Page 111 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

100 Chapter Three

the term in this sense. What Grossberg meant by false consciousness, rather
(as discussed at greater length later in this chapter), is understandings or be-
liefs that deviate from the objectively real; it was with that meaning in mind
that he insistently denigrated political economists for using the term.
The two meanings of false consciousness overlap if, and to the extent that,
one maintains that persuasion or indoctrination by elites of subjugated peo-
ples moves the latter from knowing their objectively or manifestly real con-
ditions or plight into a false understanding. One suspects that Raymond
Williams understood the demise of class consciousness through the rise of the
mass in this way. In any event, even rejecting this contention (i.e., from truth
to falsity), one could still agree (as does Grossberg) that elites for their own
advantage indoctrinate the masses against the interests of the masses.
Turning to Garnham, we will see he had both meanings (or rather, perhaps,
the integrated meaning) in mind. One of Garnham’s criticisms of contempo-
rary cultural studies, however, was that its practitioners often fail to identify,
or even recognize, “false consciousness” in the first sense, choosing instead
to celebrate virtually all cultural productions as being “oppositional.” Gar-
nham declared: “The tendency of cultural studies to validate all and every
popular cultural practice as resistance—in its desire to avoid being tarred with
the elitist brush—is profoundly damaging to its [emancipatory] political proj-
ect.” (As documented below, Grossberg agreed that cultural studies may very
9
well have become unduly celebrative of cultural productions.)
If both sides had confined the term, false consciousness, to elite domina-
tion through persuasion or indoctrination (without the notion of deviation
from objective truth), there would have been little or no debate over false con-
sciousness. Unfortunately, as discussed below, disputes over false conscious-
ness in the Colloquy were in large part a means for avoiding discussion of the
real issue, differences in ontology.

Production vs. Reception

A second issue is the relative emphasis accorded production and reception.
According to Garnham, cultural studies today pays scant attention to produc-
tion. This contemporary imbalance, he suggested, is a marked deviation from
the writings of the founders, and has two major consequences. First, it plays
“politically into the hands of the Right” whose agenda includes positioning
people as consumers rather than as producers. Second, the focus on con-
10
sumption exaggerates the “freedoms of consumption and daily life.” Gar-
nham acknowledged that people do often interpret cultural material in their
own ways and for their own purposes, and that they do derive pleasures and
other benefits from cultural commodities. “But,” he continued, “does anyone