Page 18 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

Introduction to Part One 7

undertaken in a manner that acknowledges little or no connection to either the
15
system of morality (other than market “morality” ) or the system of power.
One could argue that the same pressures for specialization have caused cul-
tural studies and political economy of media to go their separate ways, in
which case (re)integration could be achieved through concerted efforts at in-
terdisciplinarity. Indeed, as noted by Andrew Calabrese, in recent years po-
16
litical economists have shown greater interest in researching audiences (audi-
ences as commodity, audiences as objects of surveillance, and audience
segmentation as means of inclusion and exclusion)—audiences traditionally
being the domain of cultural studies. Likewise among some cultural theorists
there is a growing interest in policy analysis, criticism, and intervention—
domains traditionally dominated by political economy. Calabrese is hopeful
17
that this new common ground of research focus may lead to “more fruitful di-
alogue, and even collaboration, between practitioners of political economy
and cultural studies.” 18
I argue here, however, that difference in subject matter is a lesser, indeed
inessential factor behind the rift. Cultural studies, after all, is self-con-
sciously interdisciplinary, and political economy is an approach applied to
many fields of inquiry, not just media and communication. The real issues,
rather, I will argue, are ontological, political, and ideological. As elaborated
particularly in chapter 3, I view the main combatants at the Colloquy, namely
Garnham and Grossberg, as flailing away on largely superficial issues,
masking or diverting attention from the deeper, ontological divide; in chap-
ter 4, I then address deep-set political/ideological differences. For now, how-
ever, it may suffice to support the claim by one example symptomatic of a
deep ontological divide. As just noted, Grossberg contended (quite inaccu-
rately, I believe) that cultural studies and political economy were never very
close, and he expressed no desire for them to draw closer now. Indeed, the
main title of his Colloquy paper, “Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy,” is
in telling contrast to Garnham’s title, “Political Economy and Cultural Stud-
ies.” Grossberg’s position, however, is in keeping with poststructuralists’
distrust of big theories (“grand narratives”), and their approval of diversity,
19
inconsistency, contradiction, and antithesis. Pluralism in and inconsisten-
cies among points of view, poststructuralists claim, undermines concentrated
power, and hence far from being regretted is to be celebrated. In contrast, the
unification or integration of diverse knowledge was a principal aim of the
Enlightenment, and Garnham (with political economists generally) retains
that desire. Rather than attempting to undermine or de-authenticate scien-
20
tific/instrumental knowledge through deconstruction and other strategies,
as poststructuralists are wont to do, political economists are more inclined
to use that knowledge, albeit in more equitable, more democratic, more