"Black Skin White Masks" General Overview

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University Bhavnagar

Smt. S. B. Guardy Department of English

Written by: Poojaba G. Jadeja
Roll No.: 20

Year: 2014, Semester: 3rd 

Paper: 11: Post colonial literature

Frantz Fanon’s “Black Skin White Masks”: General Overview

 Introduction:

Frantz Fanon was born in Martinique in 1925 and received a conventional colonial education. When he went to France to fight in the resistance and train as psychiatrist, his assimilationist illusions were shattered by the gaze of metropolitan racism.

Out of his experiences of racism came his first book “Black Skin White Masks” (1952), originally titled as “an essay for the Disalienation of Blacks”. Fanon, in this book, defined the colonial relationship as the psychological non-recognition of subjectivity of the colonized.

His next work is ‘The Wretched of the Earth”. Stuart Hall describes this book as the “Bible of the Decolonization movement’. Fanon died in 1961, just as Algeria was winning its independence. But his seminal texts continue to challenge whites to liberate themselves from all forms of psychological domination.

“Black Skin White Masks” is a book about the mindset or psychology of racism. The book looks at what goes through the minds of blacks and whites under the conditions of white rule and the strange effects of that in black people.

The book is his doctoral thesis, Fanon wrote to get his degree in psychiatry. This book is worth reading since Fanon’s understanding of white French racism in early 1950 and it can also helps to understand white American racism in the 2010s.

The book is divided in 8 chapters. In these eight chapters, Fanon talks about psychology of white colonizers and black people’s desire to be like white men. He talks about issue of language, marriage between white and black and psychology behind it, white mindset of ruling, black’s inequality and struggle for human existence. He explains his all the arguments of psychology with real examples of his surrounding.

·         In the first chapter, “The Black Man and language”, Fanon shows that how language can present colonialism, how it can show mindset of black and white people. He says,

“The Negro will become whiter-become more human-as he masters the white man’s language”

He explains it with example that, in Martinique, where Fanon grew, people communicate with dialect Creole. But people saw French better than Creole. They started feeling shame with their dialect. It is not because of scholarly opinion but because of being under French rule.

He noticed that people came back educated from France, they act as if they no longer knew Creole and speak perfect French. He noticed that, it is not because they want to be white (because French is white’s language) or they think that white people are better or something but to prove they are equal.

But even if they speak perfect French, racism does not stop, because white people do not take it normally as other white person. They will say, “Here is a black man who handles the French language unlike any white man today.” as it is surprise for them and even their identity of ‘Black’ cannot be forgettable with their education and knowledge of white’s language.

As Fanon believes that, ‘To speak a language is appropriate its world and culture’. As language is also part of culture, they (blacks), through learning of their language, try to become culturally whiter.

·         The second chapter is about the psychology behind the marriage between white men and black women’ “The woman of colour and the white man”. In this chapter Fanon talks about internalize racism.

According to Fanon, the acts of love and admiration are directly tied to who and what we value. And he gave reasons that why women of colour go after white men, putting down men of their own colour!

Fanon says,

“Authentic love …entails the mobilization of psychic drives basically freed of unconscious conflicts.”

In other words, he cannot seek to love unless he has rid himself, in this case, of his inferiority complex. Fanon explains that, these black women do not truly love white men but they just love their colour. They marry with them to deal with their own hang-ups about race. And it is because the black woman feels inferior.

Secretly she wants to be white and marring white is black girl’s way of doing this. Their racism is so profound that it blinds them to good black man. With marring white person, black woman wants to enter in white world. Mulatto or half girls don’t ever want to marry blacks again. Fanon explains this psychology of black women and their desire to marry whites with real examples in this chapter.

·         The third chapter “The man of colour and the White woman” is about black man’s psychology after being colonized by whites.

Fanon argues that, the nature of the relationship is also rooted in the latent desire to become white. He writes,

“By loving me she [white woman] proves to me that I am worthy of a love. I am loved like a white man. I am a white man.”

Every black man and mulatto have only one thought to be like white to gratify their appetite for white woman, to marry white woman. They started denying their culture and woman and marry white girl, less for love than satisfying their ego and inferiority.

Fanon explains this desire with example of Jean Venuese, hero of a novel “Un home pareil aux autres” by Rene Maran. He is black, but like other Europeans, he falls in love with white woman. He wants to separate himself from his race and wants to marry white… Fanon, very effectively, presents hidden desire of black man to marry white woman.

·         Chapter four, “The so-called dependency complex of the colonized” speaks about projected dependency complex of coloured by whites. This chapter encompasses Fanon’s thoughts surrounding the work of one of his contemporaries, Octave Mannoni, his book “psychology of colonization”

Fanon is primarily concerned with the lack of subjectivity displayed by Mannoni which he believes is responsible for the scholar’s assumption that inferiority complexes are somehow inherent to “primitive” or uncivilized peoples.

Fanon criticizes Mannoni that blacks want to be white because white men discriminate them and they turn them into colonized subject, so because of inferiority complex blacks wants to be white but not because of dependency complex as Mannoni says.

Fanon, many ways, counter argues Mannoni. At the end, he rephrasing his point: that inferiority complex in people of colour is the result of the white man’s arrival and that,

“Mannoni lacks the slightest basis in which to ground any conclusion applicable to the situation, the problems of the Africans in the present time.”

·         “The lived experience of the black man”, chapter five about experiences of racial discrimination of black men. The chapter is about injustice, inequality and struggle for their existence as a human being.

Fanon talks about his experiences and the reasons of their desire to be white. They are suffering because of their skin colour. And it is so powerful that their education, achievements, morality do not effect much.

Instead of being person, an individual, he is as a black man, a Negro, an object, never a man. Some white people feel sympathy or injustice with them but never try to forget racial inequality.

Fanon talks about projected mentality that, “sin is black as virtue is white” without any reasons, black people becomes victim of whites hatred. It’s about struggle for their human existence. Fanon says,

“A feeling of inferiority? No, a feeling of not existing…All those white man, fingering their guns, can’t be wrong. I am guilty. I don’t know what of, but I know I’m a wretch.”

·         The title of the chapter 6 is “The black man and psychopathology”. In this chapter Fanon talks about white man’s mentality and their views about black people. Fanon discusses some points that why white people afraid of black man.

He argues that, because white men have fear that blacks will take white women, Because they have an assumption that black men are sexually passionate than whites. And white women also afraid of black men.

White people also believed that black man are less moral. They think that as they comes from the colour black, they are bad, immoral, dark, evil and dirty and white is a colour of pure, innocence and clean. Black men are seen as little more than animal.

Even we also thought and behave to black man as criminal or bitter, we have fear to make any relationship with them! It’s because of our constructed mentality.

Because of white men’s these mentality and assumptions, black man suffers a lot, even they are morally better than white people. Thus, in this chapter, Fanon talks about constructed identity of black men.

·         Fanon describes his last point in chapter seven “The black man and recognition”. In this chapter Fanon presents mentality of black people of putting their own people down to feel good.

He writes about his people of Martinique, with putting down others, they can feel better about themselves. The reason of their mentality is an inferiority complex. The fault is not of black people but it comes from white rule, which forces blacks to live in a world where their human worth is questioned. Blacks are not in a position to put down white people, so they prove their worth by putting down each other. Like mulatto girl does not want to marry with black or mulattoes feel superior and prove blacks inferior.

Fanon quotes Adler and Hegel and talks the points, they gave. Fanon relates their ideas with blacks of Martinique. He gives argument and reason of their internal fight,

“In place of honest hatred was a false smile which gave blacks nothing to fight against. All they could do was bite their tongue and smile back… still remaining unequal.”

·         The last chapter of this book “By way of conclusion” is, as the title suggests, a conclusion. In this chapter he talks about some solution which can try to remove this inequality and injustice between blacks and whites.

Fanon suggests forgetting past which leads them to superiority and inferiority complexes. White people may feel guilty for their inhuman ancestors and blacks may feel inferior than whites because of their past as a slave. And it also raises hatred to whites. So, Fanon rightly says, not to be prisoners of past, ‘let the dead bury the dead’

He proves his views with example of Indo-china war history. Fanon writes his views on fighting for freedom; he believes that one cannot make others rule over him. He makes very good point at the conclusion,

“I have only one right and one duty; the right to demand human behaviour from the other, and the duty to never let his decisions renounce his freedom."

Conclusion:

Fanon, in the whole book, tries to be analytical without attachment. He talks about black men’s desires to be white with psychological reasons. He never become insulting for blacks and also doesn’t present hatred for white people. But he fairly well describes their psychology of superiority mindset/complex.

Recent example which can prove Fanon’s psychology is great dancer Michael Jackson who tries to become white throughout his life.

 

The points, he describes, have an authentic reasons. He proves his psychoanalysis with his own examples. He shows his outbursts, his burning questions about his projected, constructed identity. Whites represent wealth, beauty, intelligence and virtue, but blacks projected identity is as ‘Niggers’ something to be saved from, to escape, something not to be as they are ugly, uncivilized, immoral, impure and not virtuous.

This mentality is deeply rooted in everybody’s mind. Adds for becoming white suggests success of Fanon’s psychology.

The “Black Skin White Masks” psychoanalytical work by Frantz Fanon is worthy to be studied to understand psychology of blacks and whites both. The work is true to itself and it proves many points without prejudices for whites and without sympathy for blacks.

References :
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/frantz-fanon-black-skin-white-masks/

http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2009/11/finger-on-page-frantz-fanons-black-skin.html#.VDv-D_nKtaA

'Culture and Anarchy' pioneer work for Cultural studies

“Culture and Anarchy” pioneer work for cultural studies.

Matthew Arnold is a famous poet and critic of Victorian age. Arnold outlined the function of the cultural critic in his essay “Culture and Anarchy”. Arnold is a popular as a systematic critic, cultural critic. He uses the building block for cultural studies. “Culture and Anarchy” is a pioneer work for ‘Cultural Studies’. It becomes content and draws attention towards ‘Cultural Studies’.

Arnold’s views published in his essay ‘Culture and Anarchy’ about culture, anarchy, three classes of society, Hebraism, Hellenism are become necessary and important in establishing cultural studies. As an important and pioneer work for cultural studies, we have to first understand Arnold’s views in his work ‘Culture and Anarchy’ which is given below.

What is Culture? (‘Sweetness and Light’):

In this essay Matthew Arnold tries to say the idea of culture. He introduces culture as,

 “The whole scope of essay is to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, ‘the best which has been thought and said in the world.’ And through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically...”

To show the importance of culture he gave an example of American culture. He proposes to try and enquire in the simple unsystematic way, what culture really is, what good it can do, what is our own special need of it. And he seeks to find some plain ground on which a faith in culture may rest securely.

Arnold believes that culture is a study of perfection. He further adds that,

“To conceive of true human perfection as a harmonious perfection, as a general perfection, developing all sides of our humanity and as a general perfection, developing all sides of society.”

Culture is considered not merely as the endeavour to see and learn this, but also to make it prevail, the moral, social and beneficent character of culture becomes manifest. As religion, culture is also places in an internal condition. Character perfection is recommended in culture. Perfection of culture is not possible while the individual remains isolated.

Thus, the notion of perfection as culture brings us to conceive it: a harmonious perfection, a perfection in which the characters of beauty and intelligence are both present, which unites ‘the two noblest of things-sweetness and light’.

Arnold connects his ideas of sweetness and light with culture and explains with the Greek words ‘aphuia and euphoria’. Because of that central idea, this first chapter is called “sweetness and light” which is about the introduction of Culture.

What is Anarchy? (Doing as one likes):

As we already saw that Arnold, in the first chapter- ‘sweetness and light’ has tried to show that culture is the study and pursuit of perfection; and sweetness and light are the main characters. But hitherto he has been insisting chiefly on beauty or sweetness, as character of perfection. To complete his design, it evidently remains to speak also of intelligence, or light, as a character of perfection.

In this second chapter, Arnold throws some light on Anarchy and also explains dangers of anarchy- doing as one likes. In this chapter to bring some points of anarchy, he speaks of light as one of the characters of perfection, and of culture as giving us light.

He further says about danger of personal liberty that, it is said that a man with the theories of sweetness and light is full of antipathy against the rougher or coarser movements going on around him, that he will not lend a hand to the humble operation of uprooting evil by their means, and therefore the believers in action grow impatient with him. But what if rough and course action, ill-calculated action, or action with sufficient light is bane on the society? In this case, to refuse to lend a hand to the rougher and courser movements going on round, is surely the best and in real truth the most practical line.    

Freedom of doing as one likes was one of those things which English thus worshipped in it, without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. Arnold agrees with the prevalent notion that it is a most happy and important thing for man merely to be able to do as he likes. But the problem is ‘on what he is to do as he likes, we do not lay so much stress.’

Arnold fears very right happiness of an Englishman to do what he likes may drift the entire society towards anarchy. Arnold gives another example Hyde Park protesters and dissenters to prove how chaotic the world becomes as one likes. Arnold blames the strong belief in freedom for such anarchy in society.

He further says that, if culture brings light, and light shows us that there is nothing so very blessed in merely ‘doing as one likes’, that the worship of machinery, that the really blessed thing is to like what right reason order, and to follow her authority, then one has got a practical benefit of culture. The urgent need of society is the much-wanted principle, ‘a principle of authority’, to counteract the tendency to anarchy, which seems to be threatening society.

Arnold puts question that, ‘who should be entrusted with authority?’ as giving answer he verbalizes that, “by our everyday selves, we are separate, personal... anarchy presents itself as a danger to us, and we know not where to turn.” Arnold gives the answer of question that, 

“it is ‘our best selves’ to whom the authority must be given. Because it is truest friend and when anarchy is a danger, to this authority we may turn with sure trust, culture suggests one to us in our best self.”

These are the ideas of Arnold on Anarchy and authority.  

Three classes (the Barbarians, the Philistines and the populace):

In the third chapter of ‘culture and anarchy’ Matthew Arnold gave his views on the three classes of society. These three classes of England are the Aristocrats, the Middle class and the Working class. He shows the virtues and defects of all three classes in the essay.

The Aristocrats (Barbarians):

Arnold calls this class the ‘Barbarians’. They have personal liberty and anarchical in their tendencies. They have their own individualism. Outwards qualities like politeness grace in manners come directly inculcated by the Aristocrats from the Barbarians. Their culture is skin-deep, external and lacking in inwards virtue.

The Middle class (Philistine):

In a German sense, Philistine means the uncultured people. They are worldly-wise men, busy in trade and commerce. They have brought all economic prosperity and progress in the country. Thus, they are the empire builders in long; they would bring all material prosperity.

The Working class (Populace):

The working class are helper of the empire builders. They are raw and half developed. They are being exploited by the Philistine and the Barbarians so long. Because of their awakening, their poverty and squalor dawned. They become politically conscious and coming out from obscurities.

Thus, Arnold finds a sort of caste system in England consisting of the Barbarians, the Philistine and the Populace. Yet there is something common factor in all the three classes is a common basis of human nature. From above the basis of culture must be founded- sweetness and light.

There is no rigid division in society- these classes come up or go down the social ladder as individual strive to attain perfection in any of these three freak division of society. Then it is essential that man must strive to seek human perfection to establish his best self and culture would in the end, find its public recognition. These are Arnold’s views about three classes of society.

Hebraism and Hellenism:

Arnold discusses, in the inception of the topic, doing and thinking. His general views about human beings are that they prefer to act rather than to think. He talks about the great idea to know and the great energy to act. Both are the most potent forces and they should be in harmony by the light of reason. So, they are Hebraism and Hellenism.

Arnold discusses that, the supreme idea with Hellenism or the Greek spirit is to see things as they really are. And the supreme idea of Hebraism or the spirit of bible is conduct and obedience. Hebraism studies the universal order and observes the magnificence of god apparent in the order, whereas Hellenism follows with flexible activity.

Thus, the root idea of both is the desire for reason and will of God, and the desire of love of God. Thus, Hellenism acquires spontaneity of consciousness with a clearness of mind, and Hebraism achieves a strictness of conscience with its clarity of thought. In brief, Hebraism shows stress on doing rather than knowing. It is primarily ideas is absolute obedience to the will of God.

In conclusion, it must be added that the rule of life should be based on the theory of Hellenism and Hebraism because the final aim of both is man’s perfection or salvation. Thus, Arnold represents his ideas on human nature and also presents their aim of perfection in chapter four of the essay ‘Culture and anarchy’.   

Porro Unum Est Necessarium:

The title is in Latin, which means “But one thing is necessary”. One banal system of action, issuing out of the very concept of democrat existence is the liberal notion of doing freely as one likes. The idea issues from the sense of liberty democracy inculcate and when pushed to extreme liberty is often turned into anarchy.

Hebraism and Hellenism these two propensities and vacillations of the mind must be resolved and must seek and find a mutual understanding and balance. Arnold warns of the besetting blindness of fanaticism either in culture or religion.

The real ‘Unum Necessarium’ for us, as Arnold insists repeatedly-for repetition is a vice with Arnold- is to come to our best at all points. So Arnold points to the very malice of his age. He says,

“One thing needful” justifying in us vulgarity, hideousness, ignorance violence, are really so many touchstones which try our one thing needful, and which prove that in the state, at any rate, in which we ourselves hate it, it is not all we want.”

Arnold deplores the confusion of thought and of practice in his age among all classes of people in England. The age boasts of British freedom, British industry and British muscularity. In all these activity one must have a standard and ideal of perfection and happiness. The trouble in Arnold’s age is a disquieting absence of some authority, and harmonious development of humanity, spontaneity of consciousness, sweetness and light is necessary for their culture in Arnold’s words.

Thus, we must be prepared to fight against the diseased spirit of cultivated time. Arnold exhorts his countrymen against the diseased spirit of cultivated inaction, to seek real culture and to let their consciousness play upon the intelligible law of things and to seek ultimately a way to true human perfection.

In this last chapter, Arnold gives some ideas about English society, its malice or its disadvantages. And also he discusses some solutions or shows ways toward perfection.

Conclusion:

Because of Matthew Arnold’s views about culture and his discussion of necessary element of culture in society, this essay becomes pioneer work for cultural studies. Importance of culture and contribution of individual are well presented in this essay ‘Culture and Anarchy’, so, it becomes path shower for ‘cultural studies’. In this essay, Arnold also puts his ideas about human nature and their aim of ‘perfection’ as culture; he also wrote what is necessary for the English culture.

Thus, we can say that, Matthew Arnold is the first cultural critic or the first systematic critic of cultural studies and his extraordinary views in the essay “Culture and Anarchy” becomes pioneer work  and open ways for cultural studies, a new branch.

    

Popular culture Vs Elite culture

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Smt. S. B. Guardy Department of English

 

Written by: Poojaba G. Jadeja

Roll No. 22

Year: 2014, semester 2

Paper: cultural studies

Topic:Popular culture Vs Elite culture

Popular culture Vs Elite culture

Introduction:

‘Cultural Studies’ is a discipline which is interested in the processes by which power relations between and within groups of human beings organizes cultural artefacts and their meanings. ‘Cultural Studies’ is a field of academic study that finds its origin now. It is a study of ‘culture’ or ‘cultures’ and power structure of society.

‘Birmingham centre for contemporary cultural studies’ (BCCCS) in UK is the centre for cultural studies. Critics like Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, and later Stuart Hall, Tony Bennett and others made ‘Cultural Studies’ popular.

Thus, culture and cultural elements which made ‘culture’ is an important tool for Cultural Studies. In the 1950s and 1960s a change in focus came about in cultural studies, in analysis. Scholars started taking popular culture seriously. In 1969 the department of popular culture at Bowling Green University (USA) launched the ‘journal of popular culture’.

The journal carried essays on Spiderman comics, rock music, amusement parks, the detective movies and other forms of popular culture. It is in popular culture studies that Cultural Studies finds its first movement.

Thus, Cultural Studies looks at mass or popular culture and everyday life. There was a time before 1960s when popular culture was not studied by academies. But Cultural Studies gives importance to popular culture even more than elite culture or elite arts. So, today, study of popular culture and comparison between popular and elite culture is happen widely.

Elite culture:

Elite culture is widely studied by critics. Elite culture can be defined as those “high” cultural forms and institutions that were exclusive to, and a distinguishing characteristic of, modern social elites. It is a term that particularly references the cultural tastes of the established aristocracy, the commercial bourgeoisie, educated bureaucrats and political power breakers, and the professions in the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries.

Elite culture is very “high” and “intellectual” culture. It has very closed cultural domains, more omnivorous and not free as popular culture. Elite culture is in very few scales and it has bounded structure. It is sometimes marginalized by popular culture, but it affected on popular culture always.

In easy words we can say that, elite culture means, the literary and artistic culture of educated and wealthy ruling classes. Elite culture is institutionally expressed in universities, academies, coffee houses, libraries and Masonic lodges. These are some ways where elite culture can be recognised. And they become symbols of elite class and elite culture.

The culture of the wealthy minority section of the population was projected as the ‘standard’ or ‘true’ culture. So, academic studies would look at ‘great works of art’ or ‘classical authors’. The taste of the elite culture is also very high and standard. Some examples are classical songs, classical thought provoking intellectual documentary movies, picture and art galleries can be called as examples of elite culture. Thus, greatness, standardisation and intellectuality are important for elite culture. 

Popular culture:

Popular culture is the culture of masses. Popular culture is the set of practices, artefacts and beliefs and shared by the masses. Cultural studies started to study popular culture and now many disciplines including semiotics, rhetoric, literary criticism, film studies, anthropology, history, women’s studies, ethnic studies, and psychoanalytic approaches, critic examine such cultural media as pulp fiction, comic books, television, film advertising, popular music and computer cyber culture. They assess how such factors as ethnicity, race, gender, class region and sexuality are reshaped in popular culture.

Popular culture is the accumulated store of cultural products such as music, art, literature, television, film, radio that are consumed primarily by non-elite groups such as the working, lower or middle class.

That way, popular culture is ‘true culture’ but not a great culture. With studying popular culture, one can get true and real picture of society.     

There are four main types of popular culture analyses:  Production analysis, textual analysis, audience analysis and historical analysis. These analyses seek to get beneath the surface, denotative meanings, and examine more implicit, connotative social meanings. These approaches view culture as a narrative or story-telling process in which particular texts or cultural artefacts consciously or unconsciously link themselves to larger stories at play in the society. A key here is how texts create subject positions or identities for these who use them.

Sometimes, popular culture creates doubt to elite culture. It can so overtake and repackage a literary work that it is impossible to read the original text without reference to the many layers of popular culture that have developed around it. The popular culture reconstructs a work and can open it to unforeseen new interpretations. So, study of popular culture becomes necessary for cultural studies to know culture in a better way.

Because popular culture is culture of masses, it has not element of ‘greatness’ and ‘intellectuality’ but it reflects human nature of popular society.

Sometimes (before 1960s), popular culture was dismissed as ‘inferior’. The term ‘mass culture’ was used pejoratively. Standards of judgement and ideas of taste were formed using the elite forms, elite culture. But popular culture is for majority and ‘popular’ so; it affects ‘culture’ a lot in society. Popular culture is tended to be collective and pubic in nature that is everyone, including elites; partook in it.

 Public entertainment events fairs, festivals and carnivals, folk music, adventure stories, and popular hit movies are elements and examples of popular culture. With these elements, culture of majority and everyday life of larger number of society can be understood. 

 Popular culture Vs Elite culture: Comparison with example:

 

Popular culture is a culture for majority and Elite culture is considered and known as ‘high’ or ‘great’, ‘intellectual’ culture. And popular culture is considered as ‘law’ and ‘mass’ culture. Meanings are governed by power relations and elite culture. Elite culture controls the terms of the debate.

Elite culture, as known as great, is respected by popular culture. But elite culture rejects and insults popular culture. Non-elite views on life and art are rejected as ‘tasteless’, ‘useless’ or even stupid by elites. For example, hit films are always rejected by some elite critics and they always praise controversial and critical ‘high’ non-popular movies.

Elite culture is of literary and educated wealthy elite group. But popular culture is of common, simple, rural and unliterary people of mass or society. So, elite culture is always expressed in universities, libraries. And popular culture is unwritten and oral. Folklores, fairs and entertaining television serials are examples of popular culture.

Elite culture is always ambiguous and not simple one. But popular culture is very simple and presents human emotions and human life as it is, in a simple, understandable way. For example, classical music, philosophical literature, grammar schools, critical analyses, poetry, encyclopaedias are always liked by elites, and they show elite culture, whereas folk music, popular sports, movies, entertainer arts, news papers, novels are examples of popular culture.

Popular culture reflects real mentality, true picture of society. Elite culture reflects highness or greatness of that society. So, if we want to study real society and human nature, we should study popular culture and if we want to study goodness and intellectuality, we should study elite culture.

Elite culture is one part of popular culture but elite culture becomes different and separate from popular culture. Majority of popular culture never see or study elite culture but popular culture is a subject of study of elite culture. But after studying popular culture, many times elite culture rejects it as stupidity. And popular culture always see elite culture as respected though not study it or because they cannot study it.

For example, majority of society does not read the writing of Rabindranath Tagore or Shakespeare’s plays and these are known as respectable arts. But any critic or elite does not study famous novels of contemporary writer seriously as considering these as art and relegating them to the realm of popular culture.

Thus, popular culture is graffiti, comic books, mass cinema as opposed to art cinema, popular music as opposed to classical music, the open spaces of the city as opposed to art galleries, sports, television serials etc.

Both the cultures are important for study. Popular culture is the set of beliefs, values and practices that are widely shared. Popular culture is a true reflection of society and elite culture reflects intellectual level and greatness of society very well.