 |
|
 cbertsch | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While mopping the kitchen floor this morning -- I think it was on my second pass -- my mind drifted back to an idea I'd played with before and started adding new Legos to it. The book I'm working on spends a good deal of time musing on the relationship between popular culture and not-too-popular theory, in particular on the way in which the rise of punk and the rise of post-structuralism paralleled each other during the 1970s. But the main thrust of the project lies elsewhere. As I kept wringing out the mop head, though, I remembered that I had previously entertained the notion of writing another book on what happens when theoretical terms get deployed by people who don't have much scholarly training in their history, such as rock musicians, journalists, and right-wing pundits. Today that inspiration became a lot more solid when I lit upon a good catch-phrase to describe its intent: "Not cultural studies and theory but cultural studies of theory." I realize this is a bit too pared-down to make much sense to most of you, so let me clarify. Most scholarly work on popular culture -- film, television, rock music -- can be grouped together under the loose-fitting cloak of the term "cultural studies." And most examples of cultural studies make reference to a big-name theorist or too, usually the sort that are mocked in the mainstream media for being incomprehensible or dangerous or both: Edward Said, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Judith Butler etc. In other words, the link between cultural studies on the one hand and theory on the other hand is a strong one. But at this point that link is so taken for granted that it has become invisible, like a long-term partner who becomes excessively familiar without the introduction of devices to spice things up. Perhaps it's time for that to change. When I write "cultural studies of theory" instead of "cultural studies and theory," then, I'm suggesting that it might be advisable to stop taking the link between cultural studies and theory for granted and start using the techniques of cultural studies to reflect on what happens when theory enters the mainstream, whether against its practitioners' will or not. While those who know what they are talking about -- or at least believe that they do -- are inclined to complain that most people who bandy terms like "deconstruction" or "postmodernism" or "performativity" are simply getting those terms wrong, the fact remains that misinformation can be a powerful force and not only in a bad sense. If someone speaks of "deconstruction" without the slightest idea of who Jacques Derrida is or why it could matter, yet makes a good argument that helps people see something they might otherwise overlook, is the fact that she or he gets the term "wrong" more important than what she or he gets right? Maybe we should spend more time thinking about the productivity of cultural mixing, the way in which diluting a term's genealogical purity might actually make it more useful. At least, that's what I thought while I was mopping. Mode: from turquoise to copper
Muse: It Ends With A Fall - Okkervil River - Down The River Of Golden Dreams
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For someone who is fascinated by theory—and, more broadly, self-conscious analysis of the world around me—but has no real desire to spend my life in academia, this is very exciting. I think imagining your project as “cultural studies of theory” also highlights the fact that pre-knowledge or seeds of very complex theoretical ideas are actually present in popular or mainstream culture. I am always pleased when my little, theoretically unsophisticated middle school students hit upon ideas that register as post-structuralist, surrealist, etc. to me without any knowledge or even attempt at a highfalutin' term on their parts. Curiosity and imagination are the faculties that I believe lead one to create and write theory. And, though in language far less complex, many individuals arrive at the idea that gender is performed and unfixed or that meaning is relative and entirely subjective without any awareness of Butler or Sartre.
I believe, in reality, all of us at any epoch are actually creating theory by how we speak, what we buy, how we advertise, what laws we pass, how we teach our children or write histories. The theories are, in a way, threaded throughout the larger pattern of a culture. While I believe in individuality to a point, we are all shaping and shaped by our culture—we create both the theories and theorists of any given time period. After all, these theorists...or "thinkers" are observing human behavior and are themselves part of human society at a given point. It is not that I want to take credit for the brilliance and hard work of theorists who share my time in history…but we all do have a hand in their projects in a strange way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am also interested in...I guess what might be called the "history of theory." But, I could also see it called "cultural studies of theory," in the sense that one studies the theory, its origins, etc. in terms of the culture(s) it came from rather than examining culture in terms of theory. I'm sure that any self-respecting scholar would do both. And in the course of the work maybe he or she would use that absurd word "interpenetrating."
While I cannot hold with that word, I do think it is impossible either to examine culture without awareness of some theoretical structures--perhaps in unsophisticated terms--or to examine theory without awareness of the cultural moment it came from. From the syntax and diction of your description, I would assume your examination of punk and post-structuralism would be doing both.
I love the idea that theory does not inhabit some far off region of academia, but that the seeds of it are every where--that any particular theory is inextricably linked to much more apparently mundane aspects of life: buying shoes, pan-spiritual new-agey community groups, selling shit on ebay, etc. This undoubtedly marks me as a true child of this time period...whatever you'd like to call this moment in history. I just know that contextualizing knowledge is quite the rage these days...and I certainly champion this idea.
I don't know how I feel about an opposition between "high" and "low" theory. I'm telling myself that this uncertainty is not merely a knee-jerk reaction...but it may be. I'll have to educate myself on this particular topic before I can really understand what is meant--both consciously and unconsciously--by these terms. I just believe the creation of theory is not really any different than any number of the other occupations individuals take up in a culture. Perhaps it has a greater element of self-consciousness...but perhaps all theories are really quite similar to other artifacts of any given age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and then again, what happens to regular terms when poached by academe... coming out of the releatively benign and supportive atmosphere of art school i had no idea the nest of vipers the academic world had going, and i remember the rude slap of discovering what academia had done to the phrase 'common sense', turning it on it's head to become a visciously damning phrase for 'utterly un thought-through complacent lazy thinking such as only fit for the plebs' (i think was the dictionary definition)
re de construction and similar, expecially in everyday life, i think, psychoanalytic terms, although it is irritating when a word has a specific meaning to see it thrown around like a precision instrument mishandled, i do think it is interesting that a word gets accommodated into common parlance, albeit wrongly, because it seems to fill a vacant linguistic/conceptual need.
i think turning the cult studies light on academia is a very appropriate thing to do, though. while being very clever about stuff is great, it does seem to me that there are often big big gaps in reflecting on processes. and i like the notion of how the 'subjects' conceptualise what is being inflicted on them by 'experts'and the appropriation of language into everyday parlance seems like small revenge on the world of the expert.
i was told a yarn once, that marshall mcluhan had been hoodwinked by some tribe into believing they couldn't see a moving image unless it was projected on bark. dunno if it is true, but i am willing to bet that there are loads of tales like that in anthropology frinstance. and there are lots of medical related ones, not least the case of 'agnes' which praps you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS
