The negative impact of mass culture on society. Consequences of the spread of mass culture

Origin time popular culture– 1870 (a law on universal literacy was passed in Great Britain).

IN further development popular culture contributed to:

1) in 1895 - the invention of cinema;

2) in the middle of the twentieth century. - the emergence of pop music. Society is a unity of majority and minority. Mass - a lot of people without any special merits.

A man of the masses is one who does not feel in himself any gift or difference from everyone else. A minority is a group of people whose goal is to serve a higher norm. Literary products are in great demand in popular culture and fiction novels. Cinema and radio played a decisive role in the formation of mass culture, since cinema is the foundation aesthetic principles mass culture. He developed ways to attract viewers, the main thing being the cultivation of illusions. A special quality of mass culture is the ability to relieve the consumer of any intellectual effort, paving for him a short path to pleasure.

Signs of mass culture:

1) serial nature of the product;

2) primitivization of life and relationships between people;

3) entertainment, fun, sentimentality;

4) naturalistic image certain scenes;

5) cult strong personality, the cult of success.

Positive sides popular culture:

1) a wide range of genres and styles;

2) meeting the demands of many segments of society.

Negative aspects of popular culture:

1) mass culture depends on ideological politics;

2) is of an entertaining nature;

3) a small number of works raise the question of the purpose and meaning of life, its values;

4) not all works are made at a high professional level and have aesthetic value;

5) forms a mass worldview with uncritical beliefs and views.

Elite culture stands in opposition to mass culture, the main task of which is to preserve in culture creativity, shape values ​​and create new aesthetic forms. The creative elite is a dynamic socio-culture of education, small in number but influential. These are active, brightly gifted people, capable of creating new forms. Everything they create is frighteningly new, breaks existing stereotypes and rules, and is perceived by society as something hostile.

Elite culture diverse, multidirectional, with a high percentage of complex experiments. It generates both discovery and motivation, but only it is capable of generating something new.

Mass culture does not recognize this elitist type of culture, denying it elitism and culture, and evaluates it as unprofessionalism, inhumanity, and lack of culture. Mass culture is a special phenomenon; it has its own laws of the emergence and development of forms. She prefers monotony and repetition and has selective memory. However, mass culture is an obligatory component of any cultural-historical process; it has its own laws.

Classical culture is the average between elite and mass culture. In terms of the method of creation, classical culture is elitist, but in the process of development it acquired mass characteristics.

1. Positive aspects
First, popular culture is “democratic” because it appeals to all people without distinction of nation, class, level of poverty or wealth.
Secondly, mass culture seems to compensate for the emotional deficit that is increasingly present in our lives, because it (mass culture) is of an entertaining nature. Every person has the right, after a difficult week of work, to come, for example, to the same cinema and have fun from the heart, laugh at some American comedy that does not have much meaning and belongs in all respects to mass culture. People have every right not only to “work with their brains”, but also to simply have fun.
And thirdly, thanks modern means mass communication many works of art with high artistic value. So on television we have the opportunity to watch films that were made in the last century, some kind of performance or concert... On the Internet we can find a lot of really interesting and useful things - a book or a reproduction of a painting famous artist.
We can also add that, thanks to mass culture, today the elite is becoming accessible. You don’t have to go to the theater, but go on the Internet and find the necessary music or production, information. Previously, the majority of the population did not have such an opportunity. And no matter how you look at it, the elite remains. And it is she who directs mass culture in the right direction, promotes what is profitable.

2. Negative aspects.
On the other hand, mass culture is aimed at producing " mass man", borrowing his thoughts from radio and television programs, advertising, and glossy magazines. By borrowing thoughts and patterns of behavior, a person becomes a simple performer of given roles with an atrophied personality, i.e. the person becomes depersonalized.
People don’t want to think, they don’t want to not only write something of their own, but also just read. A person no longer expresses himself in anything, but only consumes what is ready. Mass culture is aimed at simplifying society. Everything is simpler and simpler, more and more monotonous. Under the influence of mass culture, not only individual people are depersonalized, but also the relationships between them. People are increasingly communicating over the Internet, writing letters over the Internet, getting married over the Internet without leaving home, ordering groceries, and so on. But it is very important for people to look into each other’s eyes when talking in order to understand what each of them is. Now, unfortunately, this is disappearing.
Mass culture products impose certain norms and values, while actively influencing human psychology. It is as if a person becomes a “captive” of this culture, and no one tries to get out of this captivity. Mass culture, and in particular, TV series, talk shows, and various Internet sites take up too much free time modern man, they just brazenly “steal” it!
But, if you think about it, there would be no mass culture without the masses themselves. Nowadays, people are truly dependent on mass culture. They themselves can’t imagine their life without her.
“Mass culture” turns people into gray, faceless masses and instills in us simplified patterns and stereotypes of behavior..

Popular culture in modern society plays important role. On the one hand, it facilitates and, on the other hand, simplifies the understanding of their elements. This is a contradictory and complex phenomenon, despite the characteristic simplicity that the products of mass culture possess.

Mass culture: history of origin

Historians have not found a common point at which their opinions about the exact time of occurrence of this phenomenon could converge. However, there are the most popular provisions that can explain the approximate period of the emergence of this type of culture.

1. A. Radugin believes that the prerequisites for mass culture existed, if not at the dawn of humanity, then certainly during the time when the book “The Bible for the Beggars,” which was intended for a wide audience, was widely distributed.
2. Another situation implies the later emergence of mass culture, where its origins are connected with European At this time, detective, adventure and adventure novels became widespread due to their large circulation.
3. IN literally, according to A. Radugin, it originated in the USA at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. He explains this by the emergence new form arrangement of life - massification, which was reflected in almost all spheres: from political and economic to everyday life.

Based on this, we can assume that the impetus for the emergence of mass culture was the capitalist view and mass production, which should have been realized on the same scale. In this regard, the phenomenon of stereotyping has become widespread. Sameness and stereotypes are the striking main characteristics of mass culture, which have spread not only to everyday objects, but also to views.

Mass culture is closely connected with the process of globalization, which is carried out mainly through the media. This is especially evident in modern stage. One of bright examples- yoga. Yogic practices arose in ancient times, and Western countries had nothing to do with this. However, with the development of communication, international exchange of experience began to occur, and yoga was accepted by Western people, beginning to be introduced into their culture. This has negative characteristics because a Westerner is unable to understand the depth and meaning that Indians understand when they practice yoga. Thus, a simplified understanding of a foreign culture occurs, and phenomena that require in-depth understanding are simplified, losing their value.

Mass culture: signs and main characteristics

• It implies a superficial understanding that does not require specific knowledge and is therefore accessible to the majority.
• Stereotyping is the main feature of the perception of products of this culture.
• Its elements are based on emotional unconscious perception.
• She operates with average linguistic semiotic norms.
• It has an entertaining focus and manifests itself, to a greater extent, in an entertaining form.

Modern mass culture: “pros” and “cons”

IN currently it has a number of disadvantages and positive features.

For example, this one allows for close collaboration large group members of society, which improves the quality of their communication.

Stereotypes generated by mass culture, if they are based on a true classification, help a person perceive a large flow of information.

Among the shortcomings is the simplicity cultural elements, profanation of foreign cultures and a penchant for remakes (remaking once created and recognized elements of art into new way). The latter leads to the assumption that mass culture is not able to create something new, or is capable, but in small quantities.

Positive and Negative influence mass culture on society.

To begin with, I would like to expand on the very concept of mass culture.

“Mass culture” (English: mass culture), in philosophy and sociology, a concept that generally expresses the state of bourgeois culture since the mid-20th century. This concept characterizes the features of production cultural values in modern industrial society and mass consumption, i.e. subordination to it as one’s goal (mass production of culture is understood by analogy with the conveyor belt industry).

In my opinion, mass culture has a number of characteristics that influence people: entertainment, funnyness, sentimentality of comic books, popular book and magazine publications; focus on the subconscious, instincts - the thirst for possession, a sense of ownership, national and racial prejudices, the cult of success, the cult of a strong personality; POSITIVE INFLUENCE

The most important, if not the defining, feature of “mass society” is “mass culture.”

Responding to the general spirit of the times, it, unlike the social practice of all previous eras, from about the middle of our century has become one of the most profitable sectors of the economy and even receives appropriate names: “entertainment industry”, “commercial culture”, “pop culture”, “ leisure industry”, etc. By the way, the last of the given designations reveals another reason for the emergence of “mass culture” - the emergence of an excess of free time and “leisure” among a significant layer of working citizens. People increasingly have a need to “kill time.” “Mass culture” is designed to satisfy it, naturally for money, which manifests itself primarily in the sensory sphere, i.e. in all types of literature and art. Particularly important channels for the general democratization of culture are last decades cinema, television and, of course, sports (in its purely spectator part) have become, gathering huge and not too discriminating audiences, driven only by the desire for psychological relaxation.

To fulfill its function - to relieve severe work stress - “mass culture” must be at least entertaining; addressed to people often with insufficiently developed intellectual principles, it largely exploits such areas of the human psyche as the subconscious and instincts. All this corresponds to the prevailing theme of “mass culture”, which receives large profits from the exploitation of such “interesting” topics that are understandable to all people as love, family, career, crime and violence, adventure, horror, etc. It is curious and psychotherapeutically positive that, in general, “mass culture” is life-loving, shuns truly unpleasant or depressing plots for the audience, and the corresponding works usually end with a happy ending. It is not surprising that, along with the “average” person, one of the consumers of such products is the pragmatically minded part of young people, not burdened by life experience, who have not lost optimism and still think little about the fundamental problems of human existence.

Popular culture is able today to play and positive role, introducing the masses to the most complex spiritual and moral problems in an adapted form. But will an individual abandon further searches for cultural musical values, or will be content with the acquired surrogates of mass culture - this directly depends on the individual himself. An exceptional role here belongs to education, artistic and aesthetic education.

NEGATIVE INFLUENCE

Mass culture, especially with its strong commercialization, can displace both high and folk cultures.

Many Russians, and again, primarily young people, are characterized by a lack of ethnocultural or national self-identification; they cease to perceive themselves as Russians and lose their Russianness. The socialization of youth occurs either on the traditional Soviet or on the Western model of education, in any case, non-national. Russian folk culture (traditions, customs, rituals) is perceived by most young people as an anachronism. The lack of national self-identification among Russian youth precisely leads to the easier penetration of Westernized values ​​into the youth environment.

In many ways, the youth subculture simply repeats and duplicates the television subculture. It should be noted here that since the early 1990s. mass culture in its screen and television forms is becoming increasingly negative. For example, of the 100 films most popular in Leningrad video salons, 52% had all the features of action films, 14 horror films, 18 karate films. At the same time, according to film experts, there was not a single film that was distinguished by artistic and aesthetic value, and only 5% had certain artistic merits. The repertoire of cinemas consists of 80-90% foreign films.

No less Negative consequences can also be noted in the development of musical culture. Such a type of mass culture as rock music was first banned at the official level in our country, and then just as immoderately exalted and idealized. Why speak out against the rock music that is associated with folk traditions, traditions of political and art song? There are also trends such as punk rock, heavy metal, etc., which undoubtedly have a countercultural, vandalistic character. Many musical styles are characterized by syndromes of pessimism, motives of death, suicide, fear and alienation. The loss of humanistic content occurs in rock music due to the distortion of the natural human voice with all sorts of wheezes and squeals, deliberately broken by mocking intonations, the replacement of male voices with effeminate ones, and vice versa.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes towards mass culture are most often ambiguous: they arrogantly despise it, express concern about its onslaught, and in the milder version treat it condescendingly, but no one has yet avoided contact with it.

From the above, we can conclude what, mass culture- this is the culture of the masses; culture intended for public consumption; this is the consciousness not of the people, but of the commercial cultural industry; it is hostile to truly popular culture. She knows no traditions, has no nationality, her tastes and ideals change with dizzying speed in accordance with the needs of fashion. Mass culture appeals to a wide audience and claims to be folk art.

When you buy a music disc in a store, you see sections - standard jazz, standard country, standard classic, standard rap. The choice of standards is unlimited.

The choice of film standards is even wider. Every demographic - blacks, Latinos, intellectuals, working class, baby boomers, gays, teenagers, retirees, action movie buffs and fans of old 19th century British aristocracy - all get their share. There is a film standard for a traditional family, a standard for amateurs thrills, the standard for lovers of refined European aesthetics. The hundreds of new films released each year, as well as the hundreds of television channels, leave the consumer with the feeling that the differences between them are so superficial that they are practically indistinguishable.

"Majority American films- a frozen dinner, as a rule, has no traces of life." Andrei Konchalovsky.

Cable or satellite television provides hundreds of channels covering thousands of topics - programs about police work, surveys of people on the street, films about the history of the country and the world, biographical series, but they all give the impression that it was made by the same director, on the same assembly line. At the same time, the consumer has a choice - this is a remote control that he holds in his hands and can always switch to another program. But even on another program he will see only a standard spectacle or standard news - what those who own the media want to show him.

To attract the attention of the public, a product of mass culture must be bright, spectacular, and therefore significant phenomena of the American cultural life These are not those that talk about the main issues of life, but peripheral events, extreme in their entertainment - robberies, murders, political scandals, a car or plane crash, an earthquake in California or a flood in New Orleans.

"In popular culture, the quality of things, events and human qualities have no value. Only the effect of a thing, person or event is valued." Italian writer Barzini.

Mass culture is not created freelance artists looking for answers to eternal questions life, it is created by performers who carry out orders by professionals, specialists, subject to the laws of production.

Popular culture says that if you don’t like something in your life, draw yourself a dream, believe in the dream, replace reality with the dream, live in the dream, just like many generations before you did, living the “American Dream”.

Sylvester Stallone's hero in the movie "Rambo IV" alone brings order to South-East Asia. He wins where the American army suffered a crushing defeat. Although this contradicts historical facts, the viewer believes the impressive spectacle, and not the historical facts, which he does not care about. All social problems are decided by one person, alone. The system educates the masses on the idea - “One can make a difference”, one person can change the world.

During the Stalin era, great importance was attached to the influence individuals for the life of the entire country. In case of economic, political and military failures, responsibility was assigned to specific performers. As Stalin spoke about the ways social problems, "no person, no problem." The result of the Stalinist approach is productivity of executions and an unproductive economic system. But the Stalinist method made it possible to remove responsibility from the system itself, which became inaccessible to criticism.

The same principle is reflected in the American formula - “One can make a difference”, which uses the paradoxical property of human mass consciousness - the concreteness of experience, which says that one cannot change anything, and the ability to believe in the illusion that the world can be changed alone. The world is being changed by the entire system in which individual just a grain of sand in a huge stream of sand. Mass culture is part of this flow, and more and more “grains of sand” from many countries and continents are pouring into it, cosmopolitan, international mass culture.

Thanks to the development of various new types of communications that have connected the world into a single whole, the unification of all national cultures, natural in this process, begins to occur, and each individual national culture refuses its specificity, because national specifics provincial and cannot enter the global market.

At one of the forums “A Zealous Fan” of television, Zhalkov N.A. wrote “Television has a huge impact on the consciousness of people, society and daily life generally. The power of TV lies in its deep impact on the human mind, many TV channel managers understand this, and in pursuit of crazy ratings, they broadcast programs designed for the base instincts of the population. Therefore, for example, on Channel One you rarely see programs aimed at improving people’s morality, and if you do, it’s only late in the evening. But Channel One is not the worst. Just look at “Dom-2” on TNT! But this reality show is intended for young and fragile souls. For example, my family. Some members of my family are at home all day and, of course, watch TV. So by the end of the day they become more nervous, irritable, and often take it out on their relatives. Our television is structured in such a way that, turning on the TV in the morning, the average person immediately begins to see various crimes committed overnight, shown in the most perverted form, to hear about corruption, protest rallies, and courtroom hearings. One may not even be surprised by the increasing violence in our society. An example is an event that happened quite recently, namely on November 12, 2008: three 12-year-old children beat a baby kangaroo to death with sticks on the head. It seems to me that all this is precisely the influence of television, that stream of violence pouring from the screen, on the weak and unformed children’s mind. The NTV channel is especially different in this, and not only that. Based on the example of my family, I guess that this influence occurs on all people in general. People become tougher, crueler, harsher, more embittered. That is why such concepts as mutual assistance, sympathy, and mercy disappear from our lives. And endless series! These so-called “works” do not shine with either direction or acting. And the intellectual level of both the characters in the series and, apparently, the screenwriters is below the lowest limit. That is why our “great” nation is becoming stupid! That's why they stop reading Dostoevsky and Bulgakov. After all, in the series, these stupid heroes achieve all the material benefits without resorting to their mental abilities.

So it seems to me that modern television carries at its core only negativity, pouring in streams onto our poor heads...” [6]

The words and symbols used in it are designed to produce changes in the behavior of the TV viewer and shape him as a consumer. At the same time, the most receptive audience is children from four to sixteen years old. Well, “customer formation” begins even earlier...

In an article by Maxim Shulgin, they collected various situations related to the influence of television on children.

“When my child was not yet two years old,” one mother wrote on the forum, “I was surprised at the mesmerizing effect commercials had on him. By what signs my daughter distinguished advertising remained a mystery to me, but as soon as it started, the little girl ran as fast as she could into the room and froze motionless in front of the TV. At that moment, you could do anything with her - there was only a bright TV picture, the daughter did not react to anything else. And as soon as the TV was turned off, the siren immediately turned on - the child began to cry loudly.

Later I found out that many parents encountered this phenomenon. Babies who are attracted bright picture and a funny plot (and those that are older are already the advertised product) make up more than half of the viewing audience of commercials. In one of the online forums, a mother admitted that she used advertising screensavers in order to feed her one-year-old daughter, who ate very poorly. Another mother managed to cut her two-year-old’s nails during commercials, and another even managed to cut her hair. This is just the beginning... On the same forum, visitors shared true stories from life. Someone told how a friend’s five-year-old daughter came into her parents’ bedroom at night and asked: “Does Tefal also think about us at night?” Someone shared their impressions of what they saw: “A three-year-old baby walked around the supermarket and, pointing with his finger at the products on display, recited: “Cleanliness - pure Tide!”, “Forget about dandruff - let your hair be beautiful”, “Danone - - magical taste health." The kid clearly couldn’t read yet, but advertising slogans were already firmly ingrained in his head...”; “Just recently I saw how two little kids about five years old cut out pads from paper and expertly inserted Barbie dolls into their panties...”

The influence of advertising on children worries many parents today, because it is possible to keep their children away from the TV only up to a certain age. Slightly older children and teenagers are becoming increasingly active consumers. To be fair, it should be noted that children’s consumer culture is largely shaped by their favorite cartoons. For example, Disney stories about Uncle Scrooge and his duckling nephews come down mainly to the search for ways to get rich, instilling in young viewers the main dream and commandment of a market society. Meanwhile, according to the observations of the famous American sociologist Juliet Score, Children who are drawn to consumer culture eventually grow into depressed and lonely teenagers.

For a long time, it was believed among psychologists that it was mainly problem children who suffered from the fact that they could not possess advertised goods who fell into the web of consumerism. Many parents believe that videos promoting expensive clothes, toys and gadgets that poor families cannot afford are increasing social divides. However, the results of Dr. Skor's research prove that consumerism may be the cause of depression, and not vice versa. Being drawn into the consumer cycle, previously healthy children begin to feel a constant feeling of anxiety, headaches and even stomach cramps; their sense of self-esteem weakens, alienation and hostility towards parents and teachers arise.

Symptoms of “consumer disease” include constant sitting in front of the TV and computer games, extreme preoccupation with one’s own appearance, clothing, and a desire for fame and wealth. Television advertising intrusively creates a completely unnatural lifestyle. Appealing to the basest feelings of the consumer, advertisers repeat: “You deserve this luxury!”, “You deserve it!”, “Treat yourself!” ... And children trustingly accept these calls at face value.

Where can I get money for all the attributes of success? The authors of the commercials carefully suggest the “correct” way: cut out the label or candy wrapper, and you will definitely be lucky - you will win trip around the world or, at worst, a video console. Just hurry up, because “everyone more people preparing for battle... People will do anything to collect the most wrappers and become the winner. Turn on!” If the heroes of advertising go to work, it seems only to drink a cup of instant coffee, tea, or a bottle of mineral water, eat yogurt and - “Let the whole world wait!” But for a child (especially a small one) they - real characters. The lifestyle of advertising “heroes”, their tastes, preferences, and manner of speech become a standard for the child. To put it mildly, a very strange standard, which constantly suffers from caries, dandruff, bad breath and indigestion. Which is not surprising, considering that he eats mostly chips, packet soups and beer, and his clothes constantly have stains that can only be removed with a certain type of powder. At the same time, no matter what is advertised, a huge portion of commercials contain sexual overtones. Sometimes it is even difficult to understand what exactly is being advertised.

Advertisers are trying their best to appeal to teenagers, realizing that they make up a significant part of the television audience. And the easiest way is to speak in a language they understand. Therefore speech young heroes in the videos it is oversaturated with teenage slang: “cool”, “cool”, “cool”, “have a blast”, “don’t slow down - take a snicker”.

Children are an excellent audience: they have more free time, many have pocket money, and they also go shopping with their parents, asking for that candy bar, yogurt, or toy they saw advertised on TV. Large American corporations spend about $15 billion annually on advertising products for children under 12 years of age. In order to more effectively influence the fragile minds of children, a huge staff of psychologists, sociologists and specialists in child development. The budgets of Ukrainian advertisers, I think, are smaller, but they are trying their best to catch up with their American colleagues. “Successes” are already evident today.

What should parents do? American psychologist S. Adams Sullivan believes that in shaping children’s views on advertising younger age The attitude of their parents towards her is very important. In his Encyclopedia for Fathers, he suggests solving the problem by acting out several skits in which the parent and child take turns playing the roles of buyer and seller. The parent tries to “sell” a completely unnecessary product to the child so that the child understands that the product itself is not so good as the seller needs to sell it. Then let the child try to persuade the parent to “buy” something. Perhaps after this he will begin to treat advertising as a game, or perhaps he will understand that advertising is just an attempt to impose someone’s opinion. The main thing is to explain to your child that advertising should be treated selectively and that the absence of any thing, even a very good one, does not harm one’s self-esteem, and life does not get any worse from it. [7]

So what influence does “mass culture” have? Positive or negative?

In general, existing points of view can be divided into two groups. Representatives of the first group (Adorno, Marcuse, etc.) give a negative assessment of this phenomenon. In their opinion, mass culture forms a passive perception of reality among its consumers. This position is argued by the fact that works of mass culture offer ready-made answers to what is happening in the sociocultural space around the individual. In addition, some theorists of mass culture believe that under its influence the system of values ​​changes: the desire for entertainment and entertainment becomes dominant. On the negative aspects associated with the influence of mass culture on public consciousness, also include the fact that mass culture is based not on an image oriented to reality, but on a system of images that influence the unconscious sphere of the human psyche.

This group also includes the authors of the Teaching of Living Ethics (the Mahatmas, the Roerich family). According to the Living Ethics paradigm, mass culture is essentially a pseudo-culture, since, unlike true culture (i.e., high culture), in most of its forms it does not contribute to humanistically oriented social progress and spiritual evolution of man. The calling and purpose of true culture is the ennobling and perfection of man. Popular culture performs inverse functions- it reanimates the lower aspects of consciousness and instincts, which, in turn, stimulate the ethical, aesthetic and intellectual degradation of the individual.

Meanwhile, researchers who adhere to an optimistic point of view on the role of mass culture in the life of society point out that:

· it attracts to itself the masses who do not know how to use their resources productively free time;

· creates a kind of semiotic space that promotes closer interaction between members of a high-tech society;

· give a chance wide audience get acquainted with works of traditional (high) culture.

And yet, it is likely that the contrast between definitely positive and definitely negative assessments of mass culture will not be entirely correct. It is obvious that the influence of mass culture on society is far from clear. This is one of the main problems of analyzing popular culture.

Drawing a conclusion on this point, we can highlight that “mass culture” is firmly entrenched in modern society, and we can expect its spontaneous disappearance, at least in the next historical period, not necessary. It is obvious that if it continues to exist in its present form, then the overall cultural potential of civilization will not only not increase, but may also suffer significant damage. “Mass culture” has both positive and negative sides. It is not possible to clearly determine the advantage of one of these parties. The pseudo-values ​​of mass culture are still too burdensome and even destructive for the individual and society. Therefore, an ideological transformation of mass culture is necessary through its filling with more sublime ideas, social significant stories and aesthetically perfect images.