1. Slack notes “an important political aspect of cultural studies: the recognition that the work of cultural studies involves at a variety of levels a politics within a—broadly understood—marxist framework. With and through articulation, we engage the concrete in order to change it, that is, to rearticulate it” (115). However, she concludes the piece by stating that she is “particularly concerned that as cultural studies becomes… a more institutionally acceptable academic practice”, articulation will lose its political and strategic elements (127). If cultural studies in certain contexts avoids, ignores, or abandons these links, could it still be considered cultural studies?
2. Relatedly, in “On Postmodernism and Articulation”, Hall is asked about the development of Cultural Studies in the US. He states some of the differences that US cultural studies have acquired and notes its adoption in traditional academic settings. He then says “but I don’t know what you do about that; I don’t know how you refuse success. I think in America, cultural studies is sometimes used as just one more paradigm” (150). He understands the tendency to try to codify what constitutes cultural studies but goes on to reiterate how cultural studies maintains an openness to external influences and an opposition to fixed ideas or frameworks: “I am not interested in Theory, I am interested in going on theorizing” (150). The description of US cultural studies indicates that it has diverged from Britain’s cultural studies in some foundational ways, so why would a stronger critique constitute “refuse[ing] success”?
Comments
Post a Comment