Cultural Studies 50 Years On: History, Practice and Politics
336
Cultural Studies 50 Years On: History, Practice and Politics
336Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781783483938 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |
| Publication date: | 09/30/2016 |
| Pages: | 336 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.00(w) x 8.80(h) x 1.10(d) |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Cultural Studies 50 Years On
History, Practice and Politics
By Kieran Connell, Matthew Hilton
Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd.
Copyright © 2016 Kieran Connell and Matthew HiltonAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-78348-393-8
CHAPTER 1
The Lost World of Cultural Studies, 1956–1971
An Intellectual History
Dennis Dworkin
The best-known achievements of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham are from the 1970s and early 1980s. They draw on the cultural Marxist tradition of E. P. Thompson and Raymond Williams; the Western Marxism of Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser; and multiple strands of feminist and critical race theory. Yet, when the Centre was founded in 1964, these later developments were by no means preordained. Indeed, browsing through the annual reports and pamphlets that chart the Centre's early history, I am struck by just how distant the world in which the Centre originated now seems. Many of the intellectual sources on which it relied no longer inform current debates and discussions. Rather than names such as Foucault and Spivak, Said and Bhabha, Butler and Zizek, we encounter Leavis and Eliot (the latter not as a poet but as a cultural critic), Weber and Riesman, and Berger and Luckmann. Of the pioneering influences on cultural studies, perhaps only Raymond Williams is still cited in contemporary discussions.
The word 'lost' in the title of my essay therefore does not refer to the retrieval of a narrative that has been buried and recovered. Rather, it seeks to recapture an intellectual and political world that has largely disappeared. The essay consists of three parts. First, I provide a rough sketch of the Centre's origins and early formation. I stress the ideas on which it was founded, emphasizing its connection to the milieu of adult education and the early New Left of the 1950s and early 1960s. Second, I discuss the founding of the Centre in 1964, its original goals and aspirations, and its early intellectual trajectory. Third, I analyse the transformation of the cultural studies project in the late-1960s and early-1970s, focusing on the impact of 1968 and its associated meanings on the Centre's students and faculty. Here, I draw on new sources that have recently emerged, including interviews. As a result of the tumultuous experience of the late-1960s, and numerous contentious debates and internal struggles, Centre researchers acquired new theoretical vocabularies, thought about cultural practices in fresh ways and explored collective modes of work.
In 1964, Eric Hobsbawm reviewed Stuart Hall and Paddy Whannel's The Popular Arts (1964) for the Times Literary Supplement. He described what constituted cultural studies the year in which the Centre opened. 'British criticism in the field', wrote Hobsbawm, 'has long been the virtual monopoly of the local New Left: that is to say, it reflects a lot of Leavis (but without the Leavisite rejection of post-industrial culture), a much smaller quantity of Marx, a good deal of nostalgia for "working class culture", a pervasive passion for democracy, a strong pedagogic urge and an equally strong urge to do good'.
Hobsbawm captured critical elements of early cultural studies: its debt to Leavisite criticism, its ambivalent relationship to Marx and Marxism, and its connection to the early New Left. His allusion to its 'nostalgia' for workingclass culture and a 'strong pedagogic urge' was less straightforward. He was likely referring to texts such as Richard Hoggart's The Uses of Literacy (1957) and Raymond Williams's Culture and Society (1958) and The Long Revolution (1961), which portrayed working-class values nostalgically. They helped define the terrain of cultural studies and the cultural politics of the New Left, but their ideas developed in the older intellectual and political milieu of workers' and adult education.
Williams perhaps best summed up the dual influence of Leavis and Marxism for cultural studies: 'Leavis has never liked Marxists, which is in one way a pity, for they know more than he does about modern English society, and about its immediate history. He, on the other hand, knows more than any Marxist I have met about the real relations between art and experience'. F. R. Leavis was an influential literary and cultural critic, particularly during the interwar years and the following decade. He viewed criticism as an aesthetic and moral practice based on the stringent training of one's sensibility and the close reading of texts. Critics were to bring the 'play of the free intelligence' to bear upon 'the underlying issues' of the modern world. He saw them as being in the avant-garde of cultural renewal, necessitated by a spreading and corrosive mass culture. Early contributors to cultural studies – including Hall, Hoggart and Williams – rejected Leavis's blanket dismissal of mass culture but embraced his wide-ranging interests and his reliance on the close reading of texts. Indeed, Hall's initial definition of socialist humanism in the New Left journal Universities and Left Review (ULR) appropriated a quote from Leavis: 'a vital capacity for experience, a kind of reverent openness before life, and a marked intensity'.
As Hobsbawm implied and Williams reiterated, there is an ambivalent relationship between early cultural studies and Marxism. Marxism's contention that the class relationships of modern capitalism provide the general context in which cultural practices are shaped was generally accepted. Deterministic versions of that relationship, notably mechanical and deterministic deployments of the base/superstructure model, were not. Here, Williams's influential chapter on 'Marxism and Culture' in Culture and Society is illustrative of this viewpoint. He accepted base/superstructure insofar as it meant viewing cultural practices in a wider context. Yet he found the model to be static and believed that it was incompatible with the totalizing and dynamic impulse of Marx's overall historical analysis. He argued that Engels's critique (in letters written in the latter part of his life) of its formulaic deployment by those calling themselves Marxists had long ago highlighted its limits. Williams did not reject Marxism: he viewed its existing form as inadequate to either grasp the specificity of cultural practices or grapple with culture's reciprocal impact on social and economic relations. In a now-famous formulation, Williams argued, 'It would seem that from their emphasis on the interdependence of all elements in social reality, and from their analytic emphasis on movement and change, Marxists should logically use "culture" in the sense of a whole way of life, a general social process'.
Williams's thinking here is creative and innovative yet also a product of its time. First, it is symptomatic of the Cold War milieu in which he thought and wrote that when he did use Marxist concepts, he felt compelled to rework and disguise them, employing terms such as the 'system of economic life' rather than the 'mode of production'. Otherwise, he would have been summarily dismissed. Second, Williams's critique of Marxist cultural theory was largely aimed at English Communist critics, who, in his view, had failed to resolve the conflicts arising from their commitments to English romantic criticism, Marxist theory and Communist Party membership. In contrast with Williams's later, more memorable engagement with Western Marxist thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, Lucien Goldman and Gyorgy Lukács, his original encounter took place within a distinctly national intellectual milieu largely bereft of innovative Marxist cultural criticism. The same could be said for early cultural studies more generally.
When Hobsbawm wrote his review, cultural studies occupied a hazily defined space on the intellectual map, a product of debates and discussions that took place in and around the late 1950s and early 1960s New Left. The New Left emerged from the experience of the Suez and Hungary crises in 1956 and grew and expanded as a result of a shared commitment to the nuclear disarmament movement of the late-1950s and early-1960s. It consisted of two groups, although there was an overlap between them. The Reasoner group, creators of the Reasoner and subsequently the New Reasoner, was mostly composed of ex-Communists, predominantly from the interwar generation. ULR was created by a group of Oxford students who wanted to create a discussion that would lead to a new kind of socialist politics, one that addressed the momentous transformations in post-war British society. What was 'new' about the first New Left was that it represented a third way: it rejected both the politics of the Labour and Communist parties in their existing forms. In 1960, New Left Review (NLR) supplanted the two journals. Despite their diverse origins and distinctive, sometime conflicting, interests, the political perspectives of the two groups were converging. 'Culture' was central to their politics.
The New Left came into existence at a time of Cold War polarities, Conservative Party triumph and widespread political apathy. The major question it faced, like the Left more generally, was not only returning the Labour Party to office but also re-energizing it with a socialist agenda in tune with the rapidly changing times – the result of full employment, steadily growing income, signs of class mobility and spreading mass culture. New Left activists were critical of orthodox leftists who remained committed to traditional notions of the class struggle and narrow views of politics. They also chided 'labor revisionists', such as C. A. R. Crosland, for believing that the mixed economy and the welfare state created the foundation of a post-capitalist society that obsoleted class politics. Various New Left writers analysed the consequences of the reshaping of working-class consciousness and culture, laying the groundwork for the more academic discussions that took place later at the Centre. Overall, they insisted upon the resilience of working-class culture, while condemning the growing impact of Americanization. Indeed, New Left activists were ambivalent about the United States. On the one hand, they viewed the impact of American mass culture as a threat to working-class solidarity and community. On the other hand, some of them (especially among those from the younger generation) were enthusiastic about American blues, jazz and movies. They enthused over the evolving analysis and critique of post-war transformations by American sociologists. C. Wright Mills's White Collar: The American Middle Classes and The Power Elite (1956), David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd: A Study in the Changing American Character (1950) and William H. Whyte Jr's The Organization Man (1956) were among the books that figured prominently in New Left discussions.
The original impetus of cultural studies at Birmingham developed more along the lines of ULR and the original version of NLR than the New Reasoner or the version of NLR edited by Perry Anderson beginning in 1962. Hall was one of four ULR editors and NLR's first. Hoggart was not a New Left activist, but he published in ULR, and The Uses of Literacy was one of the group's original inspirations. It was the subject of reflection and critique by several writers in the Summer 1957 issue; and it was influential in the debates on whether the working class was achieving 'classlessness' rather than 'class consciousness' in the post-war world, triggered by Hall's 'A Sense of Classlessness' in the Autumn 1958 issue. ULR socialists argued that the Left must acknowledge the profound impact of the new consumer society and welfare state on people's experiences rather than rely on outworn myths and slogans. The Centre's eclectic fusion of literary sensibility and sociological analysis in its early years was built on the earlier, more journalistic and less academic efforts found in ULR and the first two years of NLR, in part because Hall was one of the editors of the former and the sole editor of the latter.
In his often-cited analysis of the history of cultural studies, 'Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms' (1980), Hall linked the evolution of cultural studies to the politics of the New Left. He saw its development in terms of theoretical influences and paradigm shifts, a 'problematic' originally shaped by a series of 'culturalist' texts. Hoggart's The Uses of Literacy used the close reading method of Leavis to 'read' an array of cultural practices beyond the pale of literature, recovering the 1930s working-class culture of his youth. Williams's Culture and Society delineated a mostly nineteenth-century tradition of English cultural criticism, existing on both sides of the political divide: it provided early cultural studies (and the Centre in particular) with a discourse on which to build and a tradition in which to historically locate itself. In The Long Revolution, Williams defined a method of cultural analysis founded on relationships between elements in a whole way of life and produced a series of case studies exemplifying his method. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class (1963) conceived of class culturally and (in contrast to Williams) as 'a whole way of struggle'. He recovered the history of the early working class from the bottom up.
Given the centrality of cultural perspectives in the thought of the first New Left and early cultural studies, Richard Johnson in the late 1970s, following Hall, described this initial period as 'the moment of culture', contrasting it with the period in which he was writing – 'the moment of theory'. Thompson rejected this representation. He viewed it as minimizing the arguments and debates that took place at the time and for depoliticizing the disagreements among the protagonists. Nonetheless, it captures something important about the shared assumptions within the New Left milieu, notably the idea that the expressions of culture are produced through a protean and active process created through human agency and manifestations of experience, not reducible to economic determinations.
In contrast to Hall's 'theoretical' history, Williams provided his own narrative. He emphasized that cultural studies developed as a radical theoretical and political practice within an alternative educational setting, namely the adult education milieu of the late 1940s and early 1950s – part of a long-standing tradition of British workers' education and adult education that provided a site in which a dialogue between intellectuals and workers could take place. For Williams, the classic texts of cultural studies did not so much embody a theoretical paradigm shift as represent the most conspicuous expression of a much wider practice, shaped by numerous men and women who never expressed their ideas in a written form. Like Williams and Thompson during this period, Hoggart developed his approach from teaching adult working-class students. In his autobiography, he explained how such teaching shaped the contour of all three of their intellectual trajectories. 'We each had a sense of the special importance of our day-by-day work, a belief in the need for developed minds and imaginations – especially in wide-open, commercial, pyramidal societies – a sense of the many and major injustices in the lives of working people and so a deep suspicion of the power of class in Britain'.
The origins of the CCSS reflect these political, pedagogical and theoretical influences. Initially, its research projects and theoretical vocabulary developed and extended perspectives originally voiced within the adult education milieu and in the New Left context. Although it catered to different students than those found in, say, the Oxford delegacy, it likewise occupied an ambiguous position in relationship to the established hierarchies of the university. One other precedent for the Centre worth mentioning is Mass Observation. Launched in 1937 (active until the mid-1960s and then revived in 1981), it sought to discover and preserve the views of ordinary people on their daily lives and the events of the time, as opposed to governmental and media representations of them. Founded by the South African poet, Communist and journalist Charles Madge (the first professor of sociology at the University of Birmingham and head of the department during the 1960s), the polymath Humphrey Jennings and the anthropologist Tom Harrisson, Mass Observation was funded by its founders and through contributions. It was sustained by hundreds of volunteer observers who kept diaries and responded to open-ended questionnaires.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Cultural Studies 50 Years On by Kieran Connell, Matthew Hilton. Copyright © 2016 Kieran Connell and Matthew Hilton. Excerpted by permission of Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.