[csaa-forum] RE: John Grech's last post

[Jonathan MARSHALL]

Dear colleagues,

As Ive said in my last post, I find it alarming how we all often seem to
be arguing with each other, when it would be better to argue with those
entirely outside our positions. I am therefore not altogether
comfortable writing anything that suggests I might myself do the same.
That said, I also find it unfortunate that in John Grech's post he
worries about CS becoming "diluted" from people such as myself coming
from History to CS, drawn by the "appeal" of what it has to offer.

For what it's worth, Foucault was always at least as much (if not
arguably more so) a historian than a CS practitioner as this association
tends to use the term, so it is not a case of us flooding out of History
to use cool toys which should properly belong to CS (although I dont
think this is necessarily what Grech is actually saying --- it is merely
a possible implication of statements such as his). However, it is not my
intent to try and 'reclaim' CS worthies like Foucault, Derrida, Geetz,
Adorno et al for history. Rather I would remind Grech that there was a
time when CS (at least in my former uni of Melbourne) seemed to be
threatening to eat all of the other humanities departments. The idea of
a new CS department including not only English (which did in fact become
amalgamated by CS) but also History was certainly mooted, so it is not
the case that CS has always been the victim of academic trends towards
interdisciplinary work acting as a cover for one powerful department to
consume and effectively annihilate another. CS has also acted as an
instigator of such policies. Nor though do I wish to revive the kind of
ire this sort of thing has in the past fostered.

Bearing in mind such historical events within the humanities though, I
think it is important to also recall that my peers and I were and are
amongst those who toiled away within so-called "traditional" disciplines
actively supporting and promoting what was called, in History and
elsewhere, "the literary turn" in which methods which are now often
considered to be the basis of CS were promoted as relatively new,
dynamic and highly illuminating methods of approaching historical texts,
events, issues, identities, movements, etc. Even today, resistance to
such approaches remains within History and I am sure in other
disciplines. It is on this basis that I consider myself to be part of
the CS fraternity and I would again encourage list members to unite
behind what we have in common on this level.

The 1st step of any enemy, and certainly the bureuacracies we now work
under at the universities, is to divide us and set us against each
other. As soon as we get too defensive about these kind of issues, they
will have won and it will become easy for number crunchers to rip out
the heart of depts like that mentioned below. I would therefore again
suggest we come together on the basis of what we share and embrace,
rather than feel threatened, by the interdisciplinary nature of this
ill-formed thing called CS. Foucault and Derrida always resisted being
described according to ANY disciplinary affiliation, and although I
myself still drift towards History, I still consider this an
invigorating and highly productive way to think about the creation of
knowledge in the academy,

Sincerely
Jonathan Marshall


Jonathan Marshall, PhD, MA,
Research Fellow,
Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts,
Edith Cowan University,
2 Bradford Street,
Mt Lawley, WA 6050
PH: +618 9370 6796
FAX: +618 9370 6665
jonathan.marshall at ecu.edu.au

contributing editor,
RealTime Australia
PH: 0402 0155 23
http://www.realtimearts.net/
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:32:44 +0200
From: John Grech <John.M.Grech at student.uts.edu.au>
Subject: [csaa-forum] Re: csaa-forum Digest, Vol 16, Issue 34
To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
Message-ID: <a06020407bf3b0f48b7ea@[10.0.1.3]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"

Hello Ian, Jordan, Melissa, and others

Thanks Ian for your inside account of what happened at Bermingham. I
heard about the centre closing down a couple of years ago, and it was a
bit of a shock, I must say, but not a surprise. 
Your post indicates that what I suspected was indeed to a large extent
true to what happened. 
It also confirms the perception that cultural studies is indeed harder
to do these days than it was a decade or so ago.

In response to Melissa's post a couple of days ago regarding the
importance of discussing what cultural studies is - for late career
researchers as much as for early career researchers - I would say that
the tale of Bermingham's demise gives good ground for people interested
in working with culturall studies to become more aware of the
distinctive features, attitudes, and disciplinary approaches we have in
cultural studies, for all of us to become more aware and conversant
about what cultural studies is, and what makes cultural studies
different and more vital and viable than other related disciplines, even
if there is much contestation about how these work in practice.That
means that looking back at the past is important. It tells us more about
where we - that is, a generic "we" who are engaged in discussion on the
Australian Cultural Studies Association's electronic mailing list -
might have come from, why and how we are doing things the way we do,
and, from that, we might glean a sense of where we might want to go in
future, if we still want to stay within the general field of practice we
presently call cultural studies.

Sadly, I think the open nature of cultural studies, its
interdisciplinarity and its appeal to people coming from a wide range of
fields such as the Fine Arts, History, Anthropology, as well as Film and
Media, to name but some, makes what we call the practice of cultural
studies vulnerable to being diluted, in some ways. While dilution in
this sense can mean the modification and mutation of cultural studies
methods and approaches to creatively incorporate other disciplinary
modes of practice, it also makes the area of cultural studies as a whole
is vulnerable to attack from conventional academic disciplines that have
a much more rigid structure around them about how one "SHOULD" do
things. This is where Ian Goodwin's post is most instructive, I believe,
and I also think those wishing to continue doing cultural studies would
be foolish to ignore what happened to Bermingham. Of course I'm paranoid
when I say that other Faculties in the academic world would dearly love
to wipe out cultural studies from the University register. 
Who the hell wants more competition on their block, especially when
funding is as tight as it is today. Ian is absolutely right, this is
about the brute excercise of institutional power, and there's nothing
pretty, ethical, or politely academic or theoretical about it. The
consequences are very pragmatic and immediate. It comes down to cultural
studies practitioners like ourselves to be able to mount a case for why
cultural studies work should be seen in different terms. To do this,
there is a need for good strong arguments, proof of evidence, and a
history of how this works in practice. Cultural studies has all this,
and despite the fears some might have that accumulating such an edifice
of knowledge - might we call it a "Discipline" I ask provocatively -
about "What cultural studies is" 
will totalise and limit the field and its practice, I think in the hard
nosed reality of today's money spinning research andeducational
environment mean that only those who have the wherewithall to argue
successfully for maintaining investment in their areas that are less
easy to slot in to the economic paradigm will be the ones that survive.
As an artist and a cultural studies researcher, I know this from two
sides. And this is what makes the Creative Industries push interesting
although there remains the danger that it will go the same way that
other attempts - like the idea of Creative Nation - went; An excuse to
slash and burn at the heart of what makes cultural studies, creative
work, and even art itself, so vital and essential a human activity.
While remaining aware of the danger that Creative Industries may mean
nothing more than another rationale to eradicate from the Universities
what remains of creative work there, I also think, if people are smart
enough, they can use this as an opportunity to bolster the creative
endeavour of those working in areas like the arts and cultural studies.
But to do that, people need to get a lot smarter about how to fight the
battle, what strategieswork, and what dont. To that extent, Jon
Marshall's rally to the cause is indeed appropriate. Ian Goodwin's post
indicates, however, what can easily happen if the threat is not taken
seriously enough, or the arguments not made strongly and successfully.

Finally, I would like to thank Jordan William's sensitive post, and also
for indicating how early career researchers and academics can and are
making a contribution to the world, no matter who they are, how old,
their sexual preferences, political stances, gender, race, appearance,
and identity, and so on. It may appear to some that the struggle for
those who dont conform to what could be called the contemporary
corporate model of who is the right person for the job has been
eradicated in the world of academic research and the University, but for
those "non-comformists" 
amongst us who have to deal with their difference to the dominant norm
on a day to day basis, the picture does not seem as rosy.  It would be
good to hear more about how people like Jordan and his inspiring model
in her 60s fare in the world as they pursue their endeavours.

happy hunting

john grech