rogergx
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2015
- Member Type
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
I am reading John Fiske's Jeaning of America and find it hard to understand the bolded sentence in paragraph 2. My questions are what are the differences between "semiotic" and "sociological"; why the two foci are mainly semiotic?; "why 'youth' the first focus is not consided one social category (like age)?" The same is with 'working class'. Thanks.
1
Of 125 students of mine, 118 were, on the day that I asked, wearing jeans. The deviant seven, also possessed jeans, but did not happen to be wearing them. I wonder if any other cultural product—movie, TV program, record, lipstick—would be so popular? (T-shirts were as widely owned, but much less regularly worn. ) Students may not be typical of the population as a whole, though jeans are widely popular among non-students in the same age group, and only slightly less widespread among older age groups. So thinking about jeans is as good a way as any to begin a book on popular culture.
2
Let's dismiss their functionality first, for this has little to do with culture, which is concerned with meanings, pleasures and identities rather than efficiency. Of course jeans are a supremely functional garment, comfortable, tough, sometimes cheap, and requiring “low maintenance"—but so, too, are army fatigues. The functionality of jeans is the precondition of their popularity, but does not explain it. In particular, it does not explain the unique ability of jeans to transect almost every social category we can think of. We cannot define a jeans wearer by any of the major social category systems— gender, class, race, age, nation, religion, education. We might argue that jeans have two main social foci, those of youth and the blue-collar or working class, but these foci should be seen as semiotic rather than sociological, that is, as centers of meaning rather than as social categories. So a middle-aged executive wearing jeans as he mows his lawn on a suburban Sunday is, among other things, aligning himself with youthful vigor and activity (in opposition to the distinctly middle-aged office desk) and with the mythic dignity of labor —the belief that physical labor is in some way more honest than wheeling and dealing is deeply imbued in a nation whose pioneers are only a few generations in the past, and is, significantly, particularly widespread among the wheelers and dealers themselves.
1
Of 125 students of mine, 118 were, on the day that I asked, wearing jeans. The deviant seven, also possessed jeans, but did not happen to be wearing them. I wonder if any other cultural product—movie, TV program, record, lipstick—would be so popular? (T-shirts were as widely owned, but much less regularly worn. ) Students may not be typical of the population as a whole, though jeans are widely popular among non-students in the same age group, and only slightly less widespread among older age groups. So thinking about jeans is as good a way as any to begin a book on popular culture.
2
Let's dismiss their functionality first, for this has little to do with culture, which is concerned with meanings, pleasures and identities rather than efficiency. Of course jeans are a supremely functional garment, comfortable, tough, sometimes cheap, and requiring “low maintenance"—but so, too, are army fatigues. The functionality of jeans is the precondition of their popularity, but does not explain it. In particular, it does not explain the unique ability of jeans to transect almost every social category we can think of. We cannot define a jeans wearer by any of the major social category systems— gender, class, race, age, nation, religion, education. We might argue that jeans have two main social foci, those of youth and the blue-collar or working class, but these foci should be seen as semiotic rather than sociological, that is, as centers of meaning rather than as social categories. So a middle-aged executive wearing jeans as he mows his lawn on a suburban Sunday is, among other things, aligning himself with youthful vigor and activity (in opposition to the distinctly middle-aged office desk) and with the mythic dignity of labor —the belief that physical labor is in some way more honest than wheeling and dealing is deeply imbued in a nation whose pioneers are only a few generations in the past, and is, significantly, particularly widespread among the wheelers and dealers themselves.