**Analyzing Popular Culture: Actions and Mass Influence**

Certainly! Here is a high-level essay critically analysing the two definitions of popular culture (as all those things people do or have done, and as mass culture), illustrated with examples and scholarly support, and structured with discourse markers. The reference list at the end includes a range of relevant authorities. --- **Critically Analysing Definitions of Popular Culture: “All That People Do or Have Done” Versus “Mass Culture”** To begin with, the concept of popular culture has generated extensive academic debate, particularly around its definition and the criteria that underpin it. Scholars have offered various conceptualisations, two of which stand prominent: first, popular culture as “all those things that people do or have done” and, second, popular culture as “mass culture.” Both definitions possess merits but are also fraught with limitations, and a critical analysis drawing upon theory, example, and scholarly insight reveals the complexity of delineating what popular culture genuinely is. Firstly, the definition of popular culture as “all those things that people do or have done” proposes a highly democratic and anthropological view. According to Matthew Arnold’s early distinction between “culture and anarchy,” culture was reserved for the best that has been thought and said, implicitly contrasting with the ‘ordinary’ everyday practices (Arnold, 1869). In contrast, proponents of the broad definition, such as Raymond Williams, interpret culture as “a whole way of life,” encompassing the practices, rituals, norms, and artistic expressions of ordinary people (Williams, 1958). This view underpins the field of cultural studies, foregrounding the everyday as a site of meaning-making and social significance. For example, British working-class traditions, Caribbean carnival celebrations, or the widespread European football fandom reflect not just leisure activities, but deeper social values, identity constructions, and communal bonds (Hall, 1981). Here, the inclusivity of the definition captures the diversity and historical depth of communal practices, recognising popular culture as inherently dynamic and mutable. However, as critics such as Storey (2018) and Strinati (2004) observe, this expansiveness can become analytically vague, stretching the concept to cover virtually any facet of communal life, thus making the term “popular” almost redundant or indistinct. In sum, while this approach democratises the understanding of culture, it risks rendering the term too diffuse to offer specific analytical leverage. On the other hand, turning to the second definition, the conceptualisation of popular culture as “mass culture” signals a markedly different interpretive angle, rooted in concerns about industrialisation, commodification, and the expansion of mass media. Markedly, the Frankfurt School theorists, such as Adorno and Horkheimer, were highly critical of mass culture, which they saw as standardised, commodified products manufactured for passive consumption by the masses (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1944). Here, the proliferation of Hollywood films, pop music, television soap operas, and best-selling novels exemplifies the manipulation and homogenisation of taste, often resulting in what Dwight Macdonald (1960) dubbed “midcult”—forms of culture manufactured for, and consumed by, the greatest number of people. The mass culture thesis is illuminated by the global spread of phenomena such as K-pop, American fast food chains, or blockbuster superhero movies—all arguably tailored for broad appeal and maximum consumption. However, critics argue that such a perspective can be both elitist and reductive, assuming cultural passivity and ignoring audience agency in appropriating, resisting, and reinterpreting mass-produced content. Jenkins (1992), for example, illustrates how “fans” actively rework and transform mass media narratives to create new meanings, demonstrating that mass culture is not simply imposed from above, but constantly negotiated from below. Moreover, comparing these definitions highlights the tension between inclusivity and specificity. While the “everything people do” approach is highly inclusive, often valorised by cultural anthropologists and British cultural studies scholars, it paradoxically runs the risk of analytical indeterminacy. Conversely, the “mass culture” thesis—often criticised for its pessimism—places emphasis on the technological and economic structures that shape cultural production, but tends to ignore the heterogeneity of audience reception and creativity (Storey, 2018). Both models, therefore, struggle with boundary-drawing: the former because it potentially encompasses all social practices without distinction, and the latter because it overstates uniformity and manipulation at the expense of diversity and resistance. Furthermore, applying these definitions to real-world phenomena further underscores their analytical payoffs and shortcomings. Take the tradition of hip-hop music: originally emerging from African-American communities as a grassroots cultural expression (Rose, 1994), hip-hop challenged dominant narratives and created new forms of audible and visible resistance. By the “all people do” definition, hip-hop’s emergence is a quintessential example of popular culture’s dynamism and socio-political edge. Yet, as hip-hop became mainstreamed, corporatised, and globally consumed, it also became emblematic of “mass culture,” subject to processes of commodification and standardisation (Ogbar, 2007). Similarly, the British royal wedding in 2011 was both a mass-mediated spectacle and a lived, participatory event involving acts of celebration in communities, homes, and public spaces, illustrating the blurry boundaries between local practice and mass consumption (Couldry, 2003). Thus, these examples illustrate how cultural practices often inhabit messy intersections of the two definitions, resisting easy compartmentalisation. In conclusion, it is apparent that both definitions—the anthropological inclusivity of “all that people do or have done” and the structural-material focus of “mass culture”—provide valuable but partial insights into the nature of popular culture. While the former highlights the everyday and lived practices intrinsic to human societies, the latter foregrounds the effects of industrialisation, media, and commodification on culture. The limitations of both, however, suggest that popular culture is best approached as a contested terrain—one negotiated through everyday life, artistic innovation, media industries, and audience agency. A flexible, multi-dimensional understanding allows us to capture its complexities without falling into the traps of overgeneralisation or reductionism. --- **References** - Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). *Dialectic of Enlightenment*. New York: Continuum. - Arnold, M. (1869). *Culture and Anarchy*. Cambridge University Press. - Couldry, N. (2003). *Media Rituals: A Critical Approach*. Routledge. - Hall, S. (1981). Notes on Deconstructing ‘the Popular’. In R. Samuel (Ed.), *People’s History and Socialist Theory* (pp. 227–240). Routledge. - Jenkins, H. (1992). *Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture*. Routledge. - Macdonald, D. (1960). Masscult and Midcult. *Partisan Review*, 27, 203–233. - Ogbar, J. O. G. (2007). *Hip-Hop Revolution: The Culture and Politics of Rap*. University Press of Kansas. - Rose, T. (1994). *Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America*. Wesleyan University Press. - Storey, J. (2018). *Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction* (8th ed.). Routledge. - Strinati, D. (2004). *An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture*, 2nd Ed. Routledge. - Williams, R. (1958). *Culture and Society 1780-1950*. Chatto & Windus.