download (28)

High and Low

High and Low

Let us reflect briefly upon low culture and high culture. What do we mean by such a distinction? Does it pertain more to the cultural content under consideration or to the aptitude and (more or less developed) capacities of the “users” or “players”? How might we distinguish or differentiate persons whose lives revolve around high cultural concerns from those who are confined, for one reason or another, within the more limited horizons of low, or merely practical-material, culture? What qualitative differences do we find? Must one whose life is solidly planted in high culture have first come up through what we’re designating as low or common culture? And if this stage was resisted or stubbornly avoided, what are the likely problems and dangers faced by those who bypass this lower level—as they attempt to ‘pole vault’ into the higher level?

If we ascribe a pyramidal structure to culture (as a comprehensive whole or totality), how do we understand the relationship between the low, broad, solid base of the culture and its limited, rarefied expressions, high up at the summit? What is the most obvious conclusion we can draw from this commonly used model? Isn’t it necessarily true that high culture – whatever it consists in – depends on the low culture beneath it, to support and perhaps even to nourish it? Thus, the higher is enabled by the initial establishment and smooth functioning of the lower. If it is true that the higher depends, for its very existence and survival, upon the lower, what must the higher do to justify its continuing existence? How can it repay the debt it owes for the honors, privileges, and support it receives from the lower? Are there honest and upright ways to justify the stable existence of the higher culture and dishonest and unjust means, as well?Would someone who is confined – either contentedly or not – to the lower levels of the pyramid be more likely to trust and heed the counsel of a “higher up” who had begun his career near the base of the pyramid – or from the top tiers? Wouldn’t the first type – who starts low and climbs high – more likely be regarded as a resourceful, self-reliant fellow than the other type who never had to grapple with such obstacles and challenges? Why would such “credentials” be of importance in winning the continued support of those from ‘below’ on the lower levels – those who actually make all pyramids possible in the first place, pyramids made from stone as well as those constructed from rational concepts, symbolic forms, and mental faculties?

Leave a Reply