"I was not suggesting all categorization is relative but that it is a process of categorization. Categorization is a tool, so not always bad, but if it is superficial, i.e. badly done, it is bad. Categorization is useful, but when done superficially on an important topic like the birth of popular culture, it is bad. Relativism is not the same as categorization and its use in arguments, ultimately being relative."

As you can see, it doesn't mean anything, repeats itself and is written in a style that emulates Literary Criticism when plain English would have been better. I recommend two things to read: George Orwell's writing tips and Alan Sokal's Intellectual Impostures.

Good luck with your studies.

Full translation below:

"I was not suggesting that all coarse-grained categorization is purely relative. Rather, that it is reductive, and calls for closer and more careful examination."

'The process of reduction and categorization are the same in this context, but not all reductive processes require closer examination – this is a non sequitur i.e. re-written in plain English:

"I was not suggesting all categorization is relative but that it is a process of categorization. "

"Reductive here being simply diagnostic and not necessarily pejorative. It can, however, often be glib. Glib being certainly pejorative."

Why say Pejorative when you could say bad. George Orwell is good on this type of thing.

We now have:

"I was not suggesting all categorization is relative but that it is a process of categorization. Categorization is a tool, so not always bad, but if it is superficial, i.e. badly done, it is bad."

You then say:

"Coarse-grained categorization can have its place, but when (mis)used, glibly, in place of more careful and granular analysis on a topic as important and complicated as the "birth" of popular culture, it does a disservice to serious inquiry."

i.e. Categorization is useful, but when done superficially on an important topic like the birth of popular culture, it is bad.

Giving:

"I was not suggesting all categorization is relative but that it is a process of categorization. Categorization is a tool, so not always bad, but if it is superficial, i.e. badly done, it is bad. Categorization is useful, but when done superficially on an important topic like the birth of popular culture, it is bad.

The next sentence is a gem:

"Pure relativism is not at all the same as close, careful analysis of the fascinating cross-currents and interpenetrations of broad categories and also what such notions represent and how and why they are employed rhetorically (being, after all, rhetorical approximations)."

It takes a while to translate to:

"Relativism is not the same as categorization and its use in arguments, ultimately being relative."

Using the markets for Spiderman III vs. the market for Wings of Desire as stand-ins for "the masses" and "the elite" is once again simplistic and problematic. It would suggest that none of the so-called elite might go see Spiderman III and again creates neat and tidy segments out of nothing. Such market measurements may in fact be carried out all the time, but that all sounds very applied, very MBA, and not at all serious.

The fact that the elites were making the movies that the masses were supposedly exercising their power by seeing complicates the equation much further.

There is a difference between simple and simplistic. Yes, a one line statement is simple, but that does not make it wrong. The summary of all human knowledge of physical systems can be summed up in a 4 line equation representing the standard model, but that does not make it wrong.

"the fraction of the factory worker's salary that "same price" represents is vastly different from the fraction it represents of a wealthy person's salary. All are paying the same price to see Valentino, but the amount that same price represents to each is not the same."

So what? Movie tickets don't cost $200,000 for billionaires, and $500 Opera tickets net less than $12 movie tickets, across a national market. The relative price of a ticket to salary is irrelevant in the this context, that is exactly the premise of the argument.

"Secondly, this paints two incredibly broad strokes of "the masses" and "the elite" as if these are discreet, monolithic units of measurement. "

When it comes to purchasing power, the measurement of the 'masses' and the 'elite' are quantifiable. It is possible to measure the market for Spiderman III vs. Wings of Desire, and people do. To say that all coarse grained categorization is purely relative is nihilistic.

"This raises the question if telly blogs, or pop culture blogs in general, are really the place for tackling such topics. "

That's quite a pompous and elitist allegation.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Indeed

This is rather over-simplified and problematic. For one, the fraction of the factory worker's salary that "same price" represents is vastly different from the fraction it represents of a wealthy person's salary. All are paying the same price to see Valentino, but the amount that same price represents to each is not the same. Secondly, this paints two incredibly broad strokes of "the masses" and "the elite" as if these are discreet, monolithic units of measurement.

I suppose it's a sort of pithy way to put it, which perhaps is necessitated by the medium of a telly blog, but it certainly isn't very good analysis. This raises the question if telly blogs, or pop culture blogs in general, are really the place for tackling such topics.

Let's be pithy again: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

“Banal footage of frumpy singing women astounds imbeciles wold wide”

westlake

Realized your specific objection was here:

“If Susan Boyle had won fame from a self-produced YouTube performance that would have been impressive. But she didn’t, her fame was won the old-fashioned way, via a TV show. And the packaging was old and very familiar: the ugly duckling. Nothing new here… No new paradigm to explore.”

1. Reality TV is a phenomenon that has grown at the same time as the Internet, I don’t believe this is co-incidence.

2. Nothing new with the ugly duckling story, sure. The memes are the same but the way they propagate is different. The medium is the message.

3. The Royle story crossed the Atlantic via the Internet, not TV, and the number of people that have watched the ‘Royle variety performance’ is of the order of a Superbowl commercial (40M).

4. The Internet is becoming like TV without the programs. i.e. just the commercials. The Royle thing is a great example of what this is going to look like – the TV guys know how the age old formula works, and they are the best people to compress it and inject it into the veins of the Internet.

Again, I agree with you. Celebrity should be a byproduct of talent. There is possibly a connection to celebrity and capitalism in that desirability (celebrity) without necessary utility (talent) is the holy grail of advertising.

However, there are plenty of, power via charisma, demagogues that aren’t capitalists.