Maureen: Re: Work to be done: culture/econ

[j-harsin at nwu.edu]

Hi, Maureen. I think I see what you're getting at. Your point about "the
last instance"  may be correct, but to be honest, I'm not sure how
critically (and historically, practically, in terms of always trying to
inform practice by certain theory and principles) productive the which came
first chicken/egg? question is.  You seem to be aware of that seminal
British cultural studies debate (Stuart Hall: "Two Paradigms) over
culturalism and economic structuralism, base/superstructure.The point I'm
making is the one Hall made then but which apparently needs to be made
again and again on the left.  What I'm talking about erases the slash in
terms of a mechanistic materialism that speaks of economics as completely
non-relational entities--which I'm saying is clearly the wrong way to
understand how major economic changes both come about, implement
themselves, and then maintain or legitimate themselves.  Capital and
economics  too often, I think, are spoken of as forces that just invisibly
sweep over a way of life, reorganize it (by rude force, though that is
certainly there in many instances) without having to do any
rhetorical/signification work.  This is certainly not the case.  It must
negotiate what already exists, it must assimilate, it must legitimate
itself in the most rhetorical of ways. The ruling class's traditional
intellectuals legitimated changes via narratives of social Darwinism,
"scientific racism,"  and, like I said, certain rhetorics of gendered
practices.  Socio-economic changes are both enabled by and then legitimated
through cultural frameworks--discourses and practices.
Cheers!
Jayson
>Jayson,
>
>I don't know too much about the period you want to research, but it sounds
>like the linkages you want to explore are important ones.  OTOH, when you
>say,
>
>>I'm with you on erasing that slash.  That's what interested me in the
>>Meaghan Morris-type cultural studies when I went back to grad school.
>>>How do major economic changes that in turn organize social and political
>>>life in significant ways get implemented?  It's a very important
>>>question.  Culture is the answer.
>
>I'm not sure how this erases the slash.  If "culture" is what explains how
>those economic changes could implement themselves, then you seem to be
>casting economics (the laws of capitalist development or something), as the
>motor, and culture as a separate, dependent variable.  That's certainly an
>approach a lot of people insightful people have taken over the years, but
>it does sound "materialist" in the last instance.  Or am I misunderstanding
>you?
>
>Maureen

--
jayson perry harsin
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northwestern University
j-harsin at nwu.edu (773)508-4062
WNUR's Southbound Train spins Insurgent Country
89.3 fm Sundays 9:00-11:00 p.m. (listen on the Net at www.wnur.org)

  http://www.wnur.org/southbound/
Who are you indeed who would talk

	or sing to America?
Have you studied out the land,

	its idioms and men [and women]?--Walt Whitman