{"title":"‘What's going on?’ Larry Grossberg on the status quo of cultural studies: An interview","authors":"H. Wright","doi":"10.1080/14797580109367226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Cultural Studies is a relatively new and decidedly selfreflexive field. Variously conceptualized in the academy in the past as inter/anti/post disciplinary, it appears to have settled into becoming what Tony Bennett (1998) has described as a 'reluctant discipline' in its own right. However, cultural studies still remains a discourse influx. It has become a common focus area in the academy in the United Kingdom and Australia, mushroomed in the United States, strengthened in South Africa and spread to Taiwan and Morocco. It has become articulated with multiculturalism and various discourses based on the politics of social difference and employs avant garde theory. Yet it is also subject to hoaxes (for example 'the Sokal affair') and an ongoing backlash from both the left and the right. At various sites it appears to have become a largely academic exercise, abandoning its praxis roots, its characteristic of being at once an academic (anti)discipline and a political project, a theory-informed discourse and a community-based practice. Given that cultural studies was always intended to be constantly remade, depending on changing locations and conditions, given its current state of flux, and given its exciting but sometimes bewildering state of flux, it is important to take the pulse of the field from time to time, to go beyond our individual discipline-influenced courses, projects, and even various 'national schools,' to get a sense of the current state of affairs of the field in its entirety. In the following interview with prominent cultural studies figure, Larry Grossberg, conducted while he ivas in Knoxville to give an invited talk at the University of Tennessee, I elicited his views on the status quo of cultural studies. In particular I asked his view on such issues as the current state and politics of theory and theorizing, empiricism and empirical research, identity politics and the essentialism versus anti-essentialism debate, the institutionalization of cultural studies in the academy, and national schools and their consequence for internationalization of cultural studies.","PeriodicalId":296129,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Values","volume":"269 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural Values","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14797580109367226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
Abstract
Introduction. Cultural Studies is a relatively new and decidedly selfreflexive field. Variously conceptualized in the academy in the past as inter/anti/post disciplinary, it appears to have settled into becoming what Tony Bennett (1998) has described as a 'reluctant discipline' in its own right. However, cultural studies still remains a discourse influx. It has become a common focus area in the academy in the United Kingdom and Australia, mushroomed in the United States, strengthened in South Africa and spread to Taiwan and Morocco. It has become articulated with multiculturalism and various discourses based on the politics of social difference and employs avant garde theory. Yet it is also subject to hoaxes (for example 'the Sokal affair') and an ongoing backlash from both the left and the right. At various sites it appears to have become a largely academic exercise, abandoning its praxis roots, its characteristic of being at once an academic (anti)discipline and a political project, a theory-informed discourse and a community-based practice. Given that cultural studies was always intended to be constantly remade, depending on changing locations and conditions, given its current state of flux, and given its exciting but sometimes bewildering state of flux, it is important to take the pulse of the field from time to time, to go beyond our individual discipline-influenced courses, projects, and even various 'national schools,' to get a sense of the current state of affairs of the field in its entirety. In the following interview with prominent cultural studies figure, Larry Grossberg, conducted while he ivas in Knoxville to give an invited talk at the University of Tennessee, I elicited his views on the status quo of cultural studies. In particular I asked his view on such issues as the current state and politics of theory and theorizing, empiricism and empirical research, identity politics and the essentialism versus anti-essentialism debate, the institutionalization of cultural studies in the academy, and national schools and their consequence for internationalization of cultural studies.
介绍。文化研究是一个相对较新的、明显具有自我弹性的领域。在过去的学术界中,它被不同地概念化为内部/反/后学科,它似乎已经成为托尼·贝内特(1998)所描述的一种“不情愿的学科”。然而,文化研究仍然是一种话语涌入。它已成为英国和澳大利亚学术界共同关注的领域,在美国迅速发展,在南非得到加强,并蔓延到台湾和摩洛哥。它已经与多元文化主义和基于社会差异政治的各种话语结合起来,并采用了前卫理论。然而,它也受到骗局的影响(例如“索卡尔事件”),并受到左翼和右翼的持续抵制。在许多地方,它似乎已经成为一个很大程度上的学术实践,放弃了它的实践根源,放弃了它既是一个学术(反)学科又是一个政治项目的特点,放弃了它既是一个理论信息的话语又是一个以社区为基础的实践。考虑到文化研究总是要根据不断变化的地点和条件不断进行改造,考虑到它目前的变化状态,考虑到它令人兴奋但有时令人困惑的变化状态,重要的是要不时地把握这个领域的脉搏,超越我们个人学科影响的课程、项目,甚至各种“国家学校”,从整体上了解这个领域的现状。在接下来的采访中,著名的文化研究人物拉里·格罗斯伯格(Larry Grossberg)在诺克斯维尔(Knoxville)应邀在田纳西大学(University of Tennessee)发表演讲,我询问了他对文化研究现状的看法。我特别询问了他对以下问题的看法:理论和理论化的现状和政治、经验主义和实证研究、身份政治和本质主义与反本质主义之争、学术界文化研究的制度化、民族学派及其对文化研究国际化的影响。