Brooke Bumgarner- Hebdige

As I read Dick Hebdige's theory, it is interesting to me to think about how we define culture. I wonder if I were asked, how I would define culture.

Hebdige writes, " In the early years, when it was being established in the universities, Cultural Studies sat rather uncomfortably on the fence between these two conflicting definitions-- culture as a standard of excellence, culture as a 'whole way of life'" (Hebdige, 125). So we are left with the question of whether culture is defined in certain fields of excellence, or whether it encompasses life as a whole.

Hebdige relates to Barthes' notion of culture in saying that it "extends beyond the library, the opera-house and the theatre to encompass the whole of everyday life" (Hebdige, 126). As I consider their line of thinking, I wonder if culture does extend to encompass the whole of everyday life. I begin to wonder if we live in simply one big culture made up of many subcultures which do account for everything and everyone.

Hebdige relates culture with historical ties, and the classics, as does Barthes in a way. When we think about culture, often times we think of the classics, such as the arts and academia. However, contemporary culture accounts for much more, where Barthes' "application of a method rooted in linguistics to other systems of discourse outside language (fashion, film, food, ect.) opened up completely new possibilities" (Hebdige, 126).

However, Hebdige retreats that under Barthes, we are brought back to the two conflicting definitions of culture. On one hand we have the "standard of excellence" (125) and "a marriage of moral conviction" (126) and on the other we see culture as a "whole way of life" (125, 126).

So once more we wondered, could culture truly be considered a whole, or complete way of life, or was it more synonymously related to Thompson's definition as "'the study of relationships in a whole way of conflict'"(Hebdige, 127).

Through this view, ideology acquired significance it had not in the past. Perhaps a totalizing way of life was what was idealized, however, could a culture ever be a "whole way of life" (125)? Or is that just a desired ideology?

From this point, Hebdige goes into how ideology and hegemony play roles in society and, culture. Ideology he says, works at an almost unconscious level. While hegemony, is produced and reinforced through ideologies. Hebdige explains that "all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, and the most taken-for-granted phenomena can function as signs... These signs are, then, as opaque as the social relations which produce them and which they represent. In other words, there is an ideological dimension to every signification" (Hebdige, 128). So, if all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, then there is indeed ideology entrenched in our culture, in fact, all facets of culture would be ideological.

It's proven that culture is indeed not a whole way of life, because as ideologies are introduced so is a power structure. Hebdige explains "some groups have more say, more opportunity to make the rules, to organize meaning, while others are less favorably placed, have less power to produce and impose their definitions of the world on the world" (Hebdige, 128).

At this point, Hebdige summarizes how hegemony plays its role. Dominant groups desire to frame the subordinate, which is the only way hegemony can be successful. Hence, creating subcultures, through power structures where classes prevent the idealized totality of culture.