Introduction to Cultural Studies – summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Introduction to Cultural Studies – summary Session 1: Introduction - Raymond Williams „Culture“ etymological development (Herder), literal vs. metaphorical meaning Chris Barker: What are “Cultural Studies”? Representations of culture, power structures, identity dimensions Malcolm Barnard: Why is the...

Description

Introduction to Cultural Studies – summary Session 1: Introduction -

Raymond Williams „Culture“ etymological development (Herder), literal vs. metaphorical meaning Chris Barker: What are “Cultural Studies”? Representations of culture, power structures, identity dimensions Malcolm Barnard: Why is theory important?

Williams: “Culture” root word: colere = inhabit, cultivate (lat.) e. 15th century: lat. “cultura” passed into English as “culture” = tending something (development of crops, animals…) e. 16th century: meaning extended to humans (=development of humans) lt. 18th / mid-19th century: modern meaning develops, culture acquires class associations (= cultivation / refinement) mid-19th century: culture begins to be used in the sense of civilization, human development Idea: linear development of humans / culture from low (primitive cultures) to high point (European culture (19 th century)  Johann Gottfried Herder (German philosopher)  attacked the idea that historical development of humans is linear (from primitive to high culture)  saw the necessity to speak of cultures in the plural  there are cultures of different peoples, nations, groups within nations… today: literal and metaphorical use  literal: growing and tending (e.g. germ culture, sugar-beet culture)  metaphorical: three different uses 1. General process of intellectual, spiritual, aesthetic development 2. Particular way of life 3. Works and practices of intellectual activity (“art”) => overlapping senses => idea of linear development is still around => distinction between high and low culture

Chris Barker: What are “Cultural Studies?” Cultural Studies aim at examining culture. Culture = practices, representations, languages, customs etc. of a society  phenomena with which cultures express and represent themselves  phenomena which serve to generate, negotiate, and contest norms, values, beliefs, behavior in any give society (shared social “meanings”) Cultural Studies are interested in:  How is power maintained within a society?  How are signifying practices caught up in the construction and negotiation of power structures?  How are power structures related to identity dimensions such as gender, race, class, age, sexuality, religion, etc.? To explore such questions, cultural studies draws on various disciplines and their concepts, theories, methods:  Media studies, film studies, visual culture  History  Sociology  Anthropology  Literary studies, semiotics  Material culture studies… Cultural Studies are interdisciplinary.

Malcolm Barnard: Why Theory? theoria (Greek) = looking, vision  “We see what we know”  How we look at things is extremely important! ex.: farmer, general, art student look at the same field… Farmer: sees a fairly usable field for growing crops (trees should be felled, field is a bit too steep) General: sees a wide-open space in which army can be easily ambushed (forest as hiding place, otherwise no cover)

Art student: sees a pastoral landscape (only trees have to be rearranged in order to have a more balanced landscape) Theory helps you see things in a new, different light. New theories and concepts broaden your horizon, help you to see new aspects (things you did not know before). Theories help us to grasp, categorize, order our world and to express ourselves more precisely! Theories both focus your attention on certain aspects and blind you with regard to others! example: Shrek

Session 2: James Clifford: Traveling Cultures (informant, fieldwork, traveling) Homi Bhabha: Hybridity, Mimicry Traditional view of culture: Culture: as monolithic, stable and unchanging entity can be clearly differentiated from other cultures can be clearly defined -

Herder’s criticism: Culture is not a linear progress Culture should be thought of as plural

“New” view of Culture (cf. Clifford et. al.) breaks up the idea of unchanging and stable culture draws attention to the ways in which cultures change draws attention to the ways in which cultures are interconnected  Culture as process characterized by change and exchange

James Clifford: Traveling Cultures reference to Bonislaw Malinowski BM lived among the natives on the Trobiand Islands (near Papua New Guinea), did extensive field work there Malinowski changed ethnography: “off the verandah” and into the “field”  field work: participant observer  need of “informant” – who functions as guide, source of information, interpreter etc. Anthropology/Ethnography: study of (‘other’) cultures Clifford criticizes a number of problematic assumptions and conventions:  use of informant as ‘typical’ representative of culture (taken as representative of ‘pure’ culture)  fieldwork conventions (e.g., putting up your tent in the middle of village) New notion of informant: not a typical “homebody” but often  somebody who has traveled,  who knows other languages (e.g. the ethnographer’s language),  who is a mediator (conversant with different cultures)  who has come into contact with “other” cultures Problematic: method of fieldwork: observer will influence the observed (no neutrality; who is observing whom?) “localizing strategy”: putting up the tent in the center of culture ‘center’ as most representative of culture – whose point of view? what about other places within the culture, e.g., the margins?  culture happens as much in the center as on margins Metaphor of travel and traveling is used to think in new ways about culture/cultures  Culture: dwelling and traveling (motel, bus, …) culture is characterized by both the old and the new, sameness and difference, inside and outside (cf. informant)…  culture is characterized by roots and routes

Problematization of the notion of travel/traveling (stereotype): not just literal (tourism…) but also  forced travel, e.g. migration, exile…  metaphorical travel, e.g. armies invading, media, commodities… Problematization of (typical) traveler (white, middle-class…): gender, race, class, location…

Homi Bhabha: Hybridity, Mimicry post-colonial critic critical look at colonization and consequences  influence on humans: colonizers and colonized  influence on cultures: dominant and dominated “Hybridity” origin in horticulture: cross-breeding used in cultural studies as ‘metaphor’  creation of new, transcultural forms new hybrid ‘species’ / phenomenon = more than its ‘parents’ forms of hybridization: linguistic, cultural, political, racial… (food, music, fashion,…) Homi Bhabha: Hybridity One important feature of colonization has been the ‘mixing’ of cultures (of both colonizer and colonized). He argues: “… all forms of culture are continually in a process of hybridity.” hybridity is a central aspect of all cultures  there is no pure, “original” culture – culture is always a process of (ex)change “But for me the importance of hybridity is not to be able to trace two original moments from which the third emerges  … The process of cultural hybridity gives rise to something different, something new and unrecognizable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation.” -

new hybrid form is always more than the sum of its parts no priority given to the “original” (as being better, more authentic etc.) point of hybridity: creation of newness, possibility of resistance (to dominant cultures)

 Bhabha extends the notion of cultural hybridity, claiming that it is a condition of all cultures which becomes most visible in contexts of colonization.

Homi Bhaba: mimicry “… colonial mimicry is the colonizer’s desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as subject of difference that is almost the same, but not quite.” camouflage: to pose as something you are not colonizer: encourages colonized to become more like him/her  diminish “otherness” (“the same but not quite”) colonized: wants to become more like colonizer  attempt to share power attached to colonizer’s culture Danger (from viewpoint of colonizer): colonized becomes too much like the colonizer  hierarchy between colonizer and colonized is based on visible, assumed differences (justification)  if colonized subject becomes too similar this is undermined  difference disappears, hierarchy (based on difference) can no longer be maintained Ambiguity of Mimicry: negative: denial of one’s own cultural heritage positive: opportunity for resistance and subversion Homi Bhabhas: Culture’s In Between Talking about immigrants’ culture in a new country, Bhabha observes:

“This ‘part’ culture, this partial culture, is the contaminated yet connective tissue between cultures – at once the impossibility of culture’s containedness and the boundary between. It is indeed something like culture’s ‘inbetween’, bafflingly both alike and different.” -

partial culture: part of, different from – sth new the contaminated yet connective tissue (specific use – there is not pure culture to begin with) the impossibility of culture’s containedness (restriction, definiteness) and the boundary culture’s ‘in-between’: both alike and different

Session 3: Concepts of Culture II Mary Louise Pratt contact zone autoethnography / autoethnographic texts transculturation example: Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala’s letter Gloria Anzaldúa borderlands mestiza consciousness Mary Louise Pratt: contact zone contact zones are “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths …” Autoethnography Ethnographic texts: Europe represents its ‘other’ to itself (descriptions of ‘exotic’ people from elsewhere) Autoethnographic texts: the ‘others’ write back  in response to ethnographic texts  selective collaboration with and appropriation of the conqueror’s idiom  self-description that engages with the traditions that Europe uses to describe the ‘other’ Transculturation used to replace reductive concepts of acculturation (adopting beliefs etc. of majority group) and assimilation (‘merging’ of smaller group into a larger one) process of selection of elements from dominant culture creation of new elements members of dominated culture cannot choose what emanates from dominant culture… … but they can determine what gets absorbed and how it is used (choice) Example: felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala’s letter multilingual: Spanish, native Andean language (Quechuan) rewriting of Spanish genre of “Chronicle” with which colonizers represent conquest (history writing)  Poma writes against this representation from his point of view: “New Chronicle” rewriting of visual tradition  European drawings with Andean symbolism  “appropriat es and adapts pieces of the representational repertoire of the invaders”  letter is an autoethnographic text  example of transculturation

Gloria Anzaldúa: Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987) hybrid text (genres. traditions, languages)  genres: autobiography, political writing, philosophical writing, fiction, non-fiction, prose, poetry  languages: English, varieties of Spanish, Nahuatl Borderlands defined in contrast to border, which is a dividing line Space of transition Space where cultures mix represented by image of blood, open wound: pain home to those who do not belong to the mainstream, who defy the standard, who are ‘other’ (not just culturally or racially but regarding other identity dimensions as well) Mestiza Consciousness “new” consciousness formed in the borderlands openness to difference tolerance for ambiguity  the mestiza lives in many cultures at the same time Image of standing on both sides of the river at the same time – NOT locked in perpetual battle, i.e., on either side of the river (NOT ‘either/or’ but ‘both/and’) Example: Wendy Rose: Heredity

Session 4: Identity, Nation Identity (based on text by Kevin Robbins plus further aspects) Nation as “imagined community” (Benedict Anderson) Example: 19th century trade cards Identity = who I am Aspects of identity: gender race, ethnicity class, financial background sexuality age religion politics moral values, ethics education family nationality, culture …

Identity (Kevin Robbins) “Identity is to do with the imagined sameness of a person or of a social group at all times and in all circumstances …”  Identity as a (helpful) idea: we feel ‘the same’ but  we change and develop (time, context)  personal vs. group identity personal identity vs. collective identity “Identity may be regarded as a fiction” Identity as fiction (or construction): We put order on complexity of life We select what we remember We feel that we stay the same, yet we actually change all the time Identity comes from Latin “idem et idem”  sameness  unity  as central ideas  continuity Problem: pluralism, diversity, difference, contradictions change  are not accounted for  might be perceived as threat, especially by groups Problem: sameness or homogeneity seem to be central for our perception of identity  group identities are defined by that (nation, culture)  hides actual heterogeneity of groups  perception of difference as threat (exclusion, punishment) Identity should be seen as a mixture of sameness and difference ‘core identity’ (sense of self) that is changed by a variety of factors (time, context…) Cora Kaplan: 1. Personal identity: seems more constant, allows us to feel coherent 2. Social identity: changes throughout the day, depending on the social context we move in Identity (Robbins)  is as much about ourselves as about our relation to others  (social) identities can be ‘at war’ with each other

 we define ourselves in contrast to others; exclusion (we need ‘the other’ to define ourselves)  polarization: male vs. female, white vs. non-white, old vs. young etc. (often implies a hierarchy) Identity (Kathryn Woodward) “Identity gives us an idea of who we are and how we relate to others and to the world in which we live. Identity marks the ways in which we are the same as others who share that position, and the ways in which we are different from those who are not.”  sameness and difference

Identity (Robbins) Problems: Group identity: disavowal (denial) of change Identity is often defined in an essentialized way (i.e., as an expression of an inner core or essence that is considered natural and unchanging) Globalization: Negative: led to identity crisis (old ideas and values have changed, serve no longer as orientation) Positive: Loosening of old, limiting ideas about identity, development of alternatives

Benedict Anderson: Nation 3 paradoxes regarding the concept objective modernity vs. subjective antiquity universality vs. particularity political power vs. philosophical poverty The concept of nation can be defined as “an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” Imagined: irrespective of size, members of a nation will never know most of the other members, yet, they share a sense of community Community: Despite actual inequalities with which relations between members of a nation are characterized, nations are imagined as comradeships in which all members are equal. Limited: Nations – even very large ones – have definite, defined boundaries beyond which are other nations. In fact, other nations are needed (outside) against which a nation can define itself (inside). Sovereign: There is no entity above the nations, they are accountable to no one (except maybe God or other religious entities).

Nation (Benedict Anderson) print-capitalism as one of the factors that made the creation of the concept of nation possible creation of standardized language below Latin (elite/clergy) and above regional dialects  via print (standardized language), people can understand each other (language community) new fixity: print language does not change as quickly as the non-standardized dialects (permanence)  standardized print language helped to create the image of antiquity tied to nation Nation:  Nations are not natural phenomena  Nations are constructed, invented  so-called national qualities and characteristics are part of this construction  Nations need an ‘other’ against which to define themselves (cf. concept of identity) 19th century trade cards

Session 5: subcultures, representation, language, and power Subcultures (Haenfler): definition & theories Representation, meaning, and language Concept of power Typing & stereotyping (Stuart Hall) Subcultures (Haenfler): A subculture can be defined as: “a relatively diffuse social network having a shared identity, distinctive meanings around certain ideas, practices, and objects, and a sense of marginalization from or resistance to a perceived ‘conventional’ society.” A subculture is different from (but might overlap with): lifestyles social movements countercultures new religious movements gangs fan cultures/fandoms Theoretical approaches to subcultures: Chicago School: Urban deviance subcultures as deviant from mainstream (criminal) environment as decisive factor Strain theory gap between cultural goals (success, wealth…) and opportunities to achieve them underprivileged might turn to illegal means to achieve cultural values

Birmingham school: Style and Social Class market for youth culture has expanded material advancement for large sectors of society working class excluded Subculture = active resistance to values of mainstream difference to mainstream is made visible through style, behavior

Post-subculture Studies: Clubcultures, scenes, tribes classic subcultures seemed to have been replaced by other youth formations postmodernism: fragmentation, individuality, temporality, insecurity, instability centrality of consumption and leisure class is not the only relevant aspect: gender, ethnicity/race, age…

Representation, meaning, and language (Stuart Hall text) Representation = “using language to say something meaningful about, or to represent, the world meaningfully to other people”  meaning is produced and exchanged  language is involved in meaning production How do we give meaning through language? Two ‘systems’ of representation are involved, which correspond to two steps with which we link phenomena of the world to language. 1. System by which phenomena of the world (objects, people, abstract ideas…) are linked with a set of concepts or mental representations in our head. This is our (social and individual) conceptual map of the world.

This map is socially and culturally determined – i.e., I share broadly the map others in my community have. The map is also individual, i.e. people might have maps in their heads that are different from each other.

2. System by the mental concept is translated into or linked to language. This language can be images, words, sounds etc. (=signs) Linking a mental concept to an appropriate sign enables us to communicate - to represent the world meaningfully to other people who share the same language.

Now the question is how language and world are linked or, how language is used to represent the world. Three basic theories 1. Reflective approach 2. Intentional approach 3. Constructionist approach 1. Reflective approach: language reflects meaning The meaning already exists out there in the world of objects, people, events.  language is neutral, transparent (works best with signs that bear resemblance to what they represent, e.g. onomatopoetic words)

2. Intentional approach: meaning lies with the speaker The speaker imposes her/his meaning on the world through language  words mean what the author intends them to mean (this does not account for any misunderstanding – meaning should be clear – cf. Humpty Dumpty)

3. Constructionist approach: we construct meaning and use representational systems to do so (language)  language is used to make sense and communicate meaning in ways that are socially / culturally determined  language is part of the meaning-making process – we construct meaning and use representational systems (signs, language) to do so  there is a difference between the material world and the representational practices we use to represent it! cf. “illegal alien” v...