Modernist upper class vs newspaper-reading lower class
The early twentieth century saw a determined effort, on the part of the European intelligentsia, to exclude the masses from culture. (Carey: 17)
Early 20th century publishing was shaped by the conservative but prospering publishing dynasties, social progress (Education Act 1871), and modernism. Feeling threatened by a new market dictating mass, which read newspapers, ate tin food and implied a loss of individual judgement (Faber, 29), the intellectuals of a new century created a movement to keep the society divided into the ones that understood and the ones that did not: modernism.
Ignoring that 'the mass' was just a denial of individuality of the new unknown and imagined groups, intellectuals like Nietzsche, Flaubert, D. H. Lawrence and Ortega y Gasset declared them despicable, soulless and not worth living.
Who were 'they', this mass, the menace of high society and elite?
They were the new literate people from the lower or working class. I guess the secret of their power was their education and an interest in consumption.
On the one hand this attracted the attention of profit-seeking businessmen, but on the other hand it scared the intellectual class.
I suppose the intelligentsia feared to lose culture capital. But can we lose this? Culture is not a "sum of distinct cultural activities" (Eliot: 41). Eliot states that culture structures the society gradually and, therefore, some people are more conscious than others. (A theory similar to Bourdieu.) Hence, culture doesn't get lost, it gets less or not the deserved valuation.
If we connect these thoughts with publishing, we see that all these facts influenced the industry: it was a balancing act for publishers and booksellers to please the intellectuals, who they admired, and the mass, the consumers who dictated the market even with their little money.
In my opinion, the initial quote by Carey may describe the prevailing attitudes in the British publishing industry in the early twentieth century, but these attitudes could not prevent the actual inclusion of the mass into culture: thanks to e. g. the Everyman´s Library, knowledge was available for anyone willing to learn; Faber explained that publishing was a business and "must make profits; […] They must therefore take account of what the public wants." (Faber: 23)
However, I think that modernism, among others reactions, showed that inclusion was not widely approved nor accepted.
Ignoring that 'the mass' was just a denial of individuality of the new unknown and imagined groups, intellectuals like Nietzsche, Flaubert, D. H. Lawrence and Ortega y Gasset declared them despicable, soulless and not worth living.
Who were 'they', this mass, the menace of high society and elite?
They were the new literate people from the lower or working class. I guess the secret of their power was their education and an interest in consumption.
On the one hand this attracted the attention of profit-seeking businessmen, but on the other hand it scared the intellectual class.
I suppose the intelligentsia feared to lose culture capital. But can we lose this? Culture is not a "sum of distinct cultural activities" (Eliot: 41). Eliot states that culture structures the society gradually and, therefore, some people are more conscious than others. (A theory similar to Bourdieu.) Hence, culture doesn't get lost, it gets less or not the deserved valuation.
If we connect these thoughts with publishing, we see that all these facts influenced the industry: it was a balancing act for publishers and booksellers to please the intellectuals, who they admired, and the mass, the consumers who dictated the market even with their little money.
In my opinion, the initial quote by Carey may describe the prevailing attitudes in the British publishing industry in the early twentieth century, but these attitudes could not prevent the actual inclusion of the mass into culture: thanks to e. g. the Everyman´s Library, knowledge was available for anyone willing to learn; Faber explained that publishing was a business and "must make profits; […] They must therefore take account of what the public wants." (Faber: 23)
However, I think that modernism, among others reactions, showed that inclusion was not widely approved nor accepted.
A different viewpoint on the struggle between intellectuals and masses can be found also in early 20th century cinema.
As deep as lay the workers' city below the earth, so high above it towered the complex named the "Club of the Sons", with its lecture halls and libraries, theatres and stadiums. Metropolis, 1927
In this German expressionist and early science fiction drama by Fritz Lang, the upper and lower class clash in a futuristic dystopia. The film was censored and the initial response to it was mixed. After a long restoration process, the film could be restored to 95% and is definitely worth looking!! (Since 2001 it is in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register.)
As deep as lay the workers' city below the earth, so high above it towered the complex named the "Club of the Sons", with its lecture halls and libraries, theatres and stadiums. Metropolis, 1927
In this German expressionist and early science fiction drama by Fritz Lang, the upper and lower class clash in a futuristic dystopia. The film was censored and the initial response to it was mixed. After a long restoration process, the film could be restored to 95% and is definitely worth looking!! (Since 2001 it is in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register.)
Bibliography Carey, John. The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intelligentsia 1880-1939. (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 2002), pp. 3-22. Norrie, Ian. 'Fathers and Sons' in Mumby's Publishing and Bookselling in the Twentieth Century. (London: Bell & Hyman, 1982), pp. 28-39. Faber, Geoffrey. A Publisher Speaking. (London: Faber & Faber, 1934), pp. 15-43. Eliot, T. S. Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. (London: Faber & Faber, 1948), pp. 35-49. |