Page - 44 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 06/02

44 | Reinhard Kopanski www.jrfm.eu 2020, 6/2, 41–57 elite.10 This dispute shaped scholarly debate well into the 20th century and is found, for example, in Max Horkheimer’s and Theodor Adorno’s critical writ- ings on the culture industry,11 with the suggestion that something cannot be inherently popular; it can only become popular, and indeed be made popular through strategies such as advertisement. Too readily then, “the popular” is denied any independent cultural and aesthetic value and – to me, most wor- ryingly – its audience is devalued as essentially “stupid”. This viewpoint is opposed by cultural scientist Hans-Otto Hügel whose defense of popular cul- ture positions the mainstream as an integral part of “the popular” and thus as inherently valuable.12 Since the 1970s, the powerful paradigm of subculture theory, which emerged from cultural studies, has viewed popular culture not as deficient but as resistant to hegemonic (high) culture, with its construction “from be- low” considered intrinsically valuable – for example, by allowing “the people” to present criticism or signal grievances.13 The nature of reception becomes much more central to the discussion, as recipients are no longer helplessly exposed to a popular mass culture but can individually generate value from popular culture or conversely utilize popular culture elements for their own purposes. How, then, is popular culture popularized? For the purposes of this article, John Fiske’s popularization concept is promising, with its argument that me- dia texts have to be polysemic if different groups and cultures are to exchange and gain meanings and energies that meet their respective identities.14 The original focus on the medium of television is easily applied to my discussion of intermedial elements of popular music. Taking into account the different positions on popular culture, Hans-Otto Hügel succinctly concludes, “The popular is that which entertains”,15 balancing within the category “entertain- ing” the tension between art and the popular without devaluing either. My analysis of the selected case studies will primarily employ Fiske’s polysemy concept, whilst in the conclusion I look at how other approaches to the term “popular” can be related to the interpretation of Christian music. 10 Hügel 2003b, 343–345. 11 Horkheimer/Adorno 2006. 12 Hügel 2007, 10. 13 see Wuggenig 2003; Winter 2003b, 56. 14 Fiske 2000; also see Winter 2003a, 350–351. 15 Hügel 2003b, 247: “Das Populäre ist das, was unterhält.”