Philippine Popular Culture MIDTERM

Philippine Popular Culture- Module Midterm
Philippine Popular Culture (ACTS Computer College)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)
PHILIPPINE POPULAR CULTURE
Course PHILIPPINE POPULAR CULTURE
Title
Course The three- unit subject provides the
Description students with critical perspectives in
understanding and way of knowing
popular culture in the Philippines. The
course gives emphasis on popular culture
through the study of Cultural Studies with
a
strong focus on culture industry. The
course
provides multi-disciplinal attention on how
art can be explored in popular culture
and
vice versa. This will take place by having

an introductory survey on aesthetics,
critical theory, art criticism. This subject will
provide students with the necessary tools
of analysis on exploring the diverse forms
of

arts by utilizing the everyday contexts of
power, mode of production,
representations and subjectivity as
critical tropes. Pop culture will be fleshed
out through mixed media culture such as
visual culture, radio and television,
fashion, ads, cyberspace, experience,
economy etc. and look how these cultural
products intimate the contemporary
social relations and life- specifically, the
affect, feelings and senses, corporeality,
performances, space and place,
technology,
globalization and identities.
Course At the end of the course that students are
Learning expected to:
Outcome 1. Discuss the Cultural as Dominant
emergent and residual.
2. Define the culture as the basis
in dominant and relevance in
social, political and cultural
aspects.
3. Understand the pop culture
and culture industry.
4. Create a reaction and realization
of pop culture and culture industry
based on the video presented.
5. Describe how hegemony applies
to different aspects of global culture.
6. Identify the attributes of
McDonaldization.
7. Analyze the ways that local

cultures respond to outside forces.

8. Discuss the Cultural Imperialism, Mass
Culture, Folk and Traditional.
9. Understand the Neoliberalism
in world of education and how
they importance in our culture.
Evidence Activities (Mascot Game, Opinion, Cultural
of Orientation Profile, Reaction, Realization
Learning/
Assessment
Tools
Topic C. Keywords for Culture
(Coverage) 1. Culture as Dominant emergent
and residual
2. Pop Culture and Culture Industry
3. Subculture and counter culture,

Cultural Imperialism, Mass
Culture, Folk and Traditional
4. Neoliberalism
Acquire (Discussion)
Overview
Culture is considered a central concept
in anthropology, encompassing the range of
phenomena that are transmitted through
social learning in human societies. Cultural
universals are found in all human societies. These
include expressive forms
like art, music, dance, ritual, religion,
and technologies like tool usage, cooking, shelter,

and clothing. The concept of material culture covers
the physical expressions of culture, such as
technology, architecture and art, whereas the
immaterial aspects of culture such as principles of
social organization (including practices of political
organization and
social institutions), mythology, philosophy, literature (bot
h written and oral), and science comprise
the intangible cultural heritage of a society. In
the humanities, one sense of culture as an attribute
of the individual has been the degree to which they
have cultivated a particular level of sophistication in
the arts, sciences, education, or manners. The level
of cultural sophistication has also sometimes been
used to distinguish civilizations from less complex
societies. Such hierarchical perspectives on culture
are also found
in class-based distinctions between a high culture of
the social elite and a low culture, popular culture,
or folk culture of the lower classes, distinguished by
the stratified access to cultural capital. In common
parlance, culture is often used to refer specifically to
the symbolic markers used by ethnic groups to
distinguish themselves visibly from each other such
as body modification, clothing or jewelry. Mass
culture refers to the mass-produced and mass
mediated forms of consumer culture that emerged in
the 20th century. Some schools of philosophy, such
as Marxism and critical theory, have argued that
culture is often used politically as a tool of the elites
to manipulate the proletariat and create a false
consciousness. Such perspectives are common in the
discipline of cultural studies. In the wider social
sciences,
the theoretical perspective of cultural materialism
holds that human symbolic culture arises from the
material conditions of human life, as humans create
the conditions for physical survival, and that the
basis of culture is found in evolved biological
dispositions.
When used as a count noun, a "culture" is the set
of customs, traditions, and values of a society or
community, such as an ethnic group or nation.
Culture is the set of knowledge acquired over time.
In this sense, multiculturalism values the peaceful
coexistence and mutual respect between different
cultures inhabiting the same planet. Sometimes
"culture" is also used to describe specific practices
within a subgroup of a society, a subculture (e.g.
"bro culture"), or a counterculture. Within cultural
anthropology, the ideology and analytical
stance of cultural

relativism hold that cultures cannot easily be
objectively ranked or evaluated because any
evaluation is necessarily situated within the value
system of a given culture.
CULTURAL AS DOMINANT EMERGENT AND RESIDUAL
The complexity of a culture is to be found not only in

its variable processes and their social definitions –
traditions, institutions, and formations – but also in
the
dynamic interrelations, at every point in the process,
of historically varied and variable elements. In what I
have called ‘epochal’ analysis, a cultural process is
seized as a cultural system, with determinate
dominant features: feudal culture or bourgeois
culture or a transition from one to the other. This
emphasis on dominant and definitive lineaments and
features is important and often, in practice, effective.
But it then often happens that its methodology is
preserved for the very different function of historical
analysis, in which a sense of movement within what
is ordinarily abstracted as a system is crucially
necessary, especially if it is to connect with the
future as well as with the past. In authentic historical
analysis it is necessary at every point to recognize the
complex interrelations between movements and
tendencies both within and beyond a
specific and effective dominance. It is necessary to
examine how these relate to the whole cultural
process rather than only to the selected and
abstracted dominant system. Thus ‘bourgeois culture’
is a significant generalizing description and
hypothesis, expressed within epochal analysis by
fundamental comparisons with ‘feudal culture’ or
‘socialist culture’. However, as a description of
cultural process, over four or five centuries and in
scores of different societies, it requires immediate
historical and internally comparative differentiation.
Moreover, even if this is acknowledged or practically
carried out, the ‘epochal’ definition can exert its
pressure as a static type against which all real
cultural process is measured, either to show ‘stages’
or ‘variations’ of the type (which is still historical
analysis) or, at its worst, to select supporting
and exclude ‘marginal’ or ‘incidental’ or ‘secondary’
evidence.
Such errors are avoidable if, while retaining the
epochal hypothesis, we can find terms which
recognize not only ‘stages’ and ‘variations’ but the
internal dynamic relations of any actual process. We
have certainly still to speak of the ‘dominant’ and the
‘effective’, and in these senses of the hegemonic. But
we find that we have also to speak, and indeed with
further differentiation of each, of the ‘residual’ and
the ’emergent’, which in any real process, and at any
moment in the process, are significant both in
themselves and in what they reveal of the
characteristics of the ‘dominant’.

By ‘residual’ I mean something different from the
‘archaic’, though in practice these are often very
difficult to distinguish. Any culture includes available
elements of its past, but their place in the
contemporary cultural process is profoundly variable.
I would call the ‘archaic’ that which is wholly
recognized as an element of the past, to be
observed, to be examined, or even on occasion to be
consciously ‘revived’, in a deliberately specializing
way. What I mean by the ‘residual’ is very different.
The residual, by definition, has been effectively
formed in the past, but it is still active in the cultural
process, not only and often not at all as an element
of the past, but as an effective element of the
present. Thus certain experiences, meanings, and
values which cannot be expressed or substantially
verified in terms of the dominant culture,
are nevertheless lived and practiced on the basis of
the residue – cultural as well as social – of some
previous social and cultural institution or formation. It
is crucial to distinguish this aspect of the residual,
which may have an alternative or even oppositional
relation to the dominant culture, from that active
manifestation of the residual (this being its
distinction from the archaic) which has been wholly
or largely incorporated into the dominant culture. In
three characteristic cases in contemporary
English culture this distinction can
become a precise term of analysis. Thus organized
religion is predominantly residual, but within this there
is a significant difference between some practically
alternative and oppositional meanings and values
(absolute brotherhood, service to others without
reward) and a larger body of incorporated
meanings and

values (official morality, or the social order of which
the other-worldly is a separated neutralizing or
ratifying component). Again, the idea of rural
community is predominantly residual, but is in some
limited respects alternative or oppositional to urban
industrial capitalism, though for the most part it is
incorporated, as idealization or fantasy, or as an
exotic – residential or escape – leisure function of the
dominant order itself. Again, in monarchy, there is
virtually nothing that is actively residual (alternative
or oppositional), but, with a heavy and deliberate
additional use of the archaic, a residual function has
been wholly incorporated as a specific political and
cultural function – marking the limits as well as the
methods – of a form of capitalist democracy.

A residual cultural element is usually at some
distance from the effective dominant culture, but
some part of it, some version of it – and especially if
the residue is from some major area of the past – will
in most cases have had to be incorporated if the
effective dominant culture is to make sense in these
areas. Moreover, at certain points the
dominant culture cannot allow too much residual
experience and practice outside itself, at least
without risk. It is in the incorporation of the actively
residual – by reinterpretation, dilution, projection,
discriminating inclusion and exclusion – that the
work of the selective tradition is especially evident.
This is very notable in the case of versions of ‘the
literary-tradition’, passing through selective versions
of the character of literature to connecting and
incorporated definitions of what
literature now is and should be. This is one among
several crucial areas, since it is in some alternative
or even oppositional versions of what literature is
(has been) and what literary experience (and in one
common derivation, other significant experience) is
and must be, that, against the pressures of
incorporation, actively residual meanings and values
are sustained.
By ’emergent’ I mean, first, that new meanings and
values, new practices, new relationships and kinds of
relationship are continually being created. But it is
exceptionally difficult to distinguish between those
which are really elements of some new phase of the
dominant culture (and in this sense ‘species-specific’)
and those which are substantially alternative or
oppositional to it: emergent in the strict sense,
rather

than merely novel. Since we are always considering
relations within a cultural process, definitions of the
emergent, as of the residual, can be made only in
relation to a full sense of the dominant. Yet the social
location of the residual is always easier to
understand, since a large part of it (though not all)
relates to earlier social formations and phases of the
cultural process, in which certain real meanings and
values were generated. In the subsequent default of
a particular phase of a dominant culture there is then
a reaching back to those meanings and values which
were created in actual societies and actual situations
in the past, and which still seem to have significance
because they represent areas of human experience,
aspiration, and achievement which the dominant
culture neglects,
undervalues, opposes, represses, or even cannot
recognize.
The case of the emergent is radically different. It is
true that in the structure of any actual society, and
especially in its class structure, there is always a
social basis for elements of the cultural process that
are alternative or oppositional to the dominant
elements. One kind of basis has been valuably
described in the central body of Marxist theory: the
formation of a new class, the coming to
consciousness of a new class, and within this, in
actual process, the (often uneven) emergence of
elements of a new cultural formation. Thus the
emergence of the working class as a class was
immediately evident (for example, in nineteenth-
century England) in the cultural process. But there
was extreme unevenness of contribution in different
parts of

the process. The making of new social values and
institutions far outpaced the making of strictly
cultural institutions, while specific cultural
contributions, though significant, were less vigorous
and autonomous than either general or institutional
innovation. A new class is always a source of
emergent cultural practice, but while it is still, as a
class, relatively subordinate, this is always likely to
be uneven and is certain to be incomplete. For new
practice is not, of course, an isolated process. To the
degree that it emerges, and especially to the degree
that it is oppositional rather than alternative, the
process of attempted incorporation significantly
begins. This can be seen, in the same period in
England, in the emergence and then the effective
incorporation of a radical popular press. It can be
seen in the emergence and
incorporation of working-class writing, where the
fundamental problem of emergence is clearly
revealed, since the basis of incorporation, in such
cases, is the effective predominance of received
literary forms – an incorporation, so to say, which
already conditions and limits the emergence. But the
development is always uneven. Straight incorporation
is most directly attempted against the visibly
alternative and oppositional class elements: trade
unions, working-class political parties, working-class
life styles (as incorporated into ‘popular’ journalism,
advertising, and commercial entertainment). The
process of emergence, in such conditions, is then a
constantly repeated, an always renewable, move
beyond a phase of practical incorporation: usually
made much more difficult by the fact that much
incorporation looks like recognition,
acknowledgement, and thus a form of acceptance. In
this complex process there is indeed regular
confusion between the locally residual (as a form of
resistance to incorporation) and the generally
emergent.
Cultural emergence in relation to the emergence and
growing strength of a class is then always of major
importance, and always complex. But we have also
to see that it is not the only kind of emergence. This
recognition is very difficult, theoretically, though the
practical evidence is abundant. What has really to be
said, as a way of defining important elements of both
the residual and the emergent, and as a way of
understanding the character of the dominant, is that
no mode of production and therefore no dominant
social order and therefore no dominant culture ever
in reality includes or exhausts all human practice,
human

energy, and human intention. This is not merely a
negative proposition, allowing us to account for
significant things which happen outside or against the
dominant mode. On the contrary it is a fact about the
modes of domination, that they select from and
consequently exclude the full range of human
practice. What they exclude may often be seen as the
personal or the private, or as the natural or even the
metaphysical. Indeed it is usually in one or other of
these terms that the excluded area is expressed,
since what the dominant has effectively seized is
indeed the ruling definition of the social.
It is this seizure that has especially to be resisted.
For there is always, though in varying degrees,
practical consciousness, in specific relationships,
specific skills, specific perceptions, that is
unquestionably social and

that a specifically dominant social order neglects,
excludes, represses, or simply fails to recognize. A
distinctive and comparative feature of any dominant
social order is how far it reaches into the whole
range of practices and experiences in an attempt at
incorporation. There can be areas of experience it is
willing to ignore or dispense with: to assign as private
or to specialize as aesthetic or to generalize as
natural. Moreover, as a social order changes, in terms
of its own developing needs, these relations are
variable. Thus in advanced capitalism, because of
changes in the social character of labor, in the social
character of communications, and in the social
character of decision-making, the dominant culture
reaches much further than ever before in capitalist
society into hitherto ‘reserved’ or ‘resigned’ areas of
experience
and practice and meaning. The area of effective
penetration of the dominant order into the whole
social and cultural process is thus now significantly
greater. This in turn makes the problem of emergence
especially acute, and narrows the gap between
alternative and oppositional elements. The
alternative, especially in areas that impinge on
significant areas of the dominant, is often seen as
oppositional and, by pressure, often converted into it.
Yet even here there can be spheres of practice and
meaning which, almost by definition from its own
limited character, or in its profound deformation, the
dominant culture is unable in any real terms to
recognize. Elements of emergence may indeed be
incorporated, but just as often the incorporated forms
are merely facsimiles of the genuinely emergent
cultural practice. Any significant
emergence, beyond or against a dominant mode, is
very difficult under these conditions; in itself and in
its repeated confusion with the facsimiles and
novelties of the incorporated phase. Yet, in our own
period as in others, the fact of emergent cultural
practice is still undeniable, and together with the fact
of actively residual practice is a necessary
complication of the would-be dominant culture.
This complex process can still in part be described in
class terms. But there is always other social being
and consciousness which is neglected and excluded:
alternative perceptions of others, in immediate
relationships; new perceptions and practices of the
material world. In practice these are different in
quality from the developing and articulated interests
of a rising class. The relations between these two
sources of the

emergent – the class and the excluded social
(human) area – are by no means necessarily
contradictory. At times they can be very close and on
the relations between them much in political practice
depends. But culturally and as a matter of theory the
areas can be seen as distinct.
What matters, finally, in understanding
emergent culture, as distinct from both the dominant
and the residual, is that it is never only a matter of
immediate practice; indeed it depends crucially on
finding new forms or adaptations of form. Again and
again what we have to observe is in effect a pre-
emergence, active and pressing but not yet fully
articulated, rather than the evident emergence which
could be more confidently named. It is to understand
more closely this condition of pre-emergence, as well
as the more evident forms of the emergent, the
residual, and the dominant, that we need to explore
the concept of structures of feeling.
Published as Chapter 8 of Marxism and
Literature, Oxford, 1977.

POP CULTURE AND CULTURE INDUSTRY
Oxford Dictionary defines Art as “The expression or
application of human creative skill and imagination,
typically in a visual form such as painting or
sculpture, producing works to be appreciated
primarily for their beauty or emotional power and
Works produced by human creative skill and
imagination”. John Story in work ‘Cultural Theory and
Popular Culture’ defines Culture and Popular Culture
as “the works and practices intellectual and artistic
activity, the texts and practices whose principal
function is to signify, to produce or to be the
occasion for the production of meaning. This
Definition of Culture is synonymous with what
structuralists and post-structuralists call ‘signifying
practices’, or Pop Culture, would allow us to speak of

soap opera, pop music, and comics, as examples of
culture. These are usually referred to as texts”.
Popular Culture is further divided to six sub-definitions.
The first is culture that is popular or liked by many by
quantitive means, for example album sales, plays on
the radio, attendance at screenings or concerts and
audience ratings on television shows. The second sub-
definition of culture is culture that is not high culture,
for example culture that is seen in a gallery is high
culture, this definition would be considering all art
and media that is not deemed as ‘Art’ in certain
societies. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu states that the
cultural definition of not high culture functions as a
marker of social and economic class, though in
contemporary times the line for this definition
becomes a little blurred, for example

artist Banksy would of fallen into this category, but
his works have now made it into some of the world
best Galleries for sale to the ‘high society’. The third
definition of Popular Culture is mass culture and mass
is the key word in this definition as it applies to the
mass of society, and mass production and
consumption of this culture. The fourth sub definition
of culture is culture of the people, defined as the
authentic culture of the people or the working class,
in the past also known as ‘Folk Culture’. Rock or
Punk bands could be defined under this category of
making authentic art of the people. The fifth category
of culture is Hegemony. This is defined as culture that
uses the site of struggle between the economic and
social lower class to those of a much higher social
and economic demographic or an area

of compromise between the two, where the
dominant, subservient and oppositional cultural value
are mixed dependent on what message they are
conveying in the culture. The sixth category of
culture refers to Postmodernism and this is defined
as culture that no longer notices the distinction
between high and low art, some are celebratory of
the end of high art and the divide other are
despaired by the achievement of commerce over
culture. Also known as a culture to critique, to
analyze and examine an argument or question.
Popular Culture is a site where everyday life can be
examined therefore critiqued. The following section
examines an opening sequence of Pop Culture TV
show The Simpsons, created by Postmodern street
artist Banksy, as an example of this critique.

Culture that is a parody of Culture. The above
opening sequence of The Simpsons functions as a
critique of the Culture Industry by highlighting the
environmental and social issues associated with the
Industry that produces Culture, that ‘culture’ also
includes The Simpsons. Evidence of this is shown by
the Simpsons couch segment with the whole family
being hypnotized by the spectacle of media culture
and entertainment, the television. The screen zooms
into the television, into the production and system of
that media culture, as an exhibit of culture as a
commodity. With scenes of child and women labor in
an Asian sweatshop style factory, with bad working
conditions and chemicals polluting the environment.
The factory is
in mass production, pumping out The Simpsons
animation reels and merchandise, with scenes of
animal cruelty; cats mulched into stuffing toy Bart’s,
endangered animals used as production tools and
machinery, with a panda pulling heavy carts, a
dolphin tape stick for packaging and a unicorn to
punch holes in DVD’s. The opening segment finalizes
with an image of the 20th Century Fox productions
studio barricaded behind razor wire emulating a high
security prison, as a critique of the culture industry.
These are examples of Hegemony, the site of the
struggle between Culture with the Industry and
Commerce that produces it.
The Simpsons as a cultural text is defined under the Pop
Culture category of culture and has been described
as not High Culture, Postmodern, popular,
mass, and culture of the people, therefore has
contributed to the production of the meaning not
only by being part of this Cultural Industry but using
their art or Popular Culture as a message for delivery
to a wide audience and critique as a method to cause
an impact on their audience. Co-Creator of this
scene, street artist Banksy has contributed to the
message behind this culture with
his use of Hegemony and Postmodernism,
further critique the culture or industry. He has used
this culture as a message and critique of the social
and economic issues with production of culture.
Evidence of this is shown by mass advertising
throughout the town of Springfield, that has been
graffitied, vandalizing as a demonstration of detest of
mass advertising. While Bart’s in detention writing
lines on the blackboard I must not write on walls also
writing this all over the classroom walls as a
testimony of his non-compliance to establishment. At
the same time Abraham Simpsons Memorial is being
beheaded also demonstrating these anti-
establishment views, an example of art with use of
Hegemony. With a final example of Banksy’s graffiti
tag on the wall of the school as evidence of the
author of the sequence and a final critique of culture.
Both the Simpsons and Banksy have contributed to
the message of this text with their Popular Culture.
Culture that is a parody of Culture.
These uses of Popular Culture as a critique has aided
to bring awareness to the social and environmental
issues of the industry to the audience while still
entertaining. For a society that has such a strong
desire for entertainment, how do serious issues like
politics evolve with contemporary audience and mass
appeal for Popular Culture?
Politics that’s a parody of politics. For Politics to
compete for attention with contemporary media
culture and audiences, Politics had to become
spectacular and entertaining. Politics use Popular
Culture as a method to gain audience attention by
means of mass culture with Youtube streaming
channels for Political parties and
the Hegemony and Postmodernism of the Trump
campaign, Politics has become a parody of Politics.
Theorist Guy Debord was accurate in his prediction in
work ‘The Society of the Spectacle’, of a society
obsessed with spectacular images and an insatiable
need to be entertained. In contemporary media
culture the Trump campaign is the best example of
this Society of the Spectacle and the need to be
entertained, with Trump’s antics and press power it
seems that theres a plethora of evidence to to
suggest that Guy Debord was correct on his
prediction. A spectacle can be defined as “an unusual
or unexpected event or situation that attracts
attention, interest, or disapproval”, or, “A visually
striking performance or display, or an event or scene
regarded in terms of its visual impact”. Therefore the
Trump campaign can be seen as a spectacle, causing
attention, interest and disapproval. Not to mention
Trumps striking performances or displays that have
caused visual impact. The spectacle affects the way
we relate to mediated images by causing a media
hype and impacting the audience. The amount of
press and reactions Trump received, being the
number one topic in conversation during and since
the campaign is obvious evidence of this audience
impact.
Guy Debord explains that it is illusion that becomes
sacred or valued and truth is un-sanctified, and we
uphold this spectacle of highest regard. Theorist
Theodor Adorno works on the Culture Industry,
argued that the effect of the Culture Industry on
Society would be restricting of the development of
individuals critical awareness of social conditions and
subverting of societies psychological development for
their capitalist society. [8]. I would have to disagree
with Adorno as the use Art and Popular Culture as
critique or a message about social, political or
environmental issues,

to impact the audience and affect mass hype around
these issues, gives Popular Culture value and
relevance to Society and Culture.
I’m going to leave you with a final quote from
theorist Guy Debord, “In a topsy turvy world the true
is a moment of the false”, and possibly the false can
be a meaning of the true. I shall leave you with that
final thought while you watch this final clip on The
Simpsons and Trump.
SUBCULTURE AND COUNTER CULTURE

A subculture is just what it sounds like—a smaller
cultural group within a larger culture; people of a
subculture are part of the larger culture but also share
a specific identity within a smaller group.
Thousands of subcultures exist within the United
States. Ethnic and racial groups share the language,
food, and customs of their heritage. Other
subcultures are united by shared experiences. Biker
culture revolves around a dedication to motorcycles.
Some subcultures are formed by members who
possess traits or preferences that differ from the
majority of a society’s population. The body
modification community embraces aesthetic additions
to the human body, such as tattoos, piercings, and
certain forms of plastic surgery. In the United States,
adolescents often form subcultures to develop a
shared youth identity. Alcoholics Anonymous offers
support to those suffering from alcoholism. But even
as members of a subculture band together, they still
identify with and participate in the larger society.
Sociologists distinguish subcultures from countercultures,
which are a type of subculture that rejects some of
the larger culture’s norms and values. In contrast to
subcultures, which operate relatively smoothly within
the larger society, countercultures might actively
defy larger society by developing their own set of
rules and norms to live by, sometimes even creating
communities that operate outside of greater society.
Cults, a word derived from culture, are also
considered counterculture group. The group
“Yearning for Zion” (YFZ) in Eldorado, Texas, existed
outside the mainstream
and the limelight, until its leader was accused of
statutory rape and underage marriage. The sect’s
formal norms clashed too severely to be tolerated by
U.S. law, and in 2008, authorities raided the
compound and removed more than two hundred
women and children from the property.
CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
Cultural imperialism was around long before the

United States became a world power. In its broadest
strokes, imperialism describes the ways that one
nation asserts its power over another. Just as
imperial Britain economically ruled the American
colonists, so did Britain strongly influence the culture
of the colonies. The culture was still a mix of
nationalities—many Dutch and
Germans settled as well—but the ruling majority of
ex- Britons led British culture to generally take over.
Today, cultural imperialism tends to describe the
United States’ role as a cultural superpower
throughout the world. American movie studios are
generally much more successful than their foreign
counterparts not only because of their business
models but also because the concept of Hollywood
has become one of the modern worldwide movie
business’s defining traits. Multinational,
nongovernmental corporations can now drive global
culture. This is neither entirely good nor entirely bad.
On one hand, foreign cultural institutions can adopt
successful American business models, and
corporations are largely willing to do whatever makes
them the most money in a particular market—
whether that means giving local people a shot at
making movies, or making

multicultural films such as 2008’s Slumdog
Millionaire. However, cultural imperialism has
potential negative effects as well. From a spread of
Western ideals of beauty to the possible decline of
local cultures around the world, cultural imperialism
can have a quick and devastating effect.
Cultural Hegemony
To begin discussing the topic of cultural
imperialism, it is important to look at the ideas of one
of its founding theorists, Antonio Gramsci. Strongly
influenced by the theories and writings of Karl Marx,
Italian philosopher and critic Gramsci originated the
idea of cultural hegemony to describe the power of
one group over another. Unlike Marx, who believed
that the workers of the world would eventually
unite and overthrow

capitalism, Gramsci instead argued that culture and
the media exert such a powerful influence on society
that they can actually influence workers to buy into a
system that is not economically advantageous to
them. This argument that media can influence
culture and politics is typified in the notion of the
American Dream. In this rags-to-riches tale, hard
work and talent can lead to a successful life no matter
where one starts. Of course, there is some truth to
this, but it is by far the exception rather than the
rule.
Marx’s ideas remained at the heart of Gramsci’s
beliefs. According to Gramsci’s notion,
the hegemons of capitalism—those who control the
capital—can assert economic power, while the
hegemons of culture can assert cultural power. This
concept of culture is rooted in Marxist class struggle,
in

which one group is dominated by another and
conflict arises. Gramsci’s concept of cultural
hegemony is pertinent in the modern day not
because of the likelihood of a local property-owning
class oppressing the poor, but because of concern
that rising globalization will permit one culture to so
completely assert its power that it drives out all
competitors.
Spreading American Tastes Through McDonaldization
A key danger of cultural imperialism is the
possibility that American tastes will crowd out local
cultures around the globe. The McDonaldization of
the globe applies not just to its namesake,
McDonald’s, with its franchises in seemingly every
country, but to any industry that applies the
technique of McDonald’s on a large scale. Coined by
George Ritzer in his book The

McDonaldization of Society (1993), the concept is
rooted in the process of rationalization. With
McDonaldization, four aspects of the business are
taken to the extreme: efficiency, calculability,
predictability, and control. These four things are four
of the main aspects of free markets. Applying the
concepts of an optimized financial market to cultural
and human items such as food, McDonaldization
enforces general standards and consistency
throughout a global industry.
Unsurprisingly, McDonald’s is the prime example
of this concept. Although the fast-food restaurant is
somewhat different in every country—for example,
Indian restaurants offer a pork-free, beef-free menu
to accommodate regional religious practices—the
same fundamental principles apply in a culturally
specific

way. The branding of the company is the same
wherever it is; the “I’m lovin’ it” slogan is
inescapable, and the Golden Arches are, according to
Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, “more widely
recognized than the Christian cross (Schlosser, 2001).”
Yet, more importantly, the business model of
McDonald’s stays relatively the same from country to
country. Although culturally specific variations exist,
any McDonald’s in a particular area has basically the
same menu as any other. In other words, wherever a
consumer is likely to travel within a reasonable
range, the menu options and the resulting product
remain consistent.
McDonaldizing Media
Media works in an uncannily similar way to fast
food. Just as the automation of fast food—from
freeze-dried

french fries to prewrapped salads—attempts to lower
a product’s marginal costs, thus increasing profits,
media outlets seek to achieve a certain degree of
consistency that allows them to broadcast and sell
the same product throughout the world with minimal
changes. The idea that media actually spreads a
culture, however, is controversial. In his book
Cultural Imperialism, John Tomlinson argues that
exported American culture is not necessarily
imperialist because it does not push a cultural
agenda; it seeks to make money from whatever
cultural elements it can throughout the world.
According to Tomlinson, “No one really disputes the
dominant presence of Western multinational, and
particularly American, media in the world: what is
doubted is the cultural implications of this presence
(Tomlinson, 2001).”
There are, of course, by-products of American
cultural exports throughout the world. American
cultural mores, such as the Western standard of
beauty, have increasingly made it into global media.
As early as 1987, Nicholas Kristof wrote in The New
York Times about a young Chinese woman who was
planning to have an operation to make her eyes look
rounder, more like the eyes of Caucasian women.
Western styles “newfangled delights like nylon
stockings, pierced ears and eye shadow”—also began
to replace the austere blue tunics of Mao-era China.
The pervasiveness of cultural influence is difficult to
track, however, as the young Chinese woman says
that she wanted to have the surgery not because of
Western looks but because “she thinks they are pretty
(Kristof, 1987).”
FOLK CULTURE
Folk, or folkways, are routine conventions of
everyday life. They are the customary ways that
people act: eating, personal hygiene, dressing, and
so on. Folkways are actions and customs that are of
little moral significance; they are often matters of
personal taste.
Culture is a characteristic of societies, not of
individuals. Culture is all that is learned in the course
of social life and is transmitted across generations,
determining social hierarchy. It is the learned,
socially transmitted heritage of artifacts, knowledge,
beliefs, values, and normative expectations that
provide the members of a society with the tools for
coping with problems. It also provides an individual in
a society the
correct and appropriate ways to eat, dress, and the
language to use. Culture is also the beliefs to guide
behaviors and the practices to follow, and thus it
shapes and structures social life.
Folk culture exists within a society, and it is
whatever a member must know or believe in order to
operate in a way that is acceptable to its members;
thus, they must do so in any particular role that they
have accepted for themselves. Folk culture is what
individuals must learn and is separate from their
biological heritage. It is the forms and means of
ideas that people have in their minds, their way of
perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting these
forms. It is the things people say and do, their social
arrangements, and events, which are products or by-
products of their
society as they apply it to the task of insightfulness
and dealing with circumstances.
Folk culture and folk customs are the beliefs and
traditions, within a group that preserves its
language, and the social order and ways of
interpreting the world. They are the accumulated
mores and way of life (tales) and learning of
particular peoples.
One of the major aspects of folk culture is the
spoken word or language, as a means to
communicate the core concepts within a society, the
important religious and philosophical reflections on
the human condition. Societal cognition and
individuals’ understanding of their uniqueness are a
shared attribute often related through a form of
symbolic language, and that symbolic language is the
central feature of folk culture.

Symbolic language affixes a group’s culture and is
the shared time and place of a people, which is
endowed by nature with a desire to pursue their
personal self- interests within the society, which
composes their knowledge of themselves. The ideas
and concepts of societal cognition can be seen and
understood by focusing on the corollary a folk culture
has in its relationship to perception, reason, logic,
and the way people classify objects and experiences
in the world.
Folk culture is often a way a people make sense of
their experience in ways that link them meaningfully
to the wider world, a picture of reality based on a set
of shared assumptions about how the world works.
Folk culture is, in essence, the society’s established
symbolic frameworks, which highlight certain
significant domains

of social experience while rejecting others. Many folk
cultures are a combination of worldviews that coexist
in a single society; or a single worldview may
dominate the way a society sees itself in the bigger
picture. In addition, folk culture acts as a cultural
device for understanding geographical features,
societal landscapes, and historical backgrounds of
folklore within a framework of socioeconomic and
political domains.
Folk culture also explains the past-present
continuum of folk traditions as seen in literature,
inscriptions, artwork, and other items of material
culture. Often, our analysis of pastoral and peasant
societies gives us an understanding of
environmental orientations and a

physical reference within a given society or ethnic
group.
One of the most important aspects of folk culture
is folklore, and its place in the understanding of folk
culture is essential to the overall concepts therein.
Folklore is the traditional art, literature, knowledge,
and practice that are circulated largely through oral
communication and behavioral archetypes. Most
societies with a sense of themselves have possession
of a shared identity, and a central part of that identity
has to do with folk traditions, the things that people
traditionally believe (planting practices, family
traditions), do (dance, make music, sew clothing),
know (how to build an irrigation dam, how to nurse
an ailment, how to prepare barbecue),
make
(architecture, art, craft), and say (personal experience
stories, riddles, song lyrics).
Folk culture flows through the realm of behavior,
or more precisely, social action in which cultural forms
find articulation. Thus, folk culture forms find voice in
artifacts and in various states of consciousness, but
these forms draw their meaning from the role they
play, “its use” in an on- going pattern of life, not
from any intrinsic relationship they bear to one
another. Folk cultural language in this sense is more
than mere communications; the nature of the
language as a tool or product of folk culture
structures the perception of the outside world,
emphasizing certain aspects over others. Thus, folk
cultural language establishes a form of
communications that helps a society articulate the
deeper folk and cultural meanings that define that
society’s development, and describes a way for
members in such a society to deal with their
environment. Folk cultural language is made up of
the myths and legends, folktales, and folklores that
define and structure societal language. Often, these
elements of folk culture are interchangeable, and
their features frequently overlap, but a society’s folk
cultural language and its elements describe actions
of divine beings to explain the origins of the natural
world in its past.
TRADITIONAL CULTURE
In some ways, traditional culture and modern
culture are alike. Any culture is a system of learned
and shared meanings. People learn and share
things over the
course of generations, and so we say they are a
culture. Traditional and modern culture function
similarly because both are ways of thinking, ways of
relating to people and to the universe.
The beginning of culture was language. The first
word was culture. Someone looked up from whatever
else was going on and said something, and that first
word was the building block of all human culture. You
could pass it around. You could imitate it or change
it. Its meaning could be shared among people.
Maybe the word was “food” or “love” or “God.” It
doesn’t matter what the word was, what language it
began, or when or how. It just was. And the word
constituted culture, because the word carried
meaning.

If there were only one concept to be considered in
the discussion of culture, it is this: meaning. How do
we know whether the group of letters a-p-p-l-e
represents that sweet-tart yellow or red fruit, or a
brand name of computer? How do we know whether
the group of letters l-e-a-d represents that blue-gray
metallic chemical element, or the verb that signifies
“to show the way?” How do we know what a person’s
intentions are when they wave their hand at us from
across the street? It is because we have learned to
share the meanings of words. Of course meanings
are not limited to written words but began with
thought words and spoken words, signed words,
gestured words, pictured words. All these kinds of
words carry meaning. And it is in the meanings of
things that culture resides, regardless of whether it is
traditional or modern culture. So we can
commence with the idea that our traditional
ancestors, like their modern descendants, learned
and shared meanings.
Traditional and modern culture are alike in
another way. Both developed to accommodate their
surroundings. Both traditional and modern culture
work for people because they are suited to local
environmental conditions. A farming culture would
not work as well in Antarctica. Inuit (Eskimo) culture
would not survive as well in the Sahara. Bedouin
culture would not function as well in Manhattan.
Culture of any kind works best (and longest) if it is
well adapted to local conditions.
It should perhaps be noted that there is
apparently nothing genetic about the presence or
absence of
traditional culture; traditional culture is not the sole
province of any one ethnic group. For example, in
ancient Europe the Celts and Teutons lived traditional
culture. In ancient North America the Anishinabe and
Lakota lived traditional culture. In ancient Africa the
Bantu and Yoruba lived traditional culture. At some
point back in history all human beings — regardless
of what continent they occupied and which ethnic
group they constituted — all lived in a traditional tribal
culture.
Modern culture developed in some areas of the
planet as human societies grew larger. Mass
organization in some form — first the development of
large work forces and armies, and later the
development of mechanized means of production —
was an important force in changing traditional culture
into modern culture. The shift from rural life to urban
life is at the core of the development of modern
culture.
While traditional and modern culture may be
similar in some ways, in some very significant ways
they are clearly different from each other. Traditional
culture, such as our human ancestors enjoyed, is
held together by relationships among people —
immediate family, extended family, clan and tribe.
Everyone lives nearby. Everyone knows how he or
she fits into the mix because relationships, and the
behaviors that go along with them, are clearly
defined. “Brother” is someone toward whom I must
act like a brother. “Uncle” is someone from whom I
expect a certain kind of behavior. If I violate what is
expected, everyone will know. Perhaps there will be
severe consequences.

But this does not rob the humans who live
traditional culture of their individuality. Some
brothers act differently from other brothers. Some
uncles take on different roles depending, for
example, on whether they are mother’s brother or
father’s brother, or whether they are particularly
gregarious or more somber, and so on. But in
general, well-defined family and clan relationships,
and the kinship terms that signal them, make daily
operations in traditional society take a workable
course. If you have the proper relationship with
someone, you can get just about anything
accomplished. If, on the other hand, you don’t have
the proper relationship, you find it difficult, if not
impossible, to accomplish anything. You learn that
kinship terms are key phrases in getting along.
In
traditional culture, relationships and people seem to
be what matters.
In the modern culture of mainstream America,
most people live in nuclear families: Mom and Dad
and 2.5 kids. Many have only occasional contact with
family members outside the immediate household.
Young people quickly learn that their importance
depends on how many and what kind of things they
can control. Eventually they learn that power —
personal, economic, social, political, religious,
whatever — gets things done. Modern culture has a
tendency to spread out, to build empires, to capitalize
on as many resources as possible. Modern culture
seems to be held together by power and things, not
by people and relationships.

In modern culture people learn that business life is
separate from personal life, for example that church
and state can be kept apart. We learn to
compartmentalize our lives. During the week we can
be shrewd business-makers in a competitive
marketplace where there are happy winners and
tragic losers. On the weekend we can go to church or
temple and ask forgiveness for our transgressions,
and then go back on Monday and start all over again.
We learn (in some form) two key phrases: “It’s
nothing personal, but...” and “It’s just business.”
But in traditional culture things are not that simple
— business life and personal life are often the same
thing. Partners in trade and other economic activities
are generally the same people as one’s kin
relations.
Similarly, the principles and values that guide
spiritual and ceremonial life are the same principles
and values that guide political life. Thus in traditional
culture, the compartmentalizing or separating of
business and personal life, of religious and political
life, would not work. You cannot separate how you
treat your trade partners from how you treat your
cousins if they are the same people. You cannot
separate your spiritual values from your political
values if they are the same values.
Another way in which the two differ is that
traditional culture tends to stay relatively the same for
long periods of time. It is basically a conservative
system. Does this mean that new ideas are not
incorporated from time to time, that traditional
culture is static? Certainly not. The traditional culture
of our ancestors changed in response

to the same kinds of forces that produce biological
change. The invention of new things in traditional
culture (for example, new technologies such as
ceramics or the bow and arrow) work in the same
way as genetic mutations: something unusual
happens, and things after that are different.
Preferences for especially useful things and ideas in
traditional culture work in the same way as natural
selection: something does a better job or is more
desirable in some way, so it becomes more common
thereafter. Ways of thinking and doing things in
traditional cultures flow from one culture to another
just like genes flow from one biological population to
another: folks come into contact, something gets
exchanged. Isolation of a small, unusual sample of
people in a traditional culture causes whatever that
thing is that makes them unusual
to become more common in future generations (for
example, if a small group of people sets off to start a
new village, and they all just happen to like to wear
their hair a certain way, then their offspring would
tend to wear their hair that way too) — in just the
same way that genetic drift operates. Ancient
traditional culture did change. But it was such a
conservative system that it tended to resist change
whenever it could.
In contrast, modern culture thrives on change. It
creates new goods and services, and teaches us to
want them. It adds new technologies, things and
ideas at an increasingly rapid rate, such that the
amount of cultural change experienced in America
between 1950 and 2000 is far greater than the
amount of change experienced in the entire
eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries in America. Change in modern culture is
propelled by all the same forces that cause change in
traditional culture, only in modern culture the
changes happen more quickly. Modern culture is a
more mutable system that tends to change often.
Another way in which traditional culture and
modern culture differ is in their relationship to
environment. Traditional cultures lived in close
contact with their local environment. This taught that
nature must be respected, cooperated with, in certain
ritualized ways. One did not make huge changes in
the environment, beyond clearing fields for
agriculture and villages. Society saw itself as part of
nature; its spiritual beliefs and values held humans as
the kinsmen of plants and animals.

In contrast, modern culture creates its own
environment, exports that cultural environment to
colonies in far away places. It builds cities and
massive structures. It teaches that nature is meant
to be manipulated, to be the source of jobs and
wealth for its human masters. It sees itself as being
above nature. Its religions commonly cast humans as
the pinnacle of nature: at best its paternalistic
supervisors, at worst its righteous conquerors.
These differences in the way traditional and
modern culture perceive and interact with the
environment have various consequences for the
humans in those cultures. Not the least of these is
the difference in sustainability. A culture that lives in
relative harmony with its environment has a
greater likelihood of
sustaining itself than does a culture that destroys its
environment. The culture of our human ancestors
existed for thousands of years without doing any
substantive damage to the ecosystem. In a very few
centuries modern culture has eliminated or
endangered numerous plant and animal species,
degraded many waterways and negatively impacted
the health of many of its citizens: “better” living
through chemistry!
A closely related comparison between traditional
and modern culture concerns ways of thinking.
Modern culture is built upon knowledge. The more
bits of knowledge one controls — a larger database,
a larger computer memory — the more power one
has. Modern culture produces new bits of knowledge
so rapidly that
sometimes our computers tell us “Memory is Full!”
People in modern culture are more likely to feel that
things are changing, that bits of knowledge are
coming at them, so rapidly that they cannot absorb it
all, cannot make sense of it all. Modern culture is
long in knowledge.
The traditional culture had a broad base of
knowledge, as well. All plants and animals in the
local environment were known by name and by their
potential usefulness to humans. Weather, geology,
astronomy, medicine, politics, history, language and
so on were all parts of a complex integrated body of
knowledge. But in traditional culture life went on
beyond knowledge, to the level of wisdom — seeing
the patterns in the bits of knowledge — and to the
level
of understanding — realizing that there are more
profound patterns made by the patterns of wisdom.
Take medicine as an example. Traditional man had
a pain in his stomach; he found a plant in his local
environment that had a certain medicinal property.
These were bits of knowledge. If he prepared the
plant’s leaves a certain way, and drank the tea that
resulted, it would make the pain in his stomach go
away. This is a scientific method, a process that
involves seeing the pattern in the bits of knowledge: x
(the plant) goes with y (the preparation) to
produce z (the treatment). This realizing of
patterns is what I call wisdom. Both modern and
traditional culture go this far, but here they often tend
to diverge.

Eventually this traditional ancestor realized that
there were all kinds of plant treatments for all kinds
of ills — that for every ailment there was a treatment
— and that there was a balancing act that operated
on a universal scale of which he was but a small
part. There was a harmony that could become
disturbed if he destroyed the forest in which the
plants grew, or if he overestimated himself by taking
for granted the wisdom he had gained about the
plants — and this harmony had to be maintained on
all levels (physical, social, environmental, spiritual,
etc.). This realization that the patterns of wisdom
were themselves connected in higher order patterns
was the beginning of what I call understanding. The
traditional culture of our ancestors was long in
understanding, whereas modern culture
frequently seems to stop the thought process at the
level of wisdom.
In modern culture, the elders tend to think of
traditional culture as “primitive,” “backward,”
somehow “childlike.” In traditional culture, on the
other hand, the elders tend to think of modern
culture as “hollow,” “ignorant,” somehow “childlike.”
But modern culture tends to take over traditional
culture because modern culture is powerful: it is
mechanized, it moves mountains, it digs canals and
drains swamps, it overwhelms, and it is seductive — it
glitters, it tastes sweet, it goes fast. And it advertises.
So why do so many people these days seem to be
refugees from modern culture? Why are so many
people who were raised in the ways of modern
culture
now so interested in traditional American Indian or
Celtic culture? Why is there a constant stream of
people searching for a “new age,” for “medicine
men” and powwows and traditional ceremonies and
Highland games? I think it is because there is a hole
in modern culture, where the truly important spiritual
and humane parts of life used to be. Put another way,
I think that inside modern man there is a traditional
man somewhere — who wants the security of feeling
connected to an extended family and a clan of other
humans — who longs for the pleasure of hearing
stories told around the hearth — who resonates to
the steady drum rhythm or the haunting bagpipe wail
— who plods through his anxious dreams grasping at
bits of knowledge, thirsting, perhaps unknowingly, for
the cool,
delicious harmony of understanding. I believe the
shift from traditional to modern culture was one.
NEOLIBERALISM
Neoliberalism is a political project carried out by
the capitalist class to consolidate their ability to
generate profits by exercising influence in political
processes, such as elections, in order to privatize or
direct state institutions and regulatory powers in
ways favorable to their interests. These efforts
coincide the propagation of a neoliberal common
sense that is grounded in an understanding of all
aspects of society in economic terms of competition
in markets and return on investment. However, in
practice, neoliberalism does not promote competitive
markets as much as it results in the privatization of
public institutions and creation of
new sites for private investment through state
policies. The field of education, traditionally a site of
local democratic control, is increasingly subject to
neoliberal governance, as elected school boards are
consolidated under appointed leadership, district
schools are replaced by charter schools, and school
resources, such as curriculum, testing, and even the
training of teachers, are provided by private
companies. Neoliberalism frames the purpose of
education in terms of investments made in the
development of students’ human capital. What
students should learn and the value of education is
relative to their individual prospects for future
earnings. This narrowed conception of education
raises important questions about the purpose of
education and the relationship between schools,
democratic life,
and state governance. Developing a critical
relationship with neoliberal common sense is
necessary in order to recognize both how actually
existing neoliberal policies primarily serve the
interests of capitalists and that there are other,
democratic, sources of value and purpose that can
and efforts
ground in the field of education.
debates

Application:
Activity 1.Discuss the following essay questions.
(5 points each).
1. Why do we need to preserve our Filipino Culture?

2. Being a Filipino people, how will you show your
hospitality traits to your visitors?
3. How will you payback “utang na loob” or send
gratitude to those people who help you in times of
your needs?
4. Why Mc Donald’s are famous in the society as well
as in the Philippines?
5. In what way that the American culture influence
the Philippine culture?

Assessment:
Activity 2. Complete the table below. What are the

things that I learned about Filipino culture?
Clothing Traditions Food Celebrations Language

------------------------------------------ End of module 1 --
--------------------------------------

Resources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
https://theoria.art-zoo.com/dominant-residual-and-
emergent-raymond-williams/
https://medium.com/@orthentix/critical-inquiry-
ddce4d1897fa
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/
pop-culture-subculture-and-cultural-change/
https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/13
-7-cultural-imperialism/
http://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/folk-culture/
https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore
/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-
404#acrefore-9780190264093-e-404-div1-3

Philippine Popular Culture MIDTERM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Philippine Popular Culture MIDTERM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Popular Culture MIDTERM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Popular Culture- Module Midterm

Philippine Popular Culture (ACTS Computer College)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

CULTURAL AS DOMINANT EMERGENT AND RESIDUAL

The complexity of a culture is to be found not only in

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

SUBCULTURE AND COUNTER CULTURE

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Cultural imperialism was around long before the

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

1. Why do we need to preserve our Filipino Culture?

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Activity 2. Complete the table below. What are the

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Hakim Mauti (hakimmauti456@gmail.com)

You might also like