Cultural Studies2

7/27/2019 Cultural Studies2

1/9

On Catherine Gallagher's Critique of Raymond WilliamsAuthor(s): Stanley AronowitzReviewed work(s):Source: Social Text, No. 30 (1992), pp. 90-97Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466468 .

Accessed: 05/03/2013 14:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:46:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466468?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466468?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/9

On CatherineGallagher'sCritique fRaymondWilliamsSTANLEY ARONOWITZ

CatherineGallagher's critique fRaymondWilliams's conceptof cultureis formalist. he has shownhemadecategory rrors hroughoutis long,often ortured,ffort oclarify hisslipperydea. He butted gainststonewalls. Williams lapsed intomessyformulationsnd frequentlyhangedhis mind.That his was an incomplete rojectgoes without aying.But thesimplefact s thathewas,byGallagher'sadmission, he eading figurenwhathas become a major intellectualmovement, ulturalStudies, notonly nGreatBritain ndtheUnitedStates,but nLatin Americaas well.If youbelieve themovement s worthdeveloping,Williams's lapses canbe forgiven, ven appreciated.For what countsis not,as Gallaghersoforcefully ontends t is, whetherhe got it right; ndeed,we are con-demnedto makenew visions and revisionsofthenotionofculture otheend of ourdays.No definitive ormulations likelyto save us from hissisyphean ask.Whatmatters s thatWilliamsmanagedtobringusan inchforward rom heconception ccordingto which culture ignified civi-lized" formation s opposed to the practices thatanthropologists ndotherethnographerstudy theeverydaybanalitiesthatmarkcommonlife.In order to fullygraspthedepthof his contribution o our collectiveunderstandingne would have to place his idea of culture n history, osee how he effected break with thepast. This I propose to do, for todwell on his categorymistakesmissesthepoint.1It will take more than a generation o overcometheoverwhelmingden-tification ftheconceptof "culture"with tstraditional sages: Art,highand popular which, in both instances,presentthemselvesas artifacts,representations;and as bildung,self-formation whatNorbertEliascalls the"civilizingprocess." In thelatterdefinition,ulture s the endproductof the natural ocialization afforded o thechildrenof the aris-tocracy a birthright or an act of volitionby individuals, ommonlybut notalwaysof middle-classoriginswhothroughducationorexposureacquire more than a passing knowledgeof the canonical artworks nd

90

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

OnGallagher'sritiquefWilliams 91mannersof WesternCivilization. In whichcase the habits of the aris-tocracy re morewidelydisseminated.Of course,the mavens of "highculture" de Tocqueville, Arnold, nthe20thcentury rtega yGassetand,ina more eft ritique leftbecauseit inksculturaldegradation oadvancedcapitalism)ThorsteinVeblen, heFrankfurt chool and especially the neo-trotskyistntellectuals of the1930s and 1940s grouped around the key American literary-politicaljournal of theperiod,PartisanReview werebyno means uncritical fmiddle class appropriationsf"culture."Themiddleclass tended otreatthisacquistionas merely notherpossession, like a suit of clothes tobewornon Sundaysor when nvited odinner.Accordingly,hemiddleclasstailorshighculture o its owndegradedtaste. ndeed,alongsideAdorno'smore celebratedexcoriationof popularmusic and jazz as nothingmorethan ommercial or,more xactly, ndustrialized) roducts ftheCultureIndustry ehas leftus a less wellknown, utperhapsmore pposite,workon whatDwightMacDonald termed midcult." n his sociological inves-tigationsAdorno howsthedegreeto whichthemiddleclass audiencefor"classical" music manages to reduce it through atronageof music or-ganizations ndrecord ompanies. n a word,Adorno hows how thehighmusical canon is transformedn an industry,lbeitone whose audiencesare suffusedwithpretension.The typical major orchestrarepertoire onsists in an evolved "topforty" ist derived, n themain,from he romanticperiodwhichbeginswithBeethoven's third ymphonynd hismiddlequartets nd ends withSibelius and Richard Strauss.When20thcenturymusic s performed,henames of Stravinsky, avel, Debussy and Copeland dominate thepro-gram. Only the most adventurous conductors Stokowski, Maazel,Bernstein nd,morerecently, latkinriskperforminghecontemporarypieces ofsay,Henze, Messaien,Boulez, Carter nd the ate Shostakovichsymphonies,much ess the minimalists uch as TerryRiley,SteveReich,PhilipGlass and JohnAdams all of whomremainoutsidethe canon andare obliged,despitetheir ublic recognition,oarrange,mostof thetime,halls toplay theirworks.Today,themuseums re packed with ourists fCulture, nd the seatsof concerthalls in majormusicmarkets illedbyan audience forwhomtheperformances chiefly social event. There is a certain revival ofbookselling,aftermore than decade ofdecline duringwhichhundredsof stores wentout of business. But the shelves of the stores, ocatedmainly nsuburban hopping enters, evealwhat heCriticalTheoristhasreason toabjure: inaddition otheplethora fhow-to ndpop psychologyworks that are the bread and butter f thesestores,there s a veritableexposionof the iterarynalogue ofPeople magazine, biographiesof therich and famous.Except forthesteady cropofnovels written y and forwomen, many of which were inspired, directlyor indirectly, y the



4/9

92 Stanleyronowitzfeminist ovement, ost fthe fferingsre derived ither romheNewYorkTimes'sBest Seller listor are worksn thegenres f adventure,detective,ciencefiction,ndespecially heHarlequin omance ovels.Needless osay, he literature"ection paperbackersions fcanoni-cal works is the mallest ubdivisionfthe tore.This sthemage fculture or hemiddle lassconsumerhat asbeenso amply escribednhistoricalndcriticalwork ince he19th entury.Recall thatTocquevillemade little distinction etweenthefictiondesigned orthe middle lass reader nd what aterbecameknown s"massculture."WhileMacdonald1960),more han centuryaterwasobliged onote hedivision f aborwithinhe ulturendustry,epend-ingon the lassmembershipfthe udience nd ts spirationoa certainversion fbildung,or ritics f thehigh ulturalersuasionhedistinc-tionbetweenmasscult nd midcultwas too subtle omediate hegulfbetweenhigh"theirtuff)nd "low" theproductsftin-panlley ndtelevisionand everythinglse directed oward larger udience).Moreover,ntheudgementf suchmajor ritics s AdornondClementGreenberg1939) therewas no question fpositing heexistence fatruly opular ulture. or them, hesurvivinglements f thepopularwere ong goabsorbed ntomassculture.Allof this efore 960.Then ameHoggart's sesofLiteracy1957),whose entral ointwasthat owevermbattlednd contestedymass-mediated ulture,lements fworkinglass culture otonlysurvivedbeyondworldwar wobut emainedtrongreciselynaspects hat orelittle mmediateesemblanceo artifactsuchas works fpaintingndliterature.acitly,Hoggartntroducedhe dea of culture s a moralsystemituatedn everydayifebutrepresenteds world-view.n anessay published early wenty ears ater,Hoggartaid thatUses wascomposed ocounter widespreadelief mongntellectualshatwork-ing lass culture as ittlemore han culture fdeprivation.orHoggarttherewere characteristicttitudes nd beliefsamongworking lasspeople:a strongeliefn"live and et ive"(tolerance);he ersistencef"Sunday est"clothes; heir endencyo iveinthepresent ith orealsenseoftradition;nd,ofcourse, he nstitutionsfworkinglass lifesuch s thepubthat emarcatedorkersromther lasses.Hoggart'smmenselynfluentialrgumentgainst he irofnegativitythatmarked utsiderudgementsfthe verydayife ntheworkinglassdistricts as morethan he nterventionf a professor ithLaboritesentiments hoseownexperiences a child nd whosefamilyiesper-suadedhim hat grave njustice ad been done n theperpetuationfthese images. At the same momenttwo marxist intellectuals, E.P.Thompson ndRaymondWilliams,weredrivenbybothpolitical convic-tion nd their wnexperience ooffermore heoreticallynformed tudiesof,respectively,working lass historynd working lass culture.



5/9

OnGallagher'sritiquefWilliams 93Thompson'smonumentalMaking oftheEnglish Working lass (1963)

traced he simultanousvolution f theworkinglass movementndworkinglassculturet the urn f the19th entury.nhisownwords eattemptso substantiatetheagencyofworking eople,thedegree owhichtheymadehistory,onsciously." f course, n thisdiscourse,"consciousness"s understoods an essential ocial and cultural om-ponent fclass: "ForI am convincedhatwe cannot nderstandlassunlesswe see itas a socialandculturalormation,rising romrocesseswhich anonlybe studied s theywork hemselvesutover consider-able historical eriod."This cultural ormations expressedn socialclubs, unions, ivilorganizationss much s literaturendthe etters,records fpublicmeetingsndtheothermore onventionalources nddocuments.hompson's arrativefworkinglasshistorys,consequent-ly,rich nthedetails fcommunicationmongmilitantsntheworkingclass movements much s it is concerningvents hat ed to decisivedisruptionsnddevelopments.It wasuptoWilliams o theorize he ncipientmovementhat ametobe knownas cultural studies.His own earlierwork,Culture nd Society(1956),remainedasicallywithin he eavisite ndevenArnoldian odeofmoraliteraryriticism,otwithstandingts trongnalyticndpoliti-cal concerns. utwithTheLongRevolution1961) he begana twentyyear ffortoprovide solidconceptual asisfor newapproach. er-hapsthemost mportant ove nthisworkwas to"define ulture s awholewayof ife"(Williams979,p. 135) therebybliteratinghecon-junction and"between ulture ndsociety. hisstrategicmove ntro-duced nto ocial andculturalheoryhesignificancefculturen theanthropologicalense,that s, theways n which verydayife-rituals,institutions,racticeswere, longsidert, onstitutivefculturalorma-tion.Althoughallaghersrightocallattentionothe ategory istakesthat manate romWilliams's isdain fabstraction,twashis nsistenceon thepertinencefpracticeshatwere rdinarilyiewed utside ulturethatnspiredhegenerationhat laborated ultural tudies fter 965.Ofcourse,Hoggart'sarlierwork adbeen uffused ith his imension,butonly mplicitly.ndHoggart ever onsidered he nstitutionsfthelabourmovement,specially nions,s part fworkinglassculture.nfact,his understandingever xtended onsciouslyo thecategory fpractices s thecoreuponwhich ultural ormations constructed,l-thoughhebestparts fUsesconcernwhatncontemporaryerms ouldbenamed discursive"racticeshatmighteconsideredistinctlyork-ingclass. On theotherhand, ike Gramsci1971) and laterAlthusser,Williams significantlyroadened thescope of theconceptof culturetoembrace tsmaterializations. nd,althoughhenever mployed hephrase"ideological apparatus"(Althusser 971), it was plain thattheprojectofcultural tudies connoted shiftnotonlyaway from n exclusivepreoc-



6/9

94 Stanleyronowitzcupation with art and civilization but also toward forms of in-stitutionalization.2

Gallagher's critiqueof Williamsreduces to twopoints:by substituting"culture"for"society" Williams altogether oses the specificity f theconceptofculture. utanalytically,Williamsconflates he ubjectand theobject in a way that makes the object disappear. In her view this isparticularly videntwhen the notionof culture s "a whole wayof life"is later amendedand somewhat lteredbyWilliams in his Sociology ofCulturetomean"signifying ractices."Accordingly,fculture s definedas anything avingto do with ymbolicexchange,that s, what s com-monlycalled "meaning,"then, akentogether,he two senses of cultureoffered yWilliams ead to confusion.The sub-text fGallagher's arguments that n his effort o overcomethebinary fart nd material racticeWilliamshas surrenderedheobjectoutsideus to whichour ideas correspond.Gallagher mplicitly riticizesWilliams forrefusing realistepistemology s thebasis fora theory fculture n which a referent utsidepractice s held to be thenecessaryrequirement f any possible knowledge.While she does not explicitlyendorsethecategory society," he is plainlyunhappywith hebroad useofculture o spanrepresentationndmaterial racticesthat nWilliams'searlier workremained utsidethesubject.Needless to say, Williams spentnearlya quarter century rying oresolvethisdilemma.Togetherwithhiscolleagues, especiallythe CentreforContemporary ultural Studies at Birmingham or which he was aconstantreferentnd inspiration, e determined, orrectly think, hatculture is not entirely encompassed by art, artifact,or those repre-sentations hathave beenhegemonically alorizedas "civilization"- inpartbecause ofthepalpable problem histraditionalnterpretationosesfor hepossibility f subaltern ultural ormationhat s post-folkloric. tthe same time,unsatisfied y thepersistenceof thebase/superstructuregulf n orthodoxmarxist heory, e workedwithin play of alternativeformulationshat ould satisfactorilyvercome, fnotentirely verturn,the limitationsof elementsof the scientific world view, such as thecategoriesofdeterminationndcausality.That hisworkremained elent-lesslydiscursive n thewake ofeffortsy manyofthe nextgenerationnotablyTerry agletonandPerryAnderson toproduce marxist heoryof culture n thebasis ofanalytic ategoriesfromwhichexperience ouldbe properly nterpreted, as taken s a shortcominghat, ntilhis thefinaldecade ofhis life,markedhim mongtheyounger eneration s a worthythoughhopelesslyoutmodedprecursor. inally,withMarxism ndLitera-ture ndSociologyofCultureheentered hemurkywaters f"theory" ut



7/9

OnGallagher'sritiquefWilliams 95failed o shed lementsfempiricismndespecially istoricismhat admarked is earlierwritings.InWilliams'swordshe wastryingofigureuthowtoarticulatehetwomeaningsfculture:it became noun f inner' rocess pecializedto tspresumedgenciesn intellectualife' ndthe arts'. t became lsoa nounofgeneral rocess pecialized oitspresumed onfigurationsn'wholewaysof ife'." nthe atternstance,ultures seen as "constitu-tive ocialprocess"(Williams,97718-19)Thus, t cannot eunderstoodas a categoryfthe uperstructureithinhe rameworkfdeterminationby he conomicnfrastructure.his onclusionermeatedll ofWilliamswork n the ast fifteenearsof his life andin consequence,t is notdifficultodiscern isown cepticismbout he ffectivityfbase/super-structures well as itspremises,hereflectionheoryfknowledgendthe orrespondenceheoryftruth,hemselvesroundednepistemologi-cal realism.Atthe sametime, nd notunexpectedly,e was unable ogenerate satisfactorylternative.nd his s theundeniabletrengthfGallagher's ritique. heexample f theconfusionfmoney ndfoodreveals heproblemwith is notion fculturalmaterialism.t residesnan inadequate nderstandingf thefunctionfthe ign.

Which s notto claim thatWilliams ecamea thoroughgoingost-structuralist.owever, e wasplainlynfluencedy tructuralistinguis-tics and theepistemologicallaimsfor anguage nd discourse hatinformedt.Williams everwent s far s,say, aclau andMouffe1987)for whom the "social" is impossiblepreciselybecause, followingFoucault, uman elations re nterpellatedydiscourse.nplaceoftheconscious ubject hey ubstitute"subject osition"whoserules on-stitutehe pacewithin hich iscourse akes lace. ncontrast, illiamsnever dopted heposition hat anguage/discourseadically isplaceshumangency.He remainedonvinced hat henotion fpractice on-stitutesn effectiveounterweighto bothmechanistic aterialismas-sociatedwith ome versions f marxistrthodoxyhat mphasizedhedeterminationythe already iven" conomicnfrastructurefcultural,ideological ndpolitical ractices)nd dealismwhich, hilensistingnthe active ideofcultural ractices,ostsight f all but the ignifyingsubject.In what s perhaps ismost owerfulndarticulatedtatementfhisownposition,he hapternLanguagenMarxism ndLiterature, il-liamsdisplays is most dialectical" fall cultural ritings,howinghedegreeto whichhe wishesto separatehimself rom hepassivity s-sociatedwith tructuralinguisticsfboth he aussurianndChomskyanvarietiesbut at the ame timedeclares that languageis material" ndthesignactive. In thischapter,Williams makesplainhis own adherenceto aconceptin which relationsbetween variousaspects of the social totalityare indeterminaten advance.



8/9

96 Stanleyronowitz3

In the interviewswith New LeftReview published as Politics andLetters1979)Williams eemed oagree n the onventionalistinctionbetween conomicndculturalelations,ven fherefused he nferenceofhis nterrogatorshat heformereterminedhe atter. evertheless,ncontext, e was drawnneluctablyo a positionhat culturalroductionwasmaterial"(1979: 39),a perspectivehat eadsto this: Becauseoncecultural roductions itself ocialandmaterial,hen his ndissolubilityof thewhole ocialprocesshas a differentheoreticalroundthan las-sicalmarxism.]t is no longer asedonexperience,uton the ommoncharacterf therespective rocesses fproduction."o whatwe haveheres aproductivistonceptionf ulture ithin broad heorynwhichmaterialproductionoses its exclusiveconnection o whatmaybedescribeds "physical" eed.Thus, roductionfvarious inds ogetherconstituteshewhole ocialprocesswhosedeterminationsrecontingentnot n a priorimetaphysicalategoriesutonhistoricalircumstances.This account fWilliams'smaterial econstructionf thetheoryfculture s entirelyonsistent ith hemarxistmbition o bracketpis-temology rom ocial and cultural iscourse, ut not withtheactualpracticesf whatMarx alled nthefirst hesis nFeuerbachhevulgartendenciesfmaterialismhat eld he bject obenot nly ntologicallybutsemanticallyndependentf discursiveractices ywhich t is ap-propriated.acitly, allaghertandswithhose orwhomhis ropositionremains hegroundftheorizing.Thesecond rgument,hich ccupiesmore han thirdfGallagher'spaper, eals withWilliams's elated ffortoseparateveryday bjectsandprocesses hat re practices hat ignifyulturallyndthosethatdon't.SurelyGallaghers rightwhen heobjects oWilliams's xampleoffood,which oessignifymore han ts materialunction,ndmoney,whichnhis view s merelyn instrumentfexchangewithittle r nosymbolic ignificance.allagher asilydemonstrateshatmoneys over-coded ncultural erms s wellas possessingmaterialttributes.nfact,Gallagherdemonstrates ow inconsistenthisdistinctions withinWilliams's ulturalheory hichwouldhave o maintainhathere re noclear inesbetween hematerialndculturalignificationsfany bject.Incontext,he laborate econstructionfthis xamplenGallagher'stext erves obuttress ermain rgument.hereasoning oeslikethis:Williamss thevirtual ounderfculturaltudies.fshehas shown hathisconceptionfcultures inconsistentnd even onfused,henwemayconclude hat ultural tudieshas notyetfoundtsproper heoreticalfoundation. t remains in its infancy, practice without n adequateconcept.Thatcultural tudiesrequiresmore heoreticalxploration ndelabora-tion, speciallywithrespecttotheknottyssues posed inWilliams's own



9/9

OnGallagher'sCritique fWilliams 97texts,s clearly ight. owever,hedirectionuggestednthis ritiquespreciselyhatwhichWilliamsndmanythers averejected. n the therhand,whatever hedefects f hisproject,Williamswas plainly n therightrack.Moreover,venmore han hompsonndHoggart is dea ofcultures materialracticewaslargelyesponsibleor he mergencefwhatsperhapshemost xcitingndoriginalmovementnAmericanndBritishniversities.oday, ultural tudiessmore han series f deas:it s a historicallyonstitutedanoplyf ntellectualracticesnd nstitu-tional ites, he nfluencef whichs onlynowbeginningomake tselffelt.

BibliographyAdomo, heodor,ntroductiono the ociologyfMusic,NewYork, ontinuumooks1976Althusser,ouis, Ideologynd deological tateApparatuses"nLenin ndPhilosophy,ewYork,MonthlyeviewPress, 972Gramsci, ntonio,risonNotebooks, ewYork,nternationalublishers,971Greenberg,lement,Avant arde ndKitsch," artisan eview, 939MacDonald,Dwight,Mass Cult ndMidcult"nDwightMacDonald,AgainstheAmerican rain,NewYork, a CapoPress, 978Williams, aymond, arxismndLiterature,ewYork, xford niversityress, 977;Politics ndLetters, ondon,NLB, 1979

Thi d l d d T 5 M 2013 14 46 45 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jurbina1844
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Cultural Studies2

Documents