McKenzie Wark on 9 Feb 2001 05:07:37 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> In Defence of Cultural Studies |
I would have to disagree with some of these caricatures of cutltual studies. Take a classic work like Dick Hebdige's Subculture: The Meaning of Style. What it argues for is agency. People are not 'cultural dopes'. People are not just the mindless victims of ideology, just waiting for the radical/theorist to come to their rescue with the direct line to the correct line. People particpate already in culture in ways that are complex, subtle, and require that we treat them with some respect. There is, in short, a democratic impulse in cultural studies that is totally absent in a lot of radical/avant garde culture, which rests more often than not on an aristocratic disdain for the 'masses'. The capacity for 'reading', for making many and different kinds of sense, is not something all that 'special', that only the artist can do. The capacity for analysis is, likewise, not so special that only the theory-equipped militant can do it right. These capacities are always-already there in people, if one approaches people with a open ear and mind. All this is an obvious strain in British cultural studies, although clearly not the only thing going on it. Cultural studies too can be read and used in lots of different ways. That it has been taken up in a somewhat different way in the US need not cast too long a shadow on the work of, say, Stuart Hall, Dick Hebdige, Angela McRobbie, and people not conencted with the 'Birmingham school' who were like them reading Raymond Williams, such as John Hartley. k # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net