[csaa-forum] Cultural studies in Australia
Warwick Mules
w.mules at cqu.edu.au
Tue Aug 30 09:21:44 CST 2005
And so the struggle goes on.
During the 1980s there was no such thing as cultural studies in
Australia, or anywhere else as far as I know. In the Department of
English where I studied and worked (UQ), there was literature and
then there was something called media studies associated with
rhetoric and linguistics. The really big change occurred in this set
up when something called poststructuralism arrived in the mid 1980s
(poststructuralism = concerned with the 'excess' in structure). What
poststructuralism was able to do was to break down the cosy idea of
literary texts as closed formal unities or expressions of genius, and
instead allow them to be submitted to a kind of rigorous reading of
their textuality as potentially open. This then allowed a certain
kind of literary reading strategy to be applied not only to canonical
literary texts, but to any form of writing, or to any object or event
which could be seen as a kind of writing, within open fields. The aim
here was to release textuality from its subordination to the 'voice'
of authority, and to make it work against the grain, in terms of a
politicised reading practice of resistance that challenged centred
ways of thinking and representation, as self-evident or natural ways
of going about doing things, and of feeling and of perceiving objects.
Underlying this poststructuralist project was a challenge to views of
society as a collection of free individuals with their own modes of
expression, or an aggregate of discrete objects and events with their
on internal meanings and structures. Poststructuralist reading
strategies were able to draw on earlier Marxist ideas of the
conflictual structuring of society, and to develop more localised
practices of political engagement with specific sites, texts and
events, seeking ways to release forces for a future that as yet
cannot be known.
This rather incomplete sketch indicates some of the issues that I
think are with us today. I see no reason to abandon the critical
engagement with the social order and with the forms of representation
that determine what means what, and who is able to do what to whom.
Indeed, if anything, the need for critical engagement with strategies
like poststructuralism, with its concern for opening things out, and
with critical resistive forms of 'reading', is more pressing now that
it ever was. The rise of neo-conservativism in the US and now
Australia, has led to a resurgence in essentialist ways of thinking
and experiencing the world. A resurgence in fundamentalist religion,
economic materialism, racism and perhaps most concerning of all,
newer and ever-increasing forms of surveillance, makes it imperative
that humanities continues its project of critical engagement with the
world, and with developing projects and pedagogies that help us all
think through the forces at work, and how they might be challenged,
resisted, or redeployed.
Warwick
Warwick Mules
Humanities
Central Queensland University
>I agree with most of what has been said in response to Simon. The
>major problem for me is his automatic conjunction of
>'abstract/philosophical' and 'political'. There are many cases where
>these look to me more like opposites.
>
>But it seems to me that Simon does perform a service in asking what
>has become of a certain early 1990s formation of Australian cultural
>studies. There was an intensity there which would lead one to expect
>an ongoing 'project'. I think most who were involved in it hoped and
>believed that this is what it would be. But in fact, by the end of
>the 1990s, there was a considerable fragmentation and dissipation of
>the energies of that moment. It is easy to explain things away
>through contingent factors -- people got opportunities overseas etc.
>-- but I'm not sure that accounts cumulatively for the phenomenon.
>Why didn't it hold together better?
>
>There are obvious ways, of course, of seeing this as a microcosm of
>a wider shift in Oz cultural politics. For that reason alone, it
>should be of interest.
>
>I love Mel's line about the difficult of speaking of the present and
>the future 'when we are constantly forced to mime in the shadows
>cast by senior colleagues'. But I think some reckoning with the past
>may actually be important to us ECRs (glad to be able to say I am
>still just one). Perhaps this is a rather 'Murdoch' perspective, but
>as one who has struggled up in the institution which perhaps most
>closely followed the 'boom-dissipation' pattern, I have usually been
>less worried by having to find a place amongst a battle of the
>titans than by the vacuum following their departure. The succession
>thing is something the exec of the CSAA also discussed a number of
>times when Alan McKee was president. It was very noticeable for a
>period that many senior figures had disengaged from the scene.
>
>A bit of turnover and renewal is, of course, a good thing. The loss
>or withdrawal of one leaves spaces for others. But some patterns of
>renewal are better than others. I'm reminded of some cricket
>commentators the other night talking about what happened to the West
>Indies (worrying that something similar might happen to Australia).
>It's all very well having (or being) fresh new talent, but it can be
>a difficult and disheartening road for them if they don't find
>themselves in healthy ecology of mixed experiences and ages. I would
>personally like to hear a little more from the 1991 veterans, not
>less -- at least if not simply in self-justificatory mode.
>
>-- Mg
>
>>I'm glad we've got some much needed clarification from Graeme. I've
>>been reading this thread with some bemusement. I'd thought we got
>>well beyond the monoliths of Politics and Theory. I'm also
>>wondering at what and who gets called Australian and the
>>construction of memory around that conf at Nepean where the CSAA
>>got formed, and which was in fact my first visit to Australia. More
>>amusingly it was where John H and Tony B and Meahgan M all met for
>>the first time - so it wasn't exactly well formed cadres who were
>>battling it out then.
>>
>>Just to remind Simon, since being in Australia I have published
>>Outside Belongings - pretty queer -, Carnal Appetites - fairly
>>deleuzian, and Blush - affect theory. More importantly, I find the
>>American mode of Theory tiresome perhaps because it does not have
>>to deal with coal face realities of politics rather than Politics
>>in way that Australian CS types have to.
>>
>>That's my 2 cents worth.
>>best,
>>Elspeth.
>>
>>Professor Graeme Turner wrote:
>>
>>>I wasn't planning to get involved in this; I regard Simon's
>>>dismissive comment about Australian cultural studies as a
>>>polemical move, really, more to do with positioning than analysis.
>>>For what it's worth, it is not an entirely new account and I have
>>>never accepted it as completely convincing -- even during the
>>>mid-1990s, which is when it was first articulated and when there
>>>was more reason to assent to it than now.
>>>
>>>But, reading Simon's own post has dragged me in. I am afraid I
>>>can't let this personal comment go without responding:
>>>'neither of them [Hartley and Turner] (I think they'd agree)are
>>>involved in the more theoretical...critical, politically engaged
>>>strands of the rield'.
>>>Que? Makes me wonder, just what I have been doing lately? For the
>>>record, (and I'm sure John Hartley can answer for himself) I most
>>>emphatically (perhaps even indignantly) do not agree. Indeed, I
>>>think the last four or five years have been among my most
>>>critically and politically engaged. Maybe because much of that
>>>engagement has been face to face with politicians, bureaucrats etc
>>>-- in addition to the normal academic channels--it doesn't count.
>>>Maybe Simon just hasn't read any of my published work in recent
>>>years; personally disappointing, but not necessarily surprising.
>>>Whatever the reason, this characterisation of my activities in our
>>>field is simply wrong.
>>>Graeme Turner
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Simon During <simond at jhu.edu>
>>>Date: Saturday, August 27, 2005 8:30 am
>>>Subject: [csaa-forum] Cultural studies in Australia
>>>
>>>>Hi y'all:
>>>>Could I just say that as far as I am concerned it's great to see that quote
>>>>from my book serve as the beginning of a discussion about creative
>>>>industries and cultural studies etc.. But if anyone wants to get
>>>>a realsense of where it stands on issues like populism, Hartley,
>>>>creativeindustries, the cultural studies discipline etc they
>>>>probably need to read
>>>>the whole thing through. And I don't think people will find it coming from
>>>>where they'd anticipate if all they've read is those few
>>>>sentences (whichisn't all it gets to say about cultural studies
>>>>in Australia either?andwhile I am at it let me give a plug here
>>>>and now for The Cultural Studies
>>>>Review which obviously belongs to a whole other world than the
>>>>one gesturedat in those remarks.). By the by: Cultural Studies:
>>>>a critical introduction
>>>>was written as a textbook, not an introductory one, with a very strict word
>>>>limit and it's a bit unusual in that it doesn't so much try neutrally to
>>>>explain stuff to students and readers as to engage them head on.
>>>>But maybe I can try to move the discussion forward in a slightly
>>>>differentdirection. I remember going to the first CSAA meeting,
>>>>I don't recall the
>>>>exact year (1991?) but I think it was held at the campus of Western Sydney.
>>>>Pretty much everyone who had been involved in getting the field going in
>>>>Australia were there, and at its centre was the group of people
>>>>who had done
>>>>most to get it off the ground and who were recognised as having made the
>>>>strongest intellectual contributions up to that point: people
>>>>like MeaghanMorris, John Frow, Tony Bennett, Graeme Turner,
>>>>Stephen Muecke, John
>>>>Hartley.... And as soon as I recall that event I begin to wonder
>>>>about what
>>>>has happened to all those people and about the kinds of work they
>>>>do now. Am
>>>>I right in saying that, while all are still academically active, only John
>>>>and Graeme work today in anything like mainstream cultural studies in
>>>>Australia, and neither of them (I think they'd agree) are involved in the
>>>>more theoretical (or philisophical), critical, politically
>>>>engaged strandsof the field? Does that matter? Is it a sign of
>>>>anything? If so, what's
>>>>it a sign of?
>>>>Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>/Elspeth Probyn FAHA/
>>
>>/Professor of Gender Studies/
>>
>>/The University of Sydney A 14/
>>
>>/NSW 2006, Australia/
>>
>>/Tel: +61 2 9351 7389/
>>
>>/Fax: +61 2 9352 5336/
>>
>>/Mobile: 0412 548 762/
>>
>>_______________________________________
>>
>>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
>
>
>--
>
>Dr Mark Gibson
>School of Media Communication and Culture
>Murdoch University
>South Street, Murdoch
>Western Australia 6150
>
>Editor, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies
>http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/10304312.html
>
>Director, Centre for Everyday Life
>
>tel: 61-8-9360 2951
> 0439 695 703
>fax: 61-8-9360 6570
>email: M.Gibson at murdoch.edu.au
>_______________________________________
>
>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
--
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Warwick Mules, Editor Transformations, http://transformations.cqu.edu.au
Cultural Studies,
Humanities, Central Queensland University
Bundaberg Campus, email: w.mules at cqu.edu.au
Locked Bag 3333 DC phone: 0741 507142
Bundaberg, Queensland mobile: 04122 92541
Australia 4670 fax: 0741 507080
_______________________________________________________________________________
More information about the csaa-forum
mailing list