Page 197 - Cultural Theory

Edwards-3516-Ch-10.qxd 5/9/2007 5:56 PM Page 186

••• Ann Brooks •••

of particularization itself, and for the interrogation of its politics. Adopting the category
of the postcolonial is one such strategy for articulating a notion of ‘politics’ based on
particularization, which they claim ‘has the possibility of problematizing both the
universal and the national’ (ibid.). Stratton and Ang outline three models of cultural
studies: the postcolonial, the diasporic and the subaltern.
The cultural studies debate has been vigorous in Australia and has been, in part at
least, framed by the decline of both Britain and the United States, in terms of any
notion of global cultural hegemony. The process of interrogation of cultural studies
within Britain and America by diasporic, feminist and postcolonial discourses has led
to a pluralized conception of cultural studies and a process of self-reflection on issues
of representation and identity. In commenting on the position of cultural studies in
the United States, Stratton and Ang comment: ‘cultural studies has become an intel-
lectual home for the unprecedented eruption of non-dominant race, gender and
ethnic voices in the American public arena’ (ibid.: 377).

Cultural studies – ‘empowering validation of the marginal’

The framing of an Australian cultural studies emanating from a ‘postcolonial speak-
ing position’ does not imply a univocality in that position or even agreement that
the category of the postcolonial is the most appropriate one. As Stratton and Ang
observe: ‘[t]he very applicability of the category of the postcolonial to contemporary
Australia is, understandably rejected by Aboriginal people, for whom living in
“Australia” means living in a permanently colonial condition, never post-colonial’
(ibid.: 139). The postcolonial speaking position is one characterized by contradiction
and contestation in terms of some of the advocates. Graeme Turner ‘has been one of
the most vocal resenters of the Anglo-American hegemony in “international” cul-
tural studies and the centrality of British cultural studies in it’ (ibid.: 379). Despite his
hostility towards British cultural studies, much of Turner’s work understands cultural
studies as framed within the ‘notion of a “history from below”, which he has bor-
rowed from British cultural studies’ (ibid.). By contrast, Meaghan Morris and John
Frow ‘have rejected such an account of Australian cultural studies, favoring a more
independent locally oriented account instead’ (ibid.: 380).
Turner develops his arguments for an Australian cultural studies in opposition to
elements of British cultural studies. He recognizes that ‘the point of connection
between British and Australian cultural studies … is the empowering validation of
2
the marginal, although the naming of the marginal differs greatly from one context
to another’ (ibid.: 378). In adopting this oppositional position of centre and margins
as regards Australian cultural studies, Turner claims that: ‘Cultural studies has a lot
to gain from the margins, and it should do its best to investigate the ways in which
their specific conditions demand the modification of explanations generated else-
where’ (1992b: 650).
Turner, while stating ‘I am not a postcolonial theorist’ (1992a: 426), self-consciously
positions himself in a postcolonial speaking position and positions Australia and

• 186 •