Hoggart - Uses of Literacy

Was anyone else a little unclear as to how exactly we, as students of culture, should use the excerpt from The Uses of Literacy? It seems like most academics would disapprove of Hoggart’s attempt to sum up the “working classes”. And while in a certain context (a memoir or an autobiography – for example) some scholars might regard such generalizations as charmingly dumpy images, vignettes meant to capture a specific, personal past, the title of Hoggart’s book indicates a much grander agenda. I actually want to read more of this book, because I am not unsure why he begins it as such. I acknowledge that a qualitative survey of culture requires its author, originator to make some generalizations; although in some respects, I consider the act of stereotyping brutal, “violent”, I also consider generalization an incredibly powerful tool for understanding broad cultural landscapes. I am just not convinced that the rest of Hoggart’s book requires him to devote so much text, give so many details in generalizing the working classes … but I guess I won’t really know unless I read it.

I am convinced of his claim that the new media makes working class people, the general masses less local and more global and thus less varied. I find this notion especially haunting; its unique dialect, varied neighborhoods are two of my favorite things about Pittsburgh – my hometown. Although I am glad to see Pittsburgh’s economy doing relatively well in recent years, I would hate to see it lose its markedly blue-collar vibe. I would like to know more about what exactly Hoggart means by “there was … one generation ago, an urban culture still very much ‘of the people’ and … now there is only a mass urban culture” (23). My gut agrees with his argument, but I would like to know more specifics. How exactly does he see the various working neighborhoods of London converging into one mass of working people? And now for the question that seems quite pertinent to the majority of class readings: how can we apply this idea to our current context? It seems like the trend would go something like … neighborhoods are no longer distinct, cities are no longer distinct, regions, states, and finally countries. Also how far could this really go? To me that answer seems tightly bound up with the progress of communications technology.

I found the section about superstitions quite peculiar. I don’t understand why superstitions/myths of the working classes are uniquely revealing. Maybe I am being a little too touchy, but this section seems to imply that working people have superstitions, because they don’t know any better, aren’t educated enough to distinguish between myth and fact. I find the Hoggart’s use of the word “luck” interesting. He devotes space to defining, giving examples of luck and unlucky items or circumstances, but he never mentions why working people preoccupy themselves with luck. It makes me wonder who is most likely to believe in luck and why? Are some people, according to their brow types, more likely to see the world/life as deterministic, fateful?