Hall, Estudios Culkturales Y Sus Legados Teoricos

Cultural studies and its theoretical

leqacies .Stuart Hall

i

My title, 'Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies', suggests a look back to the past, to consult ancl think about the Now and the Future of ciiltiiral studies by way of a retrospective glance. It does seern necessary to do soriie genealogical and archaeological work on tiie archive. Now the question of tlie archives is extremely difficult for me because, where cultural studies is concerned, 1 sometimes feel like a tableau vivarzt, a spirit of the past resurrected, laying claim to the authority of an origin. Aiter all, ditln'i cultural studies emerge sornewhere at that moment when 1 first niet Raymond Williams, or in the glance 1 exchanged with Richard Hoggart? 111tliat moment, cultural studies was born; it emerged full grown froni tlic Iiead! 1 do want to talk about tlie past, but definitely not in that way. 1 don't want to talk about British cultural studies (which is in any case a pretty awkward signifier for me) in a patriarchal way, as the keeper of tlie conscieiice of cultural studies, hoping to police you back into line witli what i t really wíis if only you knew. That is to say, 1 want to absolve mysclf of tlie maiiy burdens OS representatioii which people carry arouiid - 1 carry around at least three: I'm expected to speak for the entire black race oii al1 questions thcoretical, critical, etc., and sometimes for British politics, as weli as for cultural studies. 'I'his is what is known as the black persoii's burdeii, and I would like to absolve myself of it at this moment. That means, paradoxically, speaking autobiographically. Autobiograpliy is usually thought of as seizing the authority of authenticity. But in order not to be autlioritativc, I've got to speak autobiograpliicíilly. I'ni goirig to te11 you about my owii takc oii certain theoretical legacies and inoincrits i i i cultural studies, not because i t is the truth or (he only way of tellirig tlic history. 1 niyself heve ioltl i t maoy other ways before; aiid 1 iritciid to le11 il in a different way later. But just at this moment, for this conjecture, 1 wiint to take a positioii in relation to the 'grand narrative' of cultural studies for the purposes of opening up some reflections on cultural studies as ;i Reprinted from L. Grossberg 277-86.

ei

01. (eds), Cirllrira[ SIi.tdic..r, Londoii: Rouilcdgc, 1992.

/

1

i i

I)~
.

i i l llic: siiiiic liiiic, i i tlclciiiiiii;ilioii lo siiikc oiit soiiic ~)ositioiis wiiliiii i l ; i i i t l Girguc f'o~. tliciii. '1'1i;iI is tlic Icii.sioii - 11ic tlialogic nppro¿icli lo Ilicor-y - !1i;i1l w:!!!! ! O !!u !o si)c:!k 10 i!! ;! !;L!!!i!)cr o[' di[hrr!l! UI:LIIY jl! !]?!: C.O!!!.SC !)!' t ] l / > J I ..-.J IxyIer. 1 doii't Oelievc kiiuwletlgc is closed, but 1 do believc tliat politics is iiiipossible witliotit wliat 1 Iiave called 'tlie arbitrary closiire'; witlioul wli;ii Homi B1i;ibtia called social agency as an arbitrary closiire. Tiiat is t» s;iy. I doii't uiiclerstriiicl a prsctice wliicli aims to ninke a clifí'creiice iii tlic worltl. wliiclr doesn't Iinve soriie points of difference or distiiiction whicli i t Ii;is ( ( 1 stiike oiit, wliicli re;illy nialter. I t is :i questiori of position;ilitics. Now, i i i h true l l i t i t thosc positionalitics are iiever final, tliey're ncver nbsoliitc. Tlicy can't be traiislatcd intact froiii one conjunctiire to anotlier; tliey caiiiiot Iic. dcpciiclctl oii to rciii;iiii i i i tlic s;iiiie plecc. I w;iiit to go hack to tIi;it riioiiiciil of 'stakiiig oiit a wagcr' ir1 ciiltural stiidies, to tliose irioriiciits i i i wliicli ilic positioiis bcgnii to nistter. 'J'Iiis is ¿i wey of operiing tlie qtiestion of tlie 'wordliiiess' 01' ci~ltiir;il siudies, to borrow n term from Edward Said. 1 ani no1 dwelliiig oii tlic secular coiinotatioiis of tlie .metaphor of worldliiiess Iiere, biit on tlil: worltlliiicss of ciiltiir;il sliitlics. I'ni dwclliiig oii tlic 'tlirtiiicss' 01' il: Ilic tlirtiriess oí' tlic seii~ioticgame, if 1 can put it tliat way. I'm tryiiig to rcturii tlic project of cultiiral stutlies from the clenn air of nieaniiig aiirl textiialily antl tlicory lo tlie soiiietliing iiasty down below. This involves tlic dif'liciill exercise of exainiiiing sorne of tlie key tlieoretical turns or niorneiits i i i cultural stiidies. Tlie Iirst trace t l i r i t 1 w;iiit lo deconstruct has io do witli a vicw o í Uritisli cultiiral studies wliicli ofteii distiiiguislics it by the fact tliat, at n ccri:iiii iiionicrit, i t becaiiie a inarxist critical practice. Wliat exactly rloes tliai assignatioii O S ctiltiirril stiitlies as a marxist critical tlieory mcari? 1-low caii wc tliiiik ciiltiirel stiitlies n t that inonient? What moiiierit is i t we :irc spcakiiig of '? Wiint tlocs tliat iiicaii for the tlieorctical legacies, traces, ¿iiiiI aftei--eff'ccls wliich iiiarxisiii coiitiriiies to have ir1 cultural stutlics'? 'l'licrc rirc ri nuiiiber ol'w;iys of Iclliiig tliat liislory, íind let me rciiiiiicl yoii tliat I ' i i i riot 111-oposiiigtliis as tlic oiily story. But 1 do waiit to set it up i i i wlioi 1 tliink niay br: a sliglitly siirprisiiig way to you. J entered cultiiral studies from the New Left, and tlie New Left al~voys regardetl marxisrii as :i pro\>lcni, ;ts troiible, as dangcr, iiot lis a solutioii. Why? It lintl iiotliiiig lo tlo witli tlieoretical questioiis as siicli or in isolntion. I I Iiotl lo clo ~vitlitlie frict t1i;it iiiy own (iiiid ils owii) polilical loriii.<1! 1011 ' occiirrcd i i i ¿i iiioiiiciit Iiistoricrilly vcry niucli like tlic oiic wc are i i i iiow -wliicli I ami ast«iiislicrl t l i i i t so k w pcoplc Ii;ivc riddrcssctl - tlic nioiiiciit ol. tlie tlisiiitegratiori oí's ccrf;iiri kiritl oí' rnarxism. Iri frict, tlic first I?ritisli Ncw Lcft enierged i i i 10.56 at tlie iiioinent of tlie disiiitegratioii 01' an eritirc Iiistorical/~iolitical project. Iii tliat serise 1 came into riiarxisiii backwartls: against thc Soviet lanks in Uudapest, as it were. Wliat 1 iiie¿iii h y t1i;it is cert~iinlyiiot tli;ii 1 wasii't profoiindly, and tliat culturiil stutlics tlieii w;isiill

: i :;5 le,

;#

4

%

r$ a 9 S

Ií.

yi

5

i

1

i

t. i f

b

Iioiii ~ l i cI)cgiiiiiirig, ~~rttlociiicllyiiilliiciicccl \)y ilic cliicsiioiih i l i i i \ iii;iisisiii iis ;i ~licorctical~irojcctpiit oii ilic íigerido: tlic polver, tlic global scacli niid Iiistoi-y-iiiíikiiig crip¿icitics of c;ipital; tlic qiicstioii oí' cl;iss; tlic coriiplcx rcl;itioiisliips bctwceii powcr, wliicli is ;ir1 casier tcrrii tu cstiibiisii iii ilie cliscoi~i-scsof culture tli:iii exploitation, and cxploitation; tlie questioii of a guicr;ii tlicory wliicli coiild, in a critica1 wiiy, cuiiiicct togetlicr iii íi critica1 icllcctioii tlií'fercril dom~iinsof lile, politics aritl tlicory, theory and practice, i?c.oiioriiic, politicnl, itlcological questions, and so oii; tlie iiotioii of critical kiiowlcdgc itsclf uritl tlic prodiictioii of critic;il kiiowlcdgc as ;i prticticc. 'Tlicsc iiiiportiiiit, central qiiestions arc wliat onc inezirit 1iy wcirkiiig \.vitliiii slioiitirig tlist¿incc of niarxisiii, working oii iii~irxism, workiiig ngniiist iiirii-xisiii. workiiig witli it, workiiig lo try to clcvclol~i~i;ii.xisiii. Tlierc iiever wns a prior inonient when ciiltur;~lstudies nnd iii:irxisin rcprcxctectl ;i pcrfcct Ilicorciical fit. From tlie beginniiig (to iisc tliis way 01' s p ~ i k i i i gf o r a rnomeiit) tliere was always-alreatly thc quesiion uf tlie grc¿it iiiadccluacies, theoretically arid politically, tlie resourirliiig silences, tlic great evasions of marxism - the things that M;irx dirl iiot talk ahout or scciii to uiitlcrstiind wliicli wcrc oiir privilcgctl ol)jcct of siiitly: ciiltiirc, irlcology, liiiigiiagc, tlic symbolic. Tliese wcre iilw;iys-;ilrcacly. iiistcad, tlic tliiiigs wliicli had iniprisoncd m r x i s r n as a niorle oí' tliouglit, iis ari activily oí' cri~icalpractice - its orthodoxy, its doctrinal charactcr, its detcrrniriii;iri, its rcdrictioiiisni, its immutable law of history, its statiis ;is ii inctn-iiiirrativc. 'Tliat is to say, the eiicounter between Britisfi cultiiral stii(lies and niarxism Iias lirst to bc iinrlerstood as tlie cngagenicnt witli n probleni - iiot ;i tlieory, iiot cvcn a problematic. It begiiis, and tlcvclops tlirough tlie crilicliie of :i ccrtain reductioiiism aiid economisni, wtiich 1 thirik is not extririsic hut iiiti-ii~sicLO mzirxisrn; a contestatioii witli thc niodcl of base aiid siiperstriictiirc, tliroiigh wliicli sophisticatcd aiid viilgar iriarxisiii alike liad tried 10 tliiiik ~ l i crclatiorisliips bctween society, ccoiioriiy, ;iritl ciillurc. I I wiis 1oc;itcd antl sited i i i a necessary and prnlonged aiicl ns yet riiiciitling coiitcstntiob with tlie questioii of false conscioiisiiess. Iri niy owii case, it rccliiirctl a iiot-yct-coinpletcd coiitestatiori witli tlie profourid Eiirocciitrisni oí' marxist tlicory. 1 want to inake this very precise. I t is not jiist :i niiitlcr of wlicre Marx happeneci to be born, and of what he talked about, biit of the iiiorlcl at tlic cciitrc of thc niost dcveloped parts of iiiarxist tlicory, which siiggcstcd tlint capitalisin evolvctl orgariically frvni witliiii its own triiiisI'oi-i)i;ilioiis. Wlicrc¿is 1 carne from a socicty wlicrc tlic prof<)iiiicliritcgiimeiit ol. ciipitiilist sociciy, ccoiiorny, ;iiid cultiirc tiacl I~cciiiiiiposcd by coiiqiicst ¿iiid coloiiizntion. Tliis is ii theoreticol, iiot n vulgar criticlue. 1 tlori't hliimc Mai-x I>cc;iiisc of wlierc Iic was borri; I'm (~iicstioiiingtlic tlieory for tlic niociel around which it is articiilated: its Eurocentrisni. I wiiiit to siiggest a different nietaplior for heo ore ti col work: tlie nicttiplior o f striigglc, of wrestliiig with the angels. Tlic only tlieory worth Iiaviiig is t l i ; i t wliich yoii Iiave to liglit off, not tliat which yoii slie¿ik witli proloiirid

fliiciicy. f iiiciiii lo ~ i xoiiictiiiiig y Iiilci t i i r i i i i l Ilic ;istoriisliiiig Ilicorclrc:iii fliieiicy of cultiirnl stuclies iiow. Uut my owii experierice of tlieory - ;iiitl iiirii.xisiii is ccrtaiiiiy ii cnsc iii lioiiii - is oí' wrcsiiiiig wiiii i l i ~; i i i g ~ I-~ii iiictriplior yoii caii tnkc ris lilcrally as you like. 1 reineniber wrestliiig wiili Althusser. 1 reiueinber lookiiig at tlie idea of 'tlieoretical practicc' iii Readirig Capital and thinking, 'l've gone as far in this book as i t is proper to go'. I felt, I will not give aii irich to this profound rnisreading, tliis siipcrstructuralist mistraiisl;ition, of classical marxisni, iinless Iie bcats nic dowii, uiiless lic dcfcats me in thc spirit. He'll llave to rnarcti over me to coiiviricc iiie. 1 warrcd witli hini, to tlic cleatli. A long, rarnbling piece wrote (I-Iall, 1974) oii Marx's 1557 'Iiitrod.uction' to T l ~ eG'r-rrndrisse, in which 1 tried to stltkc oiit tlic clillcrcricc hctwccii striictiiralisrii iri M:iix's cpistcmology iiiitl Aliliusscr's, wiis oiily tlic lip of' tlic iceberg oí' tliis lorig ciigagenicril. Aiitl tliat is not siniply o persoiial question. Iri tlie Ccritrc for Coiiteinporriry Cultural Stiidies, 10s five or six years, long aftcr tlie anti-theoreticisiii os resistance to tlieory of cultiiral studies had been overcome, arid we decidcd, in a very uii-í3ritisli way, we liad to take the plurige into tlieory, we walketl riglit ;iroiintl tlic ciitii-c circiiiiiferciice of Europcoii Ilioiiglii, iti ortlcr iiol Lo be, iii aiiy siniplc capitiilatioii to tlie zeitgcist, niarxists. We rcnrl Gcriiií~ri iriciilisni, we reatl Weber iipside down, we read I-Iegeliari idealisni, we rca
'5

.g

54 3

I f

3 C

E

i

1

i

ii

z t

Z i

1

1f i

I

2

5 i

,itliiicsxcii iii;iiiy oí iliciii. I iloii't w;iiil to go ~liioiigliwli;ii i t is I i ~ c i - ~ ~ i i ; i l l y tliiiik cultural stiidies in tlie Uritisli coritext, iii a cerlairi pericid, learned !'!-i.)!li C;raiiisci: iiiiiiiciisc aiiiouiits iibout tlie natiire oí' culture itsclf, about tlie discipliiic oi' thc conjuiictural, aboiit tlie iriiport;iiicc ol' iiistoricai sl,ccilicity, aboul the enoi,mously productive iiietaptior of hegemony, iiboiit tlic way iii wliicli one can think questioiis of class relatioris only hy usiiig tlic displaced iiotion of enseiiible arid blocs. Tliese are tlie p;uticiilrir gains of the 'detour' via Grainsci, but 1'111 iiot tryiiig tu [nlk ;ilioiit Ilirit. I waiit to say, in tliis context, about Granisci, tliat wliile Grriiiisci I~cloiigctlaiid belongs to tlie problematic of riiarxism, Iiis iinportaiice for iliis moinent of British cultural studies is precisely the degree to wliicli Iie iac1ic;illy tli.s/~l~rccd soiiic oí the iiilicritniices of iiiarxisiii i i i ciiltiirnl sliidics. 'flic radical cliarricter uf Granisci's 'displ;iccriiciit' ol' iiiarxisiii Iins iiot yct Iiccii uiidcrstood and probably won't ever be reckoiied witli, iiow we are ciiteriiig tlie cra of post-marxism. Sucli is tlie nature of tlie iiiovemerit of Iiistory and of intellectual fashion. But Gramsci also did sonietliing else Sor ciiltural studies, 2nd I want to say a little bit about that because it refers to wliiit 1 ciill tlic iiccd to rcflect oii oiir iiistitiitioiial ~iositioii, riiid our iiitellectli;il practice. 1 tried oii many occasions, aiid otlier peoplc in Uritish cultural sliiclics iiiid iit tlie Cciitre especially have tried, to describe what it is wc tlioiigtit we werc tloiiig wiili tlic kind of intellectual work wc sct iii place ir1 tlic L'ciitrc. 1 have to confess tliat, though I've read many, inore claborated and sopliisticated accounts, Grarnsci's accourit still seeriis lo iiie to coiiic: closcst to expressing what it is 1 think we were trying to do. Adrnittedly, tliere's a problem about his plirase 'the productioii of orgaiiic intellecluals'. Rut there is no doubt in iny iniiid that we wcre trying to find aii institiitioiial pi.¿ictice iii cultural studies that iiiight produce aii organic inteIlec[ual. We cliclii't kiiow prcviously what tliat woultl nieaii, in tlie contcxt 01' Dritairi ir1 tlie 1970s, siid we wcrcn't sure we woiild rccogiiizc hiiii os Iier il' wc iiiriiiaged to producc it. Tlie probleni about tlie coiicepl of Lin organic iiitcllcctual is tliat i t appears tu align iiitcllcctiials with an eiiiergirig liisioric rnovernciit aiid we couldn't tell tlien, aiid caii Iiardly iell riow, wlierc tliat eincrging tiistorical movcnicnt was to be fouiid. We were orgaiiic iiitcllcctuals witliout aiiy urgaiiic poiiit of rc~crciice;orguiiic iiitcllectiials witli a nostalgia os will or Iiope (to use Gramsci's plirase from ;iiiotlicr coiitcxt)' tlirit rit sonie point we woiiltl I3c pi-cp:ired i i i iritel1cctii:il woi-k for tliet kiiid of rclalioiisliip, if sucli a coiijiiiicturc cvcr uppcarcd. More trutlifi~lly,we were prepared to imagine or iiiodcl or siiiiiiliite sricli n rclatioiisliip i i i its abscrice: 'pcssimisin oí' ilic inícllcct, oiiiiinisni 01' tlic will'. Biit 1 think i t is very important tliat Grainsci's thinking around tliese t~ucstionscertainly captures part of what we were about. Recause a second :isjxct of Grninsci's definition of iiitellectuai work, wliicli 1 tliirik has

;il\\~iiysI)ccii Ioclgctl soiiicwlicrc clusc to tlic iiotioii o l ciiltiii~~il stiitlics íis íi ~)io.jcct,lias bccii Iiis rccluirciiiciit t l i i i t [lic 'orgaiiic iiitcllectual' miist work Oii t W 0 fi'oilt~i i t oiic iiiid tiic SiiiiiC iiiiic. On ihe uiic iiiiiid, w C !i¿ii\ iii ( i ¿it ~ tlic vcry foi-efroiit of iiilcllcctiial tiieoretical work because, as Graiiisci says, i t is tlie job of tlie orgniiic intcllectual to know more thnn the traditional inicllcctiinls do: really know, iiot just pretend to know, not just to havc tlie f:icilily of knowledgc, but lo kriow deeply and profountlly. So ofteii kiiowlctlge for in;irxism is piire secogniiion - tlie protlliction agriiii oí' wli;it wc Iiiivc ;ilwciys knowii! If yoii are iii tlie game of licgeiiioiiy yoii Ii~ivcto 1)c siiiartcr llien 'ílicrii'. Hence, there are n o theoretical liriiits froni wliicli cultural stiidies can Iurn brick. But the second aspect is just as criicial: th;ii IIic orgiiiiic iiitcllcciiiol ciiiiiioí ;ibsolve kiinscif [ir Iici-sclf frcini tlic rcspoiisil)ility ol' tr¿iiisiiiittirig tliosc itlcas, that knowledge, [ltrougli tlie inlcllcctiial fui-iclioii, lo tliosc wlio do iiot bcloiig, proíessioiinlly, i i i tlie intcllcctiinl cliiss. Aiid iiiilcss tliosc two frorits are operating st tlie sanie tiinc, or at Icnst iiiilcss tliose two nriibitioiis are part of the project of cultural studies, yoii caii gct ciiorriioiis tlieoretical advance witliout any engagemeiit at tlic levcl of the ~ ~ o l i t i c aproject. l I'm extrerriely íiiixioiis thiit yoii slioiild not decodc wliiit I'in sayiiig ris ;iii iinti-tlieorctic¿ii (liscourse. 11 is no1 ;iiiti-tlieory, but it tloes Iiave sonictliiiig to do wiili ilic coiidilions :iritl ~>roblenisof developirig iriicllectuiil aiitl theoreiic:il wclr-k as a politic;il practicc. It is an extrciiiely diffjciili roorl, iiot rcsolviiig tlic tcnsioris bctwceri tlrose two rcquirements, but liviiig witli them. Gr¿iiiisci never asked us to resolve them, but he gave iis a priictical cxniiiple of Iiow lo livc with tlicin. Wc never protliicccl organic iritellcctiinls (would ( I i i i t wc Iiacf) at tlic Centre. We never coiinectcd with that risirig tiistoric movcniciit; i t wns a niet;iplioric exercisc. Nevertheless, irict;ipliors :tic scrioiis tliiiigs. 'l'licy al'fcct oiic's practicc. I ' i i i tryiiig Lo rcrlcscril,c culturiil síiidics as tlieorctical work whicli miist go oii and oii liviiig witli t1i;il Lcnsioii. 1 w;iiit to Iovk ; i t iwo otlicr tlieoi-etic:il iiioirients in ciiltural stuclics wliicli intcrrupted ttic iilrcady-iiiterriipled Iiistory of its foriiiation. Soinc of thcsc developrnents canie as i i were frorn outer space: tlicy wcre not at al1 gerierated from tlic insidc, tliey werc not part of an inncr-iinfolding gcricrnl tlieory of ciiltiirc. Again aiid again, the so-called iinfoltliiig of ciiltiiral stutlies wris irilcrruptctl hy a break, hy real ruptiircs, by cxtcrior forccs; tlic iii~crsiiptioii,21s i t wcre, ot' ricw idciis, which (leccntrctl wlint lookctl likc tlic ¿iccuiiiuí~iliiigpríicticc of Ilic work. 'i'hcrc's arioltict' iiicl¿il~lior1'or tIicorctic;il woi-k: tlicorctic;il work as intcrruptioii. Tlicrc werc ; i t Iciist two iiiterriiptions in the work oí' tlic Cciilrc 1'0s C ~ i i ~ c i i i ~ ~ oCiiliiiral r i ~ s y Stiiclics: 'l'lic first ;iroiind fciiiiiiisni, rinrl tlic sccoiirl aroiiiid cluestioiis of rzicc. 'Tliis is iiot an attempt to siirii ~ i ptlie tlicoretical and politic:il advaiiccs ancl corisequcnccs for British ciiltiiral siiitlics 01' tlic I'emiiiist iritervcntioii; lli;it is for nnotlicr time, ;iiiotlicr place. Diit 1 tloii't

b d

i1 3

0: 8. j

i. $ 1:

P.

1'

1l I

i 1 i

1

1! I

i

f

!

1

1

I

i

$

; f I

1

a

1 1

\ v ~ i i ei~lici, ~ ~ , \o iiivokc \ I i i i t iiioii1ciit 111 a11 o~)c~i-ciitletl i i i i t l c;is~iilL V ~ I Y . 1'01. ciiltui.;iI stiitlies (iii adclitioii to niriiiy otlicr tlicoretical projccts), tlic intcrvi:!lfioii of icniiiiisiii was spccilic iiiid dccisivc. It was ruptural. It rcorgaiiizcrl tlie fjeld iii quite coiicrcte ways. First, tlic opening o t iiic quesiiori iIic pcrsotial as political, arid its coiiseqiieiiccs Sor chaiigiiig tlie object of stridy iii cultiiral studies, was conipletely revolutionary iii a tlicoretical aiitl pr~icticiil\iray. Second, tlie radical expansion OS the notioii of power, whicli li;id Iiitlicrto I~cciivcry iiiiicli rlcvelo~icdwitliiii tlic fr;inicwork of tlie iiotioii ol' tlic ~~iililic, tlic piiblic cloniaiii, willi tlic effcct tliat wc cu~ildiiot use tiic tcriii powcr - so key to the earlier probleniatic of Iiegciiiony - in thc snrnc way. Tliird, tlie ceiitrality of questioiis of geiider nrid sexualily lo the iiiitlci-stniicliiig of powcr itself. Foiirtli, tlic opciiiiig ol' iiiiiiiy of tlie ( [ L I ~ s tioiis tliat wc tliouglit we liad aliolislierl aroiiiid tlie cliiiigeroiis arca of ilie siibjcctive iiiitl tlic subjcct, whicli lotlged iliose qiicstioiis at tlie ccriire of cultural stiidies ;is a tlieoretical practice. Fiftli, 'tlie rc-operiiiig' of tlic closcd froiitici- betwcen social theory aiid tlie theory of tlie uriconscious psyclioanalysis. lt's liard to describe tlie iiiiport of tlie opeiiiiig i>fthat iiew coiiíiiiciit i i i culturiil stiitlies, ~iiarkcdoiit \,y tlie rcl;itioiisliip - or ratlier, wlint J:icqiicliiic 120sc híis cnllcd tlie s s yet 'iiiisetlled rclatioiis' - I)etweeri I'ciiiiiiisili, psyclioriii;tlysis and ciiltiiral studics, or iiidecrl Iiow i l \ViiS riccoiiip~is~ic(~. W c kiiow i t was, bul ii's nut kiiowii gciicrally Iiow ¿iiid wlicrc feiiiiiiisiii first l ~ r o k ciii. 1 use the metaphor dcliberately: As the tliief i i i tlie riiglit, i t broke iii; iiiterrupted, made an uiiseemly iioise, scizecl the tiinc, crappcd o11 tlic tnblc of cultural studies. The title of tlie voliinie ir1 wliicli this dawn-raid wns first accoinplislied - Wonlerz Toke Issiir - is instructive: for tliey 'took issiie' iii 110th seiises - took over that year's book aiid iiiitiatcd a quarrel. 13ut 1 w;iiit Lo tcll yoii soirietliiiig elsc alioiit it. Bcciiiise 01' tlic gi-owiiig iniportance of fen~iiiist work and tlie early begirinirigs of tlie feniinist iiiovciiiciil oiitsidc i i i Ilic vcry eíirly 1970s, iiiiiiiy ol' lis i i i tlic Cciitrc iiiaiiily, «f coiirse, irieii - tlioiiglit i t was tinic tlicre was good feniiiiist work i i i culiur-al studies. Aiid we indeed tricd to buy i t in, to iriiport it, to attract gootl feniinist scliolars. As you miglit cxpect, niany of tlie womeii in ciiltural stiidies wercn't terribly iiitercs~ediii this beiiigii projecl. \Ve wcre opeiiiiig tlic door to f'eininist st~idies,I~eiiiggood, transfoi-iiied men. Aiid yct, wlicii i t hrokc i i i tliroiigli tlie wiridow, evcry single iiiisiispected i-csist;iiicc rosc \ o tlic siirl'iicc - fiilly iiistiillcd patriarc11;il powcr, wliicli bclicvccl it liad tlisavowcrl itself. 'l'hcrc ai-c iio lcaders Iierc, we used tu say; we nrc al1 graduate stiidents aiid nicnibcrs of staff togctlier, Ic:iriiirig Iiow to practicc cultural stiidics. You can decide wliatever you wnnt lo decide, cic. Aiicl yct, wlicii i t canie to the question of tlic readiiig list . . . . Now tliut's wlierc 1 rcnlly discovered about tlie gendered nnture of power. Long, lorig :il'ter 1 was able to pronouiicc tlie words, L encouiitered the reality of I~i,iic:iiilt's profoiind insight iiito tlie iiitlividunl reciprocity of kiiowlcdge

;iritl ~ ~ o t v c'I'alkiiig r". ;il)oii~giviiig I I U W C ~i s í i riitliciilly tlill'crciit cs11ci-icnce fr,orii Ilciiig silciicctl. 'l'1i;tt is niiotlicr way of tliiriking, rind :iiiollicr riict;iplior Sor Ilicory: tlic wiiy fcriiiiiisrn brokc, and brokc irito, cii1iiir;il stiidies. Thcii tlicrc is tlie qiiestion of race i i i cultural stutlies. I've talkecl aboiii the iinportant 'extriiisic' sourccs of tlie formatioii of cultural sturlics - Sor example, iri what 1 calletl tlie nioineiit of tlie New Left, iiiitl its originiil <~uarrclwilli iii~irxisni- out of wlijcli cultural studics grcw. Aiitl yct, ol' coiirse, tliat wns a profoiindly English or British inoment. Actually getiiiig cultural studies to pul on its owri agenda the critical qucstioris oS rncc, ilic politics of racc, tlic rcsistaiice to r;icisin, the critical questioris of culturíil polities, wns itsclf ii prcifoiiiitl ihcorctic¿il striigglc, ii striigglc of wliicli l'olicirig llie Ci.isi.s, wiis, ciiriously, tlic lirsl aiicl vcry Iiitc cxuiiiplc. 1t rcpresentcd :i dccisivc turn iri niy own theorctical aiid iritcllcctii:il work, as well as i i i tliat of tlie Ccntre. Agaiii, it was only accoiiiplished as tlic result OS a lorig, arid sometimes bitter - certainly bitterly contested iriterii:il strugglc against a resoundirig but iinconscious silerice. A striigglc whicli coiitiiiiietl in wliat Iios sirice come to be kriowii, but only iii tlic rewrittcn Iiistory, as onc of the grcat seminnl books of tlic Ccntrc I'oiCultural Studies, Tlrc Erirpir.e Sti-ikes Brzck. In actuality, Paul Gilroy nritl the groiip oí' people who produced tlic book found it cxlremcly clifficiiit to creetc thc riecessary tlieoretical and political space i i i llie Cciitrc in wliicli to work on tlic project. I warrt to lioltl to the notiori, implicit in both these exarnples, tliat movenients provoke tlicoretical mornents. And liistorical conjunctiircs insist on tlieorics: tliey are real rnoments iii the evolution of tlieory. But licre 1 have to stop and rctrace niy steps. Becausc 1 think you coiiltl hciir, oiicc iigairi, i i i wli;tt I'iii s;iyiiig ¿i kiiid O S invocatioii of a siiiiplc-iiiiiitlctl aiiti-tlieoretic~il populisni, which does not respect aiid acknowledge tlic crrici;il iiiiport;iiicc, ¿it ciicli poiiii iii tlic inovcs I ' i i i tryiiig 1 0 rcii;iri-;iiivizc, OS wliiit l \voiilil c¿ill Ilic iiccess~ii-ydclay or cletour tlirniigli tlicory. 1 want to talk aboiit tliat 'riecessary detoiir' for a monieril. What dccciitrcd and clislocnicd tlic scttlcd patli of the Centre í¿)r Coiitcniporery Ciiliiir;il Stiidics ccrlaiiily, tind British cultiiral studies to sornc extent in gcncr~il,is what is soinetiiiics called 'tlic linguistic turri': tlic rliscovery of tliscursivity, of'tcxtii;ili(y.'l'licrc are cnsii;iltics in tlie Centre aroiintl thosc iinrncs :is wcll. Tliey wcrc wrcstlcd witli, iii cxactly the sarnc way I've trietl lo dcscrihc carlier. Uiit tlic gairis wliicli were madc tlirough an engagement with tlicrii are criiciallp irnportniit in iiriclcrstanding liow thcory came to be atlv:iiicccl in tlint \vork. Arid yet, in riiy view, sucli theoretical 'gairis' c;in ncvei. he ri sclf-sulficiciit moniciit. Agairi, tliere is 111.1 space Iicre to
Pi

1 f

i:

r.

i

t m.

gj

!

4: 5'

j!

$

1

1

liiigiiisiic iiict;iplior i o orry sludy o l c~i1tiii.c;tlic cxl>;iiisioii of ~ l i ciiotioii O ( icxi ;intl tcxtu;ility, botli as a sourcc of riieariing, aiitl as tliat wliicli escapes kiiiti j)u"1~onc~neaiiiiig; (tic recogiiition of tlie Iietcsogcricity, of tlie rliulti~ ~ l i c i tof y , niennings, of the struggle to close arbitrarily tlic irifiriite seiiiiosis I~cyoiidi~ieaniiig;tlic ;rckriowledgmeiit of textuality and cultural power, of rcprcsciitation itself, as a site of power and regulation; of tlie sytiibolic as a soiirce of itleiitity. Tliese are enormous tlieoretical ndvarices, tlioiigli of coiirsc, i i Iiíitl iilwnys iittcrided to (lucstior~sof 1;iiigiiagc (I
1 1 1 1 i ~ l ii~i )ci iah I ;ij~iiiiic ii tciisio~~ LVIIJCII Silid CICSCIII)CS ;IS t l i ~~ t t l ~ 01 l y IIIC text in its afliliations with 'irislitutions, offices, agencies, classes, acadcmies, corporatioiis, gruups, idcologically defined parties and profcssions, nations, races, and genders' - it will have renounced its 'worldly' vocation. Ttiat is Lo say, iinless aiid iintil one respects the necessary displacement of culture, arid yet is always irritated by its failure to reconcile itself with other qiiestioris that matter, with other questions tliat cannot and can never be fully covered by critical textuality in its elaborations, ciiltural studies as a project, an intervention, remains inconiplete. If you lose hold of thc teiision, yoii can do extrernely fiiie intellectual work, but you will havc lost intcllectual practice as a politics. 1 offer this to you, not bcc;iiise that's what cultiiral stiidics ougfit to be, or bccause tliat's what !he Centrc riiaiiaged to do wcll, l~iitsimply because 1 think tliat, overall, is whíit dcfirics cultural studics as a projcct. Both in the British ~ i n dtlie Americ;iii conrext, cultural studies lias drawn tlie attention itself, not just becausc of its sometimes dazzlirig iiiternal theoretical development, but because i t liolds tlieoretical and political questions in an ever irresolvable biit perniarieiit tensioti. It constantly allows the one to irritate, bother aiitl distiirb the otlier, without insisting on some final theoretical closure. I've been talking very inuch in terms of a previous history. But 1 have heen rcminded of tliis tension very forcefully in the discussions on AJDS. AIDS is oric of tlie questions which urgently brings before us our rnarginality as ciitical iiitellectuals in rnaking real effects in the world. And yct it has ofteri been reprcscnted for iis in contradictory ways. Against thc iirgericy of people dying in the streets, what in God's name is the point of culIural studies? Wliat is the point of the study of representations, if tliere is rio response 10 tlie questioii of what you say to someone who wants io kiiow if tliey should take a drug and if that means tliey'll die two days later or o few monllis earlier? At that point, 1 think aiiybody who is into crrltiiral stiidjes scrioiisly n q ari intellectiial practicc, rriiist feel, on thcir piilse, its ephenierality, its insiibstantiality, how little it registers, how little we've beeii able to change aiiythiiig or get ariybody to do anything. If you don't feel that as orie tension in the work that you are doing, theory has let you off tlie hook. On thc other hand, in the end, 1 don't agrec witli the way i i i which tlie dilemm;i is oftcii posed fur us, for i t is iiirlccd n rnorc complcx and displaced question tliaii just pcople dying out tliere. Tlie questiori of AIDS is an extrenlely irnportant terrain of struggle and contestation. In addiiion to thc peoplc we know who are dyirig, or Iiave dicd, or will, tliere are the many pcople dying wlio are ncver spoken of. Ijow could we say tliat tlie question of AIDS is not also a question of who gcts represented and who does not? AIDS is the site at wfiich the advance of sexiial politics is beiiig rolled back. It's a site at which not only people will die, but desire and pleasure will also die if certaiii metaphors do not survive, or survive i r i the wrorig way. Uriless we operate in this tension, we don't know wh;it

, "c ;i

.

:: ;

U C I I L \ ~ ~ clo,~ L ~i I 1,iI L.,III ~ I I ~ V C Ido, b ~ i ti i l ~ )w1i.i~ , i t biis 10 [lo, W I I < I L a privilegcd capacity to do. It Iias lo aiialyse certaiii tliiiigs about tlie coiisti~iitivcand political nature of representation itseif, about its complexities, about the effects of language, about textuality as s site of life :iiid death. Tliose are the things cultural studies can address. I've used tliat example, iiot because it's a perfect exaniple, but because it's a specific example, becaiise it has a concrete meariiiig, because it ~Iiallengesus in its complexity, and in so doirlg has tliings to teach LIS obout the future of serious theoretical work. It preserves tlie essential iiriture of iritcllectual work and critical refiection, the irreducibility of the insighls wliich Llieury can bring to political practice, insiglits which caiinot bc arrivcd iit iii any other way. And at tlie same tiriic, it rivcts us to the necessary modesty of tlieory, the necessary nioclesty of cultural studies as ari iritcllectual project. 1 want to end in two ways. First 1 want to address the problem of tlie institutioiialization of these two constructions: British cultural studies and Aniericaii cultiiral studies. And then, drawing on the nietapliors about tlieorcticnl work wliich 1 tried to launch (not 1 hope by claiming a~ithority or autlienticity bot in what inevitably has io be a polemical, positional, political way), to say something about how tlie lield of cultural studies has to be dcfiiicd. 1 don't kiiow what lo say aboiit American culliiral stiidics. 1 a111 coilipletely dumbfounded by it. 1 think of the strugglcs to get cultural studies irito tlie instirution in the Britisli context, to sqiieeze tliree or foiir jobs for anybody under sorne heavy disguise, cornpared witli the rapid institutiorializatiori which is going on in the United States. Tlie comparison is riot only valid for cultural studies. If you think of the important work which has been done in feminist liistory or theory in Britain and ask how many of tliosc worrieri have ever had full-time academic jobs iii tlieir lives or are iikcly ti), yoil get a sensc of what marginality is really a1~oiit.S o tlie cnoriiious explosioii of cultural studies in tlie United Strites, its rapid profcssionalization and institutionalization, is not a momeiit whicli any of lis who tried to set up a marginalized Centre in a irnivcrsity like Birmingliam could, in any simple way, regret. And yet 1 have to say, in tlie stioiigcst scnsc, tliat it reminds me of the ways in whicli, in Britain, w e nrc always aware OS iiistitutionalization as a niomciil of prolouiid darigcr. Now, I've beeii saying that dangers are riot places you run away froni but ~)laccstliat you go towards. S o 1 simply want you to know tlirit my own iccling is tliat the explusion of cultural studies along witli otbcr forms of critical theory in the academy represents a moment of extraordinarily ~ ~ t o f ~ l danger. ind Why? Well, it would be excessively vulgar to talk aboiit srrch tbirigs as how many jobs there are, how much money there is around, ;iiid Iiow miich pressiire that puts on people to do what they tliink of as critica1 political work antl intellectual work of a critical kind, wliile also

~ i i l i i i r ~ ~i ~l

11 alonc

look~iigovci Ilicii sIioiil(1ci~t i 1 111c~~roiiio~ioiis sttikc,~:iiicI 111c~ ~ i i I ~ l i ~ si;ikcs, iiiitl so oii. 12ci iiic iiistoicl rctiirii to tlic point tliai I niatlc hcSorc: ni!. iistoriisliiiicril ti1 wliiil 1 c;illcd tlic llicorctical Iliicricy « C cultiiral sliirlics iii ~ l i cUiiitcd Siates. Now, tlic qiicstioii of tlieoretical flucncy is a diflicull and provoliiiig metaplior, and I waiit only lo say oiic word about it. Sunie tirric iigcr. looking at wliot oiie can unly cal1 the deconstructive deluge (as opposc(1 lo tlccoristriictivc tiirn) wliicli liad ovcrtaken Americnii literary stiitlics, i i i its form;ilist niode, 1 trietl to distingiiish tlie exlrcinely iniportaiit tlicorcliciil ;inri inlcllectual work whicli it had made possible ir1 ctiltural stiitlies frorii ;i mere repetitiori, a sort of rnirnicry or deconstriictive ventrilocjuisiii wliicli soriictiiiics passes as a scrioiis inlcllcctci;il cxcr-cisc. My fear iit t h ~ i triioiiicril W;IS t h i i l il' cuIli~r;~I stii~lic~'gaincd ;ir1 eqilivíllciit institution~ili~aiion iii ~ l i c Arncrican coritext, it would, i i i ratlier tlie saine way, forninlizc oiit ol. existerice tlic critical cjiiestions of power, history, arid politics. I'ararlosically, wlial 1 nican by tlieorctical fluency is exactly tlie reversc. .i'licre is no moriiciit now, i i i Arncricaii cultural studies, where wc are r i o t able, exiciisivcly {ind witliout eritl, Lo tlieorize power - polilics, racc, class ~ i i i t lgciiclcs, siibjiigiitioii, doi~iiii;itiori, excliisio~i,niargiiiality, Otlierncss, etc. Tlicrc is Iiardly ariylliiiig in ciiltiiral studies whicli isii't so tlicorized. Aricl yct, tlicrc is tlic iiagging tloii0t tlint lliis ovcrwlicliniiig rcxtu¿ilizalioii oí' culliir;il siiidics' owri discourscs sonicliow coiistitutes power and politics as excliisively iiisttcrs oí' languagc aiid textuality itself. Now, this is not to say I h ~ i i1 iic ;iiioLlicr, Ilic oiic provides yoii witli 111cinc;iiis lo tlo Ilic ollicr. 13ul llicy ;irc riot llie s;iiiie lliing. 1 coine beck lo tlic tlil'ficiilty oí'institiiíiiig ;i gciiuiiie ciiliiir:il iiiid critical przictice, whicli is iiitcndcd to protliicc sonic. kind of orgiiriic intclleclii;il ~)oliiic;ilwork, whicli tlocs iiol l r v ( 0 iiiscbi-ilw

i i i ilic O v i i ; i i c \ l i l i g iiici;i-ii;iri;ilivc01 ;~cliicvc ~ ] c ("itIiii1 l ~ ~ ~ ilic , i i ~ s ~ i ~ i i ~ 1i oc01iic i l s , \>;ick tu [Iicory oiiil liolilics. lhc pi)litics 0 s t l i c ( ) r ~N o i trutll, hui t~ieory as ¿\ set oí' ~oliicstcd.localizcd. iliciiry as tllC will , o i i j i i ~ i c ~ ukiiuwle(jgcs, r~i~ wllicli Iiiive ti) Ilc ~Ichiitcdiii a dial(~gic;ilw W y BIWBYS tlljnks aboiit its iiiterve~iiioliin a lvorld I , , , ~ ;liso il Illiie~icc ill wllicli it woiilc] make s»mc difference, in wliicli it wollld havc suiiie ,ircct, Fili;l\ly, a pr;lctice wliich iinderstands tlie iiced f ~ ilitellectu¿~l r l , l O , ~ c s ~1y ,do [[icre is tlic diffcreiicc i i i tIic \vorld I>etweeil iill~crs~~i,1 i i1~ 1 politics ~iig illtellectu:il work aiid siibstitiitiiig iiitellcctu;il

~ ; i ~ i ~ ~ i ~

4 ,JI

8

''d$ !:

'3 'f i:

rí

I
$

(.clltic (or Contenlporary Ciiltur;il Studier (1'982) ?/ir Eilipil e Sir i k c ~iltirk. Loii-

E I

8 :!

lj il

ii

#2

{

11

:ii

j N

(loti: Huichiiisoii lirll, S (1974) 'Msrx's 1iotcs 011 method: ii rcading of thc 1857 ~ l i t r ~ d ~ i c t i ( j ~ ' , Working P;ipcrs in Cultural Studies 6 , 132-71. (,1<)80a)'7he Iliiitcrland of science7, in Centre fi)r Coiiieiii[iorary Cilllilr;il Stiidics, 0 1 1 Itleology, Loiidon: Hutcliinson. _ _ - ( I < )tx~ (u )l ,~i i)r a [ studics: solni pri~\>lcmiilics iiiid ~ ~ r ~ ~ I ~iil ~s.i i1 l;lli 1 ~ ' . ./, (,,is), Cii/,li% Mer/io, Loiigil[ige, Luiidoti: ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ i i i1 5l 4s7 .O ~ l / ~ ~ ~ ll;il\, S,, ~ r i i ~ iC., l ~Jeffirson, ~, T., Clirke, J . ;,nd Iliibeils, D. (1978) I'oiiciiib (,~i;r;r:~ ~ i l s x ; i l~ g/ l~cS,ri/<, ,~ (ir!(/ I.oiu rrlirl O1<11,1~.I.oiiii