September 24, 2009
What's the Matter With Cultural Studies?
Michael Bérubé in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
[H/t: Maeve Adams]In the spring, I was asked to participate in a plenary panel at the Cultural Studies Association (U.S.), and the opportunity led me to rethink the history of the field. The session's title was "The University After Cultural Studies." As is my wont on such occasions, I decided to take issue with the idea that the field has had such an impact on American higher education that we can talk about the university after cultural studies.
For what kind of impact has cultural studies had on the American university as an institution over the past 20 or 25 years? The field began in Britain in the late 1950s with a Marxist critique of culture by Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams, as the British New Left broke with the Communist Party's defense of the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Williams's ambitious and provocative book, Culture and Society (1958), reviewed the debate over the relationship of culture and society in Britain since the days of Edmund Burke. In the 1960s, Williams and E.P. Thompson redrew the map of British labor history, and in the 1970s, the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies issued a series of brilliant papers on mass media and popular culture that culminated in the prediction of the rise of Thatcherism—a year before Margaret Thatcher took office. Since its importation to the United States, however, cultural studies has basically turned into a branch of pop-culture criticism.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:55 PM | Permalink



















Comments
The UC-Davis Cultural Studies Group posted a response to Berube's article: http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/a-note-from-the-unicorns/
Berube has already countered at his blog, with good ongoing discussion in the comments section: http://www.michaelberube.com/
Posted by: Andrew Ventimiglia | Sep 24, 2009 1:42:35 PM
Alas, getting a Ph.D. in Cultural studies can lead to--well only getting a teaching job in the same field, or none at all. In sum, the field is about as effective these days as much in the humanities. But it seems that Berube at least is able to use the topic to unload on the Left, which seems most of what he does after going to the full article he wrote.
Posted by: fred lapides | Sep 24, 2009 3:31:13 PM
Amid some grandstanding, he makes a good point. There was a brief period--around '92-95--when it seemed like "cultural studies" seemed like it might (or at least might want to) replace the literary humanities. But that died out quickly, and cultural studies became either 1) a joke or 2) another way of talking about media studies (although with the rise of "new media" old-fashioned cultural studies now seems a bit like an artifact of the grunge/coffee house/Nirvana era). What turned out to happen in English at least was the explosion of various ethnic subfields, none of which could have been imagined in the early 90's. But asian american, latino, post colonial, and of course african american are fields within English, not part of "cultural studies."
Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 24, 2009 10:17:49 PM
Sort of like "life studies." To big a subject to be meaningful as "a subject."
Posted by: Luke Lea | Sep 24, 2009 10:28:34 PM
Post a comment