Have you ever found yourself watching an old movie or television show and saying to yourself they would never make that today? Ideas that were dominant sixty years ago are no longer dominant today. What might have been perceived as common sense to audiences in the 50's and 60's is now seen as preposterous, ignorant, and old-fashioned. Yet they are still watched today.
Take, for example, the show Dick Van Dyke. The show appealed to the average 1960s household. It showed the ideal family, the ideal house, and an ideal (respectable and successful) job. The husband administered the household in an ideal, albeit humorous, patriarchal fashion. The wife is to be submissive to her husband, just like a child, and it is not socially acceptable for a woman be single. The show would not be made today without some modifications.
Or, take a more extreme example of Fred Astaire's tribute dance to Bill Robinson in the movie Swing Time. Fred Astaire greatly admired Bill Robinson and wanted to honor him. The problem is, Astaire danced in blackface. What in the 1930s was considered a moving tribute meant to bridge the gap of racism is now seen as horrific, insulting, and ignorant. It is heavily debated.
Many examples in entertainment demonstrate past hegemony, and what we observe is that culture changes. We will not discuss how culture changes (that is beyond the scope of this blog, as it involves a complex current of historic events, narrative explanations, news, academia, technological advances, etc.), but what was dominant ideology in the past is not dominant today. But when did these changes occur? Nothing changes overnight. And is it possible that some dominant ideologies of the past have been replaced without our knowing?
Simply repeating textbook definitions that the dominant ideology is promoted by groups in power and accepted as the norm is not enough. Most of the philosophers who defined the terms spoke to a past society. As technology advances, so do the channels by which society consumes entertainment. The entertainment industry (including the news) is capitalistic in nature. When the channels were limited, entertainment was more neutral, controlled, and homogenized. But as the channels expand, the system breaks down, and ideologies in one channel may be oppositional in another. Marx argued that the independent isolation of labor is a problem in capitalism. This same concept can be applied to ideologies.
If various ideologies are presented in isolated channels, the question becomes, what is oppositional? Is it possible that what was once considered oppositional is now hegemony, and what was once hegemony is now oppositional? Could a holdover of historical values that are no longer held blur the lines of dominant ideologies? Could those promoting oppositional values not realize they are the new hegemony? With the various channels of influence, both past and present, who has the authority to decide?
Meanwhile, audiences will continue to enjoy watching films and shows from a previous hegemony and saying, "they would never make that today."
No comments:
Post a Comment