High culture versus low culture is an issue that has consistently plagued popular culture across the world. What “highbrow” and “lowbrow” mean in terms of media has shifted throughout history, as seen with the ebb and flow of the popularity of Shakespeare across American culture. While the meaning of this terminology has shifted and evolved, the underlying factor that dictates these classifications has not wavered. High culture has always been set apart from low culture in terms of accessibility. As television continues to evolve and expand across various platforms, the divide between prestige and lowbrow television content continues to expand. This divide is one rooted in an intentional battle of accessibility, both in a socioeconomic and an intellectual sense.
To truly understand what high culture and low culture mean in relation to television, these terms must first be contextualized. In Lawrence Levine’s book, Highbrow/lowbrow, he writes that “culture is a process, not a fixed condition; it is the product of unremitting interaction between the past and the present” (33). This process and its subsequent product, is one that is inevitably linked to accessibility which yields the blurry distinctions of high culture and low culture. Though the specific elements labeled as “high culture” are fluid, it is through the advantages of accessibility that this ranking of culture developed at all. Derived from the pseudoscience of phrenology, a nineteenth-century practice of measuring intelligence relative to cranial shape and structure, a higher set brow bone denoted a higher mental capacity. Conversely a lower brow bone signified someone who was neither “highly intellectual” or “aesthetically refined” (Levine, 221). Though these terms have an antiquated anatomical basis, their use and prevalence have continue to exist long after the study of phrenology was prominent. Based on theories about mass production by Susan Sontag and Walter Benjamin, the initial value of a piece of work is negatively correlated with the work’s accessibility to mass audiences. The accessibility of a piece of work is directly linked to the consumer’s socioeconomic and intellectual status. These factors significantly affect who in a culture is exposed to what, creating high culture and low culture distinctions based on a consumer’s standing within these factors.
This reliance on accessibility can be visualized from the initial birth of television to where television is now. Lynn Spigel, in her book Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America, notes the rise of television and its original appeal of accessibility. Spigel references a quote from a 1912 article in The Independent which claims that the home theatre “will not seem like a mechanical device, but a window or a pair of magic opera glasses through which one will watch the actors or doers” (99). Though the “home theatre” The Independent is referring to would not become widely available until the 1950s, it was already being advertised as a device that would allow viewers to leave the confines of their homes for previously inaccessible spaces. Thomas Hutchinson also supported this claim in his 1946 article, Here is Television, Your Window on the World, which noted the ability to bring the “outside world” into the home making it a “form of ‘going places’ without even the expenditure of movement, to say nothing of money” (Spigel, 102). Spigel notes that early television programs offered a “privileged opening onto a public sphere” giving cultural and intellectual capital to those it had been previously inaccessible to (105). The introduction to televisions to the home, and the advertising that followed, was almost entirely rooted in accessibility. By allowing the general population to then access to these tools, a new divide occurred in terms of the content on television.
In the summer of 2018, Rolling Stone published an article which lists the “100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time.” When scrolling through this list, the link between exclusivity and highbrow, “great” television becomes clear. Most of the shows listed on this ranking are only accessible to viewers with the money to spend on them. While some of these shows are available on a basic cable package, like Mad Men or Saturday Night Live, a viewer must still be able to afford a basic cable package, in addition to a television and a cable box that many cable companies now require customers to use. Beyond that, many of these shows like Game of Thrones or House of Cards, are only available on additional paid services like HBO and Netflix (Sheffield). With streaming services like Netflix which creates and produces original content only available through a paid subscription, internet access is also required to watch. This is also true for streaming services like Hulu and Amazon Prime which both require paid subscriptions and access to internet. This means that those who have access to content only on these platforms must also have the monetary funds to buy a television or other device as well a subscription and a paid internet plan. These paywalls make most forms of television exclusive to those who have the funds to enjoy them. There is an undeniable connection between what shows Rolling Stone finds to be the “greatest” and the money it costs to consume them.
Television emerged as a technology centered and marketed as something accessible, so how did so much of television content stray from this initial purpose? In Christopher Anderson’s article “Producing an Aristocracy of Culture in American Television” he argues that this distinction came about with the rise of the “aesthetic disposition” (24). Anderson claims that “the aesthetic disposition brings to television the cultivated expectation that watching certain television series requires and rewards the temperament, knowledge, and protocols normally considered appropriate for encounters with museum- worthy works of art” (24). He also notes that HBO most notoriously follows this protocol with their slogan, “It’s Not TV, It’s HBO” (24). This implies that certain television shows or providers have distanced themselves from the original basis of accessible content. HBO proudly announces this to consumers when their advertisers show disdain for even the term “TV,” preferring to refer to their content as something different, something better. This is also linked to a sense of cultural capital these prestige shows demand of their viewers. It is not enough to just pay for the content, one must possess the right intellectual and societal knowledge to be able to understand and truly appreciate these shows.
This dependence on cultural capital is expressed when Anderson writes, “ the viewers of HBO dramas are permitted to detach themselves from typical modes of television viewing… a disposition instantly adopted by patrons in a museum gallery or a symphony concert hall, but one seldom achieved in the family room” (25). The comparison between the consumption of HBO shows and the disposition of museum or concert hall attendees sheds a crisp light on what kind of viewers HBO is interested in. High culture television for high culture consumers. Attending a museum or a symphony show are activities typically associated with affluence and intellectual capital, not with watching television on basic cable. HBO is specifically targeting people who are not only in the financial position to jump the paywall, but to have the capacity to understand the content they are producing. This claim is supported further in Anderson’s article when he writes, “it is not possible to believe that certain artifacts are legitimate works of art unless one also believes that others are illegitimate and should be excluded from consideration” (26). HBO would not be able to position their content as “something better” if it were not for their belief that there is “something worse” in terms of television content. This is where the intentional divide between highbrow and lowbrow television is revealed.
Prestige television has no goal to appeal to large audiences. The content providers have no need to, the monetary gain from the paywall allows them to limit their demographic and address only those who they feel are capable of consuming their content in the way they intended. This also gives these producers the resources from this financial gain to create higher quality television which disguises the true discrepancies that cause the difference between highbrow and lowbrow television. Without this social and financial exclusivity, their content would likely be no more prestige than regular cable television shows who gain their resources through basic packages and advertising revenue through the broadcast network. While this may seem like an inevitable progression of television, this type of exclusivity has opened the door for other non-traditional platforms to attract viewers and combat this lack of accessibility.
With the growth of the internet, websites like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram have launched video viewing features at no additional cost to the users. Many of these media forms are not considered to be television in the same way that these highbrow shows are thought to be. That being said, in a society where television is being consumed on smartphones and laptops, on the way to work or in a doctor’s waiting room, some video consumers may feel the definition of television is open to interpretation. Sites like YouTube allow users to post and view most content for free with only the interruption of brief advertisements to make their profit. Video creators on YouTube create accessible content about whatever they please, as long it fits the companies guidelines.
In an article examining the role of black women YouTubers and the “natural hair movement,” researchers found that the accessibility of this video platform offered a “homeplace” where the “human experience is grounded” as a site for “learning, self-love, and critical discourse” (Phelps-Ward and Laura). They also noted that YouTube is a place where women and girls can “share their personal experiences, life events and advice for others” in a way that is accessible to any viewer with a device and internet access (Phelps-Ward and Laura). It also opens a door for representation that viewers of color, queer viewers and disabled viewers can find and consume representation that is often not expressed on mainstream television content. It is not an accident that many prestige television shows like The Sopranos or Seinfeld feature mostly cisgender, straight white men. With content platforms like YouTube where videos are produced at the discretion of the creators, this lack of representation becomes less of an issue. As Phelps-Ward and Laura noted, YouTube becomes a place where those who feel underrepresented or alienated in society can go to enjoy accessible and culturally relevant content.
These new types of media are not perfect though and they do not entirely make up the gap between high culture and low culture television. To watch YouTube or Facebook Live or Instagram TV, viewers must still be in the financial and cultural position to acquire a smart device and internet access. Additionally, sites like YouTube have begun limiting some of their users’ content to only YouTube subscribers who are able to pay for a monthly subscription. While the vast majority of their content is still available to most viewers for free, this type of accessibility has already begun to change and may continue to get more and more limited as viewers make the switch from cable television to online video content. It is not yet clear what the solution to these problems is and whether or not a solution even truly exists. What is clear is that though these distinctions waver and shift over time, they do matter and should be considered when ranking pieces of media.
Looking back at the Rolling Stone article, it would be easy to consider the idea that television is subjective and different viewers enjoy different pieces of media. That is not what Rob Sheffield, the author of this list, claims though. Before the ranking is listed, the article reads, “from time-capsule sitcoms to cutting-edge Peak-TV dramas- the definitive ranking of the game-changing small-screen classics” (Sheffield). The words “definitive ranking” imply that not only is this the ultimate ranking of these shows but that it was done with the authority of someone who could reasonably decide these things. This only further ties into the belief that high culture is intellectual, authoritative and wealthy. Those who have the access to consume these forms of media and the intellectual capacity to understand them are the same people that publish articles arguing that is it the best television. They go beyond just claiming that it is the best though, but extend their authority to the point of making it “definitive.” This negates the voices of those who have not watched these prestige shows or those viewers that did but did not understand them or enjoy them. To rank media like this only further highlights the discrepancies between what is considered high culture and low culture, at least from the perspective of those engaged with high culture forms of media. There is a real, visible difference between highbrow and lowbrow television but it is never in the hands of lowbrow television consumers to articulate what this difference it. Rather, it is the duty of those who create, define and watch high culture forms of media to decide what is beneath them as consumers.
Highbrow and lowbrow are real distinctions when it comes to media, especially television. These two defined categories will likely continue to exist as long as popular culture does and the pieces of media within them will shift and trade. What defines these categories most though has little do with what is in them but who is consuming them. Accessibility is the factor that keeps high culture and low culture separate entities. While new efforts have been made to correct and democratize these forms of content, their impact has not been as large or long-lasting as necessary to make huge changes. As long as media is defined and controlled by money and education, this factor will continue to persist as the divider between these two facets.