I'm 20 pages away from finishing The Depth of Shallow Culture by Albert J. Bergesen, a sociology professor at my university. In it he talks about how pop culture, which is shallow almost by definition since it has to appeal to the broadest number of people, hints at ideas and philosophies much deeper than people give it credit for. For example he talks about the life cycle of the sneaker or "tennis shoe" and compares them to the art cycles of Archaic, Classic and Baroque, with Mannerism and Rococo as minor transition periods befor and after Baroque. In the early 70's the Converse "All-Star" is the epitome of the Archaic shoe with a thick, flat, white sole and simple black canvas as an upper with crude stiching. Archaic like the Archaic sculptures of "man" and "woman" Kurrous and Kiros ... I think that's the Greek hehe. The mid 1980's "Air Jordan" is a Classic because it strives for balance and symetry with a clearly defined upper and sole and there is order and definition to it, much like the classic sculpture of the discus thrower. So on and so forth.
Then he compares Don Quixote to John Rambo and how they are both symbols of decaying empires. He argues that Don Quixote emerged at a time when Spain was losing its political clout just like Rambo emerged after the Vietnam war in the U.S. They both live by out-dated codes, Don Quixote by the Knightly code of chivalry of the middle ages and Rambo by the Special Forces honor code. Both codes that when out of context (one in rural Spain, the other in the woods of Oregon) create more harm than good. Both do not start out as the iconic images we know them as today, Quixote with his tattered armor and fat sidekick squire and Rambo as the bandana-wearing, gun-slinging hero. No, Don Quixote is merely Alfonso Quijano and John Rambo is a Vietnam Vet traversing the state of Oregon. He says that Rambo got a lot of flack for the violence in the films, however Don Quixote is VERY violent as well and were that accurately depicted on the screen, he is sure critics would condem it as well.
He also talks about why Western (American) monsters are different from Eastern (Chinese/Japanese) monsters. How American monsters follow the "Mixing Model" while Eastern monsters follow the "Essential Other" model. For example a Werewolf, a "western" monster is a wolf + man = wolfman. A Vampire: Bat+Man= Vampire. and so on. Even our heros like Spiderman follow the mixing model. While in Japan monsters are not of this world. Godzilla looks like a dinosour, but is able to shoot atomic fire from his mouth which is more akin to a dragon. Transformers come from Cybertron. Monsters in the west are weaker than those in the east. For example Dragons exist both in the East and West, however in the West the dragon can be slain, as exemplified in the myth of St. George, while in the East the Dragon is a symbol of eternal power. Also in the west a monsters rage is directly related to human action compared to the conflicts in the East where humans seem to be irrevelvant or unfortunate collateral damage. For example King Kong's rage is understandable as he was taken from his home, caged and shot at by humans, thus his reaking havok all over New York makes sense. However, Godzilla's trampling of Tokyo does not. It was AMERICAN nuclear testing that awakens him yet he aims for Tokyo just randomly destroying all he sees. Also when he "defends" humans from other creatures both creatures destroy their surroundings with little care. Like Transformers, who are fighting their war on Earth. He says it is all in the power structure. In the East which has been ruled by strong centrilzed dynasties and gave birth to a all powerful dragon, both power structure and mythical creature are far removed from the people. In the west where the power structure is modeled after greek republican democracy and which is a mixture of ideas, interests and people gives rise to weaker, "mixed" monsters.
The last chapter deals with the latent function of toys in their secondary socialization in the philosophical ideals of East and West. For example, going back to the mixing model Spiderman is spider+man, but at the same time whether he is Peter Parker or Spiderman, Peter Parker still IS spiderman, he simply wears the suit for dramatic effect. However in the east whether it is the gang of Sailor Moon cadets or the Power rangers, regular teenagers have to "morph" into their super hero selves. Since the creatures they are fighting are other-worldly to begin with they too must morph or "jump" into that other reality to be able to fight them. He argues that it stems from the philosophies of Christianity and reincarnation. For example in Christianity, Jesus is the epitome of the mixing model as he is man AND God in one, while in the East Siddartha only becomes The Buddha after extensive meditation, but once the Buddha he is no longer prince Siddartha. And that toys like Transformers which can only exist either as a car/plane/assualt vehicle or a robot, but not both (as it only creates chaos) reflect that, just like Spiderman, Superman, Wonderwoman etc. resemble the mixing model of the west and thus begin to socialize children in such ideals.
REally interesting book to say the least. I'm on the final chapter, "Bringing the Art Object Back In: Toward a New Realism in the Sociology of Culture." But I wanted to write about it now since It had been a while since I posted a decent review on this thread.
)
