1. The authors of “The Need for Cultural Studies" present a trenchant critique of the disciplinary organization of North American universities. They argue that the isolation of scholars in particular departments reinforces dominant ideologies by emphasizing niche research, rewarding work that fits within the disciplinary paradigm(s), and teaching a static "canon." These processes suppress critique of dominant culture. Thus, the authors advocate for counter disciplinary work that not only breaks the confines of academic departments, but necessarily both engages with, and is located in, the broader public sphere. As a critique, I found the article insightful. Yet, I felt that the article promised something more when in the introduction the authors note that their argument implies a "return of intellectuals from ivory-towered departments to the public sphere; and a movement away from individualist, esoteric research towards collective inquiries into social ills." How are the resisting intellectuals meant to negotiate the confines of academia? Are the institutions outside of the universities key players in forcing a restructuring of university disciplines? Gramsci's "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" describes my feelings after reading this article; by what mechanism can these changes be enacted when the university appears to be even more siloed and less radical than in the 1980s?
2. Hall concludes his article "Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms" by noting how culturalist and structuralist approaches return to illuminating metaphors and questions (i.e., base/superstructure, dialectic between conditions and consciousness). Although Hall is under no illusions that a synthesis of the paradigms is easy, he sees these two paradigms the "names of the game" of Cultural Studies because they each add something important to the field. I am curious how the field has shifted since then. Has a synthesis been possible or have these paradigms persisted? Have new ones emerged?
Comments
Post a Comment