Wirtschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2013 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Historians have analyzed films, novels, records, theater plays etc. primarily in reference to their meaning and reception. This article makes a case for moving the focus to the actors, structures and processes that shape symbolic objects before these are consumed. To this end, we present a framework established in US sociology to study the fabrication, distribution and evaluation of symbolic content. We discuss the production of culture perspective as an approach that appears to be particularly useful for historical research and, by reviewing selected works from the sociological literature, demonstrate how this perspective can be applied to phenomena like popular music and literary fiction. We focus on genres as bundles of conventions as one lens through which historians may analyze the creation, reproduction, evaluation and consumption of culture.
The supposedly commercial products of the culture industry are increasingly facing sales difficulties because growing numbers of self-assertive consumers are downloading products at will, thus no longer following the given rules of the market. Not only multinational record companies, but also representatives of ‘high’ culture are adamant in their criticism of the current ‘culture for free’ tendency. The latter can hardly be characterized as profit-oriented – nor would they describe themselves that way – but they contend that bootleg copies are a threat to their livelihood, and that the culture of piracy paves the way for harebrained mass products. The discussion encompasses copyright laws and the ways consumers are appropriating cultural products as well as the question whether or not these tendencies will fundamentally change the production of culture. Such debates are charged with cultural criticism, but in essence of economic nature. In addition, the cultural sector is faced with the accusation of waning societal relevance. In the arts and features sections of newspapers and magazines, journalists and essayists bemoan that pop culture is no longer ‘the voice and mirror of political and social change, like twenty or thirty years ago’. Although popular culture may have evolved from its original return and distribution strategies as well as its constitutive (at least for some) connection to youth and protest movements, a medially conveyed, market-driven culture that is accessible to a wide audience remains a characteristic feature of modern societies and their self-perceptions.
Klaus Nathaus and C. Clayton Childress convincingly argue that cultural and symbolic objects are produced before they are consumed and that therefore cultural historians should take a closer look at the social and economic conditions of cultural production. Instead of taking it for granted that mass reception inversely indicates the existence of a demand already ‘being there’, historians should dig into the production processes influenced (among others) by individual taste, material interest, and arbitrary decisions – or, as Nathaus, Childress and the often cited Richard A. Peterson would call it – contingency. While most of Nathaus and Childress’s examples stem from the field of music, I will in my response apply the cultural production concept to a non-musical field, namely documentary photography in the first half of the twentieth century. Further, I will raise some questions that still seem to be unanswered. Given that the causal relation between production and consumption by and large equals the chicken and egg problem, what sense does it make to shift attention from reception to production – especially when dealing with modifications of objects, commodities, or genres rather than inventions in the sense of ‘there was nothing like this before’? I will suggest to extend the concept beyond the study of ‘classical’ cultural objects – like novels or records – and to include commodities like food, clothes, or cars. Finally, I will raise the question of how to apply the production of culture perspective to socialist economies after 1945, which to my knowledge has not been tried yet.
As a striking phenomenon of Soviet consumption, Beriozka stores appeared in the late 1950s and existed until the end of the 1980s. This chain of stores was a state trade organization selling goods that were otherwise in short supply (cars, fashionable clothes, household appliances, etc.) for special ‘checks’ used as equivalents of foreign currency by special groups of Soviet citizens. Similar stores existed in other socialist countries. The article shows that these stores on the one hand became an element of the existing system of state-granted entitlements. The customers were Soviet citizens who earned money abroad as well as people who did not go abroad but received remittances from foreign sources. On the other hand, the development of the black market (barely persecuted by the state) made it possible to purchase Beriozka checks for roubles; so it granted access to sought-after goods (among them even goods from the West) to a wide range of consumers. Paradoxically, Beriozka was criticized and much frequented at the same time.
Soziale Ungleichheit hat viele Gesichter und stellt sich in verschiedenen Gesellschaftsformationen jeweils unterschiedlich dar.1 China ist ein besonders interessanter Fall, weil dort eine Transformation von der Plan- zur Marktwirtschaft unter der Ägide der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas (KPCh) abläuft. Sozialistisches Erbe und kapitalistische Gegenwart gehen also eine ungewöhnliche Verbindung ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund soll der vorliegende Beitrag zeigen, dass die heutigen sozialen Ungleichheiten in China nicht allein das Produkt der Hinwendung zum Kapitalismus sind. Gemäß der Humankapitaltheorie müsste in einer marktbasierten Gesellschaft die individuelle Bildung den größten Beitrag zur Erklärung bestehender Einkommensungleichheit liefern. In der Praxis sind aber auch in kapitalistischen Gesellschaften die Startvoraussetzungen der Einzelnen nicht gleich: Sie hängen stark von der sozioökonomischen Stellung der Eltern ab, sprich von deren ökonomischem und kulturellem Kapital. Über die Weitergabe des Status von einer Generation zur nächsten bilden sich typischerweise soziale Schichten heraus, die je nach Gesellschaft mehr oder weniger Durchlässigkeit aufweisen. In China kommt noch ein dritter Faktor hinzu: Die im Staatssozialismus angelegten sozialen Differenzierungen bilden die Basis für heutige soziale Ungleichgewichte. „Politisches Kapital“ spielt nach wie vor eine wichtige Rolle – Verbindungen zur Herrschaftselite und die Stellung im offiziellen politischen Diskurs besitzen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Schichtungsergebnisse.
Der untergegangene Staatssozialismus war eine Gesellschaft der Gleichen. Mit ihrer Gleichheit war es aber so eine Sache. Wie es in Orwells „Farm der Tiere“ heißt: „Alle Tiere sind gleich. Aber manche sind gleicher.“ Trotz dieses Einwandes erscheint manchem die Unterscheidung zwischen vergangener Gleichheit und heutiger Ungleichheit plausibel, weil es seit 1989/90 eine rasante soziale Ausdifferenzierung gab. Sie hat den Staatssozialismus nachträglich in ein milderes Licht getaucht. Der vorliegende Essay wird sich mit dem sozialen Wandel und der Entstehung der gegenwärtigen Ungleichheit in Osteuropa beschäftigen – die einigen als gerecht, anderen aber als ungerecht erscheint. Um genauer verstehen zu können, was die Ungleichheit für die Politik und den Alltag in diesen Gesellschaften bedeutet, soll gefragt werden: Wie stand es mit Gleichheit und Ungleichheit im Spätsozialismus? Welche Art von sozialer Ungleichheit bildete sich nach 1989 heraus, und welche Aufgaben für deren politikwissenschaftliche und zeitgeschichtliche Analyse lassen sich identifizieren?