Subculture 

A subculture is a group of people within a culture that differentiates itself from the parent culture
to which it belongs, often maintaining some of its founding principles. Subcultures develop their
own norms and values regarding cultural, political and sexual matters. Subcultures are part of
society while keeping their specific characteristics intact. Examples of subcultures
include hippies, goths, bikers and skinheads. The concept of subcultures was developed
in sociology and cultural studies.[1] Subcultures differ from countercultures.

While exact definitions vary, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a subculture as "a cultural
group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger
culture."[3] As early as 1950, David Riesman distinguished between a majority, "which passively
accepted commercially provided styles and meanings, and a 'subculture' which actively sought a
minority style ... and interpreted it in accordance with subversive values".[4] In his 1979
book Subculture: The Meaning of Style, Dick Hebdige argued that a subculture is a subversion to
normalcy. He wrote that subcultures can be perceived as negative due to their nature of criticism
to the dominant societal standard. Hebdige argued that subculture brings together like-minded
individuals who feel neglected by societal standards and allow them to develop a sense of
identity.[5]
In 1995, Sarah Thornton, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu, described "subcultural capital" as the
cultural knowledge and commodities acquired by members of a subculture, raising their status
and helping differentiate themselves from members of other groups.[6] In 2007, Ken Gelder
proposed to distinguish subcultures from countercultures based on the level of immersion in
society.[7] Gelder further proposed six key ways in which subcultures can be identified through
their:

1. often negative relations to work (as 'idle', 'parasitic', at play or at leisure, etc.);
2. negative or ambivalent relation to class (since subcultures are not 'class-conscious' and
don't conform to traditional class definitions);
3. association with territory (the 'street', the 'hood', the club, etc.), rather than property;
4. movement out of the home and into non-domestic forms of belonging (i.e. social groups
other than the family);
5. stylistic ties to excess and exaggeration (with some exceptions);
6. refusal of the banalities of ordinary life and massification.[7]
Sociologists Gary Alan Fine and Sherryl Kleinman argued that their 1979 research showed that a
subculture is a group that serves to motivate a potential member to adopt the artifacts, behaviors,
norms, and values characteristic of the group.
The evolution of subcultural studies has three main steps:

Subcultures and deviance[edit]

The earliest subcultures studies came from the so-called Chicago School, who interpreted them
as forms of deviance and delinquency. Starting with what they called Social Disorganization
Theory, they claimed that subcultures emerged on one hand because of some population
sectors’ lack of socialisation with the mainstream culture and, on the other, because of their
adoption of alternative axiological and normative models. As Robert E. Park, Ernest
Burgess and Louis Wirth suggested, by means of selection and segregation processes, there
thus appear in society natural areas or moral regions where deviant models concentrate and are
re-inforced; they do not accept objectives or means of action offered by the mainstream culture,
proposing different ones in their place – thereby becoming, depending on circumstances,
innovators, rebels or retreatists (Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin). Subcultures, however, are
not only the result of alternative action strategies but also of labelling processes on the basis of
which, as Howard S. Becker explains, society defines them as outsiders. As Cohen clarifies,
every subculture's style, consisting of image, demeanour and language becomes its recognition
trait. And an individual's progressive adoption of a subcultural model will furnish him/her with
growing status within this context but it will often, in tandem, deprive him/her of status in the
broader social context outside where a different model prevails.[10] Cohen used the term 'Corner
Boys' which were unable to compete with their better secured and prepared peers. These lower-
class boys did not have equal access to resources, resulting in the status of frustration and
search for a solution.

Subcultures and resistance[edit]

In the work of John Clarke, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts of the Birmingham
CCCS (Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies), subcultures are interpreted as forms of
resistance. Society is seen as being divided into two fundamental classes, the working class and
the middle class, each with its own class culture, and middle-class culture being dominant.
Particularly in the working class, subcultures grow out of the presence of specific interests and
affiliations around which cultural models spring up, in conflict with both their parent culture and
mainstream culture. Facing a weakening of class identity, subcultures are then new forms of
collective identification expressing what Cohen called symbolic resistance against the
mainstream culture and developing imaginary solutions for structural problems. As Paul
Willis and Dick Hebdige underline, identity and resistance are expressed through the
development of a distinctive style which, by a re-signification and ‘bricolage’ operation, use
cultural industry goods to communicate and express one's own conflict. Yet the cultural industry
is often capable of re-absorbing the components of such a style and once again transforming
them into goods. At the same time the mass media, while they participate in building subcultures
by broadcasting their images, also weaken them by depriving them of their subversive content or
by spreading a stigmatized image of them.

Subcultures and distinction[edit]

The most recent interpretations see subcultures as forms of distinction. In an attempt to
overcome the idea of subcultures as forms of deviance or resistance, they describe subcultures
as collectivities which, on a cultural level, are sufficiently homogeneous internally and
heterogeneous with respect to the outside world to be capable of developing, as Paul Hodkinson
points out, consistent distinctiveness, identity, commitment and autonomy. Defined by Sarah
Thornton as taste cultures, subcultures are endowed with elastic, porous borders, and are
inserted into relationships of interaction and mingling, rather than independence and conflict, with
the cultural industry and mass media, as Steve Redhead and David Muggleton emphasize. The
very idea of a unique, internally homogeneous, dominant culture is explicitly criticized. Thus
forms of individual involvement in subcultures are fluid and gradual, differentiated according to
each actor's investment, outside clear dichotomies. The ideas of different levels of subcultural
capital (Sarah Thornton) possessed by each individual, of the supermarket of style (Ted
Polhemus) and of style surfing (Martina Böse) replace that of the subculture's insiders and
outsiders – with the perspective of subcultures supplying resources for the construction of new
identities going beyond strong, lasting identifications.
2.Cultural studies
Cultural studies is a field of theoretically, politically, and empirically engaged cultural
analysis that concentrates upon the political dynamics of contemporary culture, its historical
foundations, defining traits, conflicts, and contingencies. Cultural studies researchers generally
investigate how cultural practices relate to wider systems of power associated with or operating
through social phenomena, such as ideology, class structures, national
formations, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and generation. Cultural studies views cultures
not as fixed, bounded, stable, and discrete entities, but rather as constantly interacting and
changing sets of practices and processes.[1] The field of cultural studies encompasses a range of
theoretical and methodological perspectives and practices. Although distinct from the discipline
of cultural anthropology and the interdisciplinary field of ethnic studies, cultural studies draws
upon and has contributed to each of these fields.[2]
Cultural studies was initially developed by British Marxist academics in the late 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s, and has been subsequently taken up and transformed by scholars from many
different disciplines around the world. Cultural studies is avowedly and even radically
interdisciplinary and can sometimes be seen as antidisciplinary. A key concern for cultural
studies practitioners is the examination of the forces within and through which socially organized
people conduct and participate in the construction of their everyday lives.[3]
Cultural studies combines a variety of politically engaged critical approaches drawn
including semiotics, Marxism, feminist theory, ethnography, critical race theory, post-
structuralism, postcolonialism, social theory, political theory, history, philosophy, literary
theory, media theory, film/video studies, communication studies, political economy, translation
studies, museum studies and art history/criticism to study cultural phenomena in various
societies and historical periods. Cultural studies seeks to understand how meaning is generated,
disseminated, contested, bound up with systems of power and control, and produced from the
social, political and economic spheres within a particular social formation or conjuncture.
Important theories of cultural hegemony and agency have both influenced and been developed
by the cultural studies movement, as have many recent major communication theories and
agendas, such as those that attempt to explain and analyze the cultural forces related and
processes of globalization.
During the rise of neo-liberalism in Britain and the US, cultural studies both became a global
movement, and attracted the attention of many conservative opponents both within and beyond
universities for a variety of reasons. Some left-wing critics associated particularly with Marxist
forms of political economy also attacked cultural studies for allegedly overstating the importance
of cultural phenomena. While cultural studies continues to have its detractors, the field has
become a kind of a worldwide movement of students and practitioners with a raft of scholarly
associations and programs, annual international conferences and publications.[4][5] Distinct
approaches to cultural studies have emerged in different national and regional contexts.
 is a field of theoretically, politically, and empirically engaged cultural analysis that concentrates
upon the political dynamics of contemporary culture, its historical foundations, defining traits,
conflicts, and contingencies. Cultural studies researchers generally investigate how cultural
practices relate to wider systems of power associated with or operating through social
phenomena, such as ideology, class structures, national formations, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, gender, and generation. Cultural studies views cultures not as fixed, bounded, stable,
and discrete entities, but rather as constantly interacting and changing sets of practices and
processes.[1] The field of cultural studies encompasses a range of theoretical and methodological
perspectives and practices. Although distinct from the discipline of cultural anthropology and the
interdisciplinary field of ethnic studies, cultural studies draws upon and has contributed to each of
these fields.[2]
Cultural studies was initially developed by British Marxist academics in the late 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s, and has been subsequently taken up and transformed by scholars from many
different disciplines around the world. Cultural studies is avowedly and even radically
interdisciplinary and can sometimes be seen as antidisciplinary. A key concern for cultural
studies practitioners is the examination of the forces within and through which socially organized
people conduct and participate in the construction of their everyday lives.[3]
Cultural studies combines a variety of politically engaged critical approaches drawn
including semiotics, Marxism, feminist theory, ethnography, critical race theory, post-
structuralism, postcolonialism, social theory, political theory, history, philosophy, literary
theory, media theory, film/video studies, communication studies, political economy, translation
studies, museum studies and art history/criticism to study cultural phenomena in various
societies and historical periods. Cultural studies seeks to understand how meaning is generated,
disseminated, contested, bound up with systems of power and control, and produced from the
social, political and economic spheres within a particular social formation or conjuncture.
Important theories of cultural hegemony and agency have both influenced and been developed
by the cultural studies movement, as have many recent major communication theories and
agendas, such as those that attempt to explain and analyze the cultural forces related and
processes of globalization.
During the rise of neo-liberalism in Britain and the US, cultural studies both became a global
movement, and attracted the attention of many conservative opponents both within and beyond
universities for a variety of reasons. Some left-wing critics associated particularly with Marxist
forms of political economy also attacked cultural studies for allegedly overstating the importance
of cultural phenomena. While cultural studies continues to have its detractors, the field has
become a kind of a worldwide movement of students and practitioners with a raft of scholarly
associations and programs, annual international conferences and publications.[4][5] Distinct
approaches to cultural studies have emerged in different national and regional contexts.

Characteristics[edit]
In his 1994 book, Introducing Cultural Studies, orientalist scholar Ziauddin Sardar lists the
following five main characteristics of cultural studies:[6]

 The objective of cultural studies is to understand culture in all its complex forms, and
analyzing the social and political context in which culture manifests itself.
 Cultural study is a site of both study/analysis and political criticism. For example, not only
would a cultural studies scholar study an object, but they may also connect this study to a
larger political project.
 Cultural studies attempt to expose and reconcile constructed divisions of knowledge that
purport to be grounded in nature.
 Cultural studies has a commitment to an ethical evaluation of modern society.
 One aim of cultural studies could be to examine cultural practices and their relation
to power, following critical theory. For example, a study of a subculture (such as white
working-class youth in London) would consider their social practices against those of
the dominant culture (in this example, the middle and upper classes in London who control
the political and financial sectors that create policies affecting the well-being of white
working-class youth in London).

3.Identity formation
 Identity formation, also called identity development or identity construction, is a
complex process in which humans develop a clear and unique view of themselves and of
their identity.[1]
 Self-concept, personality development, and values are all closely related to identity
formation. Individuation is also a critical part of identity formation. [2][3][4] Continuity and inner
unity are healthy identity formation, while a disruption in either could be viewed and
labeled as abnormal development; certain situations, like childhood trauma, can
contribute to abnormal development. Specific factors also play a role in identity formation,
such as race, ethnicity, and spirituality.
 The concept of personal continuity, or personal identity, refers to an individual posing
questions about themselves that challenge their original perception, like "Who am
I?"[5] The process defines individuals to others and themselves. Various factors make up
a person's actual identity, including a sense of continuity, [6] a sense of uniqueness from
others, and a sense of affiliation based on their membership in various groups like family,
ethnicity, and occupation. These group identities demonstrate the human need for
affiliation or for people to define themselves in the eyes of others and themselves.
 Identities are formed on many levels. The micro-level is self-definition, relations with
people, and issues as seen from a personal or an individual perspective. The meso-level
pertains to how identities are viewed, formed, and questioned by immediate communities
and/or families. The macro-level are the connections among and individuals and issues
from a national perspective. The global level connects individuals, issues, and groups at
a worldwide level.[7]
 Identity is often described as finite and consisting of separate and distinct parts (e.g.,
family, cultural, personal, professional).
 Identity formation has to do with the complex manner in which human
beings establish a unique view of self and is characterized by continuity
and inner unity. It is therefore highly related to terms such as the self,
self-concept, values, and personality development. The goal of personal
identity formation is to establish a coherent view of self through the
process of normal human development. Abnormal development could
be viewed as the establishment of an incoherent self and characterized
by discontinuity or the lack of inner unity. Although the benchmarks of
identity formation are most easily observed at the adolescent and adult
levels of development, a fledgling identity for a person develops during
his/her childhood experiences. At the core of identity formation is the
human personality, but psychologists have also employed this term to
speak of subcategories such as racial, ethnic, social class, gender role,
spiritual, and sexual identity. 

 4.Mass media
 Mass media is communication—whether written, broadcast, or spoken—that
reaches a large audience. This includes television, radio, advertising, movies,
the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and so forth.

 Mass media is a significant force in modern culture, particularly in America.

Sociologists refer to this as a mediated culture where media reflects and
creates the culture. Communities and individuals are bombarded constantly
with messages from a multitude of sources including TV, billboards, and
magazines, to name a few. These messages promote not only products, but
moods, attitudes, and a sense of what is and is not important. Mass media
makes possible the concept of celebrity: without the ability of movies,
magazines, and news media to reach across thousands of miles, people
could not become famous. In fact, only political and business leaders, as well
as the few notorious outlaws, were famous in the past. Only in recent times
have actors, singers, and other social elites become celebrities or “stars.”

 The current level of media saturation has not always existed. As recently as
the 1960s and 1970s, television, for example, consisted of primarily three
networks, public broadcasting, and a few local independent stations. These
channels aimed their programming primarily at two‐parent, middle‐class
families. Even so, some middle‐class households did not even own a
television. Today, one can find a television in the poorest of homes, and
multiple TVs in most middle‐class homes. Not only has availability increased,
but programming is increasingly diverse with shows aimed to please all ages,
incomes, backgrounds, and attitudes. This widespread availability and
exposure makes television the primary focus of most mass‐media
discussions. More recently, the Internet has increased its role exponentially as
more businesses and households “sign on.” Although TV and the Internet
have dominated the mass media, movies and magazines—particularly those
lining the aisles at grocery checkout stands—also play a powerful role in
culture, as do other forms of media.
  What role does mass media play? Legislatures, media executives, local
school officials, and sociologists have all debated this controversial question.
While opinions vary as to the extent and type of influence the mass media
wields, all sides agree that mass media is a permanent part of modern
culture. Three main sociological perspectives on the role of media exist: the
limited‐effects theory, the class‐dominant theory, and the culturalist theory.

Limited-effects

The limited‐effects theory argues that because people generally choose what to watch or

read based on what they already believe, media exerts a negligible influence. This theory
originated and was tested in the 1940s and 1950s. Studies that examined the ability of media
to influence voting found that well‐informed people relied more on personal experience, prior
knowledge, and their own reasoning. However, media “experts” more likely swayed those
who were less informed. Critics point to two problems with this perspective. First, they claim
that limited‐effects theory ignores the media's role in framing and limiting the discussion and
debate of issues. How media frames the debate and what questions members of the media ask
change the outcome of the discussion and the possible conclusions people may draw. Second,
this theory came into existence when the availability and dominance of media was far less
widespread.

Class-dominant

The class‐dominant theory argues that the media reflects and projects the view of a
minority elite, which controls it. Those people who own and control the corporations that
produce media comprise this elite. Advocates of this view concern themselves particularly
with massive corporate mergers of media organizations, which limit competition and put big
business at the reins of media—especially news media. Their concern is that when ownership
is restricted, a few people then have the ability to manipulate what people can see or hear. For
example, owners can easily avoid or silence stories that expose unethical corporate behavior
or hold corporations responsible for their actions.

 The issue of sponsorship adds to this problem. Advertising dollars fund most
media. Networks aim programming at the largest possible audience because
the broader the appeal, the greater the potential purchasing audience and the
easier selling air time to advertisers becomes. Thus, news organizations may
shy away from negative stories about corporations (especially parent
corporations) that finance large advertising campaigns in their newspaper or
on their stations. Television networks receiving millions of dollars in
advertising from companies like Nike and other textile manufacturers were
slow to run stories on their news shows about possible human‐rights
violations by these companies in foreign countries. Media watchers identify
the same problem at the local level where city newspapers will not give new
cars poor reviews or run stories on selling a home without an agent because
the majority of their funding comes from auto and real estate advertising. This
 influence also extends to programming. In the 1990s a network cancelled a
short‐run drama with clear religious sentiments, Christy, because, although
highly popular and beloved in rural America, the program did not rate well
among young city dwellers that advertisers were targeting in ads.
 Critics of this theory counter these arguments by saying that local control of
news media largely lies beyond the reach of large corporate offices
elsewhere, and that the quality of news depends upon good journalists. They
contend that those less powerful and not in control of media have often
received full media coverage and subsequent support. As examples they
name numerous environmental causes, the anti‐nuclear movement, the anti‐
Vietnam movement, and the pro‐Gulf War movement.
 While most people argue that a corporate elite controls media, a variation on
this approach argues that a politically “liberal” elite controls media. They point
to the fact that journalists, being more highly educated than the general
population, hold more liberal political views, consider themselves “left of
center,” and are more likely to register as Democrats. They further point to
examples from the media itself and the statistical reality that the media more
often labels conservative commentators or politicians as “conservative” than
liberals as “liberal.”
 Media language can be revealing, too. Media uses the terms “arch” or “ultra”
conservative, but rarely or never the terms “arch” or “ultra” liberal. Those who
argue that a political elite controls media also point out that the movements
that have gained media attention—the environment, anti‐nuclear, and anti‐
Vietnam—generally support liberal political issues. Predominantly
conservative political issues have yet to gain prominent media attention, or
have been opposed by the media. Advocates of this view point to the
Strategic Arms Initiative of the 1980s Reagan administration. Media quickly
characterized the defense program as “Star Wars,” linking it to an expensive
fantasy. The public failed to support it, and the program did not get funding or
congressional support.

Culturalist

The culturalist theory, developed in the 1980s and 1990s, combines the other two theories
and claims that people interact with media to create their own meanings out of the images and
messages they receive. This theory sees audiences as playing an active rather than passive
role in relation to mass media. One strand of research focuses on the audiences and how they
interact with media; the other strand of research focuses on those who produce the media,
particularly the news.

Theorists emphasize that audiences choose what to watch among a wide range of
options, choose how much to watch, and may choose the mute button or the VCR
remote over the programming selected by the network or cable station. Studies of
mass media done by sociologists parallel text‐reading and interpretation research
completed by linguists (people who study language). Both groups of researchers find
that when people approach material, whether written text or media images and
messages, they interpret that material based on their own knowledge and
experience. Thus, when researchers ask different groups to explain the meaning of a
particular song or video, the groups produce widely divergent interpretations based
on age, gender, race, ethnicity, and religious background. Therefore, culturalist
theorists claim that, while a few elite in large corporations may exert significant
control over what information media produces and distributes, personal perspective
plays a more powerful role in how the audience members interpret those messages.

Cinema
The major in Cinema and Cultural Studies (CCS) considers film as a form of representation
in and of itself and in relation to other disciplines such as literature, art, and theatre. By
emphasizing the field of cultural studies, the major is designed to show how cultural forms
such as cinema and media develop and interact with each other and with social, historical,
and economic forces. The major's core courses place strong emphasis on critical thinking
about cinema and other cultural forms. Students are also taught "media literacy"-the ability to
read the many images we encounter every day in an age when images are being used for
manipulation as never before. Students are encouraged to apply knowledge in the
classroom to practical situations through internships in film and advertising industries or
through independent research. Students majoring in Cinema and Cultural Studies are
prepared to undertake graduate study in many humanistic disciplines and to enter into
careers in the film industry, communications, advertising, marketing, and public relations.

By day Vikas Swarup is a high-flying Indian diplomat; by night he's

a bestselling author. And now Slumdog Millionaire, the film based
on his first novel, has won four Golden Globes. Stuart Jeffries meets
him
when they made a film of Vikas Swarup's bestseller, they gave it an extreme
makeover. But can I get the author to say anything critical about Danny Boyle's hit
adaptation of his debut novel, about a penniless orphan who wins India's Who Wants
to Be a Millionaire? Not a chance. Swarup, you see, is a diplomat. And not just any
diplomat: his sumptuous business card, embossed with three golden lions, tells me
he is minister and deputy high commissioner of India, based in Pretoria.
They changed the title from Q&A to Slumdog Millionaire. ("That made a lot of sense,"
says Swarup.) They changed the ending. ("Danny thought the hero should be
arrested on suspicion of cheating on the penultimate question, not after he wins as I
had it. That was a successful idea.") They made friends into brothers, axed Bollywood
stars and Mumbai hoodlums and left thrilling subplots on the cutting-room floor.
Crucially, they changed the lead character's name from Ram Mohammad Thomas to
Jamal Malik, thereby losing Swarup's notion that his hero would be an Indian
everyman, one who sounded as though he was Hindu, Muslim and Christian.
Instead, they made Jamal a Muslim whose mother is killed by a Hindu mob. ("It's
more dramatically focused as a result, perhaps more politically correct.")

"I was forewarned of the changes by Simon Beaufoy, the screenwriter," Swarup says.
And he's still happy. "The film is beautiful. The plot is riveting. The child actors are
breathtaking."

Swarup has one niggle. He worries how that scene of Hindu mobs murdering
Muslims will play when the film opens in India next week. "People in India are
sensitive about how they're portrayed, so there will be criticisms. But a Bollywood
director recently told me Slumdog Millionaire's failing was that it wasn't extreme
enough to be truly Indian. India has a genius for recycling its contradictions."
Swarup rewards my sceptical frown with an endearing smile.
But why would Swarup complain? From the window table of our restaurant in
London's Victoria, bus after bus rolls by advertising Slumdog Millionaire. He points
them out. His debut novel, already translated into 37 languages and garnering
awards around the world, is back in the bestseller lists. And Swarup is basking in the
glow of the four Golden Globes that the film won this week. Not to mention the 11
Bafta nominations. Paulina, our waitress, notices his novel on the table and tells me
she loved the film. "It was about real struggles against adversity," she says. "It really
spoke to me."

Fair enough, Paulina, but what you don't know is that the Slumdog Millionaire from
Mumbai's meanest streets was born in London's rather more genteel Golders Green.
He came to life on Swarup's laptop while the diplomat was finishing his British tour
of duty at the Indian high commission in 2003.

"I had two months left in London before I went home," recalls Swarup, 48. "My
family [wife Aparna, sons Aditya and Varun] had already returned to Delhi, partly
because our children were not really rooted as Indians. We had been in Turkey,
Washington, Addis Ababa and London and it was time to go home. My eldest son
supported the England cricket team. His hero was Andrew Flintoff. Terrible!

"After they had gone, I thought: 'Now is the time to write the novel.' But I'm not one
of those writers who wants to spend four pages describing a sunrise. There are so
many of them in India. I'm a sucker for thrillers and I wanted to write one. I'm much
more influenced by Alastair MacLean and James Hadley Chase. I'm no Arundhati
Roy."

A catalyst was Major Charles Ingram, convicted for cheating his way to winning the
British version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? "If a British army major can be
accused of cheating, then an ignorant tiffin boy from the world's biggest slum can
definitely be accused of cheating."

Swarup's conceit was that an uneducated hero becomes a contestant on Who Wants
to be a Millionaire? and, through the sort of miraculous fortune that would make an
atheist believe in a benevolent personal deity, is asked a series of questions that he
can answer. Ram's success makes everyone suspicious. How can a slumdog know
who Shakespeare was? Q&A's retort is that Ram's adventures in orphanages and
brothels, with gangsters and Bollywood celebrities, have taught him the answers to
each question India's Chris Tarrant poses. The novel's seductive opening sentences
are: "I have been arrested. For winning a quizshow."

Swarup is the second Indian novelist to have hit the headlines recently with a slum-
dwelling chai wallah hero who gets rich quick. The other was Aravind Adiga, whose
novel White Tiger won the Booker last October. Like Adiga, Swarup is from a middle-
class Indian family. His parents were lawyers in Allahaband. His grandfather's
library, which little Vikas ploughed through, had a first edition of Mein Kampf next
to Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. Swarup is many things, but no slumdog.

"This isn't social critique," he objects. "It's a novel written by someone who uses what
he finds to tell a story. I don't have firsthand experience of betting on cricket or rape
or murder. I don't know if it's true that there are beggar masters who blind children
to make them more effective when they beg on the streets. It may be an urban myth,
but it's useful to my story."

Swarup knew that he had to complete his novel before leaving London. "I'd been
made India's director of relations with Pakistan. It was going to be 9am to 9pm every
day. So I had to finish the book before I got the plane home."

He wrote quickly - one productive weekend yielded 20,000 words. "It was only with
the 11th agent I sent chapters to that I got anywhere. I emailed Peter Buckman the
first four and a half chapters on Wednesday. On Thursday he wrote back. The
following week we met. He told me he wanted to sell the book. The only problem was
there was no book."

On 11 September 2003, however, he handed the first draft to Buckman. Soon

afterwards, Buckman negotiated a six-figure two-book deal for his client with
Transworld. "I am the luckiest novelist in the world. I was a first-time novelist who
wasn't awash in rejection slips, whose manuscript didn't disappear in slush piles. I
have had a wonderful time."

Like Adiga's White Tiger, however, Swarup's novel is unlikely to win plaudits from
the Indian tourist board. Its depiction of Swarup's homeland is hardly diplomatic.
"You might think that, but I have had no complaints, not from the Mumbai police
[whom he depicts as child torturers] or from anyone in the government. My country
respects artistic freedom."

Before Q&A, Swarup's last published story was written half a lifetime ago. It was
called The Autobiography of a Donkey. No one yet has optioned the film rights.
"Maybe I only had one great idea that everybody can enjoy: the story of an underdog
who wins. I'm not so sure I'll ever be so lucky to come across another story."

His second novel, Six Suspects, was published last year. But this complex, Indian-set
whodunnit has a major problem. "The problem is my nine-year-old son. He claims to
have read Six Suspects. He told me he wanted an MP3 player for finishing it. I said
no. Now he threatens that if I don't he'll name the murderer from my book on
Facebook."

Our time is up. After lunch, Swarup must fly back to South Africa. Is it difficult to be
a writer and a diplomat? "I can't write in the crevices of a working day. So it's hard."

Does he dream about giving up the day job? "No! There's no better time to be an
Indian diplomat. India is flavour of the season. While the rest of the world is going to
hell, India and China are doing well. I revel in my job".

 Slumdog Millionaire the novel (previously Q&A) is published by Black

Swan. Slumdog Millionaire the movie is on general release.
Cultural Studies
Arising from the social turmoil of the 1960-s, Cultural Studies is an academic
discipline which combines political economy, communication,
sociology, social theory, literary theory, media theory, film studies, cultural
anthropology, philosophy, art history/ criticism etc. to study cultural
phenomena in various societies. Cultural Studies researches often focus
on how a particular phenomenon relates matters of ideology, nationality,
ethnicity, social class and gender.
Discussion on Cultural Studies have gained currency with the publication
of Richard Hoggart‘s Use of Literacy (1957) and Raymond
Williams‘ Culture and Society (1958), and with the establishment
of Birmingham Centre for is Contemporary Cultural Studies in England in
1968.
Since culture is now considered as the source of art and literature, cultural
criticism has gained ground, and therefore, Raymond Williams’ term
“cultural  materialism”, Stephen Greenblatt‘s “cultural poetics”
and Bakhtin‘s term “cultural prosaic”, have become significant in the field of
Cultural Studies and cultural criticism.
The works of Stuart Hall and Richard Hoggart with the Birmingham Centre,
later expanded through the writings of David Morley, Tony Bennett and
others. Cultural Studies is interested in the process by which power relations
organize cultural artefacts (food habits, music, cinema, sport events etc.). It
looks at popular culture and everyday life, which had hitherto been dismissed
as “inferior” and unworthy of academic study. Cultural Studies’ approaches
1) transcend the confines of a particular discipline such as literary criticism
or history 2) are politically engaged 3) reject the distinction between “high”
and “low” art or “elite” and “popular” culture 4) analyse not only the cultural
works but also the means of production.
In order to understand the changing political circumstances  of class, politics
and culture in the UK, scholars at the CCCS turned to the work
of Antonio Gramsci who modified classical Marxism in seeing culture as a
key instrument of political and social control. In his view, capitalists are not
only brute force (police, prison, military) to maintain control, but also
penetrate the everyday culture of working people. Thus the key rubric for
Gramsci and for cultural studies is that of cultural hegemony. Edgar and
Sedgwick point out that the theory of hegemony was pivotal to the
development of British Cultural Studies. It facilitated analysis of the ways in
which subaltern groups actively resist and respond to political and economic
domination.
The approach of Raymond Williams and CCCS was clearly marxIst and
poststructuralist, and held subject identities and relationships as textual,
constructed out of discourse. Cultural Studies believes that we cannot “read”
cultural artefacts only within the aesthetic realm, rather they must be studied
within the social and material perspectives; i.e., a novel must be read not only
within the generic conventions and history of the novel, but also in terms of
the publishing industry and its profit, its reviewers, its academic field of
criticism, the politics of awards and the hype of publicity machinery that sells
the book. Cultural Studies regards the cultural artefact like the tricolour or
Gandhi Jayanti as a political sign, that is part of the “disourse” of India, as
reinforcing certain ideological values, and concealing oppressive conditions
of patriarchal ideas of the nation, nationalism and national identity.

In Cultural Studies, representation is a key concept and denotes a language in

which all objects and relationships get defined, a language related to issues of
class, power and ideology, and situated within the context of “discourse”.
The cultural practice of giving dolls to girls can be read within the patriarchal
discourse of femininity that girls are weaker and delicate and need to be
given soft things, and that grooming, care etc. are feminine duties which dolls
will help them learn. This discourse of femininity is itself related to the
discourse of masculinity and the larger context of power relations in culture.
Identity, for Culture Studies, is constituted through experience, which
involves representation – the consumption of signs, the making of meaning
from signs and the knowledge of meaning.

Cultural Studies views everyday life as fragmented, multiple, where

meanings are hybridized and contested; i.e., identities that were more or less
homogeneous in terms of ethnicities and patterns of consumption, are now
completely hybrid, especially in the metropolis. With the globalization of
urban spaces, local cultures are linked to global economies, markets and
needs, and hence any study of contemporary culture has to examine the role
of a non-local market/ money which requires a postcolonial awareness of the
exploitative relationship between the First World and the Third World even
today.

Cultural Studies is interested in lifestyle because lifestyle 1) is about

everyday life 2) defines identity 3) influences social relations 4) bestows
meaning and value to artefacts in a culture. In India, after economic
liberalization, consumption has been seen as a marker of identity.
Commodities are signs of identity and lifestyle and consumption begins
before the actual act of shopping; it begins with the consumption of the signs
of the commodity.
Mall Culture
Mall is a space of display where goods are displayed for maximum visual
display in such a fashion that they are attractive enough to instill desire.
Spectacle, attention- holding and desire are central elements of shopping
experience in the mall. Hence mall emerges primarily as a site of gazing and
secondarily as a site of shopping. The mall presents a spectacle of a fantasy
world created by the presence of models and posters, compounded by the
experience of being surrounded by attractive men and women, cosy families
and vibrant youth — which altogether entice us to unleash the possibilities of
donning a better identity, by trying out / consuming global brands and
cosmopolitan fashion.

The mall invites for participating in the fantasy of future possibilities. Thus,
the spectacle turns into a performance that the customer/ consumer imitates
and participates in. It is also a theatrical performance that is  interactive, in
which the spectacle comes alive with the potential consumer. The encircling
vistas, long-spread balconies and viewing points at every floor add to the
spectacle, by providing a “prospect” of shopping.

Eclecticism is yet another feature of the mall, where, “the world is under one
roof”- where a “Kalanjali” or “Mann Mantra” share space with “Shoppers
Stop” or “Life Style” and “Madras Mail” shares space with “McDonald’s”
and multiplexes, imparting a cosmopolitan experience. Thus eclecticism and
a mixing of products, styles and traditions are a central feature of the mall
and consumer experience.

Further, “the mall is a hyperreal, ahistorical, secure, postmodern-secular,

uniform space of escape that takes the streets of the city into itself in a tightly
controlled environment where time, weather, season do not matter where the
“natural” is made through artificial lighting and horticulture, and ensuring
that this public space resembles the city but offers more security and choice”

Media Culture
Media studies and its role in the construction of cultural values, circulation of
symbolic values, and its production of desire are central to Cultural Studies
today. Cultural Studies of the media begins with the assumption that media
culture is political and ideological, and it reproduces existing social values,
oppression and inequalities. Media culture clearly reflects the multiple sides
of contemporary debates and problems. Media culture helps to reinforce the
hegemony and power of specific economic, cultural and political groups by
suggesting ideologies that the audience, if not alert, imbibes. Media culture is
also provocative because it sometimes asks us to rethink what we know or
believe in. In Cultural Studies, media culture is studied through an analysis of
popular media culture like films, TV serials, advertisements etc.- as Cultural
Studies believes in the power of the popular cultural forms as tools of
ideological and political power.

Cultural Studies of popular media culture involves an analysis of the forms of

representation, such as film; the political ideology of these representations;
an examination of the financial sources/sponsors of these representations
(propaganda advertisements by Coke after the report on pesticides in Coca
Cola); an examination of the roles played by other objects / people in the
propagating ideology (Amir Khan in the Coca Cola ad, after patriotic films
like Lagaan, Mangal Pandey and Rang de Basanti). Culturat in Studies also
analyses whether the medium (say, film), presents an oppressive/unequal
nature of institutions, like family; education etc. or glorify them; the possible
resistance to such oppressive ideologies; the audience’s response to such
representation and the economic benefits and the beneficiaries of such
representations.

Cultural analysis
As a discipline, cultural analysis is based on using qualitative research methods of
the arts, humanities, social sciences, in particular ethnography and anthropology, to
collect data on cultural phenomena and to interpret cultural representations and
practices; in an effort to gain new knowledge or understanding through analysis of
that data and cultural processes. This is particularly useful for understanding and
mapping trends, influences, effects, and affects within cultures.
There are four themes to sociological cultural analysis:
1. Adaptation and Change
This refers to how well a certain culture adapts to its surroundings by being used and
developed. Some examples of this are foods, tools, home, surroundings, art, etc.
that show how the given culture adapted. Also, this aspect aims to show how the
given culture makes the environment more accommodating.
2. How culture is used to survive
How the given culture helps its members survive the environment.
3. Holism, Specificity
The ability to put the observations into a single collection, and presenting it in a
coherent manner.
4. Expressions
This focuses on studying the expressions and performance of everyday culture.
Cultural Analysis in the Humanities[edit]
This developed at the intersection of cultural studies, comparative literature, art
history, fine art, philosophy, literary theory, theology, anthropology. It developed
an interdisciplinary approach to the study of texts, images, films, and all related
cultural practices. It offers an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of cultural
representations and practices.
Cultural Analysis is also a method for rethinking our relation to history because it
makes visible the position of researcher, writer or student. The social and cultural
present from which we look at past cultural practices—history— shapes the
interpretations that are made of the past, while cultural analysis also reveals how the
past shapes the present through the role of cultural memory for instance. Cultural
analysis understands culture, therefore, as a constantly changing set of practices
that are in dialogue with the past as it has been registered through texts, images,
buildings, documents, stories, myths.
In addition to having a relation to disciplines also interested in cultures as what
people do and say, believe and think, such as ethnography and anthropology,
cultural analysis as a practice in the humanities considers the texts and images, the
codes and behaviours, the beliefs and imaginings that you might study in literature,
philosophy, art history. But cultural analysis does not confine the meanings to the
disciplinary methods. It allows and requires dialogue across many ways of
understanding what people have done and what people are doing through acts,
discourses, practices, statements. Cultural analysis crosses the boundaries between
disciplines but also between formal and informal cultural activities.
The major purpose of cultural analysis is to develop analytical tools for reading and
understanding a wide range of cultural practices and forms, past and present.