>No, I was reacting primarily to Doug's offhand remark. He seemed to
>be privileging pop culture products (and their study) over and above
>analysis of what's behind them ("forces of production").
Heavens no. Me? I've spent the last 16 years writing about finance, labor markets, capital flows, and all that other base-ish stuff. But that doesn't mean that I think it's the only important thing around. But anyone who wants to change the relations of production (as well as what's produced) has to understand how and why people think and feel the way they do. And to do that, things like the Simpsons are important. A lot of hardass Marxists don't agree, dismissing it as epiphenomenal fluff.
As the Old Man said somewhere, when an ideology grips the mind of the masses, it becomes a material force.
Doug