Culture has a central role in communication and media science. However, culture itself does not have a correct definition of its concept. Basically, culture serves as a tool that is useful for individuals in everyday life, so the definition of culture does not need to be debated by the theorists. Williams (1981, 1983) once pointed the idea that the definitive answer about culture is similar with the process of raising crops, called 'cultivation', in which later the term was developed to encompass the human mind or soul. There are two approaches to evaluate and categorized culture theory proposed by Raymond Williams: idealist approach and materialist approach. Oxford described idealist as satisfying one's idea of what is perfect, or a person who has high standard (Oxford, 21th century). Idealist approach emphasise the sharing of ideas/values that are considered universally true, and belief in being selective needs value judgment. Later on, idealist approach develop a notion of 'high and low' culture based on several standard and judgment of what's good and bad. Capitalism was totally rejected based on the consideration of: mass production will weakens human emotional experience. On the contrary, materialist approach developed by Marxist focuses on human development over time in societies. Unlike the classic concept of culture which developed by idealist, in materialist approach universal truth is no longer used. It has to be scientific and depending on empirical data, and approved developmental stage of capitalism because materialist is also necessarily about producing material things for society and cannot be argued by artistic aspect.
Famous writer from 19th century, Matthew Arnold, portrayed culture through idealist approach as 'the best that has been thought and said in the world'. Furthermore, Arnold put forward an aesthetic and political argument which is commonly used to justify things referred to 'high culture', where the activities of reading, observing and thinking are categorized as moral perfection through several high standards. The idea put forward by Arnold influenced other famous cultural theorists with a capital C in the 1930s, named Frank Raymond 'F.R.' Leavis and Queenie Dorothy 'Q.D.' Leavis. Leavisism (1930) pointed that culture is the high point of civilization and the concern of an educated minority. For instance, Leavis said Folk-songs and Folk-dance are considered minority culture of the educated elite. In contrast, mass-produced things are categorized as low culture because of the high level of homogeneity. The theorist forced this cultural taste to be universally true. These two classifications of what's high and what's low are characteristic of idealist approach. High culture has been lost due to industrialization era, where mass culture begins to develop. Basically, the three experts distinguish between good and bad by focusing on aesthetic judgment, which formed the 'high and low' culture. So, there is a distinction between high and low culture. This is due to the judgment process that is influenced by the class-based cultural taste.
For instance, television soap opera is considered a low culture, because it is consumed by proletariat, while broadway theatrical drama is classified as high culture because it can only be accessed by particular social groups. Another case, novels and comics have the same function: reading and entertainment, but the idealist approach examines at both types of literary works from the aesthetic aspects contained in the content produced. The novel is classified as high culture because the reader will go through a deeper process of thinking and imagination, compared to reading comics (low culture) in which illustration are provided and makes the readers easily understand the writer's idea. But in the end, universal criteria and aesthetic judgments in the context of high and low culture are considered to be relative, despite of the class-based cultural taste.
Leavis put forward the next theory when he identifies culture crisis, he called it mass society. The characteristics of mass society are opposed to the central value of idealist approach, there is no universal value/understanding, industry and materialism are considered secular. Technological developments were considered destructive and could revolutionized social customs. The new human history that has just begun is considered abnormal because there is no tradition shared by society. Leavis passive acceptance of capitalist culture is based on a belief that mass production weakens human emotional experience. This modern society industry rejection theory also has similarities with the criticism put forward by Adorno, Marcuse and Horkheimer which are wrapped in a different framework. 'Minority culture' in the past basically gives us control to seek profit in terms of human experience of literary terms.
After capitalism era raised where many aspects of life were mass-produced, a new form of culture was reinvented. Culture is no longer distinguished by the aesthetic value or judgmental value, but rather a matter of preference. Connoisseur divide good and bad only to framed range of choice, not to classified type of culture. This is called culture industry, where the power of society is considered irrational, but commercial agencies trying to rationalize it. The consumers no longer classify what is given to them because everything is well is calculated by the producers. The manufacturers know that every entertainment content will always sustained the masses. For instance, the production house of Warner Bros and Metro Goldwyn Mayer has something in common: producing films. What distinguishes both parties is technology, equipment and stars that play a role in the film to create an illusion of interest.
Moving on to the part of culture industry, which shared the same conception about culture: mass culture. This culture focuses on social being because it determines levels of consciousness, the opposed idea of classical culture conception, where consciousness determines social being. Adorno (1977) stated that mass culture discussed a lot about the development of television that are not based on aesthetic values, but rather focus on the inner consistency and effect on consumers. Moreover, the effects discussed in the mass culture are not limited to intelligence, in fact mass culture created a situation where capitalism and social forms elaborate and will eliminate class-based hierarchy. In addition, the transition between classical concept of culture towards mass culture is just a matter of adjustment, where a person should give up their aesthetic ideas for the development of societies. The need to produce material requirements(i.e. television) cannot be avoided in spite of the value hearing over time. Here, the mode of production in mass culture is seen as constructive for the society economy. The increasing interest on television is even referred as an emancipation of the proletariat and becoming a new constitution of the new society.
Morag Schiah (1989) also argued that general matters, in this case television, cannot be linked to cultural hierarchies because they are popular and fit the taste of many people. Theorists who portrayed television as popular culture tend to see it as something that is 'preferred' by many people and looks mediocre, while mass culture theorists look at different point of view that television is a cultural form produced for the public. There is also a tendency to see television as a trigger of national homogeneity. Leavis insists on categorizing television as a popular culture because of one aspect: television is mass produced, therefore, minority cultures must be prioritized to maintain tradition and 'consciousness of the race'.
When theorists are comparing their most ideal nature of culture through idealist and materialist, there is an approach called anthropological approach which is related to the theory of culture pointed by Raymond Williams. He presented a theory that contradicts the aesthetic concept proposed by Arnold. William focuses on working-class individuals and cultural constructions that already exist in everyday life, so it is less political compared to Arnold's, although this theory correlates with different types of politics. Raymond found that culture has two crucial aspects: the known meanings and directions, where the individuals involved are trained to observe and seek meanings. This considered as a process of human mind in general and after the process is passed, we can see the true nature of culture: traditional and creative. And he came up with a conclusion that culture is ordinary and refers to two aspects, namely 'arts' and value, also the symbol of everyday life. I assumed the approach to this culture cannot be stated as idealist or materialist because it does not have a supporting category to justify whether the concept is belong to an approach. The anthropological approach emphasizes culture on everyday meanings such as values, norms and material goods. This is based on the understanding that meanings are generated not by individuals alone but by collectives. Thus, the idea of culture refers to shared meanings (hall, 1997a: 2). Later Hoggart, Thompson and Raymond Williams made an understanding of culture in terms of anthropology and history, which was given the name culturalism. They have the same subordinate sentences about cultural 'ordinariness'. They have the same point of view about the 'ordinariness' of culture. This understanding includes the active and creative aspects of a human being to build shared meaningful practices.
To summarize a brief analysis of the two approaches, idealist approach examine culture based on judgmental value and the ideology considered as universal truth applied for society in reference to arts, norms, values and tradition. Arnold and Leavis's theories are considered using the idealist frame of mind, because they tend to evaluate and categorize some activities using high standard. Therefore, the term 'high and low' culture appears which has certain characteristics, to make a distinction between what is good and bad affected by class-based hierarchy and high civilization. In this era capitalism was rejected because mass production was considered disruptive to the human emotional experience. On the contrary, mass culture which become the part of culture industry defined different conception. Judgmental and artistic value were no longer prioritized. The concept focuses on constructing societies economy through mass production. This era also marked proletariat emancipation and becoming a new constitution of the new society. But in the end, the two cultural concepts only lasted for a while because they were not in accordance with the values perceived in today's society.