t o specify what is to be known. One of
the most difficult and rudimentary steps in this process is the
construction of a definition. A definition must identify all the
salient aspects comprising a given area, and at the same time differentiate it from other areas. That is, the observation of any
given element or event must be unambiguously identifiable as either
belonging to the defined area or as not belonging t o it. This establishes one common point of reference for scholars studying the
phenomena in question. A definition, however, refers primarily
to the content of the chosen sphere. Of equal importance, in terms
of specifying what is to be known, is an understanding of how this
content is being looked at. For example, a book might be seen as
an entertainment, wall adornment, conversation piece, status symbol, means of escape, working tool, etc. The other side of a definition refers t o the viewpoint employed in observing the content
of a given field.
The viewpoint or perspective provides the scholar with a consistent means of interpreting the phenomena within a defined space.
The various aspects which together make up ones perspective include

SOCIOLOGY OF POPULAR CULTURE

293

all of the concepts relating to the area, the relations between these
concepts, the assumptions underlying the relations, as well as the
rules, methods, and theories guiding the acquisition of knowledge
about the phenomena under observation. However, ones perspective is not simply a summation of the various aspects constituting its
definition. It is, rather, inextricably bound with the ways in which
these various aspects have been used historically. Thus, the perspective is not a rigid inflexible set of blinders; quite the contrary, it
represents a way of looking at the world, legitimated by past and
present social support, which enables an observer to make sense out
of a given phenomenon within a certain arena of focus.
The kind of explanation that results from the observation of
any given phenomenon, depends upon the viewpoint that is guiding
the observer. The implication is that scholars from the various
disciplines observing the same phenomena will each offer different,
yet not necessarily conflicting, explanations for the occurrence of
some item within a given realm. For example, a psychologist might
explain the occurrence of a particular art form as an expression of
the artists emotions; while a sociologist might explain the same art
form on the basis of its appeal to a particular segment of the population. Thus, there are two aspects encountered in explaining a
given phenomenon: (a) the content definition, and (b) the perspective employed. This distinction is particularly important in considering
an interdisciplinary topic, like popular culture.
The significance of this distinction can not be overstressed in
an area as rich and diverse in content as popular culture. It suggests
that even if popular culture were concisely defined,* there could
be no guarantee that knowledge about popular culture would rapidly
accumulate. John G . Cawelti alluded t o this problem with his statement that . . . humanists and social scientists still lack a common
conceptual framework through which they can exchange their ins i g h t ~ . , ,A
~ clear recognition of the perspective through which an
explanation is being presented may go a long way toward facilitating
efficient conceptualization of one anothers insights. If that is true,
then the solutioii to the problems of interdisciplinary communication
may not be quite as forebidding as that suggested by Cawelti, . . .t o
find scholars with sufficient competence in several areas . . . y y 4 Indeed,
there is no reason to suspect that given acceptance of the relatively
noncompetitive nature of different explanations (when they are linked

294

JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE

to different viewpoints), a solid foundation to the study of popular

culture may proceed unhampered from the beginning.
This essay focuses upon the problem of interdisciplinary communication as it is related t o the differing viewpoints contributing
t o explanations of popular culture. A preliminary step in conjunction with a content definition is t o ascertain what it is that each
contributing discipline can offer in terms of accounting for the
various aspects of popular culture. The assumption underlying
this contention is that the initial explanations explaining popular
culture must be distinguished by reference t o the particular perspective employed, otherwise, confusing and contradictory explanations will ensue. The current classificatory confusions characterizing
the social sciences in general seem to support this contention. It is
being suggested that the study of popular culture can avoid the
taxonomical problems plaguing the social sciences by clearly explicating the particular perspectives that are contributing to the explanations of popular culture.
We can look at some potential problems in popular culture by
examining the confusions that arise whenever a discipline is characterized by explanations deriving from different perspectives. A field
closely related to popular culture, the sociology of art, may be used
to illustrate the ambiguities and misunderstandings which result from
attempts t o explain art from two perspectives at the same time. Of
course, the following discussion is directed by the perspective of a
sociologist.
Vytautas Kavolis states: . . [t] hat the main sociological
function of artistic style is the shaping or emotional reenforcement
of general tendencies to perceive situations of action in certain structured ways, [and] . . . that artistic content has the function of helping
man to develop an emotional envolvement, [but then] . . . a change
in the composition of the art public, in the operations of the art market,
or in the amount of artistic consumption by political or religious institutions can be expected to produce modifications in art style . . .6
Kavolis has sufficiently transposed the socioligical and psychological
perspectives. The reader of these passages may interpret style as a
determinant of emotional reenforcement, or he may consider style
as an objectified equivalent of emotional reenforcement. In any
case, there can be little doubt that emotional reenforcement,

SOCIOLOGY OF POPULAR CULTURE

295

6 L perception, and most probably style are the domain of the

psychologist. If content has the function of helping man to
develop an emotional involvement, then it too may be best accounted for by a psychologist. However, if a change in the composition of the art public, [etc.] produces modifications in art
style, then we shall admit the presence of a sociological explanation.
Hugh Ddziel Duncan subsumes his sociology of art under a
sociological model of communication. The development of this
model follows the perspective of Kenneth Burke. Describing Burkes
Dramatism Duncan states: . . . [h] e argues that if we regard
man as a symbol-using animal we must stress symbolism as a motive
in any discussion of social behavior. That is, the kind of symbols we
have, who can use them, where, how, and why-these do not reflect
motives, they are motives. This is a clearly psychological statement
and requires no further comment in terms of the perspective being
used here.
However, in an article concerned explicitly with the sociology
of art, Duncan maintains that art offers mankind ways of reducing
status tensions t o manageable proportion^."^ Here we are again
confronted with a split perspective, status is an acknowledged
sociological concept; while tensions would be most generally
accounted for in psychological terms. When the two are employed
in conuunction, a variety of interpretations becomes possible. We
might interpret status tensions to mean the difference between
spoken statuses and statuses actually acted out; or, status tensions
might mean divergent action statuses between different social positions; or again, status tensions might mean that personality conflicts are reduced through an identification with spoken statuses as
represented in various art types; or perhaps the reduction of status
tensions is referring to art as a kind of therapy. Whatever Duncans
intended meaning, it is clear that the syndactyl application of concepts from different perspectives provides the reader with an opportunity t o become mislead or confused.
The tendency t o employ two or more perspectives in the explanation of a given event may be associated with a hesitation on the part
of scholars t o recognize the value of an explanation that accounts for
something less than the complete phenomenon. This tendency may
be linked to the antiquated, but still popular large scale historical

296

JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE

explanations of the nineteenth century theorists, e.g. Marx, Spencer,

Comte, etc. This period was characterized by all encompassing,
comprehensive systems of explanation. The theorists of this
period were economists, historians, psychologists, sociologists, etc.
all in one. Explanations of any merit today are characterized by
a relative precision and empirical demonstrability, which of necessity narrows ones focus.
The approach towards precision is not provincial, nor does it
deny the interdisciplinary nature of the study of popular culture,
it only asserts that inter-disciplinary must be read as different
disciplines contributing to the explanation of a central topic, not
as a freeforall, with sociologists becoming pseudo-psychologists, and
psychologists becoming pseudo-sociologists. What then is the particular strength of a sociological contribution to the study of popular
culture? It should be emphasized that the particular aspects stressed
In the following discussion in no way exclude the other aspects as
being irrelevant or unimportant, it only acknowledges that the
sociologist by his training and perspective is equipped to handle
certain features and not others.
The sociological perspective is concerned with elements of
popular culture that are social. Behavior is social when it may be
said to influence or to be influenced by other persons behavior.
This is an externally observable set of behaviors, which by perspective excludes motivations, intentions, perception, etc., and asserts
the primacy of the social environment. The consequence of this
perspective is that the primary focal point for a sociological investigation into popular culture places its emphasis upon the popular
:ulture publics. This means that a given feature of popular culture,
e.g. a particular kind of painting, humor, music, etc. is viewed as
attaining significance as a result of its acceptance by a certain public,
and not due to the desires, wishes, or motivations of some major
media distributor.
To claim that the media disseminated a particular item because
of a profit motive is one kind of explanation; on the other hand, to
indicate that this same item became popular due to its status enhancing
capacity (there are, of course, many other reasons for acceptance) is
quite another thing. Yet, both may be correct, each based upon a
different perspective and set of assumptions.

SOCIOLOGY OF POPULAR CULTURE

297

The training of a sociologist includes the use and development

of techniques designed to get at social behavior.. Two techniques
of particular relevance for the study of popular culture are the sample
survey and the comparative method. The sample survey provides a
means of obtaining a descriptive account of large and loosely connected
publics, such as those characterizing popular culture. The sample survey
is drawn in a mathematically precise manner, which permits the investigator t o consider a relatively small and manageable sample of persons
as representative of the whole public.*
Considering the expansive range of television coverage, magazine
distribution, etc. the utility of representative samples describing the
particular characteristics of various popular culture publics (or creators,
performers, etc.) is clear. That is, rather than having to rely on information volunteered by individuals who for one reason or another are
easily accessible, scholars who are supplied with a descriptive account
of a whole public can seek knowledge about the entire range of
persons participating in a certain form of popular culture. For example,
the percentage of different occupations, ages, educational levels, etc.
represented in the public of a selected cartoon strip would tell us a
great deal about the significance attached to that form of popular
culture. Further, this type of information provides a foundation
for comparative studies.
Comparative studies do exactly what the label implies, they
compare the similarities and differences between various publics in
terms of some common referen~e.~To illustrate, a comparative
study might ask the question: Do the people possessing one characteristic (e.g., certain occupations, geographic location, age, ad infinitum)
differ in the meanings that they attribute to a particular cartoon strip
as opposed t o those who do not possess this characteristic? By comparing these two categories of people in relation to the meanings that
each gives to the cartoon strip, we answer the question.
Yet, given a difference between the two categories of people,
the answer is generally accompanied by an explanation, i.e., the
reasons why such a difference exists. It is this point of explanation
where confusion, misunderstandings, and argumentation generally
arise. It is the contention of this paper that much of the turmoil
surrounding explanations is due to a lack of standardized conceptions
in interpreting phenomena. One way t o improve this situation is to
clearly communicate the perspective that is being used when explaining

298

JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE

a given phenomenon.
However, whether or not agreement can be achieved on a given
interpretation, the knowledge that different meanings are associated
with different attributes of the social structure is still of great value
in studying popular culture. That is, the emergence, popularity, and
decline of certain elements of popular culture are viewed in a specific
context. In brief, it would give us a more complete picture of the
~ this
phenomena subsumed under the rubric of popular ~ u l t u r e . On
basis, the problems associated with confused perspectives would become less a matter of polemics and more a matter of empirical demonstrability.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the interests and kinds of
predictions that a scholar is interested in determine the way he is
going to look at his data. What has been suggested here is that students of popular culture must explicate with well defined precision
the way in which they are looking at their data. In this way, confusions that might arise from explanations deriving from different
perspectives can be avoided; thus lessening possible interdisciplinary
disputes on the one hand, and increasing the power of popular culture
explanations on the other. Both of these aspects imply success for
the study of popular culture.
NOTES

*I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments and criticism of

R. Serge Denisoff, Norman L. Friedman, and Franz Adler to an earlier draft
of this paper.
k f . Garvin McCain and Erwin M. Segal, The Came ofscience (Belmont,
California: BrookslCole Publishing Company, 1969).
2Cf. John G. Cawelti, Popular Culture Programs (Pamphlet distributed
by Popular Culture Association, Bowling Green: Bowling Green University
Press, 1970), p. 1. Also see Ray B. Browne, Popular Culture: Notes Toward
a Definition, Popular Culture and Curricula, Ray B. Browne and Ronald J.
Ambrosetti, eds. (Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press,
1970), p. 11.
k a w e l t i , op. cit., p. 3.
41bid., p. 3.
5It is perhaps worth noting, that if the sociology of art with an elite
nature circumscribing its explanations has been plagued by ambiguity and
confusion, then popular culture with its diversified composition must be
particularly alerted to this type of problem.

SOCIOLOGY OF POPULAR CULTURE

~~~~

299

%ytautas Kavolis, Artistic Expression: A Sociological Analysis (Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1968), pp. 5-6.
7The question of whether or not style is a legitimate concept for the
sociologist focuses upon the difficulty of defining style in such a way as to
ensure that the confqurations one has in mind will be identified in the same
way by everyone in the population. To my knowledge, no such definition of
art style has yet been designed; that is, a definition meeting the criteria of
mutually exclusive categories.
8Hugh Dalziel Duncan, Communication and Social Order (London:
Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 114.
9Hugh Ddziel Duncan, Sociology of Art, Literature, and Music: Social
Contexts of Symbolic Experience, Modern Sociological Theory in Continuity
und Change, Howard Becker and Alvin Boskoff, eds. (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1957), p. 497.
l0Cf. Franz Adler, Hacia una Sociologia del Comportanmiento Creador,
Revkta Mexicana de Sociologia, XXVII (Mayo-Agosto, 1965), p. 559.
llFranz Adler, A Unit Concept for Sociology, The Americanlournal
of Sociology, LXV (January), p. 360.
12Cf. Angus Campbell and George Katona, The Sample Survey: A
Technique for Social Science Research, Research Methods in the Behavioral
Sciences, LeDn Festinger and Daniel Katz, eds. (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1953), pp. 15-55, for a detailed discussion on the strengths and
weaknesses of this method.
13Cf. Hanz Zeisel, Say It With Figures (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1947), pp. 175-189.
14Cf. R. Serge Denisoff, The Age of Rock: Sounds of the American
Cultural Revolution, etc.,]ournal of Popular Culture, 111 (Spring, 1970), p.
858.