Month: April 2025

Cultural Studies as a Multi-Moment Inquiry

Johnson proposes that cultural studies engages with “a circuit of culture”, encompassing production, textual forms, and lived experience, rather than isolating any single element.
“Each aspect has a life of its own… but after that, it may be more transformative to rethink each moment in the light of the others” (p. 74).

📚 Text-Based Analysis and Its Limitations

He explores how humanities disciplines (especially literary studies) have contributed rigorous textual analysis, yet have often lacked broader social application.
“There is a tendency for the tools to remain obstinately technical or formal… buried in a heightened technical mystique” (p. 60).
Johnson warns against “the abstraction of texts from the other moments” of cultural circulation (p. 63).

🧠 The Importance of Formalism (But Not Too Much)

Johnson values structuralist and semiotic methods for identifying forms of subjectivity but critiques their overdetachment from social life.
“A little formalism turns one away from History, but that a lot brings one back to it” – quoting Roland Barthes (p. 61).
He insists on “describing them carefully, clearly, noting the variations and combinations” of narrative and symbolic forms (p. 60).

📺 Critique of Structuralist Foreshortening

He critiques approaches like those in Screen theory for focusing narrowly on “the productivity of signifying systems” and neglecting real contexts of production and readership (p. 65).
“There is no real theory of subjectivity here… no account of the carry-over or continuity of self-identities from one discursive moment to the next” (p. 69).

👥 The Reader as a Social Subject

Johnson emphasizes the gap between “the reader in the text” and “the reader in society”, stressing that actual readers bring complex histories and identities to texts.
“Textual materials are complex, multiple, overlapping, coexistent… all readings are also ‘inter-discursive’” (p. 67).
He argues that we must “trace what stories are already in place” before understanding how texts are received (p. 69).

🧵 Connecting Lived Culture to Public Forms

In his third approach, Johnson highlights the importance of studying how marginalized groups appropriate and rework dominant cultural forms in everyday life.
“Typically, studies have concerned the appropriation of elements of mass culture and their transformation according to the needs and cultural logics of social groups” (p. 72).

🚩 Critique of Expressivism and Cultural Empiricism

Johnson is cautious about uncritical celebration of “authentic” experience, arguing that such approaches can romanticize and oversimplify complex social realities.
“Research of this kind has often mediated a private working-class world and the definitions of the public sphere with its middle-class weighting” (p. 71).

🔧 Toward a Post-Post-Structuralist Theory of Subjectivity

Johnson calls for a theory of subjectivity that integrates structure with lived agency and historical transformation.
“Human beings and social movements also strive to produce some coherence and continuity… and through this, exercise some control over feelings, conditions and destinies” (p. 69).

📈 Future Directions: Integrated, Conjunctural Cultural Studies

He concludes by advocating for conjunctural analysis that traces cultural forms across different moments—production, representation, and lived practice—recognizing their “inner connections” (p. 74).
“We need to trace what Marx would have called ‘the inner connections’ and ‘real identities’ between them” (p. 74).

• 📚 Expansion of Textual Theory
  Johnson critiques traditional textual analysis for its formalist limitations, emphasizing that texts must be read in relation to their production, reception, and social context. He challenges the isolation of texts in literary studies, arguing:

“The ultimate object of cultural studies is not… the text, but the social life of subjective forms at each moment of their circulation” (p. 62).
This redefines the function of the text within culture and aligns cultural studies with a dynamic model of interpretation.

• 👥 Contribution to Reader-Response Theory
  Johnson shifts the emphasis from the text to the reader, criticizing structuralist and psychoanalytic models that “ascribe this capacity [to read critically] to types of text” rather than to actual, socially situated readers (p. 68).
  He promotes studying how “subjective forms are inhabited” across class, gender, and historical contexts (p. 67), enriching theories of reading with contextualized agency.
• 🛠️ Refinement of Marxist Literary Theory
  Drawing on Gramscian concepts of hegemony, Johnson situates cultural practices within larger structures of class and power. He moves beyond economic determinism, advocating for cultural struggle as a site of political agency:

“Popular cultural forms… may permit a questioning of existing relations or a running beyond them in terms of desire” (p. 73).
This situates literature within ideological and class-based formations, advancing a non-reductive materialist theory.

• 🧬 Critique of Structuralism
  While acknowledging the insights of semiology, narratology, and Saussurean linguistics, Johnson argues that structuralism tends to abstract texts from lived experiences and production contexts:

“Formalism… is the abstraction of texts from the other moments” (p. 63).
This helps bridge literary theory with social and cultural analysis, fostering a more integrated approach.

• 🌪️ Advancement of Post-Structuralist Insights
  Johnson affirms post-structuralism’s critique of the unified subject, but insists it lacks a theory of self-production and continuity. He argues for a “post-post-structuralist” theory of the subject that can account for identity transformation and political consciousness (p. 69).
  This challenges post-structuralist theory to evolve and address historical and collective subjectivities.
• 📜 Revision of Canon and Literary Value
  He questions how “criteria of ‘literariness’ themselves come to be formulated and installed in academic, educational and other regulative practices” (p. 62).
  This contribution encourages literary theory to interrogate the construction of the literary canon through ideology and institutional power.

🔍 Over-Theorization Without Practical Application
Johnson’s essay, while rich in theoretical insight, is sometimes criticized for being too abstract. The complex layering of ideas on subjectivity, textuality, and production risks alienating readers or practitioners looking for concrete methodologies or real-world applications.

🌀 Ambiguity Around Subjectivity
Although Johnson advocates for a post-structuralist understanding of the subject, some critics argue that he does not offer a clear or usable theory of subjectivity. His critique of existing theories (e.g., psychoanalysis, semiotics) is sharp, but his own suggestions remain conceptually vague (p. 67–69).

⚖️ Balancing Acts That Result in Dilution
Johnson attempts to synthesize production, text, and lived culture into a single cultural circuit. However, this inclusivity may result in a lack of analytical sharpness—trying to address all areas at once can lead to intellectual diffusion rather than focus (p. 73–74).

📚 Dismissiveness Toward Literary Criticism
Literary scholars have critiqued Johnson for his apparent dismissal of “literary value” and canonical study. While he critiques “literariness” as a regulatory construct (p. 63), some argue this position undervalues aesthetic complexity in favor of ideology critique.

🎭 Neglect of Aesthetic Experience and Emotional Response
By focusing so heavily on ideological and discursive formations, Johnson’s framework is seen by some as neglecting the emotional, affective, or aesthetic engagement readers have with texts—an aspect central to understanding cultural resonance.

🌐 Eurocentric/Anglocentric Bias
Johnson’s examples (e.g., the Royal Wedding, CND campaign, British film theory) reflect a Western-centric focus, raising questions about the global applicability of his model. Cultural studies from postcolonial or non-Western contexts often feel marginalized in his framework.

🧪 Insufficient Methodological Guidance
Though Johnson critiques formalism and empiricism, he offers no concrete methodology for conducting cultural studies research. Scholars have noted the absence of replicable research strategies, making it difficult for new researchers to follow.

🔸 Naming as a Colonial Practice of Power and Erasure
Walsh begins by emphasizing that the very act of naming in Latin America is a legacy of colonial power. She asserts that naming has historically functioned to impose external epistemologies and erase local identities:

“The politics of naming have always had great significance in Latin America… subordinated differences to map out an image according to their own heuristic code of naming” (Walsh, 2012, p. 109).
The term “Latin America,” she notes, is itself a colonial imposition, with Indigenous communities preferring Abya Yala, meaning “lands in full maturity.”

🔸 Decolonizing Cultural Studies: From Object to Intervention
Walsh critiques how Cultural Studies, when uncritically transplanted into Latin American contexts, often replicate Western academic structures. Instead, she advocates for a model that emerges from lived struggles and knowledge systems:

“The project of Cultural Studies… seeks to cross, transcend and go beyond the limits that traditionally have seen culture as an object of study” (Walsh, 2012, p. 116).
She calls for (inter)Cultural Studies that actively intervene in society, not just analyze it.

🔸 Four Legacies Shaping (Inter)Cultural Studies in Latin America
Walsh outlines four key legacies that shape her approach:

1. Scientific Disciplinarity – a Eurocentric system that privileges so-called objective knowledge and marginalizes alternative rationalities.

“The humanities were set up not as areas of knowledge per se… but instead as something more ephemeral” (Walsh, 2012, p. 110).

2. Birmingham School & Stuart Hall – inspiring a political vocation of theory grounded in lived struggles.

“I come back to the critical distinction between intellectual work and academic work… They are not the same thing” (Hall, 1992, cited in Walsh, 2012, p. 112).

3. Latin American Cultural Thought – including thinkers like Martí, Mariátegui, and Barbero, but critiqued for often being confined to elite mestizo academia.
4. Social and Epistemic Movements – rooted in Indigenous and Afro-descendant activism, these movements generate theory and challenge coloniality.

“Movements provoke theoretical moments and historical conjunctures insist on theories” (Hall, 1992, cited in Walsh, 2012, p. 112).

🔸 The Inter-cultural, Inter-epistemic, and De-colonial Dimensions
Central to Walsh’s project are three interrelated pillars:

• Inter-culturality is not just diversity but a transformative political project:

“It does not simply add diversity… but rather to rethink, rebuild and inter-culturalize the nation” (Walsh, 2012, p. 117).

• Inter-epistemicity involves valuing knowledge produced outside Western academic frameworks:

“To think with knowledges produced in Latin America… by intellectuals who come not only from academia, but also from other communities” (Walsh, 2012, p. 118).

• De-coloniality challenges the colonial matrix of power, including epistemological dominance:

“At the centre… is capitalism as the only possible model of civilization” (Walsh, 2012, p. 119).

🔸 Academic Tensions and Resistance to the Project
Walsh details the resistance her program at Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar has encountered from traditional academic institutions:

“Our concern here is not so much with the institutionalizing of Cultural Studies… but with epistemic inter-culturalization” (Walsh, 2012, p. 121).
She links this to broader neoliberal reforms that have depoliticized and re-disciplined Latin American academia.

🔸 Reclaiming Intervention as Ethical and Political Practice
In closing, Walsh returns to Stuart Hall’s concept of “intervention” as a guiding principle for Cultural Studies:

“To consider Cultural Studies today a project of political vocation and intervention is to position—and at the same time build—our work on the borders… of university and society” (Walsh, 2012, p. 122).
The goal is to foster knowledge that is rooted in life, struggle, and transformation, not detached academicism.

🔄 Postcolonial Theory
Walsh expands postcolonial theory by emphasizing the limits of postcolonial discourse when applied to Latin America. She critiques its tendency to remain textual and elite, shifting the focus toward lived struggles, knowledge systems, and political intervention rooted in Indigenous and Afro-descendant movements. Her call for “naming” as a site of colonial power resonates with postcolonial concerns, but her decolonial stance goes further by centering epistemic sovereignty.

“The politics of naming have always had great significance in Latin America… subordinated differences to map out an image according to their own heuristic code of naming” (Walsh, 2012, p. 109).
“Inter-culturality has marked a social, political, ethical project… to rethink, rebuild and inter-culturalize the nation” (p. 117).

🌐 Decolonial Theory (Modernity/Coloniality Group)
Firmly situated in the modernity/coloniality/decoloniality school, Walsh’s work is a practical manifestation of its core ideas. She emphasizes inter-epistemic dialogue, the deconstruction of the colonial matrix of power, and the repositioning of the university as a space for pluriversal thinking. Her model of (inter)Cultural Studies acts as a decolonial educational and theoretical project.

“Our concern here is not… institutionalizing Cultural Studies. Better yet… with epistemic inter-culturalization, with the de-colonialization and pluriversalization of the ‘university’” (p. 121).
“By colonial matrix, we refer to the hierarchical system of racial-civilizational classification…” (p. 118).

📚 Cultural Studies (Hall/Birmingham School)
Walsh reclaims and recontextualizes the political legacy of Stuart Hall and the Birmingham School by aligning it with Latin American struggles. She upholds Hall’s idea that “movements provoke theoretical moments” and expands it to include epistemic movements, led by historically marginalized communities. Her version of Cultural Studies is not disciplinary but political, embodied, and decolonial.

“Movements provoke theoretical moments and historical conjunctures insist on theories” (Hall 1992, cited in Walsh, 2012, p. 112).
“A practice which understands the need for intellectual modesty… not substituting intellectual work for politics” (p. 112).

📖 Critical Theory
By challenging the hegemonic Eurocentric academic canon, Walsh intervenes in critical theory by critiquing the Western monopoly on reason and knowledge production. She promotes a critical interculturality that integrates decolonial and ethical commitments into theory-making itself.

“To question the supposed universality of scientific knowledge… that does not capture the diversity… or the counter-hegemonic alternatives” (p. 111).
“We are concerned… with a thinking from the South(s)… to open, not close, paths” (p. 121).

🔬 Theory of Representation
Building on Hall’s theory, Walsh deepens its application to Latin America by showing how colonial regimes of representation have structured epistemic and social exclusions. Her focus is not only on discursive stereotyping but also on material and institutional naming practices that shape power and identity.

“Practices of representation construct and contribute to the stereotyping… within a supposedly naturalized structure and regime of truth” (p. 113).

📏 Institutional Critique / Knowledge Production
Walsh critiques the disciplinary boundaries and neoliberal restructuring of academia in Latin America. She pushes for a radical rethinking of what counts as knowledge, who produces it, and where—a critique of both content and academic form.

“Discipline… works to negate and detract from practices… that do not fit inside hegemonic rationality” (p. 111).
“The project seeks to cross, transcend and go beyond the limits that traditionally have seen culture as an object of study” (p. 116).

🔍 Over-politicization of Academic Discourse
Some may argue that Walsh’s insistence on political engagement in academic work risks collapsing the line between scholarship and activism.

❗ Critics might ask: Can Cultural Studies maintain critical distance if it becomes a project of intervention rather than reflection?

📏 Anti-Disciplinarity as Methodological Risk
Her call for “indisciplinarity” challenges academic norms, but critics may argue that rejecting disciplinary boundaries can result in conceptual vagueness or lack of methodological rigor.

❗ Without clear academic frameworks, how do we ensure accountability, coherence, and evaluative criteria in research?

🌍 Limited Scalability Beyond Andean/Latin American Contexts
Walsh grounds her theory deeply in Latin American epistemologies and struggles. While powerful regionally, some may question its applicability across global contexts, particularly in societies without a similar history of Indigenous-Afro-descendant political movements.

❗ Is her model of (inter)Cultural Studies transferable beyond Abya Yala?

🧠 Complex Language and Dense Theoretical Style
The article uses highly theoretical, sometimes abstract language that might alienate non-specialist readers or those outside the decolonial academic community.

❗ Could the accessibility of her transformative ideas be hindered by their presentation?

📚 Insufficient Engagement with Alternative Views within Latin America
While Walsh critiques Eurocentrism and disciplinary knowledge, she may be seen as underrepresenting dissenting Latin American scholars who support modernization or universalist frameworks from within the region.

❗ Does her framework fully acknowledge intra-regional diversity and contestation?

⚖️ Tension Between Inclusion and Exclusion
Despite her commitment to pluralism and dialogue, some might find Walsh’s tone to marginalize scholars who remain within traditional academic paradigms, potentially reproducing the very exclusions she critiques.

❗ Can decolonial thinking risk becoming a new orthodoxy, dismissing other valid intellectual paths?

🌍 Reimagining the Canon Beyond “Writing Back”

Riemenschneider challenges the dominant pedagogical focus on postcolonial “writing back” narratives and urges a shift toward texts that imagine alternative futures and explore constructive possibilities.

“Should not our common procedure of prioritizing texts that are ‘writing back’ be modified by more frequently including examples that probe into or even construct possible ‘different worlds’?” (Riemenschneider, 2004, p. 106)

💸 Globalization as Cultural and Economic Erosion

The article highlights how globalization leads to both material dislocation and the erasure of local specificities, especially in postcolonial societies.

“Destroys local sites of production and jobs… impoverishing an ever increasing number of an unemployed workforce… lost to the circulation of goods” (p. 106)

📚 Teaching Gap in Literary Academia

Despite an active scholarly community, there is a disconnect between literary research and teaching practices, particularly in the realm of New Literatures in English.

“Academics pursue research… but rarely give much time to the challenge of teaching what they are studying” (p. 106)

📖 Canon vs. Context: The Globalization Dilemma

Riemenschneider questions whether popular Indian writers like Narayan, Rao, and Seth, whose works don’t address globalization directly, are still fitting in a course addressing global issues.

“Can we responsibly promote the study of such texts… whose basic concerns are certainly not the economic and social havoc brought about by globalization?” (p. 107)

🤝 Hybridity and Harmony in Historical Encounters

In discussing Dalrymple’s White Mughals, Riemenschneider points to historical periods where East and West coexisted, offering models of intercultural hybridity and mutual transformation.

“A time… of surprisingly widespread cultural assimilation and hybridity” (p. 107)
“That East and West are not irreconcilable… They have met and mingled in the past” (p. 108)

🏰 From Cultural Exchange to Imperial Domination

Imperial strategies under British governance, such as those of Lord Wellesley, shifted relationships from fusion to conquest, marking a decisive break with earlier hybrid models.

India became “a place to conquer and transform” instead of “a place to embrace and to be transformed by” (p. 108)

🚪 Barriers to Cultural Crossing in Fiction

Through Thalassa Ali’s A Singular Hostage, the article examines how fictional colonial encounters often reinforce cultural boundaries rather than bridge them.

“Mutual prejudices… never at any time would permit either party to cross the boundary line between their respective worlds” (p. 108)

🌐 Diaspora as a Space for Alternative Imaginations

Riemenschneider sees diasporic writing as a more productive terrain for imagining “different worlds,” offering possibilities of hybridity and coexistence not bound by nationalist constraints.

“Is it then correct to say that an imagined different world is possible, more or less, only in the diaspora?” (p. 109)

🧭 Inclusive Teaching in a Globalized World

He ends with a strong call to educators to rethink curricula that either overly conform to Western literary dominance or promote rigid cultural essentialism.

“We must resist both, the globalizing homogenization and levelling as well as a fundamentalist-inspired defence of differences” (p. 109)

📚 Postcolonial Theory

Riemenschneider contributes to postcolonial literary theory by questioning the over-reliance on “writing back” narratives and proposing that literature can also imagine alternate futures rather than only respond to the colonial past.

“Should not our common procedure of prioritizing texts that are ‘writing back’ be modified by more frequently including examples that probe into or even construct possible ‘different worlds’?” (p. 106)

🌍 Globalization Theory in Literature

The article bridges globalization studies with literary pedagogy by emphasizing how economic and cultural globalization impacts the production and teaching of English literature in formerly colonized societies.

“Globalization… is in the process of erasing not just local cultural specificities but threatening to annihilate their very economic and social underpinnings” (p. 106)

🧩 Hybridity and Cultural Theory

Through references to Dalrymple’s White Mughals, the article engages with the concept of intercultural hybridity, a key idea in the works of Homi Bhabha, by exploring instances of cultural mingling in colonial India.

“A time… of surprisingly widespread cultural assimilation and hybridity” (p. 107)

🛤️ Diaspora and Transnational Theory

The text highlights diaspora literature as a space where authors explore identity through cultural dislocation and hybridity, aligning with theories of transnationalism and global citizenship.

“Diaspora writing… focus[es] on the challenges and possibilities of cultural assimilation…” (p. 109)

🏛️ Canon Critique and World Literature

Riemenschneider critically assesses the canonization of certain Indian English writers, questioning whether literary syllabi should prioritize established names or more politically engaged, local voices.

“Many of which have by now attained canonical status… whose basic concerns are certainly not the economic and social havoc brought about by globalization” (p. 107)

🧑‍🏫 Pedagogical Theory / Literary Education

He foregrounds pedagogical responsibility in literary theory, pushing scholars to align their teaching with current socio-political realities rather than remain locked in outdated canons.

“What decisions do we take in aiding our students?… Can we responsibly promote the study…” (p. 107)

🌐 Cosmopolitanism and Ethical Criticism

The article resonates with ethical and cosmopolitan literary criticism by promoting the idea that literature should foster global understanding and resist both homogenization and essentialist nationalism.

“We must resist both, the globalizing homogenization… and a fundamentalist-inspired defence of differences” (p. 109)

🔍 Historiographic Metafiction / Narrative Theory

By incorporating historically-grounded texts like White Mughals and A Singular Hostage, Riemenschneider explores how fiction and non-fiction can re-narrate colonial encounters, a core idea in historiographic metafiction.

“Dalrymple’s brilliant historical study… not the familiar story of European conquest… but the Indian conquest of the European imagination” (p. 107)

🧭 Eurocentric Framing of Cross-Cultural Discourse

While the article advocates for global inclusivity, it paradoxically relies heavily on Western-authored texts (e.g., White Mughals, A Singular Hostage) to explore non-Western contexts, which may recenter Western perspectives in postcolonial studies.

The core examples are from William Dalrymple (British) and Thalassa Ali (American), potentially sidelining authentic indigenous voices.

📦 Limited Representation of Non-Indian Literatures

The article focuses almost exclusively on Indian or India-related texts, despite referencing “New Literatures in English” broadly. This regional limitation may weaken its claim to addressing the “global” comprehensively.

No significant mention of African, Caribbean, Aboriginal, or Pacific authors, which narrows the theoretical application.

🔍 Lack of Textual Analysis or Close Reading

Riemenschneider offers thoughtful thematic overviews but avoids in-depth literary analysis or textual critique of the works he discusses. This might appear more like a pedagogical essay than a rigorous literary-theoretical article.

The references to literary texts serve illustrative rather than analytical purposes.

🛑 Overgeneralization of Diaspora Writing

While highlighting diaspora literature as a site of cultural possibility, the article risks romanticizing hybridity and oversimplifying the diverse challenges faced by diasporic writers and communities.

“Is it then correct to say that an imagined different world is possible, more or less, only in the diaspora?” (p. 109) – This question itself may reduce diaspora writing to a monolithic category.

🎓 Abstract Pedagogical Proposals Without Implementation

Although Riemenschneider raises important questions about literary syllabi, the article lacks specific strategies or case studies on how to apply his pedagogical ideas in actual classroom settings.

The text ends with open-ended questions, but does not propose models for curriculum revision.

🧩 Neglect of Student-Centric Perspectives

While he emphasizes the teacher’s responsibility in choosing texts, the article omits any reflection on student reception, engagement, or learning outcomes—key elements in contemporary pedagogical theory.

📊 Minimal Engagement with Contemporary Theory

The article implicitly invokes theorists like Homi Bhabha (on hybridity), but it does not explicitly engage with or cite major voices in postcolonial or globalization theory, which limits its intertextual depth.

📚 Cultural studies was born out of a deliberate rejection of traditional disciplines such as literary studies, film studies, and art history. Yet, as Frow clarifies, this rejection was not of the aesthetic object itself, but of the normative frameworks that governed its placement and value:

“It is important to be clear that this was a refusal not of the object itself… but of the normative discourses within which the object and its ‘placing’ were defined” (p. 44).

🎭 However, this strategic distance eventually became a limitation, as it occluded crucial discussions of value within cultural texts — including literature — which cultural studies set out to theorize.

📖 Three Modes of Literary Emergence

1. 📘 Reflexive Fiction and Truth in Literature
   Frow identifies epistemological reflexivity in works like The Radetzky March and Don Quixote, where literature reflects on itself through layers of truth and fiction.

“The narrative of a resistance to Literature has itself become a work of literature” (p. 45).

2. 📰 The Corruption and Commodification of Literature
   In Lost Illusions, literature appears within a sociological reflexivity, entangled in journalism, commodification, and industrial production.

“The literary… is torn between the two and whose defining character is its status, and its dissatisfaction with its status, as a thing to be bought and sold” (p. 47).

3. 🎤 Lyric Memory and Epiphany in Poetry
   Frank O’Hara’s The Day Lady Died presents lyrical emergence, where literature arises in a temporal rupture, transcending the mundane through memory and voice.

“The ‘emergence’ of the literary… is the effect of this shift of planes from the mundane to the epiphanic moment of memory” (p. 48).

⏳ Dual Temporality and Historical Value of the Literary

⚖️ Literature exists simultaneously as a historical institution and as a momentary event in reading. This creates a tension between canon formation and fleeting readerly experience.

“The concept of literary emergence… specifies a dual temporality: on the one hand… an act of reading; on the other… a structure of historical value” (p. 49).

📘 Frow challenges universal definitions of literature, noting that all such claims are normative and reflect institutionalized regimes of value rather than inherent qualities.

“Any attempt now to define the literary as a universal… fails to account for the particular institutional conditions of existence” (p. 49).

🏛️ The Literary Regime: Texts, Readers, and Institutions

🔧 Frow proposes the idea of a “literary regime”—a set of social and interpretive structures that assign value to texts and determine how they are read.

“The concept of regime shifts attention from an isolated and autonomous ‘reader’ and ‘text’ to the institutional frameworks which govern what counts as the literary” (p. 50).

📺 This regime is not superior to other cultural forms like film or television. Instead, it is simply one among many regimes of cultural value, shaped by relations, not essences.

“No special privilege attaches to a literary regime except insofar as such a privilege can be enforced by political means” (p. 51).

🔄 Reading as a Recursive and Relational Practice

🔍 Frow suggests we move away from fixed textual meanings and instead view reading as a dynamic practice, involving multiple layers of interpretive framing: from content to form, to technique, to institutional regimes.

“Textuality and its conditions of possibility are mutually constitutive and can be reconstructed only from each other” (p. 52).

🧠 Interpretation becomes a historical mediation, where meaning arises between the moment of writing and the moment of reception — not rooted in either alone.

“Any text which continues to be read… will in some sense not be the ‘same’ text” (p. 53).

🔄 Rethinking the Discipline of Literary Studies

🎓 Frow critiques the current state of literary studies as fragmented — divided between ethical, deconstructive, political, and bellettristic approaches — and lacking a unified theoretical core:

“In one sense, the discipline of literary studies is flourishing… in another, it has become lost in irrelevance” (p. 54).

🛠️ He advocates for a renewed literary pedagogy based not on canon or theory, but on a generalizable, reflective practice of reading that bridges literary and non-literary forms.

“It must be at once continuous with and richer than untutored practice… and be extrapolated from ‘literary’ texts to other discursive kinds” (p. 54).

⚡ The Ambivalence of Literary Emergence

🌀 Frow closes by noting that every instance of literary emergence simultaneously enacts and undermines the concept of literature itself. Literature, in this view, is inherently unstable, defined by the contradictions that animate it:

“These texts… can be taken as a figure for the institution of a reading that would at once display and displace the literary regime” (p. 55).

✅ In Summary:
John Frow’s essay is a critical reconfiguration of the boundaries and assumptions of literary studies. By analyzing how literature emerges across texts, regimes, and historical contexts, Frow opens the door to a relational, politically aware, and reflexive understanding of literature’s role within cultural studies.

📚 1. Poststructuralism & Reflexivity

🔍 Contribution: Frow extends poststructuralist ideas by exploring literature’s self-reflexive nature—its capacity to question and remake itself.

“The narrative of a resistance to Literature has itself become a work of literature” (p. 45).
🌐 Theoretical Tie: Builds on Paul de Man and poststructuralist thought, where language is unstable and meaning is deferred.
“The literary constitutes… a language aware of its own rhetorical status and its inherent liability to error” (p. 49).

🏛️ 2. Institutional Theory (Sociology of Literature)

📦 Contribution: Introduces the idea of the “literary regime”—institutions and social forces that define, categorize, and give value to literature.

“Texts and readings count as literary or nonliterary by virtue of protocols which govern this distinction” (p. 50).
🏛️ Theoretical Tie: Deepens Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and Tony Bennett’s work on cultural institutions, showing how literary meaning is socially regulated.

🌀 3. Reader-Response Theory (Relational Reading)

👁️ Contribution: Frow reorients attention from the text itself to the relation between the reader, the text, and its framing conditions.

“Reading… moves from a focus on a ‘text’… to the relation between a text and the set of framing conditions” (p. 52).
📖 Theoretical Tie: Expands on Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser by emphasizing the historical and institutional embeddedness of interpretation.

⏳ 4. Historicism / New Historicism

📜 Contribution: Proposes that literature’s meaning is always subject to changing regimes of reception, contesting any fixed or timeless interpretation.

“Any text which continues to be read… will in some sense not be the ‘same’ text” (p. 53).
🧭 Theoretical Tie: Resonates with Stephen Greenblatt’s New Historicism in viewing literature as deeply entwined with historical conditions of both production and reception.

🧩 5. Cultural Studies / Anti-Canonism

🚫 Contribution: Argues against fetishizing the literary canon, calling instead for a theoretically aware and socially situated analysis of literature.

“The exclusion of the literary… was a strategic delimitation… but there is no reason… why this exclusion should continue” (p. 53).
📚 Theoretical Tie: Extends Stuart Hall’s cultural studies framework, encouraging integration of literary studies into the broader matrix of cultural regimes.

🧠 6. Critique of Universalism

🧱 Contribution: Refutes attempts to offer a unified, essentialist definition of literature by demonstrating its institutional and historical variability.

“Any attempt now to define the literary as a universal or unitary phenomenon… falls into the fetishism of a culture of social distinction” (p. 49).
📘 Theoretical Tie: Counters structuralist views (like Frye’s archetypes) by arguing for the pluralism and contingency of literary value.

🔧 7. Pedagogical Theory / Literary Education

🎓 Contribution: Reframes literary education as training in critical reading practices, not the transmission of timeless cultural value.

“What might count as useful knowledge… is less the imparting of systematic information than the teaching of a practice” (p. 54).
🛠️ Theoretical Tie: Contributes to critical pedagogy (e.g., Freire, Giroux), emphasizing interpretation as an empowering, reflective act.

⚖️ 8. Value Theory in Literature

📈 Contribution: Reopens the question of value in literature—not as eternal or intrinsic, but as socially and semiotically produced.

“The very force of its initial refusal of the normative has become a problem… it occludes those questions of value” (p. 44).
💬 Theoretical Tie: Challenges both formalism and radical relativism, offering a balanced, relational approach to literary valuation.

🧬 Summary

John Frow’s “On Literature in Cultural Studies” doesn’t simply intervene in literary theory—it restructures its foundation by:

• Breaking down the boundaries between disciplines
• Introducing the flexible but rigorous concept of regimes
• Centering historical, institutional, and relational dynamics in literary meaning

It is a call for theory after theory, where critical reflection and cultural embeddedness take priority over rigid categories and static canons.

⚖️ 1. Relativism vs. Rigorous Criteria

📌 Criticism: Frow’s call for “relative relativism” may lead to a theoretical impasse where no stable criteria remain to distinguish meaningful from arbitrary interpretation.

His dismissal of universal literary value might be read as undermining normative critical judgment.

🔎 Why it matters: Without shared evaluative frameworks, literary criticism risks becoming purely contextual and losing its capacity to critique broader systems.

🌀 2. Vagueness in the “Literary Regime”

📌 Criticism: The term “literary regime”—while conceptually rich—is ontologically overloaded, blending institutional, textual, semiotic, and social dimensions without clear boundaries.

This may confuse rather than clarify how regimes function practically in shaping reading.

🔎 Why it matters: Readers may struggle to distinguish what counts as a regime versus broader cultural influence or personal interpretation.

🎯 3. Undervaluing the Aesthetic Dimension

📌 Criticism: By focusing on cultural and institutional framing, Frow potentially downplays the aesthetic and affective power of literature itself.

His emphasis on external regimes may neglect the formal innovations, beauty, or style of literary texts.

🔎 Why it matters: Many argue that literature’s unique value lies in its affective and stylistic power, not just its social embeddedness.

🧱 4. Risk of Disciplinary Dilution

📌 Criticism: Frow’s encouragement of interdisciplinary openness might inadvertently dissolve the specificity of literary studies into broader cultural studies.

“Literature” becomes just another “regime,” losing its traditional disciplinary coherence.

🔎 Why it matters: Some literary theorists fear this undermines the distinctive tools and methods of close reading, genre study, and formal analysis.

🗃️ 5. Abstract Overload and Accessibility

📌 Criticism: Frow’s language is dense and steeped in theoretical jargon, making the essay less accessible to non-specialists or students new to literary theory.

Terms like “hermeneutic bootstrapping” or “axiological regimes” can alienate readers unfamiliar with poststructuralist discourse.

🔎 Why it matters: For a piece partly about pedagogy and reading practices, the lack of clarity may hinder its impact in the classroom.

🧭 6. Limited Engagement with Non-Western Literatures

📌 Criticism: Frow’s analysis is heavily Euro-American, drawing examples only from Western canonical texts (Roth, Cervantes, Balzac, O’Hara).

This limits the scope of his claim that “literary value is institutionally constructed” across global cultural contexts.

🔎 Why it matters: A more inclusive global literary critique would enhance his argument about the variability of regimes across cultures.

🔍 7. Minimal Discussion of Reader Agency

📌 Criticism: While Frow critiques autonomous conceptions of the “reader,” he doesn’t give enough space to the lived experience and agency of actual readers.

His concept of the reader as a “function” within a regime may overlook how individuals interpret texts creatively or resist dominant regimes.

🔎 Why it matters: Ignoring reader subjectivity risks reducing reading to mere effects of institutional power.

🧠 Summary:

Frow’s essay is a seminal intervention in redefining the relationship between literary studies and cultural theory—but it also opens itself to critiques related to:

• theoretical overreach 🌀
• undervaluing form and aesthetics 🎨
• abstract language barriers 🧱
• Western-centrism 🌍

📘 Reciprocity in Interdisciplinary Study
Gallagher highlights the shift in the relationship between literary and social studies, noting that prior to the 1980s, the approach was largely one-sided: literature was examined through sociological lenses, but not vice versa.

“No matter how intertwined literature and society were imagined to be, however, the relationship… was essentially non-reciprocal” (p. 79).

🔁 Emergence of Cultural Studies
This evolving reciprocity between disciplines formed the basis of what Gallagher defines as Cultural Studies—a field marked by methodological fluidity and resistance to fixed definitions.

“‘Cultural Studies’ specifies neither a well-defined object nor a method of analysis” (p. 80).

🔍 Critique of the Term “Culture”
Gallagher critiques the inflation and ambiguity of the word “culture” in contemporary discourse, likening it to its Arnoldian predecessor.

“We may have rejected the restriction of ‘Culture’… nevertheless, our use of ‘culture’ and Arnold’s have more in common than is generally recognized” (p. 81).

🎭 Williams’s Productive Ambiguity
Williams deliberately maintained ambiguity in defining “culture” to avoid reductive binaries such as art/society or base/superstructure.

He resisted “reification” by playing “the meanings off against each other” to prevent one-way determinism (p. 82).

🌀 Particularity over Abstraction
Williams emphasized cultural specificity over analytical abstraction, encouraging critics to regard culture as a “complex of lived relationships” rather than a static societal whole.

“Culture” connotes a “vital whole” that is “more deeply constitutive of subjectivity” than “society” (p. 83).

🔄 Culture as Signifying System
In his later work Culture/The Sociology of Culture, Williams defined culture as “the signifying system through which necessarily (though among other means) a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored” (p. 83).

💰 The Money Paradox
Gallagher critiques Williams’s attempt to exclude money from cultural analysis, exposing a contradiction:

Money is not cultural “because the needs and actions of trade and payment are dominant” (p. 84).
Yet, when money’s materiality becomes excessive or symbolic (as in rare coins), Williams acknowledges it as cultural—a paradox she finds illuminating.

⚖️ Materiality vs. Signification
Gallagher explores the tension between material presence and signifying function, noting that for Williams, “phenomena disappear from ‘culture’ for two opposite reasons: they are either too material… or not material enough” (p. 85).

🧩 Limits of Signification in Cultural Studies
Gallagher warns that cultural studies often mystifies its objects by treating their excess of meaning as inherently profound, echoing Arnoldian ideals.

“We may be succumbing to a new mystique of culture” (p. 81).

💡 Final Reflection on Cultural Theory’s Tensions
Gallagher argues that instead of reconciling immanence and signification, cultural theory should embrace their historical tensions and resistances.

“We cannot understand the historical function of the object until we understand its peculiar ways of emptying itself of immediate comprehensibility” (p. 88).

📚 ➤ Contribution to Cultural Materialism
Gallagher deepens our understanding of cultural materialism by illustrating how Williams substituted “culture” for “society” to emphasize a “complex of lived relationships” rather than abstract structures.

“Culture was vital and enduring, yet evolving… more deeply constitutive of subjectivity than the word ‘society’ could suggest” (p. 83).
🔗 Relates to: Raymond Williams’s Cultural Materialism / New Historicism

🔄 ➤ Interdisciplinary Reciprocity
She underscores the shift from one-way interdisciplinary use (sociology reading literature) to a mutual methodological exchange, thereby legitimizing literary analysis within social theory.

“One is not surprised to find… Hayden White defining the tropes of historical analysis, John S. Nelson detailing the complex ‘plots’ of political science…” (p. 79).
🔗 Relates to: Interdisciplinary Theory / Sociology of Literature

🎭 ➤ Critique of Autonomy in Formalism
Gallagher challenges formalist ideas of aesthetic autonomy, aligning with Williams’s view that cultural texts are never isolated but embedded in social processes.

“Williams… succeeded in replacing the idea of artistic autonomy with that of specificity” (p. 83).
🔗 Relates to: Anti-Formalism / Reader-Response and Materialist Criticism

💬 ➤ Expansion of the Semiotic in Culture
By analyzing how signification operates even in non-literary domains (e.g., food, money), Gallagher helps expand the semiotic scope of literary theory to encompass broader cultural practices.

“The signifying system… includes not only the traditional arts… but also all the ‘signifying practices’—from language… to fashion and advertising” (p. 83).
🔗 Relates to: Structuralism / Semiotics

📖 ➤ Deconstruction of Cultural Unity
She critiques Williams’s essentialist tendencies and shows how his analysis inadvertently reinforces the mystique of culture as irreducibly meaningful—mirroring the “presence” fetishized in Derridean deconstruction.

“We may be succumbing to a new mystique of culture” (p. 81).
🔗 Relates to: Poststructuralism / Deconstruction

🧱 ➤ Material Signification and Marxist Limits
Gallagher exposes limits in Williams’s Marxist materialism, such as his exclusion of money from cultural analysis, revealing contradictions in the application of base/superstructure distinctions.

“Money’s ineligibility for culture might stem partly from its dissolution into the economic” (p. 87).
🔗 Relates to: Marxist Literary Theory / Political Economy of Culture

🌐 ➤ Contribution to Cultural Theory’s Object of Study
She interrogates what counts as a cultural object, criticizing both Arnoldian high culture and the overexpansion of “culture” into everything.

“The puzzling thing about these writings is their almost programmatic refusal to tell us what isn’t culture” (p. 80).
🔗 Relates to: Cultural Theory / Critique of Essentialism

🧠 ➤ Epistemological Self-Reflexivity
Gallagher’s essay itself is a meta-theoretical reflection on the conditions and limits of theorizing culture, making it a model for critical theory that interrogates its own foundations.

“We cannot understand the historical function of the object until we understand its peculiar ways of emptying itself of immediate comprehensibility” (p. 88).
🔗 Relates to: Critical Theory / Meta-theory

🔍 Overemphasis on Ambiguity
Gallagher frequently critiques Williams’s refusal to define “culture” with precision but does not provide a clear alternative herself. Her argument may seem to circle around the problem of definition without offering a constructive framework.

She acknowledges that “culture” resists coherence but doesn’t resolve how cultural critics should proceed (p. 88).

📏 Unclear Analytical Boundaries
In critiquing Williams’s treatment of money and food, Gallagher suggests a paradox, but her analysis can itself seem caught in the same ambiguity—blurring the line between cultural and economic domains without clear criteria.

Her own treatment of signifying systems may “replay the tension” she accuses Williams of mishandling (pp. 85–87).

⚖️ Heavy Reliance on Williams
Although Gallagher sets out to critique Williams, much of her essay relies heavily on his formulations and terms. At times, it reads more as an elaboration of his ideas than a decisive intervention or revision.

She notes Williams’s contradictions but continues to work within his framework rather than proposing a new paradigm (p. 82–83).

💭 Underdeveloped Engagement with Alternative Theorists
Gallagher name-drops major thinkers (e.g., Laclau, Mouffe, Hayden White), but does not deeply engage their theories. This limits the depth of her comparative critique and the potential for triangulating Williams’s ideas in a broader intellectual field (p. 79).

🧱 Structural Complexity and Density
The prose of the article is dense, with extended metaphors and abstract formulations. This stylistic complexity may obscure her core arguments, making the essay less accessible even to theoretically informed readers.

🔄 Inconsistent Use of Materialism
Gallagher critiques Williams’s cultural materialism for privileging the material, but she herself occasionally reverts to a form of symbolic idealism—treating excess or opacity as inherently valuable without fully explaining why.