I was reading Interdisciplinarity by Joe Moran when I noticed that Moran states that the attention “[F.R.] Leavis paid to popular culture was extremely grudgingly” (Moran 28). Upon seeing popular culture, my creativity sparked, as this is a topic I very much enjoy. The book continued to state that while popular culture’s “pervasive influence demanded that it be studied, this was only so that it could be dismissed for pandering to a taste for ‘substitute-living’ and rendering the masses open to ‘the cheapest emotional appeals’” (Leavis and Thompson 1933: 99; Leavis 1948: 149). In other words, Leavis believes that popular culture should be studied only to belittle those who enjoy being amused easily. I concede that yes, some movies are solely made for entertainment and not for intellectual thinking, particularly with the movies made these days like Sharknado, which Derek Thompson from the Atlantic says, “It had a 0.4 rating in the 18-49 demographic in early Nielsen numbers…. there were more than 600,000 tweets sent about the movie between 8pm and 3am last night” on July 11, 2012 for only “1.4 million viewers”. But I still insist that popular culture is not all for naught. It is not one’s place to judge another’s lifestyle, particularly if the judgment is toward something the opponent enjoys or even adores.
As a result of reading Leavis’ opinion, I thought back on an article I read by Jennifer Wright entitled “What’s So Wrong With Being Basic?” where she argues why the very things Leavis finds for “substitute-living” are not reasonable enough to call anyone unworthy of attention or basic. But what does basic mean? Leonora Epstein, co-author of X vs. Y: A Culture War, a Love Story, says, “To be labeled basic is to say that you have the most homogeneous, blank, and unsophisticated identity.” Certainly, unsophisticated could be regarded as cheap, as homogenous and blank all mean one is living a bland, unoriginal lifestyle that is “substitute-living”. But who is Leavis to draw the statute of limitations on pleasure? Wright tackles this very notion of women throwing “shade at one another for having popular interests” in the article. Wright says, “Liking something popular doesn’t make you lame. Discounting someone for having those same interests, however, does.” I couldn’t agree more.
Who is Leavis to take away someone’s happiness? If listening to Maroon 5 or Taylor Swift makes your endorphins rush more than Nirvana, who cares? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And am I being negligent by depreciating the Nirvana fan base? No, you can insert any band you desire in place of Nirvana. Nirvana was simply the first band that came to my mind, ergo my mind created an answer for my desire. This is my opinion and nothing less; I have not insulted any band in the process. It is not in my taste to degrade opinions to adjectives like “cheap”, as Leavis does.