Introduction: “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith
“Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” by Simon Frith first appeared in 1992 in the journal Critical Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1. In this landmark essay, Frith offers a sociologically grounded critique of the state of English studies, arguing that the discipline’s identity has been fundamentally reshaped by the rise of cultural studies. He explores how English departments have moved from a narrow focus on canonical literature to embrace a broader, interdisciplinary approach that includes media, popular culture, and theory—changes he attributes to both internal academic critiques and external socio-political pressures such as neoliberal education policies and shifting definitions of culture. Frith’s central question—“whose literature? whose culture?”—challenges the elitist and exclusionary tendencies of traditional literary studies, foregrounding issues of class, race, and gender in the constitution of literary value. Drawing from thinkers like Raymond Williams and Peter Brooker, he outlines how cultural studies dismantled the “three autonomies” of literary scholarship: the independence of the text, the discipline, and the individual reader. Importantly, Frith doesn’t see this as a crisis, but as a necessary pluralization of method and content, albeit one that risks losing sight of aesthetic evaluation. His work remains significant in literary theory for its lucid examination of literature’s institutional evolution and for advocating a model of education that bridges analytic rigor with cultural relevance.
Summary of “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith
🔑 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).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith
| 🌈 Theoretical Term (with Symbol) | ✅ Explanation | 📝 Usage in Frith’s Article |
| 🎭 Cultural Studies | An interdisciplinary field analyzing everyday life, media, and identity as sites of cultural struggle and meaning. | Frith argues that cultural studies has “appropriated English,” shifting the focus beyond traditional literature (p. 4). |
| 📚 Canon | The traditionally accepted set of literary works deemed culturally or artistically significant. | Challenged by feminist and political scholars for being exclusionary; Frith notes its expansion and critique (p. 6). |
| 🧪 Theory | Abstract frameworks like feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis used to interpret culture and texts. | Described as “new scholasticism” absorbed into English departments, sometimes routinely applied (p. 8). |
| 🗳️ Ideology | A set of beliefs or values shaping cultural and political structures, often unconsciously. | Literary texts are interpreted as either reproducing or resisting dominant ideologies (p. 18). |
| 🏷️ Representation | How people, cultures, and ideas are portrayed or constructed in texts. | Applied to how literature reflects gender, race, or identity (e.g., women’s or Black writing) (p. 23). |
| 🔄 Multidisciplinarity | The blending of multiple disciplines (e.g., literature, sociology, philosophy) in academic study. | English has historically drawn on many disciplines—“methodological pluralism” is central (p. 15). |
| 🏛️ National Identity | Shared cultural norms and values associated with a nation, often linked to language and literature. | Tied to English curriculum debates and conservative efforts to preserve “Englishness” through literature (p. 11). |
| 📈 Market Forces / Neoliberalism | Economic pressures in education and culture that prioritize utility, profit, and competition. | Frith connects cultural studies’ rise to the need for departments to appear marketable and fundable (p. 6). |
| 📺 Mass Culture / Popular Culture | Culture produced for and consumed by the masses, such as pop music, TV, advertising. | Frith explores how media culture reshapes sensibilities and literary practice (e.g., MTV, pop novels) (p. 22). |
| 🧩 Structure of Feeling | Raymond Williams’ concept: shared emotional experiences not easily articulated through ideology or structure. | Used to emphasize the emotional/aesthetic aspects of culture studied through literature (p. 19). |
| 🕳️ Deconstruction | A critical approach that questions fixed meanings, binaries, and textual authority. | Viewed with suspicion by conservatives; linked to critique of canon and truth in literature teaching (p. 11). |
| 👓 Critical Pedagogy | Educational practices aimed at developing students’ critical thinking about culture, power, and identity. | Literature is used to make students “culturally self-aware” and analytically competent (p. 17). |
| 💬 Discourse Analysis | The study of language and meaning in social contexts across various media. | Describes the shift in English departments from literary interpretation to analyzing all forms of texts (p. 4). |
Contribution of “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith to Literary Theory/Theories
- 📌 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).
- 🌍 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).
- 📖 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).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith
| 📚 Literary Work | 🔍 Critical Perspective (via Frith) | 💬 Relevant Quotation / Concept |
| Jane Austen’s Novels | Austen is reevaluated as a sexual and political figure, particularly in feminist and cultural studies contexts. | “Today’s bluff commentators… hoot at the treatment of Jane Austen as a sexual figure…” (p. 11) |
| The Tempest by William Shakespeare | Explored through imperialist and ideological critique; viewed as a text that can be re-read through power structures and colonial legacy. | “Commentators scoff at the idea of The Tempest as an imperialist text…” (p. 11) |
| The Buddha of Suburbia by Hanif Kureishi | Seen as a fusion of literature and pop culture, showing how media and subculture shape literary form and identity. | “Whether (and how) literature can occupy the same territory as pop music…” (p. 23) |
| The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing | Lessing’s novel is used to illustrate the complexity of form and disruption of reader expectations, resisting simple consumption or narrative closure. | “A book is only… potent… when its plan and shape and intention are not understood…” (p. 21) |
Criticism Against “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith
| 🌐Main Point | ❗ Criticism |
| 🌀 Conceptual Ambiguity | Frith blurs the lines between literary studies and cultural studies without fully resolving the tensions or boundaries between them. His essay raises more questions than it definitively answers. |
| 🧱 Overextension of Cultural Studies | Cultural studies is treated almost as a panacea, absorbing all of English studies, but this risks diluting disciplinary rigor, especially around textual aesthetics and formalism. |
| 🎯 Vagueness in Pedagogical Application | While he outlines an ideal school day and diverse syllabi, he fails to offer clear pedagogical strategies for integrating these ideas into structured academic curricula. |
| ⚖️ Political Overload | His framing sometimes makes all literary judgment seem political, potentially undermining aesthetic value and students’ personal interpretations. |
| 📚 Insufficient Literary Close Reading | Frith draws from a wide range of cultural and sociological sources, but rarely engages in direct close reading of specific literary texts, which weakens his case in traditional literary circles. |
| 🏛️ Anti-Canonical Bias | Though aiming for inclusivity, his dismissal of the canon at times seems ideologically motivated, raising the concern of replacing one orthodoxy with another. |
| 🤹 Theory Saturation | The heavy reliance on overlapping theoretical models (feminism, Marxism, poststructuralism, media theory) can overwhelm clarity, making the essay feel conceptually cluttered. |
| 🪞 Paradox of Reflexivity | Frith critiques traditional disciplines for lacking reflexivity, but his own assumptions and positions aren’t always self-examined, especially regarding what qualifies as ‘good’ cultural study. |
Representative Quotations from “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith with Explanation
| 🗣️ Quotation | 🧠 Explanation |
| “📚 To study literature has always been to study culture.” | Frith emphasizes that literature and culture are inherently linked, opposing the notion of a purely aesthetic or text-centric approach. |
| “🎭 Literary judgment… becomes a matter of political assessment.” | Reading literature is never neutral—it involves decoding cultural and political ideologies embedded within texts. |
| “🏫 English departments seemed to move to the left as the political climate shifted to the right.” | Frith reflects on how English studies became a space for progressive theory as a reaction to conservative political trends. |
| “🔄 What was now at issue was the relationship between culture and ideology.” | This reveals how cultural texts serve as vehicles for ideological production and critique—central to cultural studies. |
| “🧱 The challenge to the old, ‘limited’ canon may… simply produce a new ‘extended’ canon.” | Frith warns that canon revision can risk tokenism if it lacks deep structural change in pedagogical methods. |
| “🧩 The problem is not what is meant by literature but what is meant by culture.” | Frith turns the focus away from text towards the shifting, expansive concept of “culture” in literary studies. |
| “💬 Experience re-emerges, in however mediated a form, in the concept of ‘representative’ writing.” | Cultural representation and identity politics shape how readers and students relate to literature. |
| “🌍 Cultural studies should be an exploration of how the ‘commercial’ and the ‘literary’ between them articulate the ‘popular’.” | Rather than binary oppositions, Frith urges an integrative analysis of literature, media, and mass culture. |
| “🎢 To move from an exclusive to an inclusive textual theory is to change the terms of the question of value.” | Inclusion in reading lists redefines what is deemed valuable, challenging elitist norms. |
| “🧭 We have to tread our own fine line between cultural celebration and dismissal.” | Frith advocates for critical discernment when engaging with both popular and academic culture, avoiding extremes. |
Suggested Readings: “Literary Studies As Cultural Studies – Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” By Simon Frith
- Wolff, Janet. “Cultural Studies and the Sociology of Culture.” Contemporary Sociology, vol. 28, no. 5, 1999, pp. 499–507. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2654982. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
- Frith, Simon. “Literary studies as cultural studies-whose literature? whose culture?.” Critical quarterly 34.1 (1992).
- Gallagher, Catherine. “Raymond Williams and Cultural Studies.” Social Text, no. 30, 1992, pp. 79–89. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/466467. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.
- Staiger, Janet. “FILM, RECEPTION, AND CULTURAL STUDIES.” The Centennial Review, vol. 36, no. 1, 1992, pp. 89–104. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23739835. Accessed 8 Apr. 2025.