Page 74 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

Genealogy of Cultural Studies 63

Related to this basic difference in ontology are other points of departure
within cultural studies, for example macro vs. micro views, and long-term vs.
short-term. As inaugurated by Raymond Williams and other British theorists,
cultural studies was to be holistic (“macro”) and take into account long-term
9
trends. By contrast, according to contemporary poststructuralists Lawrence
Grossberg and Janice Radway, “cultural studies is committed to the radically
contextual [i.e., micro], historically specific [i.e., short-term] character not
only of cultural practices but also of the production and knowledge within
cultural studies itself.” 10 These terms, radically contextual and historically
specific, accurately describe poststructuralist cultural studies’ emphasis on
specific occurrences as opposed to general or abstract structures that influ-
ence, or even determine, specificities. 11
Again, in a more recent formulation, this time in his capacity as editor of
the journal Cultural Studies, Grossberg declared that cultural studies is “a
radically contextual practice of the articulation of knowledge and power.” 12
As developed particularly in chapter 3, articulation is a key element in post-
structuralists’ arsenal of analytical tools; it denotes what is taken to be the pli-
able and essentially fluid nature of structures. Evidently keen, though, on es-
tablishing some continuity with the inaugural British cultural studies
(“cultural materialism”), Grossberg has equated articulation with an expres-
sion found in Richard Hoggart’s foundational book, The Uses of Literacy,
namely “modification-with-adaptation.” However, Hoggart’s phrase brings
13
to mind biological, evolutionary, ecological, and systemic processes in the
material (nonverbal) world, whereas “articulation” in the first instance con-
notes speech and language, making it consistent with the linguistic emphasis
of poststructuralist cultural studies.
Finally, another major difference between cultural materialism and post-
structuralism concerns the status of the dialectic. The very name, cultural ma-
terialism (and the title of one of Williams’ books, Problems in Materialism
and Culture), indicates dialectical interplay and tension between material
conditions and (among other things) language practices. In contrast, post-
structuralists insist we reject dialectical thinking; in Poster’s words we must
shift our attention from action in the material world to language. 14
Another fissure is between critical and celebratory cultural studies. It was
noted previously that treatment of power separates critical political economy
from conservative (Chicago) political economy. Treatment of power likewise
separates critical cultural studies from what may be termed conservative or
celebrative cultural studies, the latter proposing essentially that message re-
cipients make their own meanings (“active reader” thesis), or that people se-
lect cultural products from a vast array of possibilities according to which
ones best satisfy their preexisting wants and needs (“uses and gratifications”)