Taylor cites Mead to show that he is using Mead's term for his own purposes and adding to it.

This reference seems out of place and unnecessary, but I think Taylor inserted it to give the historical starting place of one of his key terms. And, since it is Hegel, it lends his term credibility.

... my earlier annotation.

It seems like such a revelation would be expected to come from a society transitioning from an autocratic government with its "chain of being" to a democratic system in which everyone is equal.

It struck me that this is a prideful position for mainstream society (white, male whatever), that they should have the power over minority groups to make them hate themselves. I don't see why any minority would internalize a negative image of themselves. Maybe an example: An Englishman might feel sorry for calling an Indian uncivilized, but he would be wrong to feel sorry for making the Indian feel uncivilized. The Indian probably thinks he's uncivilized. It is much more likely that the oppressed group would think poorly of their oppressors than agree with them: "No, you suck", not "yep, we suck".

I don't understand why this would then increase the amount people were willing to pay. They aren't paying for wine because they can get other wine for a better price. They are spending more for economically devised authenticity, which is nothing.

Here, Peterson uses Benjamin to support his point that concern for authenticity has changed over time. Both authors are saying the same thing: Authenticity didn't used to be as big a deal because it was more difficult to fake.

mark

In my essay, I'm planning on challenging whether this is relevant. Sure, authenticity sounds like it would be critical to a good song, but it's not. The song itself is independent of whatever the singer brings to it. Music should be judged for what it is, not whatever the artist's background is.

Art in general cannot be enjoyed the "right way" because art is such a subjective experience. Specifically considering authenticity, a song like Thrift Shop can be the most fake thing in the world, but if it's listeners don't know that or even if they do, it can still be real.

With this statement, Hyden could be saying a couple things. First, he actually agrees that "Harlem Shake" and "Thrift Shop" were awful because they were no. 1s. Second, being awful doesn't make it illegitimate.

This is an interesting development and claim. Because his songs are no longer just songs, is some authenticity lost? Does another motive inhibit authenticity?

This line is especially relevant to the question of authenticity. Lyric poetry seeks to subvert what is unique, authentic about ourselves and make experience human and no longer personal, no longer authentic to some degree.