Skip to main content

1.26 Cultural Studies Paradigms & Legacies

In both "Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms" and "Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies," Hall explicates one of cultural studies' primary aims — to grasp the relationship between culture and society — by holding several contradictory theoretical and political perspectives in tension: structuralism/culturalism, base/superstructure, ideology/culture, conditions/consciousness. Hall calls for "living with this tension," in the latter piece. From my reading, it seems part of why cultural studies must live with this tension is because of what Hall calls "the displacement of culture." What exactly does Hall mean by the displacement of culture — that we must work through textualities, but that "textualities are never enough"? And what does this insight allow us to do? 

Hall ends "Theoretical Legacies" with a passage on contemporary (1990s?) American cultural studies — the "crude work" of merely connecting power to culture, "emptied of any signification." These paragraphs made me think of the importance of theoretical struggle (for instance, his own against Althusser's thought). Earlier, Hall outlines the privileged objects of study for cultural studies: "culture, ideology, language, the symbolic," and narrates how these objects came to that position out of an engagement with/challenge to Eurocentric marxism. Do these objects of study (culture, ideology, language, the symbolic) remain at the center of today's cultural studies? If so, how have the questions we ask around them changed, if at all? Additionally, If the "only theory worth having is the one you have to fight off," the one whose engagement produces necessary problems which demand to be addressed, what are the theoretical paradigms against which cultural studies are presently struggling?


*I use "cultural studies" here in a way that assumes it is a coherent, singular project, a notion that is productively troubled by many of our readings (especially Giroux), but I still use it for the sake of ease (to say nothing of the question of whether cultural studies as a project even exists absent a presence outside of the university institution, or absent a political dimension or "edge.")


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the Crisis: Your Collective Digital Stories

https://www.wevideo.com/view/2668669034    https://www.wevideo.com/view/2665696438  https://vimeo.com/695272441  https://www.youtube.com/embed/BN2wDbBLMWo https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pggTZblBzhQ5Nd6d8MU7jg28kBV0WixT https://www.wevideo.com/view/2648072657  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tUBup-RbbiCCl9-pWoOCvs2JFbUJYvhC/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eed6_fpya8WOfEb0Hjhd4jySuMgi8fI0/

On Journals and Prose

My two questions from this week have emerged from the Judith Butler piece, A 'Bad Writer' Bites Back , both centered around the journal, Philosophy and Literature —which Butler describes as the self-proclaimed “arbiter of good prose.”  I agree with Butler’s staunch defense of questioning common sense and provoking “new ways of looking at a familiar world”, and was reminded of David Harvey’s quote in the introduction to his Companion to Marx’s Capital : “Real learning always entails a struggle to understand the unknown.”   Butler describes Philosophy and Literature as a “culturally conservative academic journal” which naturally led me down a longer-than-anticipated visit to the journal's website . I was greeted with a video presented by the Philosophy and Literature’s editor Garry L. Hagberg, who rails against the “jargon infested” work that litters the journal’s field, locating Philosophy and Literature in clear opposition to such bothersome clutter.  However, Hagberg...