Page 44 - Decoding Culture
P. 44

THE WAY WE WERE  37

           positive  potential  of human  activity.  In  this  respect  Leavisism
           retains a rather stronger conception of human agency than is found
           in other mass culture formulations. For example, in distinguishing
           his  views  from  marxist  theories of culture,  Leavis  (1952:  184)
          claims that although 'material conditions count, there is a certain
           measure of spiritual autonomy in human affairs, and [that) human
           intelligence,  choice  and  will  do  really  and  effectively  operate,
          expressing an inherent human nature'. To be concerned with lit­
           erature,  he  continues,  is  to  recognize  the  importance  of  the
           creative individual and 'the truth that it is only in individuals that
           society lives'  (ibid:  185).
             Thirdly, Leavisism is distinct in its development of a method of
           close  textual  analysis  which,  although  centrally  concerned  to
          expose the virtues or failings of literary works,  is also generally
           applicable to other forms of culture. Though their aim is hardly one
           of approbation,  the  examples  of modern cultural materials that
           Leavis  and Thompson  (1933)  put forward for teachers'  use are
           designed to be examined using Leavisism's distinctive critical appa­
           ratus.  It  is  the  use  of this  method  that  later  leads to  so-called
           'left-Leavisism' - the application of close textual analysis to popular
          cultural forms with a view to revealing their positive qualities rather
           than  demonstrating their destructive  impact  on civilized values.
           Given the significance of that development for the emergence of
          cultural studies, it is necessary here to examine the distinctive fea­
          tures of the  'Leavisite method' a little more  closely. So what is  (or
          was)  Leavisite method?
             The question is difficult to answer in short compass.  One can
          point to, say, the analyses of George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph
           Conrad that form the bulk of The Great Tradition (Leavis, 1960) as
          instances of his 'method' in action, but this begs the question: what
           is it that distinguishes this  approach? Revealingly,  Leavis himself
          was always reluctant to formulate his position in general terms. In






                              Copyrighted Material
   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49