Hoggart: he followed culturalism, a current of thought that uses culture to analyse history and society. He grew up in a working class family in Leeds within priviligis. He was the founder of the Birmingham center for contemporary culture and an avid writer, whose book ‘ the uses of literacy’ will be our main focus. The book’s most significant achievement was demonstrating an interconnection between public values and private practice. This can be exemplified with men frequenting pubs or working clubs, family roles and gender relations./ compare&contrast: after talking about high culture gladiators as individuals, for now on I am going to refer to them as a group to compare and contrast their view with Hoggart’s/ differences:Hoggart apart from focusing more on the wc altogether, as a group with identity, detailing their everyday events and habits. Emphasizing his personal experience, not only gives him an insider view, but also a sense of authenticity, and his distinct preoccupation and commitment to the wc culture sets him apart from the high gladiator’s approach. He does not disapprove popular culture as a whole, they can select what they want. His cultural analysis is not dominated by a view of culture as a exemplary or canonical work as the leavises’ was. Conversely, he challenged the simplistic version of wc culture offered by the gladiators as he drew on personal knowledge, defining the wc on how they functioned from the inside// similarities: they linked cultural forms to historical change and mass industrial culture. They both operate with the notion of cultural decline. Hoggart does not disapprove of lower class culture as a whole, unlike the high culture gladiators, who certainly had a biased and elitist view. However, leavises’ and hoggart’s division of common people’s culture is similar, both having 2 categories. Leavis had ‘traditional organic culture’ and ‘mass consumer culture’ whereas hoggart deemed the culture from his ’30 popular culture’ which vividly illustrate the alienation and skepticism, even opposition he felt towards it. H’s resistance: he rejected the idea of the traditional wc as mere passive victims of mass culture. He holds they have a strong natural ability to survive change by adapting and ignoring what they want but cannot have. This concept is different but similar at the same time to the Leavises’ point of view, who linked resistance to discrimination./ In short, both parties consider education in discrimination as men to resist mass cultutre manipulation. H’s concept of active wc resistance has similartities to leavisite concepts od critical awareness, close reading and resistance.