Johnson, R. (1986-87) What is cultural studies anyway? Social Text, 16, 38-80.
Already, I must mention how impressed and humbled I am by cultural theory and particularly Johnson’s remarkable writing. There is definitely an exceptional conceptual skill to developing a fluid yet clear writing style that weaves between macro theories of power, the social lives of subjective forms and their textual representation and embodiment (62). Johnson’s addresses three main cultural studies models including; production-based studies, text-based studies and studies of lived cultures (73). These models are derived from cultural studies’ aim, “to abstract, describe and reconstitute in concrete studies the social forms through which human beings "live," become conscious, sustain themselves subjectively" (45). In order to do this, there is a need to examine the forms of power associated with knowledge creation through an integrated approach to "abstraction" and the "concrete studies" as opposed to considering them in opposition (39).
I was particularly interested in the interplay between "text's as productive" and "cultural consumption as a production process" in order to see interplay rather than reducing creativity (perhaps the creative process(ing)) to the producer or critic (58).
Also her reference to Bertolt Brecht’s theatre clarifies my attempt in the first class to elaborate on the formality as well as the privileging of academic writing and problems that this may pose when striving to represent subjective narratives.
As text and the written word is part of common knowledge creation in academia, are we precipitating divisions between a diversity of knowledge-creation methods and possibly completely overlooking others? As tools, categorization, taxonomic techniques and epistemologies become formalized, what is being lost at the expense of professionalism?
I would be interested to here any feedback on this reading as it includes a multitude of other relevant issues to be explored.
Martin, Emily. (1992). "Body narratives, Body boundaries." in L. Grossberg, G. Nelson and P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 409-18). New York: Routledge.
Once upon a time, in the micro-level of the body, was an egg and many sperm, this was the beginning…
The narratives presented by Martin illustrate quite humorously the narratives of the 'miracle of life.' That is, if the female body is not be (unproductively) menstruating and the passive eggs not overcome with a contraceptive resulting in a further hostile environment in which the sperm attempt to embark on their executive mission. I can not help but think of Johnson's consideration of the limits of text and sarcasm provides a perfect example of one of the difficult expressions to communicate through writing.
Martin elaborates on the conception (and conceptual) imagery of early gender-associated roles on the cellular level that are created through scientific and academic language. While we often address language and sign representations in literature, media, and particularly religious texts concerning creation, it occurred to me how little science texts are assessed regarding their narratives of (pro)creation. In fields that have a high degree of formalism such as academia, how can we negotiate spaces in which to present what Martin refers to as "co-existing and contending knowledges of the body"? (419).
I was especially impressed with her adamant effort to engage in critical theory and practice with educators in less-privileged communities which explicitly exemplifies a (growing?) divide between what is considered formal academic knowledge and specific community initiatives that are equally committed to critical pedagogy.
Lastly, as medico-moral discourses allow for us to consider 21st century patients as body environments (415), what could be other issues and/or implications of attributing intention and personhood on a micro-cellular level?
I withheld some discussion to adhere to the word count guideline, but I look forward to discussing this further next week. Steph's posts will follow shortly...
Paloma
I too was interested in the discussion of texts and language but only have room to concentrate on your first question Paloma. Johnson wrote that “[t]he text-as-produced is a different object from the text-as-read” (58), I interpret this to mean that what goes into a text is not necessarily what the reader will get out of it. So I question not only the great reliance on text for academic instruction, but the expectation of the text. If written forms of teaching are favoured, perhaps there needs to be greater openness in academia to multiple interpretations of the text at hand. This is especially important in cultural studies considering that context is a crucial component and that we, the students, all interpret texts from different contexts. Also, I do agree that knowledge-creation methods beyond written, and I include spoken language, need to be incorporated. Martin’s article highlights this when she asks the teacher if the film on reproduction would have had a different impact without sound and he agrees that it would (417).
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I am at my word count for this week due to my error of posting my first comment when I meant to preview and condense it! I thoroughly enjoyed Martin’s article and think Paloma’s second question deserves greater discussion especially in light of the current debates on reproduction. What I think is a key point in discussing this question is Martin’s point that there is a complete disconnect between students and their “scientific body” and I think she accurately describes this (borrowing from Bourdieu) as being an outsider to their own body (418).
[First of all: Howdy! from George Bush Intercontinental Airport (Houston, Texas)]
ReplyDeleteEmbodied living and the notion of body as environment, in my opinion, are one in the same. Such a view of body, if naturalized, would surely teach how words, whether they are spoken or written, are capable of polluting, or harming, human bodies. For instance, if I grew up in a hypothetical community dominated by racist blacks and was repeatedly called or heard the term “honky,” I’m suggesting that my body would have been subjected to unnecessary stress responses, which would have contributed to the deterioration of my health, based on a holistic health model that includes social determinants of health. Admittedly, in high school my friends and I would regularly use offensive words (I think these are fairly obvious, think sexuality, race, etc.) that have since exited my vocabulary – Reflecting back, had I been taught about (the) body in a different way, would this have changed anything?
Although the Cartesian mind/body dichotomy is often associated with and blamed for the development of modern “colonioheteropatriarchal” [Gender Studies Prof., Scott Morgensen dropped this word during lecture last semester] discourses by social scientists, aboriginal feminists, amongst others, I believe that a dualistic understanding of the body is not only necessary but productive in scientific pursuits: Had the body not been objectified, the great advancements of modern medicine may have never occurred. On the other hand, human beings need not be taught about the body and hence perform dualism in their everyday lives. By coming to perceive the body and its health and development in isolation of the mind, “disconnected” children – because they are in/directly taught that heterosexuality is the norm; because the vast majority do not know what an intersexual is; etc. – in/directly contribute to the deterioration of (marginalized) people’s health.
In case this post has been unclear up to this point, I am arguing that the culture of Canada’s public education system must be changed. With respect to the previous paragraph: Because cultural studies is obviously trans-disciplinary, I believe that academics with an interest in Cultural Studies have a responsibility to not only use but also normalize post-modern non-words (i.e. hir, ze, etc.), thereby contributing to a more ethical human existence. That is to say, if human diversity was considered to be the norm today, then perhaps our natural differences would not be so pervasive within contemporary discourse.
Finally, I thought I would comment on Paloma's final question: What could be other issues and/or implications of attributing intention and personhood on a micro-cellular level? But, I just got called for my final plane!!! I'll try to hit up a internet cafe in Nicaragua. See you all in a week ;)
Perhaps it’s my sociological background speaking, but regardless of how much I learn about the biology and genealogy of the body, I still see the body predominantly as a social structure. Biology tells us is our physical fate. When will I die? How long will my cold last? Why do I look the way I do? Are the answers to these questions relevant to my purpose in life? No. My personal goal is to be a part of the ongoing development of life on planet earth, which in my opinion cannot be achieved without socialization, learning, and implementation of change. Science aside, I am predominantly a social being.
ReplyDeleteCan the body be portrayed as a social organism with graphic images or words?
The notion that the world is “man-made” and “artificial”, and that there is no untouched area of world, in my opinion, is a false assumption. The unpredictability of change is what allows for a succession of mankind. It is impossible to restructure the world with a pre-planned agenda. Our bodies continue to evolve both genetically and socially. There is no end to human emotion, thought, or obtainable knowledge. I enjoyed Emily Martin’s article. Not because it was the shortest and easiest to read, but because our recent course on the sociology of the body shaped my viewpoint of what is means to study the body and being that these thoughts are recent, I was able to easily apply them to what I read. Martin discusses the biology of the body (reproduction), and its function in social processes. She discusses the social outcomes which she determined while conducting participant observation on students watching a video on human biology and reproduction. She notes the newly acquired viewpoints of the students after having watched visual representations of the reproductive organs and processes. One person was noted to have changed their opinion on abortion, and another mentioned an increased awareness of the general importance of health. These results show that the graphic images were able to shock the students into reshaping their visions of the body into something that is sacred and fragile. I wonder, would images of social phenomena such as violence and drug abuse similarly force individuals to redefine their perception of the body?
Cultural studies will tell you that the body is more than a biological structure. Just as the students observed the film and found themselves reinterpreting their opinions on the body, they can likely similarly learn by observing culture and society. Richard Johnson explains that culture “involves power and helps to produce asymmetries in the abilities of individuals and social groups to define and realise their needs.” Just as the students needed the images in the film to redefine their conception of the body, we need cultural studies to better understand how our opinions are structured and how our thought processes are affected by external forces. The example of a girls’ magazine producing representations of femininity acting as an addition to previous cultural influences shows the ongoing effect of culture reshaping our perceptions of what it means to be a social being and how we should further act as humans.
The need for cultural studies is obvious as we watch the constant change in our world. The study of culture encompasses an array of disciplines which together shape our understanding of how the world functions and how the future of life is not only dependent on human reproduction but on the progression of knowledge. Melanie pointed out how Martin believes there is a disconnect between the students and their “scientific body.” I truly believe there should be a distance (to a certain extent). Biology should not be considered more important than sociology. I think a dominant focus on the physiological body would create a panic in mankind. (In fact, I think it already has).
There is no better way to sum up this week’s lesson as “From Beamish to King.” It is evident from my experience reading these articles that I am applying what I learnt last term to what I am/will be learning this term. I look forward to reading and learning more about cultural studies as a method of studying social processes. Like most in our class, I’m new to the concept of cultural studies. Surprisingly, I can already see its relevance to my research. I know I am posting this late, but if anyone plans to post again, I wonder if anyone experienced a similar revelation.
ReplyDeleteThank you Erica for your insight into the Martin article. I did not mean to assert that the biological body is more important than the social body, however I do believe they are both important. Having worked in healthcare, I have seen the huge power gradient exists between "patient" and healthcare provider and since cultural studies includes addressing subordinate individuals or populations, are "patients" not a subordinate group that needs to be addressed? I know that the entire medical culture needs to change, but I also feel that individuals are better equiped when they have more knowledge about their biological body. After all, is knowledge not power? I would be happy to discuss my point more during seminar!
ReplyDeletePerhaps my view of Richard Johnson was unduly influenced when I read his exclamatory claim that “much literary discourse [is] clever but superficial” (43); having self-identified as a literary critic for several years now, I resemble that remark. I could identify his various attempts at writerly dexterity and how they obfuscate, rather than clarify, his points. However, I think it may be more productive to address his conception and mobilization of “text” in this essay.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Johnson’s textual production is historically situated in the mid-1980s, and literary studies were not the same as I came to know them in later decades, just as the sociology that Stephanie describes in her post is not the same sociology of the 1960s and 70s that Hall depicts.
In all of the articles, the important characteristic of cultural studies is its utility—its commitment to praxis and lived experience; any other approach is “limited.” “Reduction” seems to be the dirty word—this is what cannot be allowed to happen to cultural studies as it has happened in other fields, and especially as it has manifested in the application of particular theories (such as the Marxist reduction of sports lamented by Hargreaves and McDonald). Given this vilification, then, it was fascinating to watch how Johnson reduces the literary understanding of “text.”
Johnson relies on Roland Barthes both as a touchstone for defining the work of the literary and semiology types. What he doesn't mention is Barthes’ influential distinction between a “work” and a “text,” in which the former is a complete, self-enclosed object, capable perhaps of displacement, but lacking the dynamism of the former, which can be “experienced only in an activity of production” (“From Work to Text,” original emphasis). Johnson’s understanding of “text,” as “something we can isolate, fix, pin down and scrutinise” (51), does not encompass the range of definitions that exist(ed) among literary critics.
This activity of production, as described by Barthes, is exactly how Johnson proposes that his field will emancipate literary studies and “use their real insights more widely, freely” (59). Having focused on only one literary theory—namely, formalism—as representative of the entire discipline, what he has accomplished is to uphold as a “text” what literary theorists and practitioners already recognized as an ossified “work.” Despite my anger at his “foreshortening” (to use his term), I was interested to see what made his analysis possible.
In short, what Johnson seems to be looking for is an ideal discipline that could somehow exist outside of culture. Rather ironic, really. He implies that literary studies could be great if only it weren’t institutionalized, and in a paper debating the pros and cons of institutionalizing a discipline, this approach makes sense. However, his distaste of formalism is strangely dislocated from an analysis of what cultural conditions in the academy had contributed to its acceptance as the premiere methodology of literary studies in the early part of the twentieth century. I will grant that he was self-educating in literary criticism, so perhaps he had not encountered Stephen Greenblatt and New Historicism, but the emergence of this critical method in 1982 was also a product of, and productive of, particular shifts in conditions in the American academy that Johnson does not acknowledge in his critique. Furthermore, his insistence that literary studies ought to use simple or accessible language (“There is a tendency for the tools to remain obstinately technical or formal” (59).) speaks to cultural privileging of certain disciplines (I’m thinking here of the sciences) and assumptions about the “proper” goals of particular intellectual inquiries.
There is more to say about the dichotomies he creates throughout the essay, his excessive use of exclamation marks, and the many points with which I agree, but this will have to do for now.