[csaa-forum] no (conciliatory) capitulation

[Ben Hourigan]

On 28 Feb 2005, at 10:52, langley timmy wrote:

> just a very quick response to Ben Hourigan:
>
> 1.these critics dislike all disciplines ending in
> 'studies', not because of any (totalitarian) marxist
> positions or methodologies (as mini melleuish's
> latest attack demonstrates) but because these 'new'
> discipline question (unsettle/challenge) universal
> (male/anglo-celtic/christian/european) assumptions
> that underline these critics subjectivities and
> cultural positions.

Surely our entire discipline (and all the other " 'new' " disciplines 
you refer to) cannot be reduced to this, which is simply one kind of 
politics? What about the merging of sociological and anthropological 
research methodologies with the methods of textual analysis we take 
from literary studies and semiotics? What about our willingness to 
study popular culture and the practices in which it is implicated?

I can't see why Melleuish et al. should absolutely be opposed to these 
things. If Melleuish loves Thucydides so much, why couldn't he be 
interested in research that, for instance, traced the presence (if any) 
of Thucydides in pop-cultural texts, and evaluated its relevance to 
present-day media consumers by conducting surveys? If that didn't work 
out, how about some studies of the contemporary revival of the epic 
classical-history film? I did a great subject when I was an undergrad 
at Melbourne, called "Medievalism in Contemporary Culture," which was 
very much in this vein (though with an emphasis on Mallory rather than 
Thucyidides). True, I'm not going to do that kind of research, and 
probably neither are you. Maybe Melleuish could do it himself? Or maybe 
it's already out there, but he hasn't bothered to look for it (and nor 
have I).

> they feel their naturally acquired
> positions of power are under threat, and will use any
> attack method necessary.
> 2.there can be no 'conciliatory gestures' towards
> these critics unless these disciplines stop
> questioning these assumptions.
> these vastly
> heterogeneous discipline

There's no reason that *every single piece of cultural studies 
research* needs to 'question' "(male/anglo-celtic/christian/european) 
assumptions." If that was all CS ever did, it would be insufferably 
homogenous and boring. That disciplines are internally diverse is 
precisely what might enable Melluish and co. to see that they don't 
have to hate CS per se. They might be able to find some uses for its 
knowledges and methodologies themselves, and even to contribute to the 
discipline by approaching it from their own political perspective, 
which they evidently see as being opposed to the position of most CS 
researchers. Bring on revisionist CS! Are you ready?

>  need to, in the eyes of their
> critics, return to (unpolitical) readings of the
> canon, and nothing else.

If there's one thing I imagine this entire list would agree on, it's 
that our critics' readings of the canon (and of our work) are *not* 
unpolitical. They are socially and politically conservative. They would 
likely prefer that ours were, too. That's their prerogative.

> 3.i'm surprised ben found it necessary to email keith
> windschuttle to find references on writing against
> marxist cultural theory (if one were requesting
> references to his own work, that's different). a
> simple search on any database or subject catalogue, or
> a question to a supervisor, would be efficiently
> appropriate.

Supervisors are not omniscient, and even the most well-crafted Boolean 
search doesn't have the same capacity to sort information as a human 
mind implicated in networks of interpersonal relationships. Sometimes 
it's nice to ask people for help or advice, just to see what you come 
up with. And why not go straight to one of the most infamous characters 
on Australia's intellectual scene?

>
> cheers tim.
>
>  --- Ben Hourigan <mail at benhourigan.com> wrote:
>> This post does eventually get back to the question
>> of how we could
>> respond to critics of Cultural Studies, so bear with
>> me...
>>
>> In some off-list correspondence, Danny wrote to me
>> and suggested that I
>> couldn't reasonably suggest that we drop Marxist
>> political theory from
>> cultural studies in order to politically re-align it
>> (I'm
>> paraphrasing).
>>
>> (Excerpts from the email that prompted this is
>> reproduced at the bottom
>> of this post.)
>>
>> By writing this, Danny's reiterating a point from
>> that post of Terry
>> Flew's that started the whole "Is cultural studies
>> inherently
>> left-wing?" thread
>>
> (http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/Week-of-Mon-20050103/
>>
>> 000592.html). I don't think that's at all
>> unfortunate. For the record,
>> I agree: I don't think a Cultural Studies without
>> Marxist theory would
>> be the same kind of discipline we know today. Though
>> part of the reason
>> that Marxist theory is so central is that the
>> far-reaching (and
>> arguably totalitarian) scope of Marxism has caused
>> that tradition of
>> thought to produce a quantity of cultural theory
>> that is probably
>> unrivalled by any ideology active in the 20th
>> century. As a
>> non-leftist, however, this reliance on Marxism
>> bothers me more than a
>> little.
>>
>> No doubt it bothers our 'right-wing' critics, too.
>> As you can see
>> below, I'm no subscriber to Melleuish's particular
>> grievances. But,
>> while we are doing the work of refuting the
>> particular arguments he and
>> others put forward against Cultural Studies, could
>> we perhaps make some
>> conciliatory gestures towards them, rather than
>> lambasting them for
>> being 'right wing'? Could anyone ever add, to the
>> current, 'leftist'
>> brand of Cultural Studies, a liberal (à la Thomas
>> Jefferson, rather
>> than John Kerry) Cultural Studies? A conservative (à
>> la Edmund Burke,
>> not Andrew Bolt) Cultural Studies?
>>
>> In other words, could we invite Melleuish,
>> Windschuttle, Miranda
>> Devine, and their like, to join us (at least from
>> time to time), rather
>> than try to beat us?
>>
>> (I hear you, Charles, with regard to the attitudes
>> of some to your work
>> on popular music. I once wrote to Windschuttle
>> asking for some
>> references on writing against Marxist cultural
>> theory, and his
>> suggestion was that the people he knew [and I
>> suspect Keith himself]
>> wouldn't have much sympathy for that element of my
>> work. Still, he
>> passed over it tactfully, and I ended up getting my
>> references from
>> someone he knew.)
>>
>> EXCERPTS FROM MY OFF-LIST EMAIL TO DANNY BEGIN HERE:
>>
>> Charles wrote:
>>
>>> The right is all for fairness and liberal
>> education, when their
>>> compatriots are on the soapbox or at the lectern.
>>
>> I take this to imply that, in taking a position
>> against cultural
>> studies, 'the right' is against 'fairness and
>> liberal education'
>> because their compatriots are *not* at the lectern.
>> If cultural studies
>> lecturers are not the compatriots of 'the right,'
>> then the left/right
>> spectrum can allow them only two other positions:
>> centre or left. My
>> experiences with the teaching of cultural studies at
>> Melbourne Uni,
>> which have involved heavy emphasis on Marxist
>> cultural theory, lead me
>> to believe that it is not the centre that the
>> discipline is trying to
>> occupy. Charles doesn't necessarily _need_ to
>> mention the left, since
>> when Cultural Studies people gather, the assumption
>> is often already
>> there that they are all leftists, for whom those on
>> the 'right wing'
>> are natural opponents in debate.
>>
>> Despite this, sometimes people *do* mention it, as
>> Jason Jacobs did on
>> the list on 6 January 2005, saying:
>>
>>> Still, I think all cultural studies scholars
>> believe themselves to be
>>> left-wing. Whatever that means.
>>
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/Week-of-Mon-20050103/
>>
>> 000602.html
>>
>> This was in the context of the "Is cultural studies
>> inherently
>> left-wing?" thread. Then there was Laurie Duggan on
>> Jan 6:
>>
>>> It's probably true that Humanities academics (over
>> and above cultural
>>> studies practitioners) are mainly of the left.
>>
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/Week-of-Mon-20050103/
>>
>> 000597.html
>>
>> and Terry Flew on 7 Jan:
>>
>>> the globalisation of cultural studies through the
>>> academic publishing market is, if anything,
>> tightening the linkage
>>> between
>>> cultural studies and a version of left politics.
>>
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/Week-of-Mon-20050103/
>>
>> 000605.html
>>
>> Are the alliances and enmities implied by these
>> statements imaginary? I
>> don't think so.
>>
>> Personally, I find Melleuish's attack on Cultural
>> Studies just as
>> ridiculous as I suppose everyone else does, though
>> it doesn't bother me
>> that he or the newspaper he publishes in might be
>> 'right wing.' Rather,
>> it's because he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of
>> the lines between
>> disciplines (why should Cultural Studies be
>> concerned with Thucydides,
>> or whether or not students could write a
>> constitution?), and that he
>> forgets that although students might not be studying
>> Thucydides in CS,
>> there's nothing to stop them from taking some
>> Classics subjects at the
>> same time, or taking Politics and learning about
>> constitutions.
>>
>> Ben Hourigan, B.A. (Hons) (Melb.)
>> http://benhourigan.com>
> _______________________________________
>>
>> csaa-forum
>> discussion list of the cultural studies association
>> of australasia
>>
>> www.csaa.asn.au
>>
>> change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________
>
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>
> www.csaa.asn.au
>
> change your subscription details at 
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>
>