The Explosion of Popular Culture
Popular culture since 1900, and especially since World
War II, has played an important role in helping Western
people define themselves. It also reflects the economic
system that supports it, for this system manufactures,
distributes, and sells the images that people consume as
popular culture. Modern popular culture is therefore
inextricably tied to the mass consumer society in which it
has emerged.
The United States has been the most influential force
in shaping popular culture in the West and, to a lesser
degree, the entire world. Through movies, music, adver-
tising, and television, the United States has spread its
particular form of consumerism and the American dream
to millions around the world. In 1923, the New York
Morning Post noted that ‘‘the film is to America what the
flag was once to Britain. By its means Uncle Sam may
hope some day ... to Americanize the world.’’
5
That day
has already come.
Motion pictures were the primary vehicle for the
diffusion of American popular culture in the years im-
mediately following World War I and continued to find
ever wider markets as the century rolled on. Television,
developed in the 1930s, did not become readily available
until the late 1940s, but by 1954, there were 32 million
sets in the United States as television became the cen-
terpiece of middle-class life. In the 1960s, as television
spread around the world, American networks unloaded
their products on Europe and the Third World at ex-
traordinarily low prices.
The United States has also dominated popular music
since the end of World War II. Jazz, blues, rhythm and
blues, rap, and rock and roll have been by far the most
popular music forms in the Western world---and much of
the non-Western world---during this time. All of them
originated in the United States, and all are rooted in
African American musical innovations. These forms later
spread to the rest of the world, inspiring local artists, who
then transformed the music in their own ways.
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL:THE LIMITS OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY
Although science and technology have produced an
amazing array of achievements in the postwar
world, some voices have been raised in criticism of
their sometimes destructive aspects. In 1975, in
a book titled Small Is Beautiful, the British economist E. F.
Schumacher examined the effects modern industrial technology
has had on the earth’s resources.
E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful
Is it not evident that our current methods of production are already
eating into the very substance of industrial man? To many people
this is not at all ev ident. Now that we have solved the problem of
production, they say, have we ever had it so good? Are we not better
fed, better clothed, and better housed than ever before---and better
educated? Of course we are: most, but by no means all, of us: in the
rich countries. But this is not what I mean by ‘‘substance.’’ The sub-
stance of mankind cannot be measured by Gross National Product.
Perhaps it cannot be measured at all, except for certain symptoms
of loss. However, this is not the place to go into the statistics of
these symptoms, such as crime, drug addiction, vandalism, mental
breakdown, rebellion, and so for th. Statistics never prove anything.
I started by saying that one of the most fateful errors of our age
is the belief that the problem of production has been solved. This illu-
sion, I suggested, is mainly due to our inability to recognize that the
modern industrial system, with all its intellectual sophistication, con-
sumes the very basis on which it has been erected. To use the lan-
guage of the economist, it lives on irreplaceable capital which it
cheerfully treats as income. I specified three categories of such capital:
fossil fuels, the tolerance margins of nature, and the human substance.
Even if some readers should refuse to accept all three parts of my ar-
gument, I suggest that any one of them suffices to make my case.
And what is my case? Simply that our most important task is
to get off our present collision course. And who is there to tackle
such a task? I think every one of us. ... To talk about the future is
useful only if it leads to action now. And what can we do now,
while we are still in the position of ‘‘never having had it so good’’?
To say the least ...we must thoroughly understand the problem and
begin to see the possibility of evolving a new lifestyle, with new
methods of production and new patterns of consumption: a lifestyle
designed for permanence. To give only three preliminary examples:
in agriculture and horticulture, we can interest ourselves in the per-
fection of production methods which are biologically sound, build
up soil fertility, and produce health, beauty, and permanence. Pro-
ductivit y will then look after itself. In industry, we can interest our-
selves in the evolution of small-scale technology, relatively
nonviolent technology, ‘‘technology with a human face,’’ so that peo-
ple have a chance to enjoy themselves while they are working, in-
stead of working solely for their pay packet and hoping, usually
forlornly, for enjoyment solely during their leisure time.
Q
According to Schumacher, under what illusion are modern
humans living? What three irreplaceable things does he suggest
people are consuming without noticing? What is ‘‘technology
with a human face’’? How does the author suggest this might
transform modern life? Are Schumacher’s ideas Postmodern?
Why or why not?
718 CHAPTER 28 EUROPE AND THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE SINCE 1945