Final Paper

Write an 8-10 page paper based on the readings for this course answering one of the following four questions. Use Chicago Style footnotes.

1. What are the primary forces driving the production of mass culture? Is it the audience, the producers, or the "cultural mediators"? Is it global capitalism, technology, or "modernity"? Does mass culture drive social change or does it only reflect it? In the histories we have read for this class, how successful were some of the authors in analyzing the relationship between human agency, culture, and the larger social and economic forces? How do their approaches to agency and causation differ from one another and to what effect? Keep in mind that some historians, following Barbara Fields, define agency as "self-conscious, goal-directed activity, however trivial or ineffectual." Others, like Fernand Braudel, personify (in a sense, attribute "agency" to) such inanimate forces as weather patterns or geography. You should define the terms of your argument before proceeding with your analysis.

2. What is the role of mass culture in defining and promoting nationalism, particularly in countries like China or Brazil where the mass media first arrived from the United States and Western Europe? How have intellectuals and political leaders in these countries used mass cultural forms to counter the influence of Western culture? Many books we have read analyze the relationship between mass culture and nation-building--do you agree with their approaches to the problem of nationalism or would you suggest a different approach?

3. What is the relationship between mass culture and modernity? Discuss the different definitions of modernity historians suggest in the books we have read, including economic, social, and "perceptual" definitions. Why is it such an important analytical term for these authors? Do histories of non-Western cultures define and approach modernity differently from histories of U.S. and Western Europe?

4. How should histories of mass culture balance empirical evidence and theoretical analysis? All historians we have read argue in favor of a combination of theory and research, but some let evidence suggest an analytical approach, whereas others let their theoretical concerns drive research. For example, Robert McChesney argues that careful archival research is not simply indispensable but also dictates a theoretical approach that emphasizes political economy. At the same time, Robin Kelley contends that it is possible to define aspects of mass culture in "such narrow, empirical terms" that even after conducting exhaustive research one would miss the key meanings and social functions of a given cultural form. You should critique the use of evidence and theory in the books you have read while proposing your own approach to this problem.