>ok Doug -- you will be not at all surprised by my saying i find this
>compelling
>but why are you posting it exactly?
>don't do a chavez on me now
>what do you mean by this?
Ok, I thought that after having annoyed and alienated some of my friends in the political economy world by harping on the field's deadness to culture and the psychosocial, a compensatory analysis of the cultural field's deadness to matters of political economy would be only fair. I didn't gloss Morris' comments because I thought she said it just fine and nothing I added would be much of an improvement. This says it very well, I think:
>>However, in a move that is foundational for some versions of cultural
>>studies, Chambers immediately retreats from extending the complexity
>>principle to analysis of relations between the (global) "machinery of
>>capital" and (local) cultural machinations. Instead of entering the "field"
>>constructed "mutually" by industry and culture, the former simply drops out
>>of play.
>>accounts of popular
>>culture that take the collapse of old dichotomies (production/consumption,
>>industry/culture) as an occasion for simply effacing the first term and
>>expanding the second...
Of course this is all part of my pre-millennial obsession of bridging the gaps between the two slash-separated worlds in the subject heading. I was just hoping the quotation would provoke some commentary.
Doug