By its definition popular culture has 'mass appeal'. Such 'appeal' necessitates the inclusion of generally accepted sensibilities and attitudes - or at least what appear to be so - and the exclusion of that which deviates from these norms. Conventionalisation or simple disapproval of minority attitudes are not the only prominent features of popular culture - absolute disregard, concomitantly an attitude of silence and an affirmation of their non-existence, is frequently evinced. Evidently proscriptive and unconsciously prescriptive, popular culture doesn't merely reflect the concerns of modern society: it defines and regulates them.

Arrant disregard of minority concerns is evidently pernicious since it curtails our ability to empathise with the point of view of another and because it leads to the ossification of cultural boundaries. However, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the concept of popular culture does not preclude the possibility of minority concerns and issues being considered in its works; the manner in which these are treated is the problem. For it to remain popular the treatment must function within severely restricted bounds. As an example, consider the character of Shaun in Coronation Street. He perfectly fits the stereotypically histrionic and camp image of gay men. A few years ago there was another character named Todd, who, eventually, also turned out to be gay. However, his homosexuality was explicitly presented as being the source of all his troubles: the breakdown of his marriage and his social and familial ostracism all directly stemmed from his apparent inability to control his desires; being gay was clearly presented as a malign affliction. These two characters are merely examples of the general attitude of popular culture toward minorities: if their issues are not simply ignored, almost deemed taboo, they are treated in a manner that either condemns them (Todd) or presents their behaviour within accepted bounds (Shaun), thus leading to its conventionalisation.

Providing a particular impetus to popular culture in past few years has been the post-modern anthropological doctrine of cultural relativism. By preaching that no culture or cultural form is superior to any other it has become acceptable for cultural objects to be equated with one another - Eastenders and Casualty are supposedly as valuable as Endymion and Coriolanus. I cannot repudiate this; the argument is apparently unassailable. However, such an approach is, I believe, insidiously myopic. In furthering the almost imperialistic tendencies of popular culture, the liberal notion of cultural equivalence has engendered a situation in which an especially effective and ubiquitous means of repression has obtained a degree of power that appears almost immovable: its dominance ensures that the normal remains so and that the abnormal is normalised.

It is thus quite ironic, then, that the liberal attitude to the arts is a politically conservative one. If this is unacceptable a conservative attitude to the arts is almost equally so in its aesthetic punctiliousness and unquestioning acceptance of the cultural hegemony of 'the classics'. Perhaps the only approach that does not entail either political re-affirmation or intellectual subservience is that of aesthetic radicalism. Fundamental to such a stance is the tenet that every work must be individually and meticulously considered. This ought to lead to the formation of a new cultural canon for each person, which by its inherent variety ought to lead to a greater measure of social and political empowerment. Evidently, however, attending such an endeavour are the constraints of subjectivity and one’s social context: because of repeated endorsement we are predisposed to attest to the greatness of certain authors, composers, painters etc.; Joyce, Stravinsky and Caravaggio will probably still be thought of as some of the finest artists in human history. With aesthetic radicalism their positions in the personal canons of most people would, however, be demonstrably justifiable.

Of course, works, such as those by the artists mentioned in the previous paragraph, presently deemed to be of minority or scholarly interest would, if embraced by the general population, automatically become pieces of popular culture. Hence, it could be claimed that any drive to redirect attention away from soaps and toward Seneca is inherently self-contradictory, since the latter will only replace the former, and watching it would merely evince a different sort of conformity. My wish is not, however, for some form of cultural paternalism conducted by an intellectual elite; what I advocate is cultural selectivity. This is an intrinsic part of aesthetic radicalism. Such an approach specifically entails heterogeneity: German opera, Stanley Kubrick films, Henry James novels, Japanese Noh drama, and analytic cubism are all perfectly various preferences; their diversity positively encourages tolerance, reflection and disinterested empathy.

So, rather than submitting to popular culture and allowing it subtly to become the social, moral and political guide to one's life - in a manner akin to that of religion or nationalism - I feel that we all ought to reject its generalities, banalities and conventionalities in favour of a much more aesthetically radical approach to culture.