Page 186 - Decoding Culture
P. 186

THE RISE OF THE READER  179

          T e levision  Culture,  however,  and for all his willingness to invoke
          V o losinov as did the  CCCS before him,  his emphasis differs from
          that found in their account of hegemony and resistance. Drawing a
          key distinction between cultural and financial economies, he insists
          that the cultural economy has a degree of autonomy and 'that the
          power of audiences-as-producers in the cultural  economy is con­
          siderable' (Fiske, 1987: 313) . This is semiotic power, 'the power to
                                                           f
          construct meanings, pleasures, and social identities that dife r from
          those proposed  by the  structures  of domination'  (ibid:  317).  All
          this, of course, is not entirely at odds with the CCCS tradition, but
          as he begins to think through the implications of intertextuality, the
          difficulties encountered with the categories of 'text' and 'audience',
          the commodity character of television, and the whole postmodern
          turn  (Fiske,  1989a,  1991)  he begins  increasingly to  depart from
          orthodoxy.
            These  shifts lead to his 'attempt to outline a theory of popular
          culture in capitalist societies'  (Fiske,  1989b: ix). Note the 'in capi­
          talist  societies'.  If  his  position  is  indeed  'uncritical  cultural
          populism' it is not one in which the capitalist social formation has
          entirely disappeared from the scene, even if it is not theorized as
          having quite the same ideological power as in earlier cultural stud­
          ies theories. Historically,  he suggests,  popular  culture  had either
          been studied as an expression of collective social harmony or as an
          imposition of mass culture disempowering those caught within  it.
          It is in a 'third direction' that Fiske's project is to move, and the pas­
          sage  in which  he defines  its  distinctiveness  is worth  quoting  in
          full.

             It, too, sees popular culture as a site of struggle, but, while accept­
            ing the power of the f o rces of dominance, it fo cuses rather upon the
            popular tactics by which these f o rces are coped with, are evaded or
            resisted. Instead of tracing exclusively the processes of incorpora­
            tion, it investigates  rather that  popular vitality and creativity that





                              Copyrighted Material
   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191