Category: Theory Article Summaries

🎯 1. Challenging Scarry’s Generalizations on Beauty

Kacandes opens her article by critiquing Elaine Scarry’s On Beauty and Being Just for making unsupported generalizations about the “banishment of beauty” from academic discourse.

“It’s not only her repetitive passives that obscure the ‘guilty’ party, it’s also the lack of footnotes” (Kacandes, 2003, p. 157).

She argues that although Scarry raises a valid issue—the marginalization of beauty in scholarship—her framing oversimplifies the debate and lacks critical specificity.

🧠 2. Cultural Studies Has Never Truly Banished Aesthetics

Contrary to claims that cultural studies marginalizes beauty, Kacandes asserts that foundational thinkers like Gramsci and Williams deeply engaged with aesthetics.

“All of cultural studies has ultimately been a debate with aesthetics” (Davies, 1995, p. 67).

She cites Gramsci’s acknowledgment that art must be judged both ideologically and aesthetically, and Williams’s rejection of binaries between political and aesthetic responses.

“Williams takes pains to stress corporeal markers of the ‘aesthetic’” (Kacandes, 2003, p. 158).

🌍 3. Embedding Aesthetics in Socio-Historical Context

Kacandes argues that aesthetic experience should be understood through cultural context, not isolated as a purely formal or sensory experience.

“We have to learn to understand the specific elements… which socially and historically determine and signify aesthetic and other situations” (Williams, 1977, p. 157).

She sees this approach as vital to the revitalization of literature teaching.

🎶 4. Aesthetic Judgment as Social Practice: The Mendelssohn Case

Using Celia Applegate’s study on Mendelssohn’s revival of St. Matthew Passion, Kacandes illustrates how aesthetic value is culturally constructed.

“What factors allowed the same piece of music to be transformed… from something ‘strange’ to ‘a true enthusiasm’?” (Kacandes, 2003, p. 160).

This example highlights that aesthetic appreciation is not timeless or universal, but negotiated within historical contexts.

📱 5. Secondary Orality and the Crisis of Literary Value

Kacandes incorporates Walter Ong’s idea of secondary orality to explore why students struggle with reading in a media-saturated world.

“We are not ‘oral’ once again, we are ‘secondary oral’ for the first time” (Kacandes, 2003, p. 162).

She argues that cultural shifts in communication have led to declining literacy and, consequently, diminished literary engagement, a problem that must be addressed pedagogically.

📘 6. Reclaiming the Role of Literature through Cultural Studies

Kacandes defends the teaching of literature in a cultural studies framework that includes aesthetic dimensions.

“What is literature good for and why should students want to learn about it? Insofar as these are genuine questions, I find the answer that ‘literature is beautiful’ to be woefully insufficient” (Kacandes, 2003, p. 163).

She argues that literature’s cultural and emotional functions must be addressed through interdisciplinary, historically grounded analysis.

📖 7. Aesthetic Response and Trauma: The Case of A Jewish Mother

In analyzing Gertrud Kolmar’s A Jewish Mother, Kacandes introduces a dual method: examining both trauma in and as literature.

“The text… fails to tell the story by eliding, repeating, and fragmenting components of it” (Kacandes, 2003, p. 169).

She highlights how ellipses and stylistic inconsistency evoke trauma: “The ellipses mark the space to which… ‘willed access is denied’” (Caruth, 1995, p. 152).

💡 8. Beyond Beauty: Cultural Studies as Witnessing

Kacandes argues for a complex form of cultural analysis that recognizes aesthetic features as entry points into societal critique and memory work.

“We, as readers, are witnesses who have a moral obligation to try to understand how… individuals have tried to ‘respond to the state of the world and attempt to act on it’” (Paulson, 2001, p. 119).

Her conclusion insists that aesthetic categories like “beauty” are not ends in themselves but tools to interrogate power, trauma, and identity.

🎨 1. Aesthetic Theory

• Kacandes reclaims aesthetics within literary theory by challenging the binary of “aesthetic vs. political” in academic debates.
• She argues that beauty has not been “banished” by cultural studies, contrary to Elaine Scarry’s claim (Scarry 1999: 57), but is alive through nuanced discussions of form and feeling.
• ✍️ “It is an intellectual disservice to set up scapegoats… I will offer my own version of evidence that ‘beauty’ and aesthetics have not been banished by cultural studies” (p. 157).

🧩 2. Ideology and Marxist Literary Criticism

• She aligns with Gramsci and Raymond Williams in asserting that literature is always situated within ideological and historical contexts.
• Cultural studies, she insists, is not anti-aesthetic, but deeply rooted in Marxist critique where “aesthetic judgment and ideological awareness coexist” (p. 158).
• 🧠 “Gramsci insisted that it was possible to appreciate the aesthetic merits… even while repudiating the ideology that informs it” (p. 157).

🧠 3. Cultural Studies

• Kacandes extends cultural studies’ role in literary theory by emphasizing that formal and aesthetic elements are not excluded but central to meaningful cultural critique.
• She uses Applegate’s analysis of Mendelssohn’s revival to show how aesthetic judgment is shaped by social and historical forces (p. 159–160).
• 📍 “To understand [beauty], one must investigate what ‘beauty,’ ‘truth,’ ‘goodness’ meant in a specific culture and time” (p. 160).

🔊 4. Orality and Literacy (Ong’s Media Theory)

• Introduces Walter Ong’s theory of secondary orality to literary pedagogy, linking media changes to changing relationships with reading and literature.
• She contextualizes the decline in reading as a structural shift in how we communicate—“we are not oral again; we are ‘secondary oral’ for the first time” (p. 162).
• 💬 This challenges literary theory to consider media environment and cognitive shifts caused by technology in analyzing texts.

💥 5. Trauma Theory

• Kacandes contributes by showing how literature can not only depict trauma but also perform trauma, especially through narrative ellipses, fragmentation, and gaps.
• Analyzing Kolmar’s A Jewish Mother, she claims the text itself enacts trauma, compelling readers to “witness” rather than resolve the trauma (p. 169).
• 🕳️ “The ellipses mark the space to which, as trauma theory puts it, ‘willed access is denied’” (p. 169).

🗣️ 6. Narratology (Narrated Monologue & Perspective)

• Through free indirect discourse in Kolmar’s novel, Kacandes explores how perspective complicates emotional and aesthetic responses.
• This aligns with narratological approaches that examine how literary voice mediates subjectivity and ambiguity.
• 🔄 “Kolmar’s extensive use of narrated monologue makes it hard to determine what position the text itself is taking” (p. 165).

💔 7. Kitsch and Sentimentality in Literature

• Kacandes provocatively rehabilitates kitsch, suggesting it can be read not as aesthetic failure, but as a deliberate signal to provoke cultural reflection.
• She urges readers to go beyond judging art as good/bad and instead ask what work it does within a cultural system (p. 166).
• 🎭 “This kind of language ultimately led me to decide that there were numerous aesthetic clues – teasers – that could draw one in” (p. 165).

🛠️ 8. Literary Value and Ethics

• Finally, Kacandes proposes a moral obligation in literary studies: to serve as witnesses to literature’s role in recording and resisting social trauma and exclusion.
• She frames literary reading as a cultural and ethical practice, not just aesthetic or academic.
• 🌍 “We, as readers, are witnesses who have a moral obligation to try to understand how individuals have tried to ‘respond to the state of the world’” (p. 170).

🔍 Psychoanalysis as a decisive but incomplete interruption in Cultural Studies
Hall argues that psychoanalysis did not merge seamlessly into Cultural Studies, but rather interrupted it, transforming its theoretical foundations. This intervention, however, remains “incomplete,” leaving unresolved tensions.

“The displacements, theoretically and in terms of the forms of study… have been irrevocably transformed by the opening up of the spaces and questions which psychoanalysis poses to it” (Hall, 2018, p. 889).
The essay traces how this disruption reshaped Cultural Studies, especially through the challenges of subjectivity, representation, and the unconscious.

📚 Only post-Lacanian psychoanalysis had a transformative impact
Hall distinguishes between earlier forms of psychoanalysis and the radical shift brought by Lacan’s rereading of Freud. It was this version that made psychoanalysis relevant to cultural theory.

“The decisive impact in cultural theory has been made by that form of psychoanalysis which arises after the Lacanian rereading of Freud” (p. 890).
Lacan’s emphasis on language, the symbolic order, and the divided subject significantly reframed core concepts in Cultural Studies.

🌸 Feminism and psychoanalysis as a dual break
The conjunction of post-Lacanian psychoanalysis and feminism brought radical reconfigurations to how Cultural Studies understands identity and social life.

“It is the couplet post-Lacanian psychoanalysis and feminism which disrupts Cultural Studies, reposing questions about subjectivity, sexuality, the unconscious, representation, language…” (p. 891).
This double intervention forces Cultural Studies to confront dimensions it previously ignored—especially gender and the psychic.

🧠 The unconscious challenges sociological models of the self
Cultural Studies had long relied on models of the subject shaped by Marxist or anthropological thought. But the Freudian unconscious—especially as reformulated by Lacan—displaces those assumptions.

“There is always… something irretrievably lost, a fundamental displacement” in the process of identity formation (p. 891).
This irreducibility of the unconscious renders simplistic “inside/outside” models of self and culture untenable.

⚧️ Sexuality enters Cultural Studies via psychoanalysis
Hall critiques Cultural Studies for historically ignoring sexuality and sexual difference, treating cultural subjects as asexual.

“It walked and talked and looked at and attempted to analyse a culture… as if the subjects of culture were unsexed” (p. 891).
Psychoanalysis, especially in feminist contexts, brings sexuality and its unconscious dimensions to the center of cultural analysis.

👥 Subjectivity is not unified but fragmented and processual
Traditional Cultural Studies conceived of subjects as unified individuals or collective identities. Psychoanalysis breaks this illusion.

“Subjectivity as a constitution… which cannot be formed without fragmentation and displacement” (p. 893).
Rather than being a coherent entity, the subject is a site of division and contradiction—never whole or finished.

💬 Ideology as representation, not illusion
Marxist theories often described ideology as “false consciousness,” but psychoanalysis reframes ideology as a system of representations.

“The shift from the notion of an illusion to a system of representations… upon which the effectivity of ideology depends” (p. 893).
This emphasizes how subjects internalize ideology not just cognitively but affectively—through unconscious structures of recognition and misrecognition.

🧩 Language is central to subject formation and cultural life
Building on Lacan, Hall emphasizes that language is not just a medium of communication but the structure through which subjects and meanings are constituted.

“The unconscious is structured like a language… the subject is constituted in and through language” (p. 894).
Language thus becomes foundational to the analysis of culture, identity, and power in post-psychoanalytic Cultural Studies.

🚧 Critique of Lacanian dogmatism and metaphor becoming doctrine
Although Hall values Lacanian insights, he critiques the dogmatic tendencies within Lacanian theory—especially its transformation of metaphor into rigid principle.

“What began as a set of very important perceptions were transformed into a kind of dogmatic doxology” (p. 894).
This rigid formalism can limit the openness and usefulness of Lacanian thinking.

⚖️ Need to balance the psychic and the social
Hall warns that the rise of psychoanalysis led some scholars to neglect the social altogether, replacing social critique with subjectivity.

“They still require a theory of subjectivity, but they cannot be replaced by a theory of subjectivity” (p. 895).
Cultural theory must engage both domains—psychic and social—without collapsing one into the other.

🔥 The internalization of violence complicates political struggle
Psychoanalysis reveals that violence is not merely external or structural—it is internal, part of psychic life.

“Psychic life itself is aggressive and violent… the violence is already in our inside” (p. 896).
This insight complicates political action, challenging simplistic binaries of good/evil or oppressor/oppressed.

🧭 Towards a politics that recognizes radical subjectivity
Although psychoanalysis helps us understand our inner complicity in domination, it remains unclear how these insights can generate political change.

“What forms of politics and cultural struggle might come out of these new kinds of conceptions… remains an intractable puzzle” (p. 896).
Hall leaves us with a challenge: to rethink both theory and practice in light of the complex interrelations between psyche, power, and culture.

🔍 Redefining the Subject as Fragmented, Not Unified
Hall challenges the humanist conception of a stable, coherent subject prevalent in earlier literary theory. He introduces the psychoanalytic idea of the subject as split, dislocated, and constructed through processes of language and fantasy.

“Subjectivity as a constitution… cannot be formed without fragmentation and displacement” (Hall, 2018, p. 893).
This rethinking aligns with poststructuralist literary theory and changes how characters, narrators, and authors are interpreted.

🧠 Emphasizing the Unconscious in Cultural and Literary Analysis
Hall insists that the unconscious is a vital domain for understanding culture, ideology, and identity—moving beyond surface meanings.

“The presence of the unconscious means that it is not possible… to accept a sociological… account of how the inside gets outside and the outside gets inside” (p. 891).
This enriches psychoanalytic literary criticism by reaffirming the power of hidden desires and repression in textual production and interpretation.

🖼️ Transforming Ideology from Illusion to Representation
One of Hall’s most important contributions is shifting the understanding of ideology in literary theory. Rather than a “false consciousness,” ideology is seen as a system of representation that actively shapes subjectivity and meaning.

“The shift from the notion of an illusion to a system of representations… on which the effectivity of ideology depends” (p. 893).
This deepens Marxist literary theory and intersects with post-Althusserian analysis.

🗣️ Foregrounding Language as Structuring, Not Reflective
Drawing from Lacan, Hall shows that language produces meaning and identity rather than merely expressing them.

“The unconscious is structured like a language… the subject is constituted in and through language” (p. 894).
This insight reinforces structuralist and poststructuralist approaches in literary theory, where language is not transparent but generative.

⚧️ Introducing Sexual Difference as Central to Cultural and Literary Theory
Hall critiques Cultural Studies—and by extension, literary criticism—for historically ignoring sexuality. He argues that psychoanalysis and feminism force literary theory to engage with sexual difference as a site of meaning and conflict.

“Cultural Studies had absolutely nothing to say about it… as if the subjects of culture were unsexed” (p. 891).
This aligns with feminist psychoanalytic readings, like those by Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose.

💭 Bringing Fantasy into the Analysis of Institutions and Texts
Hall incorporates fantasy—especially sexual and power fantasies—into the core of institutional and cultural analysis. This adds a new dimension to literary theory’s treatment of genre, narrative, and discourse.

“At the centre of institutions are… fantasies of power… without which no proper account… can be given” (p. 892).
In literary terms, this supports deeper readings of symbolic structures in fiction and drama.

📚 Expanding Cultural Studies to Include the Psychical
Hall expands the scope of Cultural Studies, traditionally focused on the social and historical, to include the psychical and libidinal.

“It is only when psychoanalysis… focuses radically on its own object… that it throws an important, piercing but uneven light” (p. 890).
This shift reorients literary theory toward questions of interiority, trauma, repression, and symbolic meaning.

🔄 Questioning Smooth Theoretical Synthesis
Hall resists the totalizing integration of psychoanalysis with literary and cultural theory. Instead, he advocates for holding the tension between the psychic and the social.

“They still require a theory of subjectivity, but they cannot be replaced by a theory of subjectivity” (p. 895).
This stance challenges literary theories that seek unified explanatory models, favoring hybridity and contradiction.

🔥 Challenging the Idea of Pure Political Resistance
By showing that violence and repression are internal as well as external, Hall complicates the idea of ethical purity in political or literary resistance.

“Psychic life itself is aggressive and violent… the violence is already in our inside” (p. 896).
This affects literary theory’s engagement with the political, suggesting that texts and subjects are never outside complicity.

🧩 Inspiring New Interdisciplinary Methods in Literary Criticism
Hall’s essay bridges psychoanalysis, feminism, Marxism, and semiotics—encouraging interdisciplinary approaches in literary studies.

“Some grasp of the social whole… does require an ability to speak both these languages together in some way” (p. 895).
This opens literary theory to richer, more pluralistic readings.

🌀 Over-Complexity and Theoretical Density
Hall’s engagement with Lacanian psychoanalysis and its abstract language can alienate readers unfamiliar with psychoanalytic discourse.

“What began as a set of very important perceptions were transformed into a kind of dogmatic doxology” (Hall, 2018, p. 894).
📚 Critics argue this dense jargon may obstruct accessibility and interdisciplinary dialogue.

⚖️ Imbalance Between the Psychic and the Social
Although Hall insists on holding both domains in tension, some critics say the essay leans too far into subjectivity, potentially marginalizing material social structures.

“They still require a theory of subjectivity, but they cannot be replaced by a theory of subjectivity” (p. 895).
🌍 This concern reflects ongoing debates about how much psychoanalysis can explain systemic oppression, class struggle, or political change.

📉 Difficulty in Generating Political Praxis
Hall himself questions whether psychoanalysis can support political struggle, as it often emphasizes internal contradiction and complicity over clear agency.

“Whether it generates a politics or not, I don’t know… remains an intractable puzzle” (p. 896).
🚫 Critics may see this as undermining radical activism, favoring introspection over action.

🗣️ Ambiguity in Language and Terminological Slippage
Hall critiques Lacan for turning metaphors into literal claims (e.g., “the unconscious is a language”), yet he relies on similarly slippery formulations in parts of his own argument.

“The enormously suggestive metaphor… becomes… a really concrete established fact” (p. 894).
🔄 This opens his own essay to charges of imprecision.

🧠 Theoretical Elitism
The reliance on high theory—Lacan, Althusser, Freud—without extensive grounding examples or literary applications may seem elitist or detached from everyday cultural practices.
🎓 Critics from more practice-based traditions might see Hall’s psychoanalytic turn as moving away from grounded empirical Cultural Studies.

📌 Resistance from Within Cultural Studies
Traditional Cultural Studies emphasized materialism, empiricism, and class; integrating psychoanalysis disrupted this lineage, leading some to view it as a theoretical detour.

Hall acknowledges: “Cultural Studies had absolutely nothing to say about [sexuality]”—but some may argue that its original strengths were diluted in the psychoanalytic turn.

🧭 1. Two Camps in Cultural Studies: American Pragmatism vs. Continental Theory

Carey draws a foundational line between two philosophical sources within cultural studies: one rooted in American pragmatism (Dewey, James, Rorty) and the other in European poststructuralism (Derrida, Foucault, Althusser).

“Cultural studies… can be simplistically divided… into two broad camps: one that draws primarily upon continental sources… and one that draws primarily upon American sources” (Carey, 1992, p. 56).

🎯 2. Reclaiming Cultural Studies as a Democratic, Reformist Endeavor

Carey situates himself in the American tradition, advocating for cultural studies that supports liberal democracy, civic engagement, and communal responsibility.

“I have not as yet given up faith in liberal democracy… for an open, nonascriptive basis of community life” (p. 56).

⚔️ 3. Cultural Studies under Conservative Attack

Cultural studies has become a scapegoat in conservative critiques of academia, particularly in the discourse of “political correctness.”

“Roger Kimball… has identified cultural studies as part of the problem… rather than… part of the solution” (p. 56).
“The conservative critique… has identified cultural studies as part of the ‘problem of higher education’” (p. 58).

🧩 4. Internal Weaknesses of the Cultural Left

Carey criticizes the Left for lacking a cohesive ideology, becoming overly focused on critique rather than presenting constructive alternatives.

“The Left has a dozen different critiques of ideology; it just does not have an ideology” (p. 67).
“The cultural Left… cannot speak to the general public… because it is jargon besotted… and contemptuous of ordinary people” (p. 67).

🛠️ 5. The Crisis of Higher Education: Not Political Correctness, But Educational Failure

The real crisis in universities is not ideology but a decline in educational quality and purpose.

“The decadence besetting the academy is not political correctness but a genuine disinterest in education” (p. 58).
“Students approach us… as consumers… ingesting whatever is fashionable and forgettable this semester” (p. 58).

🧱 6. The Illusion of a Common Culture

Carey challenges both conservative nostalgia for a unified “Western tradition” and radical deconstruction of culture into fragments of race/gender, calling for a richer conception of American cultural experience.

“Cultural studies was not an argument against a common culture but against the simple-minded notion that… American culture was a direct… tributary of… the Greeks and the Bible” (p. 59).

⚖️ 7. The Over-Reduction of Culture to Race and Gender

Carey critiques the theoretical collapse in cultural studies where economic and structural analysis has been abandoned in favor of identity politics.

“Culture is now reduced to ideology and ideology in turn reduced to race and gender” (p. 60).
“The Left… forgot to develop a political program… that can speak to… citizens” (p. 67).

📉 8. Professionalization and Instrumentalization of Education

He argues that both liberal arts and professional programs have become overly utilitarian, losing sight of education as a civic and moral good.

“The liberal arts have… become professionalized… [and] the curriculum increasingly reflects… the professional interests… of faculty” (p. 69).
“Unless we can agree that education has purposes that are intrinsic to it… the university will be exploited… by extrinsic purposes” (p. 71).

🧠 9. The Debate as Theatrical, Not Transformational

The political correctness debate, Carey insists, is more performative than substantive, failing to address the actual problems of the university.

“This is a debate that confuses garnering publicity and producing celebrity with making political gains” (p. 63).
“The university described in the literature of political correctness is a fantasy” (p. 63).

🚨 10. Who Loses? The Students

Ultimately, the victims of these ideological failures are students—especially disadvantaged ones—who are promised transformative education but receive diluted curricula.

“The big losers in this great debate are the students and through them the country at large” (p. 72).
“It is the newcomers to higher education who are the big losers” (p. 72).

🧠 1. Cultural Studies & Literary Theory

Carey affirms and critiques the foundational assumptions of cultural studies as a form of literary and critical theory, helping expand its scope beyond textual analysis to institutional critique.

“Cultural studies arose as a revolt against formalism and was anti-positivist and anti-foundational: a form of both interpretive and critical theory” (p. 58).
✅ Contribution: Carey reasserts cultural studies as a method for interrogating power, ideology, and meaning in both texts and institutions.

🧭 2. Pragmatism vs. Poststructuralism

He introduces a distinctly American pragmatist approach to cultural and literary theory, contrasting it with the European poststructuralist tradition.

“I take myself to be part of the Dewey group… because… I have not as yet given up faith in liberal democracy” (p. 56).
✅ Contribution: Carey repositions literary theory within a pragmatic, reformist framework rooted in experience and democratic ideals.

🧱 3. Hegemony & Ideology Critique (Gramscian Theory)

Carey evaluates how cultural studies has handled Gramsci’s notion of hegemony, stressing the need for it to address broad civic and moral concerns beyond identity categories.

“Hegemonic analysis must move beyond ideology to culture and recognize that human interests cannot be exhausted by any social category” (p. 61).
✅ Contribution: Expands literary theory’s engagement with hegemony toward inclusive civic imagination, not just ideological critique.

🧩 4. Identity Politics and Literary Criticism

He critiques the reduction of cultural analysis to identity categories, warning that literary theory risks losing its broader cultural relevance.

“Race and gender have assumed a position as the new ‘base’… Ideology has swallowed culture” (p. 60).
✅ Contribution: Warns literary theory against becoming narrowly essentialist, encouraging a return to contextually rich, socially responsive analysis.

🔍 5. Anti-Canon & Curriculum Reform

Engaging the political correctness debate, Carey implicitly critiques the binary of canon vs. anti-canon in literary studies, calling for deeper reflection on curricular politics.

“Curriculum reform… has virtually nothing to do with what is going on in most college classrooms” (p. 63).
✅ Contribution: Reorients literary curricular debates toward substantive educational and institutional realities rather than symbolic gestures.

🏛️ 6. Reimagining the “Common Culture”

Carey challenges both conservative and radical accounts of cultural heritage, advocating a historically grounded but evolving notion of shared culture.

“Cultural studies… was not an argument against a common culture but against… a simple-minded notion” (p. 59).
✅ Contribution: Offers literary theory a model for balancing tradition and pluralism without retreating to essentialism or relativism.

📉 7. Institutional Critique of the Academy

He bridges literary theory with critical university studies, exposing the commodification of education and its impact on cultural and literary discourse.

“The university has pretty much disappeared as an independent and unitary institution” (p. 68).
✅ Contribution: Elevates the role of institutional critique within literary theory, encouraging scholars to reflect on their positionality.

🗣️ 8. Language, Tropes, and Political Rhetoric

Carey critiques the way ideological discourse (including literary theory) becomes disconnected from real-world communication, saturated with jargon.

“We seem to be surprised that [ideology] speaks in tropes and hyperbole rather than flattened academic discourse” (p. 58).
✅ Contribution: Calls for clearer, more engaged forms of literary criticism that resonate beyond academic circles.

⚖️ 1. Oversimplification of Identity Politics

Critics argue that Carey downplays the importance of race, gender, and sexuality by portraying them as narrow or reductive concerns within cultural studies.

🧩 He critiques identity as a “new base” replacing economic analysis, but this risks erasing the lived realities of systemic oppression.

🧵 2. Nostalgia for Civic Unity

His call for a shared “common culture” is seen by some as nostalgic or idealistic, failing to reckon with the structural inequalities that fragment cultural unity in the first place.

🏛️ The idea of “neighbors lending lawnmowers” may sound inclusive, but it presumes a level of privilege and stability not afforded to all communities.

📉 3. Lack of Engagement with Contemporary Theory

Carey’s critique of poststructuralism and theory-heavy approaches may dismiss valuable insights from deconstruction, feminism, queer theory, and postcolonialism.

📚 His framing of theorists like Derrida or Foucault as distant from public life overlooks how these theories have informed real-world activism and critique.

🔒 4. Overemphasis on Institutional Decline

Some scholars argue Carey blames universities too heavily for cultural decline without acknowledging broader neoliberal economic forces.

🏫 His claim that the university has “become a balance sheet” (p. 68) is valid but not unique to the academy—it reflects wider capitalist transformations.

🧠 5. Dismissal of Theoretical Rigor

Carey’s pragmatist disdain for jargon can be read as anti-intellectual or populist, limiting the capacity of scholarship to push conceptual boundaries.

💬 Calling theory “flattened academic discourse” may resonate rhetorically, but it risks alienating rigorous critical traditions.

📚 6. False Dichotomy Between Theory and Practice

He sometimes draws a sharp line between academic theory and real-world problems, but many scholars see this as a false divide.

🔄 The best of cultural studies—Stuart Hall, bell hooks, Judith Butler—has always linked theory to lived experience and activism.

🧩 7. Underestimation of Right-Wing Culture Wars

While Carey critiques both Left and Right, some argue he underplays the strategic, well-funded nature of conservative attacks on the humanities.

🎯 His suggestion that the Left “deserves to lose” risks validating coordinated disinformation campaigns against academic freedom.

🧭 8. Idealization of American Pragmatism

His celebration of Dewey and Rorty may seem too rooted in American exceptionalism, potentially ignoring global intellectual developments.

🌍 Cultural studies is international and transdisciplinary—Carey’s American framing may limit its scope and relevance globally.

🔑 Main Ideas with Supporting Quotations

• English Studies Are in a State of Flux, Not Crisis
  • Frith notes the paradox of English studies: it’s institutionally strong but intellectually unsettled:

“There isn’t a crisis in any straightforward sense… Nonetheless, in the last twenty years literature departments have been unsettled by uncertainties” (Frith, 1991, p. 2).

• Cultural Studies Has Redefined English Departments
  • English studies have expanded to include media, gender, race, and popular culture:

“What is now offered in many ‘English’ departments… would be better described as discourse analysis, or text analysis, or cultural studies” (Frith, 1991, p. 4).

• Origins of Cultural Studies Are Class-Based and Political
  • Early cultural studies responded to elite literary traditions by incorporating working-class culture and media:

“Literature described a narrow band of experience for a narrow social group” (Frith, 1991, p. 5).

• The Rise of Theory Brought Politics into English Studies
  • Feminist and poststructuralist critiques challenged the literary canon and demanded ideological analysis:

“The effect (a ’68 effect) was to politicise English studies” (Frith, 1991, p. 6).

• Cultural Studies Appealed to Market Pressures and Institutional Needs
  • English departments adopted cultural studies partly to justify their relevance:

“English departments had to restate their purpose… persuade academic colleagues of their importance” (Frith, 1991, p. 6).

• Expansion of the Canon Doesn’t Always Mean Transformation
  • Frith critiques how even radical changes in curriculum risk becoming institutionalized:

“Literary theory… absorbed into English departments not as a form of woodworm… but as a new scholasticism” (Frith, 1991, p. 8).

• Definitions of Culture Are Shifting Nationally
  • Governmental and arts institutions increasingly treat pop culture as legitimate culture:

“The British Council’s sudden interest in ‘cultural studies’… clearly meaning an attention to ‘low’ as well as to high culture” (Frith, 1991, p. 9).

• Debates on National Identity and Canon Are Politically Charged
  • Conservatives fear cultural studies undermine national cohesion and traditional values:

“The transmission of the culture that unites… is faltering” (Will as cited in Frith, 1991, p. 11).

• The Notion of Literary Transcendence Is Historically and Socially Constructed
  • What is called “great literature” often excludes minority voices and serves elite identities:

“‘National identity’ is a class, gender and racial identity” (Frith, 1991, p. 13).

• Cultural Studies Challenges Academic Elitism But Risks Losing Aesthetic Judgment
  • Frith warns that critical rigor may be replaced with political checklists:

“Nowhere… is there room to ask whether a book… is any good or what the answer might mean” (Frith, 1991, p. 17).

• Popular Culture and Literature Are Interwoven in Contemporary Narratives
  • Examples from fiction show how pop music and mass media shape sensibility:

“For both writers… the point is precisely to follow the ways in which sensibilities are shaped by pop culture” (Frith, 1991, p. 24).

• The Role of Experience and Identity in Reading Is Complex
  • Frith challenges the simplification of reading as vicarious empathy or mere representation:

“Is literary experience the equivalent of any other sort of experience?” (Frith, 1991, p. 23).

🎭 Cultural Studies

• 📌 Frith positions cultural studies as a transformative force within literary studies, expanding English beyond the traditional literary canon to include media, popular culture, and everyday texts.

“What is now offered in many ‘English’ departments… would be better described as discourse analysis, or text analysis, or cultural studies” (p. 4).

• 📌 Emphasizes the democratization of literature, arguing that cultural studies allows inclusion of marginalized voices (women, working-class, racial minorities).

“Adding ‘suppressed’ women’s texts or Afro-American writing to reading lists means that history reenters the domain of literary study” (p. 7).

🗳️ Marxist Theory / Ideology Critique

• 🧭 Frith discusses how literature reflects and resists dominant ideologies, reshaping literature as a space of ideological struggle rather than pure aesthetic value.

“To treat literary studies as cultural studies is to treat literature as ideology… the question for students becomes how a fiction works to reproduce (or resist) dominant values” (p. 18).

• 📉 Critiques the market-driven shift in education, noting how neoliberal forces push literary studies to justify itself through “transferable skills.”

“The impact of cultural studies… can also only be understood as a consequence of the impact of free market ideology on the education system” (p. 6).

♀️ Feminist Literary Criticism

• 💡 Frith acknowledges feminist challenges to canonical authority, helping validate literary studies that include gendered experience and critique.

“A political dissatisfaction… hence, for example, the feminist critique of taken-for-granted tables of literary merit” (p. 5).

• 📚 Supports inclusion of women’s texts as ‘representative’ writing, recognizing literature as a vehicle for identity and resistance.

“Experience re-emerges… in the concept of ‘representative’ writing – women’s writing representing the female experience…” (p. 23).

🕳️ Poststructuralism / Deconstruction

• ❓ Questions the possibility of fixed meaning and authority in literary criticism, aligning with poststructuralist concerns.

“Theory already seems to have been absorbed… not as a form of woodworm… but as a new scholasticism” (p. 8).

• 📎 Frith notes the conservative backlash to deconstruction, portraying it as a destabilizing force that undermines national and cultural unity.

“So-called literary theory mocks the very idea of ‘truth’… students are now compelled to read ‘politically correct’ feminist and black and gay ‘literature’” (p. 11).

🌐 Postcolonial Theory

• 🌍 Touches on how literary curriculum can reinforce or challenge national identity, a core concern in postcolonial theory.

“The issue that faces literature departments is not the place of ‘theory’ as such, but how to respond to a general cultural tendency towards populism and relativism” (p. 10).

• ✈️ Acknowledges multiculturalism and globalization in education, even quoting curriculum concerns over including “works from different cultures” (p. 12).

💬 Reader-Response Theory

• 📖 Critiques the suppression of reader experience in favor of rigid theoretical applications, calling for attention to literary engagement.

“Teachers are apt to be dismissive of the ‘personal response’… but cultural studies teachers want to map texts onto people” (p. 23).

🎨 Aesthetic Theory

• 🎭 Warns that aesthetic value is being replaced by political readings, cautioning against losing sight of literature’s formal and emotional dimensions.

“Discrimination is taught as a political rather than as an aesthetic act” (p. 17).

• 📌 Calls to revive attention to beauty, ambiguity, and form, aligning with critics like Northrop Frye.

“Culture also describes an aesthetic sensibility… we need to draw from literature as Raymond Williams suggested in his concept of ‘a structure of feeling’” (p. 19).

🔑 Key Ideas from Judith Newton’s “History as Usual?: Feminism and the ‘New Historicism'”

🔹 1. New Historicism’s Ambiguous Identity

• Newton critiques the vagueness and internal contradictions in defining “new historicism,” noting it is “as marked by difference as by sameness” (Newton, 1988, p. 87).
• She asks whether it’s “a unique and hot commodity” or simply a “set of widely held, loosely ‘postmodernist’ assumptions” (p. 87).

🔹 2. Core Assumptions of New Historicism

• Practitioners assume “no transhistorical or universal human essence,” with subjectivity “constructed by cultural codes” (p. 88).
• Representations are not neutral; they “make things happen” by “shaping human consciousness” (p. 89).

🔹 3. Feminist Scholarship’s Exclusion from New Historicist Narratives

• Newton criticizes how feminist contributions have been omitted from histories of theory and new historicism, despite feminist theory’s foundational role (p. 91).
• Feminists “have sometimes participated in this erasure of their own intellectual traditions” (p. 92).

🔹 4. Feminist Origins of Postmodern Assumptions

• Feminist thought contributed to “postmodernist” critiques before French theory was widely embraced, often rooted in “personal change and commitment” (p. 94).
• These ideas, rooted in activism and experience, fostered a “sense of political possibilities” (p. 94).

🔹 5. Feminist Rearticulation of Theory

• Feminist theorists developed distinctive takes on objectivity, proposing “situated and embodied knowledges” over relativism (p. 98).
• They aim for “webs of connection, called solidarity in politics and shared conversation in epistemology” (p. 99).

🔹 6. Feminist History and the Redefinition of “History”

• “New Women’s History” foregrounded the role of women as agents in history, challenging the public/private binary and masculinist historiography (p. 100).
• Feminist historians revealed how “gender relations and gender struggle” shaped historical developments, often predating Foucault (p. 101).

🔹 7. Feminist Literary Criticism as Historical Practice

• Feminist critics “situate literature in relation to history,” treating representation as “political” and deeply intertwined with gendered power (p. 104).
• Historical readings by feminist literary scholars often emphasize “materialist” and interdisciplinary strategies (p. 105).

🔹 8. Gender as Central to Understanding Power

• Feminist work redefines power not only as dominance but also “power in disguise,” such as resistance, silence, and emotional labor (p. 102).
• This insight reframes power dynamics traditionally overlooked by male-centered models.

🔹 9. Feminism’s Potential to Transform New Historicism

• Newton proposes that “materialist feminist literary/historical practice” yields a richer, more nuanced understanding of history and subjectivity (p. 117).
• She argues for greater collaboration between feminists and cultural materialists to deepen historical analysis (p. 120).

1. 📚 New Historicism

📌 Contribution:
Newton critiques the notion that New Historicism is a neutral or revolutionary academic practice. She shows how it marginalizes feminist contributions, portraying it as a male-dominated project that reinvents ideas feminists were already working with.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Histories of the ‘new historicism’ are beginning to remind me of…deconstructive thought…even the most current histories represent feminist theory as the simple receptor of seminal influence…” (p. 91)

📌 Impact:
Newton challenges the disciplinary canonization of New Historicism, calling for a broader, intersectional approach that includes gender and feminist labor. She insists feminist work should not be retroactively appropriated into male-defined theoretical traditions.

2. ♀️ Feminist Literary Criticism

📌 Contribution:
Newton defends and repositions feminist criticism as not only responsive but foundational to theoretical developments. She positions it as a producer of theory, especially around subjectivity, power, and representation.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Feminist theorizing of the ‘post-modern’ variety has been part of the Women’s Movement from the beginning.” (p. 94)

📌 Impact:
She articulates a feminist historicism that emphasizes experience, situated knowledge, and personal-political engagement, challenging the idea that feminist theory is derivative of deconstruction or postmodernism.

3. 📖 Postmodernism

📌 Contribution:
Newton critiques postmodernism’s tendency toward relativism and depoliticization, showing how feminists developed postmodern ideas (e.g., the critique of objectivity, constructed subjectivity) through lived experience and political urgency.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Feminist challenges to the notion of ‘objectivity’ have not usually led to relativism… but rather to defining a ‘feminist version of objectivity’—situated and embodied knowledges…” (p. 98)

📌 Impact:
Newton offers a version of politicized postmodernism, grounding theoretical abstraction in feminist and activist contexts. She promotes epistemological alternatives rooted in accountability and partial perspective (à la Haraway, Harding).

4. 📕 Cultural Materialism

📌 Contribution:
While cultural materialism and New Historicism are typically linked, Newton shows how materialist feminist criticism shares common assumptions but articulates them differently—especially in recognizing women’s labor, agency, and discursive contributions.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“Although materialist feminist criticism has drawn heavily on Marxist and cultural materialist theory… it may still be differentiated… by the degree to which it takes gender as an organizing category in ‘history.’” (p. 106)

📌 Impact:
She positions materialist feminism as a distinctive critical formation, not to be absorbed under male-defined theories. She emphasizes the intersection of gender and class in ways cultural materialism alone often neglects.

5. 🧩 Reader-Response and Psychoanalytic Theories

📌 Contribution:
Newton doesn’t engage directly with these, but she implies their limitations by contrasting them with feminist historicism’s focus on experience, community, and material history, over textual play or personal introspection.

🔍 Example from the Article:

“What is theory, after all, ‘good’ for?” she asks rhetorically, insisting theory should serve political and communal purposes (p. 96)

📌 Impact:
Her perspective aligns more with object-relations feminist theory (e.g., Chodorow, Gilligan), as she encourages literary historians to consider emotional and material conditions shaping subjectivity and representation (p. 120).

Overemphasis on Feminist Contribution as Original

Some critics argue that Newton overclaims the uniqueness of feminist theory, suggesting feminists were the first to introduce postmodern insights (like the constructed subject) when these were also present in other theoretical traditions like post-structuralism and Marxism.
→ Critique: Exaggeration of feminist “primacy” in theory development.

🔍 Selective Reading of New Historicism

Newton tends to highlight the male dominance in New Historicism, but critics suggest she downplays the diversity within the field, including scholars like Jean Howard, who also engage feminist concerns.
→ Critique: Unfair generalization of “new historicists” as gender-blind.

📘 Symbol: 📖 Partial Scope

📏 Not Enough Empirical Engagement

While Newton critiques others for ignoring feminist scholarship, she herself is seen as insufficiently grounded in historical primary texts in parts of her analysis, relying heavily on secondary commentary.
→ Critique: More rhetorical than evidentiary in some places.

📘 Symbol: 📉 Light on Data

🧩 Theory Over Accessibility

Though Newton advocates valuing feminist labor and accessibility, parts of her own work remain densely theoretical. Critics find this in tension with her call for clarity and solidarity among feminist theorists.
→ Critique: Calls for inclusivity yet adopts academic jargon.

📘 Symbol: 🌀 Theory vs Praxis

⚖️ Binary Framing of Feminism vs New Historicism

Some readers argue that Newton frames feminism and New Historicism as mutually exclusive or antagonistic, missing opportunities to emphasize synergies and hybrid approaches.
→ Critique: False dichotomy weakens nuanced collaboration.

📘 Symbol: ⚔️ Unnecessary Polarization

📚 Neglect of Non-Western Feminist Historicism

The essay largely centers American and British feminist discourse, with little mention of postcolonial or global feminist voices. Critics see this as a missed opportunity to de-center Western theory.
→ Critique: Limited geographical inclusivity.

📘 Symbol: 🌍 Western-Centric Lens

🎭 Idealization of Feminist Theory’s Internal Diversity

While Newton rightly emphasizes feminist theory’s heterogeneity, some argue she idealizes feminist unity and underplays internal conflicts (e.g., between radical, liberal, and postmodern feminists).
→ Critique: Glossing over feminist ideological tensions.

📘 Symbol: 🧵 Over-unity

🔄 Power as Productive, Not Merely Repressive

Foucault redefines power beyond the classical repressive model, emphasizing its productive and relational nature.

“Power is productive as well as coercive, situational as well as pervasive” (McCoy, 1988, p. 71).
“Foucault examines the workings of power through local, ‘micro-processes’… producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).

📺 Media as a Vehicle of Power/Knowledge

Mass media—especially television—do not merely reflect society, but actively shape discursive norms and subjectivity.

“Television presents carefully structured, strategically shaded versions of social life… enculturating viewers to values and norms” (p. 71).
“The media shape public discourse… in accord with Foucault’s conception of power-knowledge” (p. 71).

🧠 Critique of Ideology: Hall vs. Foucault

While Stuart Hall grounds cultural studies in ideology, Foucault sidesteps ideology in favor of discursive formations and subject production.

“Hall emphasizes the centrality of ideology. Foucault leaves ideology alone” (p. 71).
“Foucault does not primarily concern himself… with blocs of ideas… he is concerned with power” (p. 71).

🧩 Normalization Over Repression

Foucault replaces the “repressive hypothesis” with a more nuanced concept of normalization as a subtle and pervasive form of control.

“He advances a conception of social discipline as a productive, complex social function” (p. 71).
“Normalization took place, values and morals emerged… to structure the tactics” (p. 79).

🧍 Power and the Formation of the Subject

Foucault’s theory shifts the focus from the autonomous subject to one produced by power relations and discursive practices.

“The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces” (Foucault 1980d, cited in McCoy, p. 74).
“It is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of my research” (Foucault 1983: 209; p. 75).

🧬 Biopower and the Materiality of Control

Biopower represents the subtle embedding of power into institutions, bodies, and routines to regulate populations and produce docile subjects.

“Bio-power… structuring and educating individuals to facilitate the order of things” (p. 78).
“The great fantasy is… a social body constituted by the universality of wills. [Instead, it is] the materiality of power operating on the very bodies of individuals” (Foucault 1980d: 55; p. 79).

🎥 Cultivation and Surveillance through Television

Television functions as a disciplinary device, teaching norms through ritual and dramatization, subtly reinforcing hegemony.

“Television extends the legitimacy of the social formation… through ritual” (Gerbner & Gross, 1976, cited in McCoy, p. 85).
“Heavy viewers… are more likely… to call themselves moderate, but hold… conservative positions” (Gerbner et al., 1982; p. 86).

🧾 Reframing Hegemony Beyond the State

Foucault decentralizes power, moving away from state-centric models and focusing on dispersed networks and capillary processes.

“Foucault attempts to outflank… the State/civil distinction. He locates social discipline and regulation as practices evoking power-knowledge relations” (p. 74).
“There seems to me no necessity to postulate the State as the locus for condensing various social practices” (p. 74).

🔍 Power-Communication Distinction

Power must be distinguished from communication—it structures what can be said, not merely how it is said.

“It becomes necessary also to distinguish power relations from relationships of communication… language, signs or symbolic mediums” (Foucault 1983: 217; p. 78).
“Power works its way intentionally but anonymously… systematic and self-generative” (p. 75).

🔗 Media and ‘Thinkable Thought’

Mass media in liberal democracies structure what is publicly debatable, creating boundaries around acceptable discourse.

“Mass media order society’s discourses by structuring the thresholds of thinkable thought” (p. 88).
“Within public discourse, Chomsky locates a ‘framework for possible thought’” (Chomsky, 1985; p. 82).

🎭 Contribution to Cultural Studies and Ideology Critique (Hall, Gramsci)

• 📌 Bridges Foucault and Hall: McCoy positions Foucault’s ideas as a complement, not an opposition, to cultural studies:
  “While Hall and Foucault by no means trace the same territory… their approaches are not mutually exclusive” (p. 71).
• 📚 Extends the concept of hegemony: He elaborates on Gramsci’s and Hall’s concepts by introducing Foucault’s focus on discipline and normalization as additional mechanisms:
  “Ideology organizes social experience… signification formulates socially advantageous outlooks… that uphold hegemony” (p. 72).
• 🧠 Challenges totalizing ideology-based frameworks: McCoy suggests that ideology alone cannot explain contemporary power:
  “Foucault… simply does not situate it on ideological terrain” (p. 74).

🌀 Contribution to Poststructuralist and Foucauldian Literary Theory

• 🔍 Centers Power/Knowledge in cultural analysis: McCoy reinforces that knowledge is not neutral, but structured by power:
  “Knowing is perhaps power’s corporeality… Power is made for cutting” (p. 75).
• 🧩 Proposes discourse as a critical method: Instead of ideology, Foucault introduces discursive formations as sites of meaning production:
  “Foucault examines… discursive formations producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).
• 🧬 Rejects the “Repressive Hypothesis”: He critiques theories that equate power only with repression, expanding literary theory’s approach to subjectivity:
  “He advances a conception of social discipline as a productive, complex social function” (p. 71).

🪞 Contribution to Theories of the Subject and Identity

• 🧍 Decenters the Cartesian subject: Foucault, through McCoy’s lens, redefines the subject as a construct of power relations:
  “The individual, with his identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies…” (Foucault 1980d, p. 74).
• 🪡 Supports theories of subjectivation: The article integrates “technologies of the self” with cultural critique, applicable to literary depictions of identity:
  “Discursive practices, tactics and strategies influence development… yet again, no one plans such developments” (p. 77).

📺 Contribution to Media Theory and Cultural Criticism

• 🧠 Applies Foucauldian power to mass media: McCoy brings Foucault into media theory, a move not fully taken by Foucault himself:
  “The media affect the formations of discourse… strategically shaded versions of social life” (p. 71).
• 📡 Frames media as disciplinary apparatus: The media are shown to be central in forming docile subjects:
  “Television… aids in the production, as well as the reproduction, of social discipline” (p. 71).
• 🧪 Aligns with Gerbner’s cultivation analysis: This empirical angle demonstrates how media enculturate values, echoing Foucault’s “docile bodies”:
  “Television cultivates common perspectives… enculturating viewers to norms” (p. 86).

⚖️ Contribution to Political Theory and Literary Representations of the State

• 🧱 Deconstructs the State as a totalizing force: McCoy, through Foucault, moves beyond Althusser’s structural model of the state:
  “There seems… no necessity to postulate the State as the locus for condensing various social practices” (p. 74).
• 🧷 Reveals the State’s subtle normalization strategies: The article argues that power in liberal democracies is not always coercive but operates through norms and discourse:
  “Normalization has taken precedence over the coercive legal apparatus” (p. 80).

🧠 Epistemological Impact on Literary and Communication Theory

• 📖 Redefines truth as constructed: Foucault undermines traditional humanist ideas of literary “truth” or authorial intention:
  “The real problem lies not in the idea that humanity progresses, but in what fashion have events unfolded…” (p. 77).
• 🗂️ Connects narrative structures to power networks: The article supports analyses of literature and media that trace power’s distribution rather than fixed meanings:
  “Power relations, not power itself, form the field of analysis” (Foucault 1983, p. 78).

🔻 ⚖️ Overreliance on Foucault’s Perspective
McCoy privileges Foucault’s framework at the expense of other valid critical approaches.

“Foucault remained agnostic with regard to formations of class struggle… the truth of discursive relations is not of primary import” (p. 73).
This detachment can appear dismissive of the material consequences of class and economic inequalities.

🔻 🧩 Lack of Theoretical Synthesis with Stuart Hall
Although McCoy compares Hall and Foucault, he doesn’t fully resolve their theoretical incompatibilities.

“Hall chides Foucault for his emphasis on difference over unity” (p. 73).
Hall’s holistic emphasis on ideology is never fully reconciled with Foucault’s pluralist model.

🔻 🔍 Ambiguity in Application to Media
McCoy stretches Foucault’s ideas to mass media without Foucault having directly addressed them.

“While Foucault researched… he did not write about mass communication. Yet his method appears applicable to communication study…” (p. 75).
This interpretive leap can be critiqued as speculative and lacking empirical grounding.

🔻 📉 Limited Engagement with Counter-Arguments
The article doesn’t fully engage critics of Foucault who emphasize collective agency or emancipatory politics.

“He does not accept the analysis of critical theory… nor especially with those who argue that the truth will free us” (p. 73).
Such dismissal may ignore the liberatory potential within traditional Marxist or postcolonial critiques.

🔻 🧠 Neglect of Subjective Experience
Foucault’s rejection of the Cartesian subject, though discussed, overlooks the importance of lived, affective experience in cultural studies.

“The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces” (p. 74).
This mechanistic model of subject formation might underplay personal agency and resistance.

🔻 📡 Generalization of Media Function
McCoy arguably treats television and media as monolithic instruments of hegemony.

“Television presents rules of power through programs that portray what befalls people who violate those rules…” (p. 85).
This risks ignoring the multiplicity and contestation within media audiences and texts.

🎤 🌍 Amplifying the Ordinary Voice: A Cultural Studies Imperative

Jean Burgess opens by affirming that cultural studies must engage seriously with everyday or amateur media production, particularly as digital tools allow ordinary individuals to express themselves (Burgess, 2006, p. 201). She notes that these expressions, often dismissed as marginal or trivial, are deeply political and cultural acts:
🔹 “Recent developments in the uses of new media have ethical and methodological implications for cultural studies” (p. 201).

💻 🎨 Vernacular Creativity: Redefining Cultural Production

Burgess introduces vernacular creativity as a concept that describes how people remix everyday language and cultural forms into creative expressions rooted in non-elite, lived experience.
🔹 She states that it “illuminates creative practices that emerge from highly particular and non-elite social contexts” (p. 206).
🔹 Unlike elitist definitions of creativity, this perspective centers on “recombining available cultural resources in ways that are both familiar and innovative” (p. 206).

📸 🌀 Cultural Participation vs. Commodification

While the rise of user-generated content and blogging may suggest empowerment, Burgess is cautious. She critiques overly celebratory views that digital tools alone ensure democracy.
🔹 She writes, “The mere fact of productivity in itself is not sufficient grounds for celebration… we must also ask ‘who is heard, and to what end?'” (p. 203).
🔹 Platforms like lomography and camgirls are explored as aestheticized spaces that may look subversive but often reinforce capitalist structures (p. 204).

📢 🌈 Digital Storytelling: Participatory, Personal, Powerful

Burgess explores digital storytelling—short, autobiographical video stories—as an example of vernacular creativity in action. Unlike mainstream media, these stories highlight personal experiences with sincerity and warmth.
🔹 She asserts that digital stories allow for “relatively autonomous and worthwhile contributions to public culture” (p. 207).
🔹 Their power lies not in technical sophistication, but in how they “prioritize narrative accessibility, warmth, and presence” (p. 207).

🧑‍🎓 👂 Listening to, Not Interpreting Over, Ordinary Voices

Cultural studies, Burgess argues, must stop speaking over people and start listening.
🔹 Referring to Jenny’s story—a young mother who found new purpose through education—Burgess writes, “When I stop and look at where my life is today, I know they were wrong” (p. 208), showing how personal narrative can challenge social stigmas.
🔹 Burgess critiques theorists who reduce people to symbolic texts: “Too often, ‘the people’ are reduced to ‘the textually delegated, allegorical emblem of the critic’s own activity'” (Morris, 1990, p. 23; cited on p. 209).

🧵 💞 Emotional Authenticity: The ‘I-Voice’ of Digital Stories

Digital storytelling emphasizes the voice—literally—as central to authenticity and empathy.
🔹 Burgess uses Chion’s concept of the “I-voice”—a voice both deeply internal and universally present—as a metaphor for this form’s affective power (Chion, 1990, p. 79; cited on p. 210).
🔹 These stories “recapture the warmth of human intimacy from the imperative of innovation” (p. 210).

🎓 📚 Everyday Literacies as Cultural Capital

Digital storytelling is built on vernacular literacies, not formal artistic training.
🔹 Participants use intuitive skills like “scrapbooking, storytelling, arranging photos, and layering voiceovers” learned from daily life (p. 209).
🔹 These literacies bridge “formal and informal learning”, fostering confidence among marginalized voices (p. 209).

📈 📡 Democratization Without Illusion

Though digital storytelling opens access, Burgess remains aware of its limits. Institutional control and stylistic norms can shape and constrain these stories.
🔹 She acknowledges, “Distribution channels… are frequently under the control of the institutions that provided the workshops” (p. 209).
🔹 Yet, for many, “without additional support, they may never use a computer at all” (p. 209), underscoring the critical importance of support infrastructures.

💬 🫂 Universal Themes, Specific Lives

Burgess concludes that while digital stories may use universal themes—love, hope, loss—their particularity is what makes them powerful.
🔹 These stories offer “a means of ‘becoming real’ to others, on the basis of shared experience and affective resonances” (Peters, 1999, p. 225; cited on p. 210).
🔹 “If we are working within a politics of participation, we need to learn to listen to these autobiographical narratives” (p. 211).

🔚 🎯 Final Reflection: A Call for Cultural Empathy

Ultimately, Burgess insists that cultural studies must shift from interpreting to supporting and amplifying the voices of those previously unheard.
🔹 “The task for cultural studies is not to speak heroically on behalf of ordinary voices but to find ways to understand and practically engage with the full diversity… in which they are, or are not, being heard” (p. 211).

Romanticization of the “Ordinary”
➡ Burgess risks idealizing vernacular expression, potentially overlooking how “ordinary voices” can also perpetuate dominant ideologies, prejudices, or stereotypes.

Even though she critiques celebratory populism, her framing often valorizes sincerity and emotion without always questioning content or ideology (p. 208).

🔹 🏗️ Institutional Mediation is Underplayed
➡ While she acknowledges the role of institutions (e.g., BBC, QUT), critics may argue that she underestimates how institutional contexts shape and limit “authentic” storytelling.

The curated nature of digital storytelling workshops may normalize certain narrative templates, leading to homogeneity (p. 209).

🔸 📊 Limited Structural Critique of Power
➡ Burgess focuses on representation and affect, but critics from Marxist or critical theory backgrounds might say she offers an insufficient critique of material inequality or systemic barriers.

Who gets access to technology, training, or platforms remains a major structural issue underexplored in her celebratory tone.

🔹 🧠 Under-theorization of Digital Literacy Gaps
➡ The assumption that digital storytelling is “empowering” may ignore deep differences in digital competence due to education, age, language, or socio-economic status.

Even with workshop support, not everyone can meaningfully participate—a fact that complicates the democratic framing (p. 208–209).

🔸 🎨 Emotional Appeal Over Analytical Depth
➡ By emphasizing “warmth, sincerity, and affect” (p. 208), Burgess may be overlooking narrative complexity or literary experimentation, potentially sidelining stories that don’t conform to her affective model.

🔹 🎢 Risk of Essentializing “Authentic” Expression
➡ What counts as “authentic” or “vernacular” is culturally coded and potentially exclusionary.

There’s a danger of privileging certain emotional styles (e.g., sentimental storytelling) as more legitimate, silencing others that are ironic, fragmented, or culturally divergent.

🔸 📹 Lack of Engagement with Algorithmic Mediation
➡ The piece does not consider how algorithms shape visibility, relevance, or virality of digital content—critical in today’s participatory culture where “being heard” is highly platform-dependent.

🔹 🔁 Repetition of Cultural Studies Debates
➡ Some may argue that Burgess revisits long-standing cultural studies debates (e.g., agency vs. structure, resistance vs. co-option) without significantly advancing them, even as she brings them into digital context.

🧩 Summary Takeaway:

While Jean Burgess’s article is visionary in championing everyday creativity and emotional storytelling, it can be critiqued for idealism, institutional blind spots, and limited engagement with power structures and digital inequalities.

🎒 Theory as Toolbox: Cultural Studies and Deleuze–Guattari

🔧 Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts are not rigid ideologies but flexible tools, echoing Foucault’s notion of theory as a “toolbox” (Foucault, 1977; Wiley & Wise, 2018, p. 2).
🎯 Cultural Studies should return from theory to context — theory is a detour, not a destination (Hall, 1992).

🌏 The Journal as Actor-Network

🧵 Using Latour’s actor-network theory, the journal Cultural Studies is seen as a node connecting scholars, institutions, translations, and concepts (Latour, 2005, p. 68).
📚 Why Deleuze and Guattari were read often depends on institutional networks, educational access, and editorial translations (Morris & Muecke, 1991, p. 77).

🕰️ Chronology of Conceptual Trends

📍 1980s – Nomadism

🏕️ “Nomad” emerged as a postmodern subject and metaphor for deterritorialized knowledge (Morris, 1988; Grossberg, 1988).
⚠️ Critics warned against romanticizing marginality (Muecke, 1992; Wolff, 1993).

🗺️ 1990s – Territory and Deterritorialization

🌐 Reflecting the spatial turn, cultural theory engaged territories and flows (Grossberg, 1991).
🎵 Music became a metaphor for affective spatial structuring.

🧠 2000s – Control and Affect

🎛️ The “control society” gained traction via Postscript on Control Societies (Deleuze, 1992) and Hardt & Negri’s Empire (2000).
💓 Affect became a lens to study bodies, pedagogy, shame, and everyday life (Massumi, 1995; Probyn, 2004).

🧩 2010s – Assemblage

🧬 Assemblage (agencement) emerged in response to the “material turn” and offered a model for theorizing non-human agency and complexity (Slack, 2008; Grossberg, 2014).
🧱 It emphasized dynamic construction of relations, rather than fixed structures.

📚 Most-Cited Works and Concepts

📘 A Thousand Plateaus tops the citation list, followed by Anti-Oedipus, and What is Philosophy? (Wiley & Wise, 2018, p. 7).
🔑 Frequently used concepts:

• ❤️ Affect
• 🌍 Territory
• 🔁 Deterritorialization/Reterritorialization
• 🧩 Assemblage
• 🌀 Becoming
• 👁️‍🗨️ Control

🧠 Reimagining Cultural Studies through Deleuze & Guattari

🛠️ Eight landmark essays redefined cultural studies using Deleuze and Guattari’s frameworks (Seigworth & Wise, 2000; Grossberg, 2014).
⚡ Theory must be used creatively, not religiously. Concepts are to be invented, not just applied (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 27).

🛠️ Doing Cultural Studies with D&G’s Concepts

🔍 Articles applied Deleuzoguattarian tools to diverse topics:

• 📹 Surveillance (Wise, 2004)
• 🎵 Music and politics (Grossberg, 1991)
• 🧑‍🏫 Pedagogy (Albrecht-Crane, 2005)
• 🎤 Affect and identity (Keeling, 2014; Probyn, 2004)

🧳 Underused Concepts & Future Potentials

🕳️ Despite their richness, some Deleuzoguattarian ideas are underexplored:

• 🌀 Body without Organs
• 🧬 Sense and Sensation
• 📐 Diagram and Fold
• 🧠 Schizoanalysis and Desire

🌿 Guattari’s solo works — The Three Ecologies, Chaosmosis — are beginning to reshape new directions in cultural studies (Grossberg & Behrenshausen, 2016).

🌱 Concept Creation as Cultural Practice

🌟 Cultural studies must invent new concepts that meet the needs of the moment — echoing D&G’s call to “create concepts for problems that necessarily change” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 28).
🔭 Instead of following theoretical trends, the field should create new possibilities for thinking and acting.

🔁 Poststructuralism & Deconstruction

• 🧷 Destabilization of Meaning
  Challenges representational and structuralist readings by emphasizing fluidity, assemblages, and deterritorialization.

“The concept of the minor… making this seem like a productive, yet underutilized, concept” (p. 14).
Also emphasized in Difference and Repetition, Logic of Sense, and the anti-representational critique of affect (p. 15–16).

• 🕳️ The Rhizome as Anti-Structure
  Rhizomatic thinking subverts hierarchical structures in texts, suggesting a non-linear, multiplicities-based model of interpretation.

“Concepts… are not eternal… they bring forth an Event that surveys us…” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, pp. 27–28).

🔮 Affect Theory

• 💓 Centering Affect over Representation
  Proposes a non-discursive, bodily dimension of meaning, expanding literary critique beyond semiotics.

“Affect should not be understood as a separate, fetishized force… but in its contextual formations” (Grossberg & Behrenshausen, 2016, p. 6).
See also: Boler (1997), Probyn (2004), Seigworth (2000).

🧩 Postmodernism

• 🏞️ Nomadology and the Fragmented Subject
  Applies the Deleuzoguattarian nomad to postmodern identity and critique of grand narratives.

“The 1980s: all we hear about are nomads” (p. 7).
Essays by Grossberg, Morris, Radway, Wolff engage this postmodern figure.

• 🎭 Multiplicity over Identity
  Undermines fixed subject positions in literary characters and readers; favors processual becoming.

“What is the philosophical form of the problems of a particular time?” (p. 2, Deleuze & Guattari, 1994).

🧱 Spatial Literary Theory / Geocriticism

• 🧭 Territorialization and Reterritorialization
  Literature seen as mapping spatial production of meaning; connects with Doreen Massey, Henri Lefebvre.

“Culture as an active agent in the production of places and spaces” (Grossberg, 1992, p. 27).
“Rock, Territorialization and Power” (Grossberg, 1991, p. 364).

• 🧳 The Minor and the Margin
  Texts/literatures from marginal cultures conceptualized through Kafka’s minor literature.

“Minor” literature used in works on Yiddish, postcolonialism, and Hong Kong cinema (p. 14).

🗺️ Cultural Materialism

• 🔧 Theory as Toolbox
  Echoes Foucault and Deleuze’s claim that theory should be applied, not revered.

“Theory as a toolbox… What concepts are useful for this particular conjuncture?” (p. 2).

• ⚙️ Assemblage as Literary Formation
  Texts seen as events or agencements, not static forms, shaped by material and semiotic processes.

“Culture itself should be understood as a production of assembled agency” (Wiley, 2005, p. 11).

🧬 New Materialism / Posthumanism

• 🌐 Post-Anthropocentric Literary Analysis
  Encourages critiques of texts that move beyond human-centeredness, embracing material agency.

“Bodies do not exist outside discourse, but cannot be reduced to it” (Slack, 2008, p. 11).
Guattari’s Three Ecologies and Schizoanalytic Cartographies mentioned (p. 5, 16).

• 🛠️ Semiotics Beyond Language
  Guattari’s “mixed semiotics” implies that signification operates across bodily, affective, and machinic registers.

“Shift the ground of argument from affect to the broader question of expression and signs” (Grossberg & Behrenshausen, 2016, p. 19).

📦 Literary Pedagogy

• 🧑‍🏫 Affective Pedagogy and Minor Modes of Teaching
  Redefines the classroom as a site of affective assemblages, challenging linear learning.

“Pedagogy as friendship… a model of encounter as affective and multiple” (Albrecht-Crane, 2005, p. 9).

🔍 Overemphasis on Citational Presence

While the authors admit the limitations, the method still privileges explicit citation over implicit influence, potentially ignoring nuanced or indirect incorporations of Deleuzian-Guattarian thought.
📌 “Explicit citations in a published journal article are only one kind of trace” (p. 6)

📉 Neglect of Guattari’s Solo Work

The article critiques this itself, but doesn’t deeply address the imbalanced focus on Deleuze or co-authored works over Guattari’s independent theoretical contributions, such as The Three Ecologies or Schizoanalytic Cartographies.
📌 “Guattari’s solo-authored work is cited infrequently” (p. 7)

🌀 Conceptual Redundancy in Cultural Studies

Some may argue the frequent use of concepts like assemblage, affect, and territory risks becoming buzzwords rather than truly transformative tools in cultural analysis.
📌 “What this work can do is shift some of the questions we ask” (p. 17) – but do they?

📚 Lack of Engagement with Literary/Cultural Texts

The paper is more meta-theoretical than applied—it maps usage patterns but doesn’t offer in-depth readings of actual cultural or literary texts using Deleuze & Guattari.
📌 The article is focused on Cultural Studies journal discourse, not on practical applications in literary or media criticism.

🗂️ Archival vs. Analytical Imbalance

The study is strong on archival mapping but weaker on philosophical critique. There’s little interrogation of how Deleuze-Guattari’s ontology challenges or complicates key cultural studies assumptions (e.g., agency, representation).
📌 The philosophical depth is somewhat backgrounded in favor of taxonomy.

📈 Limited Global or Intersectional Scope

While it notes the global spread of Deleuzian ideas, the primary focus remains Anglophone, particularly the U.S. and Australian scenes, with less attention to non-Western or intersectional adaptations.
📌 Brief nods to global circulation (e.g., Japan, Brazil) are not explored substantively (p. 17).

🧩 Ambiguous Relation to Politics

Despite emphasizing “intervention” and “assemblage,” the paper offers limited concrete examples of political transformation through D&G’s theories in Cultural Studies praxis.
📌 It critiques theory fetishism but doesn’t show how to fully move from theory to transformative action.

Representative Quotations from “Guattari, Deleuze, and Cultural Studies” by Stephen B. Crofts Wiley & J. Macgregor Wise with Explanation

🔧 1. “Theory is a toolbox”
🟠 Explanation: Echoing Foucault and Deleuze, theory is not an end in itself but a set of practical tools used to intervene in specific conjunctures.
➤ Highlights cultural studies’ emphasis on utility over abstraction.

🌱 2. “Follow the concepts!”
🟢 Explanation: A call to trace how Deleuzian and Guattarian concepts evolve across time and texts, adapting to new historical and social problematics.
➤ Encourages genealogical and contextual analysis of theory.

🌐 3. “Cultural studies is not driven by theory (or at least it shouldn’t be).”
🔵 Explanation: A reminder that theory should serve practice, not dominate it — a Hall-inspired critique of over-theorization.
➤ Reinforces practice-based, politically grounded scholarship.

🧰 4. “What concepts are useful for this particular conjuncture?”
🟡 Explanation: Emphasizes situational relevance in selecting theoretical tools, mirroring Guattari’s schizoanalytic approach.
➤ Encourages responsiveness to context and specificity.

🧭 5. “We see this chronology of concepts, citations, and deployments as notes for a future genealogy.”
🟣 Explanation: The authors propose a historical mapping of intellectual influence, not as closure but as an invitation to continue tracing conceptual trajectories.
➤ Promotes open-ended scholarly inquiry.

📡 6. “The journal itself as a node… a relay… a point of articulation.”
🔴 Explanation: A Latour-inspired view of the journal as a network hub connecting diverse actors and intellectual exchanges.
➤ Situates academic publishing within dynamic actor-networks.

🌀 7. “Cultural studies itself should be understood as a production of ‘assembled agency.’”
🔵 Explanation: Applies the Deleuzo-Guattarian concept of assemblage to the academic practice of cultural studies.
➤ Positions scholarship as collaborative, emergent, and political.

🔥 8. “The 1980s: all we hear about are nomads… The 2000s: all we hear about is affect and control.”
🟤 Explanation: Identifies shifting thematic focuses across decades using Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts as cultural barometers.
➤ Reflects how key concepts reflect broader sociopolitical concerns.

💬 9. “Philosophy often becomes a grazing ground for those seeking theoretical tools.”
🟢 Explanation: A caution against superficial or selective use of theory without deep engagement.
➤ Calls for ethical and intellectual responsibility in scholarship.

🪐 10. “What this work can do is shift some of the questions we ask…”
🌈 Explanation: A humble proposition — not to provide answers, but to redirect thought and inquiry.
➤ Reframes the task of theory as generative, not conclusive.

🔸 Cultural Studies as an Interdisciplinary Formation

• Cultural Studies is not defined by conventional disciplinary boundaries but rather functions as “an interdisciplinary space for asking new questions” across the humanities and social sciences (Prasad, 2014, p. 191).
• At the University of Pittsburgh, Cultural Studies operated as a “meeting ground” across departments, reflecting its inherently hybrid and collaborative nature.

🔸 Learning from Stuart Hall: Hegemony, Conjuncture, and Social Reading

• Prasad credits Stuart Hall for his understanding of “hegemony” and “conjuncture”, concepts that challenge traditional notions of class struggle and encourage reading social realities as texts (Prasad, 2014, p. 191).
• Hall’s critique of the Left’s failure in “shaping the culture and educating desire” deeply resonated with India’s own political struggles during its neoliberal shift.

🔸 English Literature and Its Cultural Prestige in Postcolonial India

• In 1970s India, English Literature promised upward mobility and symbolic capital but masked its political function as a colonial holdover.
• Despite the presence of radical professors, there was “little or no consciousness of the political significance of the persistence of English as the ‘queen of the humanities'” (Prasad, 2014, p. 192).

🔸 Cultural Studies and Social Shifts in Indian Academia

• As students from marginalized backgrounds entered universities, the symbolic and cultural authority of English was “radically redefined” (Prasad, 2014, p. 192).
• Cultural Studies offered these students a more inclusive and responsive intellectual space, aligning with Hall’s commitment to emergent political identities.

🔸 British vs. Indian Cultural Studies: Sociology vs. Anthropology

• British Cultural Studies arose in response to sociology’s objectification of the working class (e.g., Hoggart’s “scholarship boy”), while in India, anthropology played this role.
• The story of an Indian student discovering his “own widowed mother” in an anthropological journal epitomizes the postcolonial shock of seeing one’s life objectified by Western academia (Prasad, 2014, p. 192).

🔸 Knowledge, Modernity, and the Postcolonial Subject

• Prasad argues that the “Indian subject is a stain in the field of knowledge”—an unsettling presence in structures that were meant to objectify the colonized (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
• Postcolonial intellectuals must disrupt the inherited knowledge apparatus rather than “acquiesce in one’s own subjective effacement.”

🔸 The Subaltern Elite and Suppression of Indigenous Voices

• The Indian ruling class, described as the “subaltern elite” (via Partha Chatterjee), seeks Western approval while suppressing grassroots voices (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
• Cultural Studies in India positions itself “on the side of the indigenous challengers” rather than the postcolonial elite allied with English literary traditions.

🔸 Hall’s Legacy: Subjective Experience Without Theoretical Abandonment

• Stuart Hall’s method blends autobiography with rigorous theory. His essays, such as “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies” and “New Ethnicities”, insist that subjectivity should “not be mistaken for an indifference to theory” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
• Hall provides a model for how marginalized identities can write themselves into public discourse without reducing intellectual inquiry to confession.

🔸 Emergence as Political and Epistemological Transformation

• The central concept of emergence refers to the appearance of new political subjectivities and their impact on knowledge and society.
• Prasad echoes Hall’s insight that “for the process of emergence to be successful, it must be simultaneously a transformation of the world into which we emerge” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).

🟣 1. Contribution to Postcolonial Theory

• 🪷 Re-centering the Postcolonial Subject: Prasad underscores how formerly colonized subjects struggle to move from being objects of knowledge to subjects of intellectual production. He writes that “the Indian subject is a stain in the field of knowledge. A subject-in-emergence will necessarily disturb and seek to reconstitute the objective apparatuses” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193).
• 🧵 Threading Subjectivity into Postcolonial Critique: Prasad uses the metaphor of emergence to map how the postcolonial subject both inhabits and destabilizes colonial epistemologies—an insight that aligns with and expands the concerns of postcolonial theorists like Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha.

🔵 2. Contribution to Cultural Materialism & Marxist Literary Theory

• 🛠️ Focus on Cultural Hegemony over Economic Determinism: Influenced by Hall’s reading of Gramsci, Prasad shows how Thatcherism succeeded not economically, but by reshaping “common sense”, i.e., cultural hegemony (Prasad, 2014, p. 191). This shifts focus in literary theory from base/superstructure models to cultural power and meaning.
• 📦 Literature as Part of Ideological Apparatuses: English literature’s role in Indian academia is examined not just as pedagogy but as ideology. Prasad notes the absence of reflection on “the political significance of the persistence of English as the ‘queen of the humanities’ in independent India” (p. 192).

🟡 3. Contribution to Reader-Response and Reception Theory

• 🔍 Social Texts as Objects of Interpretation: Prasad extends the act of “reading” beyond traditional literary texts, echoing Stuart Hall’s insight that we can “read something that is not a text, but a piece of social reality” (p. 191). This broadens interpretive practice to include culture itself as a text, a hallmark of reception theory.
• 📖 Interpreting Emergence as Reading: The idea of emergence as a collective narrative that demands interpretation aligns with reader-oriented approaches to meaning-making in literature and society.

🟢 4. Contribution to Identity Politics & Ethnic Literary Studies

• 🧑🏽‍🤝‍🧑🏾 Foregrounding Marginal Subjectivities: Through Hall, Prasad elevates the significance of personal and collective identity in theory, stating that Hall’s autobiography is also “the narrative of a collective identity” (p. 193). This deeply informs ethnic literary criticism and theorizing about voice and representation.
• 🌱 Emergence of New Political Identities: Prasad connects Hall’s ideas of Black British politics with Indian contexts—“it is the emergence of new subjects onto the political stage that is at issue” (p. 193). Such emergence is central to theorizing subaltern and caste-based literature in India.

🔴 5. Contribution to Interdisciplinary Theory

• 🔗 Blurring Disciplinary Boundaries: Prasad reinforces that Cultural Studies is inherently interdisciplinary, with “courses co-taught by faculty from different departments” and insights emerging from diverse fields (p. 191). This encourages literary theory to embrace sociology, anthropology, and political theory.
• 🧪 Literary Studies as Cultural Critique: English literature is no longer isolated but embedded in broader cultural, institutional, and political critiques, helping reposition the role of literature within academic inquiry.

🟤 6. Contribution to Autobiographical and Narrative Theory

• 📘 Life-Writing as Political Theory: Drawing from Hall’s “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies”, Prasad shows how autobiography becomes a mode of theorization—“individual autobiography is also the narrative of a collective identity” (p. 193).
• 💡 Personal History as Epistemological Entry Point: This approach affirms narrative theory’s argument that personal stories are central to identity formation, cultural memory, and resistance literature.

🟠 7. Contribution to Decolonial Literary Studies

• 🛑 Critique of Imported Theories: Prasad critiques Indian social science for becoming “knowledge as obedience”, simply applying “readymade theories” from the West without questioning their origin or context (p. 193).
• 🧠 Call for Indigenous Theoretical Frameworks: This aligns with decolonial theory’s insistence on knowledge production from within local histories and subjectivities.

❗ Potential Criticisms of the Essay

🔸 ⚖️ Over-Reliance on Autobiography

• While Prasad draws on personal experience to theorize Cultural Studies, critics may argue that the essay leans too heavily on individual narrative without sufficient empirical or comparative analysis of global contexts beyond India and the UK.

🔸 🌍 Limited Global Scope Despite Global Title

• Although titled “Cultural Studies Across the World,” the article primarily focuses on Britain and India, leaving out engagement with Cultural Studies movements in Latin America, East Asia (beyond brief reference), or Africa, thereby narrowing its supposed international scope.

🔸 📘 Absence of Deep Engagement with Literary Texts

• Despite its implications for literary theory, the essay does not closely analyze any literary texts. This could be seen as a missed opportunity to demonstrate how Cultural Studies can transform literary interpretation in practice.

🔸 📉 Lack of Critical Engagement with Stuart Hall

• While the essay pays tribute to Hall’s influence, it does not critically interrogate his theories or their limitations. The tone leans toward homage rather than critical dialogue, which might limit its analytical depth.

🔸 🏛️ Institutional Critique Without Systematic Evidence

• The critique of English departments and Indian social sciences as ideologically compromised is compelling but under-supported. Statements like “knowledge as obedience” (Prasad, 2014, p. 193) would benefit from case studies or institutional data to back the argument.

🔸 🔗 Complex Language, Dense Expression

• The essay’s dense and theoretical language may alienate readers unfamiliar with Hall, Gramsci, or the specific Indian academic context. This makes the text less accessible, especially for undergraduate or interdisciplinary audiences.

🔸 🧩 Fragmented Structure

• The essay moves quickly between personal anecdote, institutional critique, postcolonial theory, and global reflections, which some may find lacks structural cohesion. It reads more like a reflective essay than a rigorous academic article.