Part II:
Readings: Hall and Hargreaves and McDonald
Both authors attempt to answer the complex question of what constitutes “cultural studies.” Hargreaves and McDonald take the example of sport to illustrate the complexities of everyday life (sporting) as intersecting with greater social, political and cultural forces. Hall’s piece, an older perspective, attempts to define this through contrasting Cultural Studies with Functionalist Sociology.
This last distinction is what struck me, and as a self-proclaimed Sociologist I felt I should focus on this aspect of these readings.
These approaches demonstrate the difficulty in defining a discipline that openly resists reductionism. Cultural Studies, by its very nature, can be “…dissolved in further methodological and theoretical reprise” when concrete constructions are attempted (Hall 1980:39). Studies with this ‘cultural’ orientation (both Sociology and Cultural Studies) necessitate fluidity in definition; this, to me, resonates with a postmodern perspective. It is through this allocation that I wish to pose that these disciplines (Sociology and Cultural Studies) are united by common themes. The grand narratives of older theorists (such as Marx, Weber and Durkheim) though foundational, are also the roots of critique, and that binaries such as man/woman, straight/queer, healthy/unhealthy and able/disabled are seen as problematic in themselves; and that these loaded linguistic assignments must be taken apart to determine true signification, in other words who these distinctions are meant for and how they operate on these individuals. It is through these critical lenses that ‘reality’ is seen as far more complex than simply consisting of the sign and the signified. This is identified as the modern linguistic turn and further the advent of Foucauldian sentiments “…In his notion of ‘discourse’” modern social and cultural theorists seem to advance towards the same goals of breaking down both “dichotomy” and “…the signifying (‘discursive’) and the ‘extra-discursive’ aspects of any practice” (Hall 1980:37). Our social world cannot be ‘measured’ not in any objective sense; we cannot sit external to the society/culture in which we live.
The divisions between theory and praxis are meant to articulate as a further distinction between Cultural Studies and the rest. This is where, at least, I believe, the sporting body enters. Sport is a visceral lived-experience, an experience that confirms both the docility and agency of the human form. It demonstrates the multi-faceted nature of ‘culture,’ as there are many subcultural manifestations of sport. Therefore assignment of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ cultures, and further the idea of a singular ‘Culture,’ has been taken apart in sociology and recognized as a privileged position, insensitive to the uniqueness of human experience. This is not to engage in a relativistic turn, it is to articulate that the loudest voices of history are not exhaustive, and further that this is echoed in both of these disciplines. Like Marxian political economy the base and superstructure influence one another. Marxian theory itself parallels assertions about sport, in that, “…sport is perceived to be an aspect of culture embodying struggle and contestation…” (Hargreaves and McDonald 52). One of my major interpretations of Cultural Studies is that there is conflict and an inherent tension between different paradigms, however I do not truly see this conflict as being with modern Sociology(ies).
So…
Post-script:
and Regarding Paloma's post I thought I should bring back an old friend:
In reading the history of cultural studies, I have come away with the understanding that it is a very broad area of study that draws on many subject areas, theories and methods of inquiry. So to answer Steph’s question from a non-sociologist point of view, I would say yes, there is a place for post-structuralist theorists in cultural studies (and this is not solely based on the fact that Foucault is included in our cultural studies syllabus!). I admit that my knowledge of post-structuralism and post-modernism and their theorists is limited, to say the least, so I apologize for my narrow answer, which I will answer in two points.
ReplyDelete1- My understanding from the Johnson, and Hargreaves and McDonald’s articles is that power is a central theme to cultural studies. And is power not also central to Foucault’s theories? In Martin’s article she directly quotes Foucault around the topic of power and states it’s important to look at power not only as repressive by as productive (409). Therefore, is this not one example in which there would be some intersection between cultural studies and post-structural theory?
2- On a much broader, less theoretical level, cultural studies purports that it is interdisciplinary and according to Hall “there has never been a rigidly imposed unitary theoretical position in the centre” other than non-reductionist theory (39), so I question why there wouldn’t be room to include post-structuralist theories in cultural studies? I understand why cultural studies had to differentiate itself from structural functionalism - it neglected key elements of cultural studies including culture, the concept of ideology, and questioning that generated the required explanations and reasons to understand culture (23). However, please correct me if I’m wrong, but do post-structuralist theories not incorporate some of the missing elements of structural functionalism that are key to cultural studies? Thereby providing the necessary points of similarity that were missing from earlier social theory that divided cultural studies from sociology?
What is most evident to me in answering this question is that I need a better understanding of post-modernity and post-structuralism and their associated theorists!
I am going to take a stab at Stephanie’s question because I have been grappling with the definition of postmodernism and its place within Cultural Studies. Can both of these disciplines be reconciled? Before answering that, one must define, or at least make sense of what postmodernism and Cultural Studies are.
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent that academics within the field are reluctant to categorically define either term (Hall, 1980; Johnson, 1986-87). They fear that by doing so, the integrity and legitimacy of the fields might be institutionalised, reduced, and consequently compromised. Fortunately I do not have much integrity and am willing to reduce and deduce some definitions for these fields of research; however misguided they might be at this point in the game.
Cultural studies is the study of meaning within the human lived experience. The behaviours, attitudes, and reactions to social events, and cultural ideologies are considered in attempts to make sense of the human praxis (Hargreaves & McDonald). Through the interdisciplinary exploration of art, media, language, and politics, tensions appear that lend insight into the dissonance and struggle of subordinate populations. Populations deemed subordinate to hegemonic powers are seen to create and embody alternate truths. It is my understanding that the study of these resistant truths is where postmodernity starts to play with Cultural Studies.
Gramsci, considered the father of Cultural Studies, notes that power is exchanged and exercised through institutions within society that create or uphold dominant or hegemonic ideologies (Hargreaves & McDonald). Foucault, often deemed as the father of postmodernity, furthers this idea by suggesting that power is exchanged through the production of Knowledge that subordinates and marginalizes populations (Martin, 1992). Of course, resistance is possible by breaking down these systems of power through the creation of alternate truths. In my understanding, postmodernity is then the study of power and dominant Truth, how it is produced and exchanged for specific purposes. Postmodernity also investigates how this power is resisted.
According to Grossberg, as stated by Hargreaves and McDonald, postmodernity asks questions such as, ‘what is the modern world?’, and who are we within it? (51) Such questions are posed in attempts to deconstruct the social structures and power relations that oppress subordinate populations within a society. According to Hargreaves and McDonald, these are the fundamental questions of Cultural Studies that also steer postmodernity.
It seems as if postmodernity is the fundamental aim of Cultural Studies. It is the subversive but ubiquitous ideology of power and resistance of hegemonic structures that guides us through the tensions and misconceptions brought to life by grassroots discourse, art, literature, and other media. To readdress the original question, can Cultural Studies and postmodernity be reconciled? I am not sure if I have answered that or have accidentally posed a different question. Is it possible that Cultural Studies and postmodernity are already reconciled and together work symbiotically to make sense of individual lived experiences?
As an aside, I cannot resist responding to Paloma’s last question about the potential for medical intervention at the cellular level due to modern technology. Has anyone seen the movie Gattaca? It is from the mid nineties-set in the ‘not so distant future’-about how reproduction was controlled based on the quality of an individual’s genetic makeup. The government, or whatever faction of power that existed, held a database of everyone’s genetic information that was separated into groups that either allowed or forbade people from reproducing. I know it is a stretch but it does seem that the further we look into the body, the less we are able to see it for anything more than its cellular makeup.