The Oscars and our Culture
I’m one of those 90% who don’t care about the Oscars. In fact, I couldn’t really tell you the difference between an Oscar, a Grammy, a People’s Choice Award, or any of the other awards that are given out. I can tell you that the American Country Music Awards are for country music, but only because they made it easy for people like me who don’t pay attention to any of the awards.
I appreciate Michael Medved’s piece on the fragmentation of our culture, but I somewhat disagree. The segmentation of our society isn’t a result of the proliferation of media - media works on market forces (the profit motive works in Hollywood too), it doesn’t drive market forces. People want, and have wanted a segmentation of media, just like all other products. It’s the same way our political campaigns work - we look for “niche” voters and speak to their needs and wants. Media does the same thing - provide products for niche audiences. It’s next to impossible to have mass appeal, which is why we don’t have many blockbuster movies that have mass appeal. From a strictly economic standpoint, you get a better return on investment by niching than you do in trying to have a broad appeal. In a niche you recognize that a higher percentage of people will buy your niched product, and hence give you a better return, than if you try to appeal to the mass audience.
This has been going on for a long time. One could argue that with the advent of our society segmenting ourselves by our backgrounds, where we are as a society, our politics, our media, etc. makes perfect sense. In other words, when we started to refer to ourselves as something-Americans, we were already on the way to segmentation of our society. So do I think this hyphanated-American society is the cause of this - no, merely a symptom.
Years ago, a book was written, that has been out of circulation for many decades now called Civilization. I don’t recall the author’s name, it was something like Fitzpatrick or something of that nature. The author wrote about the cycles of civilizations - their rise and fall. He wrote that from his study of civilizations throughout time, they all experienced the same cycle. At the beginning of a civilization the most important unit is the extended family unit, tribe, etc. They provide all the needs of everyone in that community - defense, food, labor, love, etc. As civilizations advance they become more individualized, losing attachments to other people. The role of government increases as a civilization becomes more individualized. It has to start providing the things that an earlier civilization no longer has the ability to provide. When we individualize, we of course niche. When a civilization is at the individualized point, it falls apart because there is no commonality, no common purpose and no reason to stay together, no personal care for others. All that matters is the individual’s needs and wants.
One could argue we are moving in that direction - is it bad? Can it be stopped? Should it be stopped? It is what it is. It is the cycle that every civilization goes through and has gone through throughout history. It is the same cycle that every future civilization will go through as well.
I would make this argument, we are no longer in a melting pot. How can we be in a melting pot - our whole society serves the need of individuals. Our media, our politics, our food, our jobs, our retirements, our every moment is specialized, personalized, and niched. We are at the height of individual freedom, and yet it is that same yearning for individual freedom which will most likely bring the ultimate end of our civilization, just as every other great civilation has experienced. It is our cycle and our human need to express individual freedom.