Tag: Theory Article Summaries

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.

Main Concepts & Key Takeaways

Digital humanities is not replacing traditional literary studies

“Computational methods are not taking over the humanities. The number of people who work in even the expansively defined digital humanities is modest” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
Wilkens stresses that digital methods serve as complementary tools rather than substitutes for close reading and traditional interpretive work.

Quantitative methods uncover hidden patterns across scales

“What computational methods offer most directly is help identifying and assessing literary patterns at scales from the individual text to whole fields” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
This insight points to the capacity of digital tools to manage overwhelming volumes of literary data.

Literary arguments often rely on implicit quantification

“Literary scholars often underestimate… their claims are implicitly quantitative, pattern-based, and dependent on reductive models” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 13).
Wilkens calls for making these implicit models explicit through computation for conceptual and evidentiary clarity.

Computational criticism offers new forms of evidence

“These methods produce new types of evidence that can be used… to pursue humanistic work in richer, more inclusive ways” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 12).
He underscores that computational methods enrich—not reduce—the possibilities for interpretation.

Case Studies & Methodologies

Topological Reading of Goethe – Piper & Algee-Hewitt

“Topology attends to the recurrence of words… It shows us how the patterns of lexical repetition within texts produce meanings” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 13).
They track word-frequency patterns in Goethe’s works to explore continuity between early and late writings.

Deformance: Reading via algorithmic rearrangement

“The deformative nature of computational criticism… provides the opportunity to read that corpus as a newly estranged object” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 15).
This enables a refreshed critical perspective by reshuffling and re-clustering textual segments.

Network analysis of modernist poetry – So & Long

“They visualize their data… showing differences among poetic networks in the U.S., Japan, and China” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 16).
Their use of metadata highlights the social infrastructure of literary production and the role of “brokers” (e.g., Amy Lowell).

️ Literary geography and place-based analysis

“More than forty percent of all location mentions [in Civil War-era U.S. fiction] fell outside the boundaries of the United States” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 18).
Wilkens’ own work illustrates how geographic data reveals shifts in literary attention and national imagination.

Challenges and Future Directions

Copyright & Data Accessibility

“It can be difficult to assemble suitable corpora for computational analysis… especially after 1923” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 19).
Legal restrictions limit large-scale literary research, although efforts like HathiTrust are helping.

‍ Training & Disciplinary Conservatism

“Few scholars in the humanities… have been trained in the skills and methods necessary for computational work” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 19).
Humanities departments need to incorporate more technical training to empower future scholars.

Multilingual Data and Comparatist Challenges

“It’s generally difficult to compare the results… in different languages” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 20).
Despite obstacles, comparatists are uniquely positioned to address multilingual complexity in computational research.

Conclusion: Why It Matters

“Systems of literary production may be made of books, but they are not themselves books any more than an elephant is a very large pile of cells” (Wilkens, 2015, p. 18).
Wilkens powerfully asserts that understanding literary systems requires macro-level analysis, and digital humanities offers tools for precisely that. These approaches are not about replacing interpretation but expanding it with broader, structural insights.

Structuralism & Post-Structuralism

• Wilkens contributes to structuralist methods by advocating for system-based analysis of literature.
• He emphasizes that patterns and structures can be mapped computationally, aligning with the structuralist focus on underlying systems.

“You will… have built an abstractly quantifiable model of your problem domain and of your texts’ place within it” (p. 13).

• He moves beyond textual internalism by including metadata, geography, and networks, thus approaching post-structuralist decentralization of the literary object.

World Literature & Comparative Literature

• The article reorients comparative literature around quantifiable, transnational patterns, contributing to debates in World Literature.

“Questions best suited to computational analysis—including those falling under the headings of world literature and longue durée literary history” (p. 13).

• Digital methods reveal connections across linguistic and national boundaries, reinforcing the global scope of comparatist inquiry.

Literary Sociology / Bourdieusian Theory

• Wilkens draws from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory indirectly via discussion of social roles like “brokers.”

“Brokers… served to connect otherwise disparate coteries” (p. 16).

• So & Long’s network analysis maps literary capital and influence, challenging hierarchical canon models and highlighting social position over prestige.

Spatial Literary Theory / Literary Geography

• Using place-name analysis and mapping, Wilkens adds to spatial theory by showing how geographic orientation reflects literary and cultural ideologies.

“More than forty percent of all location mentions [in Civil War-era fiction] fell outside the boundaries of the United States” (p. 18).

• This supports transnationalism, shifting attention from canonical centers like New England to broader spatial fields.

Formalism & Close Reading (Deformance)

• Supports a post-formalist view: computational methods estrange the text and offer “deformative” readings (Stephen Ramsay, Lisa Samuels).

“Allows them to read that corpus as a newly estranged object” (p. 15).

• Opens space for innovative close readings grounded in algorithmic output, connecting macro-level data to micro-level interpretation.

Systems Theory

• Suggests the need for explicit engagement between digital humanities and systems theory (Wallerstein, Luhmann).

“A more explicit engagement with systems theory will be an almost inevitable consequence of the rise of digital humanities” (p. 13).

• Advocates for literary studies that understand literature as part of dynamic, interrelated systems, not isolated artifacts.

Historiographic & Longue Durée Literary Theory

• Wilkens shows how DH methods contribute to long-term literary historical studies by revealing trends across centuries.

“Computational work has already begun to deliver… the prospects for future advances are especially bright” (p. 12).

• Influenced by Franco Moretti’s distant reading, the article supports shifting from close reading of a few to distant reading of many.

Reader-Response Theory

• While not a direct focus, the article indirectly expands reader-response theory by altering what “counts” as readable material.
• Algorithms generate “texts” (clusters, networks, maps) that are interpreted by scholars, making the reader’s role active in reassembling meaning.

Limited Access to Data and Copyright Restrictions

• Wilkens admits a major barrier to DH research is access to corpora, especially post-1923 copyrighted texts.

“It can be difficult to assemble suitable corpora… many texts remain in copyright” (p. 19).
This undermines scalability and inclusivity, especially for contemporary literary study.

Overreliance on Quantification

• Though Wilkens defends computation as complementary, some critics argue it risks reducing literature to data, overlooking nuance and ambiguity.

“The need for quantitative approaches to literature is thus great indeed” (p. 13) – but not all agree this is always desirable.

Weak Engagement with Canonical Literary Theory

• While the article invokes systems theory and sociology, it sidesteps direct, in-depth dialogue with literary theorists (e.g., Derrida, Foucault, Barthes), possibly alienating traditional theorists.

Language and Multilingual Barriers Remain Underdeveloped

• Wilkens notes multilingual DH is challenging but doesn’t offer practical frameworks for linguistic equivalence.

“It’s generally difficult to compare… in different languages” (p. 20).
Comparative literature requires more than structural mapping—it needs cross-cultural interpretive nuance.

Overgeneralization of Patterns as Literary Meaning

• There’s a risk of reifying patterns (like word frequency or network centrality) as literary insights without deep interpretive justification.
• Critics may argue that this flattens textual richness and mimics positivist fallacies.

️ Limited Role for Reader and Subjectivity

• The approach may marginalize reader-response theory and personal engagement with texts.
  Digital tools shape what gets read and how—raising questions about who interprets the machines.

Methodology > Meaning?

• Some may critique the article’s tone as too invested in showcasing methods rather than exploring what those methods mean for literary value, ethics, or pedagogy.

Institutional & Training Gap

• Wilkens acknowledges that most humanities scholars lack training in digital methods—but doesn’t deeply address how to bridge this divide in sustainable, equitable ways.

“There are few scholars in the humanities who have been trained in the skills… necessary for computational work” (p. 19).

Paradigm Shifts and Intellectual Breaks

Hall begins by stating that cultural studies arose from historical ruptures, not linear evolution:

“Significant breaks—where old lines of thought are disrupted… provide Thought… with its fundamental orientations” (p. 57).

Two Foundational Paradigms: Culturalism vs. Structuralism

Hall outlines a contrast between two approaches:

• Culturalism: Focuses on lived experience, human agency, and cultural production.
• Structuralism: Focuses on systems, ideologies, and unconscious structures.

“They address what must be the core problem of Cultural Studies” (p. 72).

‍ Culturalism: Emphasis on Experience & Practice

Rooted in the works of Williams, Hoggart, and Thompson, culturalism treats culture as something people do and live:

“Culture is ordinary” (Williams, as cited in Hall, p. 55).
“Every mode of production is also a culture” (p. 64).

Raymond Williams & the ‘Structure of Feeling’

Williams emphasized interconnectedness across all practices—cultural, economic, familial—viewing them as expressions of a lived totality:

“The structure of feeling… threads through all social practices” (p. 60–61).

E.P. Thompson & Class-Conscious Experience

Thompson saw culture as emerging from class conflict and experience:

“Every struggle between classes is always also a struggle between cultural modalities” (p. 64).
He insisted on culture as a dialectic between “being” and “consciousness” (p. 63).

Structuralism: Language, Ideology & the Unconscious

Figures like Althusser and Levi-Strauss argued that experience is produced by ideological frameworks:

“Experience… is not a ground but an effect” (p. 66).
“Ideology is… structures that impose on men… within this ideological unconsciousness” (Althusser, as cited in Hall, p. 66).

️ Gramsci’s Hegemony: A Middle Ground

Gramsci helps reconcile the two paradigms through the concept of hegemony—how power is maintained through cultural leadership and consent:

“No dominant culture… exhausts human practice, human energy, human intention” (p. 62).

Theoretical Abstraction vs. Lived Reality

Hall critiques over-reliance on either rigid abstraction (structuralism) or unmediated experience (culturalism):

“The power of abstraction must replace both [microscopes and reagents]” (Marx, as cited in Hall, p. 68).

Toward a Dialectical Cultural Theory

Hall emphasizes that culture must be studied through its contradictions, interactions, and articulations—not reduced to base or superstructure:

“They pose… the problems consequent on trying to think both the specificity of different practices and the forms of the articulated unity they constitute” (p. 72).

Conclusion: No Final Synthesis, But a Productive Tension

Hall concludes that while neither paradigm is sufficient on its own, their interplay defines the intellectual terrain of Cultural Studies:

“In Cultural Studies, theirs are the ‘names of the game'” (p. 72).

Reader-Response Theory

• Hall emphasizes “experience” and lived culture as central to meaning-making, aligning with the reader-response focus on interpretation by audiences.
• Quote: “It is, ultimately, where and how people experience their conditions of life, define them and respond to them…”
• Contribution: Legitimizes the audience’s role in producing meaning, not just the author’s intent or the text itself.

New Historicism

• Hall’s insistence on culture as interwoven with historical practices mirrors New Historicism’s commitment to contextualizing texts.
• Quote: “Culture… is the sum of their inter-relationship… as lived and experienced as a whole, in any particular period.”
• Contribution: Grounds textual meaning in specific historical conditions and power relations, challenging textual autonomy.

Marxist Literary Theory

• Hall critiques the traditional base/superstructure model, proposing instead concepts like hegemony, overdetermination, and praxis.
• Quote: “We cannot separate literature and art from other kinds of social practice… subject to quite special and distinct laws.”
• Contribution: Modernizes Marxist literary theory by highlighting cultural struggle, ideological formations, and relative autonomy of culture.

Structuralism & Poststructuralism

• Hall explores the limits of structuralist determinism, notably critiquing Althusser and highlighting the rise of discourse and subjectivity.
• Quote: “Whereas in ‘culturalism’, experience was the ground… structuralism insisted that ‘experience’ could not, by definition, be the ground of anything.”
• Contribution: Provides a bridge between structuralist order and poststructuralist decentering, especially in cultural and textual analysis.

Cultural Criticism / Cultural Studies in Literary Theory

• The essay refounds literary criticism within broader cultural studies, dismantling elite notions of literature.
• Quote: “Culture is not a practice… It is threaded through all social practices.”
• Contribution: Opens up literary texts to analysis through race, class, gender, ideology, and lived experience.

Ideological Critique

• Integrates Althusser’s view that texts are ideological forms, not neutral vessels of meaning.
• Quote: “Ideologies are… the unconscious categories through which conditions are represented and lived.”
• Contribution: Reinforces that texts are sites of ideological struggle, embedding them in wider systems of power.

Totality and Articulation (Gramscian Literary Theory)

• Hall’s use of Gramsci’s hegemony and articulation helps theorize literature’s place in complex social formations.
• Quote: “To replace the formula of base and superstructure with the more active idea of a field of mutually… determining forces.”
• Contribution: Frames literature as interwoven with ideological, social, and political contradictions.

Psychoanalytic Literary Theory (via Subjectivity)

• Discusses the formation of subjectivity through language and discourse, aligning with psychoanalytic interpretations.
• Quote: “The subject is ‘spoken by’ the categories of culture in which he/she thought…”
• Contribution: Introduces concepts of the decentered subject, unconscious influence in meaning-making.

️ Aesthetic Theory (Challenged)

• Hall demystifies the privileged status of the “aesthetic,” arguing art is one form among many social practices.
• Quote: “Art… is part of society, there is no solid whole, outside it…”
• Contribution: Challenges formalism, shifts focus from aesthetic autonomy to cultural embeddedness.

Postmodernism Mirrors Capitalism, Not Opposes It
Eagleton argues that postmodernism is both a critique of and complicit in capitalist ideology. It mimics the logic of the market with its celebration of fluidity, plurality, and relativism, thus undercutting its own radical potential. He writes:

“Postmodernism is both radical and conservative together, springing as it does from this structural contradiction at the core of advanced capitalism itself” (Eagleton, 1997, p. 5).
Rather than being a force of resistance, postmodern culture has become a commodity, functioning “thoroughly under the sway of the commodity form” (p. 3).

Culturalism Is a Reductive Ideology
Eagleton critiques culturalism—the belief that everything is culturally constructed—as just another “ism”, as reductive as biologism or economism:

“Culturalism inflates the importance of what is constructed…as against what human beings have in common as natural material animals” (p. 1).
This form of thinking ignores shared material conditions and can be just as politically neutral or conservative as other ideologies.

Historicism Is Not Inherently Radical
Eagleton also challenges the assumption that historicism naturally aligns with leftist or progressive politics. He states:

“Much historicism in Europe has been firmly in possession of political conservatism” (p. 2),
reminding readers that historical awareness alone does not guarantee subversive or liberatory outcomes.

Culture as a Site of Contradiction
In postmodern society, culture becomes both a means of resistance and domination. Eagleton traces this back to a re-merging of the symbolic and the economic, where art and culture no longer sit outside the marketplace:

“Cultural production rejoins general production…now thoroughly under the sway of the commodity form” (p. 3).
Thus, culture no longer offers refuge or critical distance but becomes entangled with the very forces it critiques.

The Irony of Postmodernism’s Global Export
He highlights the irony that postmodernism, which preaches difference, contributes to cultural homogenization, especially in emerging economies like China:

“Postmodern theory has arrived along with the latest shipment of Coca-Cola” (p. 6).
This philosophy of difference is paradoxically used to universalize Western norms in the name of pluralism.

The Enlightenment Debate: Gains vs. Losses
Eagleton argues for a dialectical view of Enlightenment, recognizing both its emancipatory aspirations and historical failures:

“The doctrine which has traditionally tried to redeem the positive kernel of Enlightenment…is known as socialism” (p. 6).
He cautions that postmodern rejection of Enlightenment risks losing its most valuable legacies, such as civil liberties and universal rights.

Postmodern Culture as Ideological Displacement
Culture, Eagleton explains, has become a primary terrain of political struggle, especially in the wake of the decline of classical class-based politics:

“Culture becomes part of the very terms in which political interests articulate themselves” (p. 4).
This shift is seen both as an enrichment and a distraction, potentially displacing more direct forms of material struggle.

Subversion and Plurality Are Not Automatically Radical
Eagleton dismantles the myth that all forms of difference and marginality are inherently progressive:

“There is nothing automatically radical about either margins or minorities… some forms of plurality are radical, whereas others are as native to the free market as violence is to the United States” (p. 2).
He insists that political content matters more than formal characteristics like difference or hybridity.

Contribution to Marxist Literary Theory
Eagleton reasserts Marxist materialism within cultural critique, arguing that postmodernism’s relativism masks deep structural contradictions of capitalism. He revives base-superstructure analysis, noting:

“The more market forces level all distinct value and identity… the more their ideological superstructures… will need to insist… upon absolute values and immutable standards” (p. 5).
Impact: Refocuses Marxist literary theory on economic determinism beneath postmodern cultural pluralism.

Critique of Postmodern Literary Theory
He delivers a foundational critique of postmodernism’s claims to radicalism, showing it to be structurally aligned with the logic of the capitalist marketplace:

“Postmodernism is both radical and conservative together… miming the logic of the capitalist marketplace itself” (p. 5).
Impact: Challenges the postmodern celebration of fragmentation and multiplicity as inherently emancipatory.

Intervention in Cultural Studies
Eagleton critiques culturalism—a core tenet in cultural studies—for its overemphasis on constructed identity and neglect of material realities:

“Culturalism inflates the importance of what is constructed, coded, conventional… as against what human beings have in common as natural material animals” (p. 1).
Impact: Warns literary theorists against reducing all analysis to cultural codes, advocating instead for materialist grounding.

Contribution to Historicism Debates
He critiques both radical and conservative uses of historicism, disrupting the idea that historical contextualization is always politically progressive:

“Much historicism in Europe has been firmly in possession of political conservatism” (p. 2).
Impact: Complicates the assumption within literary theory that historicizing texts naturally produces critical or emancipatory readings.

Engagement with Ideology Critique
Refines the role of ideology in literary and cultural texts—not all ideologies operate by naturalizing the present:

“One can be a doughty defender of capitalism or Stalinism without suffering from the delusion that things were always like that” (p. 2).
Impact: Challenges literary critics to look beyond simplistic views of ideology as merely “false consciousness.”

Revision of Enlightenment Narratives
He offers a dialectical take on Enlightenment—neither wholly dismissed nor blindly embraced—urging theorists to retain its emancipatory goals:

“The doctrine which has traditionally tried to redeem the positive kernel of Enlightenment… is known as socialism” (p. 6).
Impact: Encourages reevaluation of Enlightenment values within postmodern literary theory rather than total rejection.

Critique of Liberal Humanism in Literary Studies
Questions the viability of liberal humanism as a mediating force in literary meaning, particularly in an era when culture itself is commodified:

“It is clearly much harder to sustain [liberal humanism] once culture… becomes part of the very terms in which political interests articulate themselves” (p. 4).
Impact: Pushes literary theorists to move beyond humanist ideals and confront ideological embeddedness of culture.

Global Contextualization of Literary Theory
By discussing China and postmodernism, Eagleton highlights the limitations of exporting Western literary theory uncritically:

“Western postmodern theory has arrived along with the latest shipment of Coca-Cola” (p. 6).
Impact: Sparks reflection on cultural imperialism in the global spread of Western literary and cultural theories.

Critique of New Historicism’s Class Position

• New Historicism reflects middle-class intellectual detachment: Lewis argues it emerged from the “new middle classes” and expresses a “modernist stance of ironic detachment” after the failures of the 1968 radical wave (p. 14).
• Politically “abstract and paralyzing”: Though nuanced, New Historicism’s politics are seen as ultimately hollow and non-transformative (p. 14).
• It fails to offer a path to real social change, remaining within the confines of academia.

Gallagher’s Defense of New Historicism Challenged

• Catherine Gallagher’s essay “Marxism and the New Historicism” is the focal point of Lewis’s critique. She claims New Historicism continues the legacy of 1960s radicalism, particularly the New Left (p. 14).
• Lewis disagrees, arguing that Gallagher “preserves and continues” New Left tendencies while overlooking their failures (p. 14–15).
• He sees her narrative as a misrepresentation that evades the structural decline of radical activism into academic theory.

New Left: From Revolution to Radical Chic

• Initial successes: The New Left opposed the Vietnam War and supported civil rights and anti-imperialist struggles (p. 15).
• Co-opted by academia: Lewis criticizes the transition of radicals into academic roles, noting that they “quickly went from radical to radical chic” (p. 15).
• Obsession with theory: The shift from organizing to writing about “Althusser-Lacan-Barthes-Derrida-Foucault” became symptomatic of this detachment (p. 15).

Feminism and the Limits of Separatism

• Women’s radical movements were crucial, but fragmented by internal contradictions and identity politics.
• Sexism within radical groups: Women faced “virulent sexism and bureaucratic elitism” in groups like SDS (p. 15).
• Separatist responses: Groups like Redstockings and New York Radical Feminists emerged, but often led to exclusion and division (p. 15–16).
• Fragmentation over unity: Debates over lesbianism, men’s involvement, and personal lifestyles led to the movement’s splintering: “Real political differences manifested themselves in supposedly personal disagreements” (p. 17).
• Loss of democratic structure: Meetings degenerated into confusion and cliquism, exemplified by Bread and Roses’ Meredith Tax: “The meetings were a total turn-off” (Echols 1989, quoted on p. 17).

Critique of Identity Politics and “Decentered” Solidarity

• Gallagher celebrates the “logic of decentered distribution,” where each group speaks for itself against a system of oppression (p. 17).
• Lewis argues this leads to political dead ends: “Every oppression presumed that its particular oppression was causally primary” (p. 17).
• He warns that identity politics, as practiced, became an “anti-politics of identity” leading to fragmentation and “apolitical introspection” (Kauffman 1990: 68).

Cultural Critique Without Class Is Empty

• Gallagher favors New Historicism’s view that “culture achieves total control through its very fracturing” (p. 19).
• Quietism over resistance: This “seems in itself quietistic,” leading to the belief that resistance is futile (p. 19).
• Lewis critiques this position as surrendering the possibility of revolutionary literature in favor of academic relativism.

New Historicism vs. Left Formalism

• Gallagher distances herself from Althusserian formalism but retains some of its apolitical methods: she critiques the idea that “form itself were revelatory” (p. 18).
• Lewis sees New Historicists as combining “a politics of voluntarism with a politics of textualism,” avoiding structural material analysis (p. 18).
• Their emphasis on ironic consciousness promotes passivity, not political change.

Political Cowardice: No Space for Revolution

• Gallagher claims critics can’t become political subjects without “an experience of decentered helplessness” (p. 21).
• Lewis denounces this as academic defeatism. Revolutionary movements have always emerged from those deemed “decentered” by the system.
• He asserts that refusing to “argue confidently for revolutionary positions” leads to complicity with the status quo (p. 20–21).

Rebuilding Class-Based Criticism

• Lewis calls for returning to socialist, class-oriented criticism—not postmodern detachment.
• Key tasks include:
  • Challenging Stalinism, Maoism, and Eurocommunism
  • Reaffirming the agency of the working class
  • Confronting movementism’s limitations
  • Re-engaging with Marxist strategies for change (p. 21–22)
• A political alternative to liberal reform must be forged through critical, organized activism—not just “signifying practice.”

Final Warning: Intellectual Elitism and Technocratic Drift

• Lewis warns that post-1968 intellectuals increasingly fantasize about “hegemonic leadership roles” in a future society based on “technocratic expertise” (p. 22).
• This shift reflects the “abandonment of real politics” in favor of academic careerism and top-down change.

Reassertion of Historical Materialism in Literary Criticism (Marxist Theory)

• Lewis defends Marxist theory as essential for restoring the link between literature and material conditions.
• He insists on class struggle as the “crucial contradiction” overlooked by New Historicism, which “knows but denies the primacy of class” (p. 20).
• Contribution: Re-centers class and political economy as non-negotiable foundations of literary theory, against post-structural detachment.

Critique of Postmodernism and Cultural Relativism

• While New Historicism claims postmodern lineage, Lewis calls it a disguised form of modernist elitism: “Ultimately modernist in a ‘postmodernist’ guise” (p. 18).
• Contribution: Challenges the theoretical legitimacy of postmodernism within literary criticism by exposing its depoliticized, academic core.

Intervention in the Identity Politics Debate (Cultural Theory / Feminist Theory)

• He critiques the fragmentation caused by identity politics, stating it led to “a cycle of fragmentation and diffusion of political energies” (Kauffman 1990:68, cited p. 17).
• Contribution: Warns that substituting identity for class undermines collective resistance, calling for theories that integrate both identity and class struggle.

Deconstruction of New Historicism’s Political Claims (New Historicism)

• While acknowledging its influence, Lewis argues that New Historicism’s “ironic detachment” and emphasis on textual multiplicity result in political paralysis (p. 14, 19).
• Contribution: Exposes New Historicism’s limitations as a literary-political framework, pushing scholars to rethink its revolutionary pretensions.

Recovery of Revolutionary Criticism (Critical Theory / Praxis-Based Theories)

• Advocates for literary criticism that makes explicit political commitments: “What’s wrong with a political criticism that furthers the struggle for socialism, women’s liberation…?” (p. 20).
• Contribution: Reorients literary theory toward activism and movement-building, bridging critique and praxis.

Re-evaluation of Althusserian Formalism (Structuralist Marxism)

• Lewis critiques the “left formalism” of Althusser and Macherey for assuming art’s subversiveness without political grounding (p. 18–19).
• Contribution: Suggests that even Marxist formalism must be accountable to historical and revolutionary practice, not just structural reading.

Challenge to the Academic Co-option of Radicalism (Cultural Studies)

• Notes that many radicals “went from radical to radical chic” as academia replaced activism (p. 15).
• Contribution: Calls on Cultural Studies to re-engage with its political roots, including trade unionism and working-class alliances.

Redefining the Role of the Intellectual (Public Intellectualism / Theory & Politics)

• Warns against technocratic elitism: “The generation that lost its revolutionary illusions… fantasizes a hegemonic leadership role in the future society” (p. 22).
• Contribution: Urges literary theorists to act as participants, not managers of social transformation.

Restatement of Collective Agency in Theory (Radical Humanism / Political Literary Theory)

• Rejects the idea that “decentered subjects” cannot change the world, noting they have—through revolutions, movements, and uprisings (p. 21).
• Contribution: Defends a critical humanism rooted in collective agency, challenging the fatalism of structuralist/poststructuralist models.

Overreliance on Class as the Primary Analytical Lens

• Critics might argue that Lewis’s unwavering focus on class struggle ignores the intersectionality of race, gender, sexuality, and identity.
• His Marxist insistence on economic determinism may overlook the complexities of cultural production and subjective experience in literature.

Reductionism Toward New Historicism

• Lewis presents a monolithic and often dismissive portrayal of New Historicist critics.
• He underplays the nuanced, historicized readings of power and ideology offered by New Historicists like Stephen Greenblatt and Catherine Gallagher.

Mischaracterization of Postmodernism and Irony

• His critique that New Historicism promotes “ironic detachment” (p. 14) could be seen as oversimplified.
• Postmodern irony, in many readings, serves as resistance, not apathy—contrary to Lewis’s claim that it “paralyzes” political engagement.

Dismissal of Identity Politics as Fragmentation

• Critics might reject Lewis’s claim that identity politics leads to “a cycle of fragmentation” (p. 17).
• This view undermines the political realities of marginalized groups, suggesting that their struggles are distractions from the “main” class struggle.

Dogmatic Marxist Framework

• Lewis’s tone at times is rigidly ideological, favoring Leninist class politics as the only legitimate form of literary-political analysis.
• This could alienate scholars who seek more pluralistic or hybrid theoretical approaches (e.g., combining feminism, postcolonial theory, or queer theory with Marxism).

Neglect of Institutional Realities in Academia

• Lewis critiques New Left academics for entering the academy, yet offers no practical alternative for how intellectuals should function in institutional spaces.
• His dismissal of academic work as “radical chic” (p. 15) may seem cynical and dismissive of genuine pedagogical labor.

Lack of Engagement with Evolving New Historicism

• By 1991, New Historicism had already diversified. Lewis does not sufficiently engage newer or more politically committed variations of the approach.
• His critique is largely based on a selective reading of Gallagher, without fully addressing scholars like Jameson or Greenblatt’s later work.

Missed Opportunity for Theoretical Synthesis

• Lewis insists on a clear division between Marxism and New Historicism, but misses chances for synthesis, such as integrating discourse analysis into historical materialism.
• Critics might argue that bridging rather than polarizing these traditions could be more productive.

Cultural Materialism / Marxist Literary Theory

• Emphasizes that meaning and cultural forms are shaped by conjunctures—constellations of political, social, and historical forces.
• “Cultural Studies refuses… the overmastering influence of any immediate and singular force… [and] treats everything… as resources for unpacking and explicating the complexity of those forces” (p. 68).
• Contributes to Marxist literary theory by expanding Raymond Williams’ idea of structures of feeling as dynamic and non-linear (Williams, 1977).

Poststructuralism / Deconstruction

• Questions the stability of historical categories and challenges essentialist readings of “the present” or “truth”.
• “Nothing is final, nothing is fixed, nothing is permanent – everything is contingent” (p. 69).
• Engages poststructuralist skepticism of fixed narratives and embraces Foucauldian historicity.

Narrative Theory / Storytelling as Political Praxis

• Argues for the power of “better stories” to reframe cultural and political realities.
• “Better stories make more seeable and sayable” (p. 69; citing Deleuze, 1988).
• This supports narrative theory in emphasizing the politics of storytelling and representation.

Temporality and Historicism

• Develops a complex, layered understanding of time in cultural analysis.
• “What’s old? What’s new? What’s rearticulated?… The present is what’s ‘already happened’ and ‘what’s going to happen'” (p. 70).
• Advances new historicist and temporal theory by resisting linear temporality and stressing conjunctural time.

Cultural Studies as Intellectual Work (Stuart Hall’s Legacy)

• Reinforces Hall’s distinction between academic and intellectual labor.
• “Cultural Studies is a disposition… ‘intellectual’ work that may or may not occur in an ‘academic’ setting” (p. 72; citing Hall, 1992, p. 286).
• Broadens the boundaries of literary criticism to include affective, political, and interdisciplinary practice.

Reflexivity and Anti-Canon Formation

• Challenges the idea of stable theoretical canons by insisting Cultural Studies is always “theorizing its own demise.”
• “Cultural Studies… must continuously question its positions in the light of emergent political and historical challenges” (p. 72; citing Grossberg, 1988, p. 7).
• Influences anti-canon and anti-essentialist theories by prioritizing adaptability and self-critique.

Critical Theory and the Role of the Intellectual

• Suggests a rethinking of the scholar’s role—not as neutral observer but as active participant in shaping the present.
• “Cultural Studies is a comportment toward the present-as-effective-construction” (p. 72).
• This reframes the critical theorist as someone embedded in power struggles and cultural reconfigurations.

Literary Studies as Conjunctural Practice

• Invites literary critics to consider texts not as autonomous objects, but as moments within historical conjunctures.
• “Cultural Studies is the study of the contemporary, the way a given conjunctural configuration defines the conditions of life within it” (p. 71).
• Aligns with contextual and ideological criticism in literary studies.

Theoretical Ambiguity

• While the essay celebrates radical contextualism, it risks becoming too vague or anti-systematic.
• “Nothing is fixed” can lead to theoretical relativism, where no position can be critically evaluated or defended rigorously.
• Critics might argue it avoids providing a clear analytic toolkit, making it hard to apply across disciplines or cases.

Methodological Uncertainty

• Behrenshausen explicitly states that Cultural Studies is not a method but a comportment—a stance or disposition.
• This can be frustrating for scholars seeking more concrete research strategies or analytical steps.
• The lack of methodological clarity could make it difficult to teach or standardize as a critical practice.

Presentism and Historical Flattening

• While the essay insists it doesn’t abandon history, its emphasis on the “now” risks downplaying historical depth or longue durée structures.
• Critics might ask: Does this “radical presentism” ignore enduring ideologies and economic systems that transcend individual conjunctures?

Over-Reliance on Grossberg’s Voice

• The essay is shaped as a tribute to Lawrence Grossberg, and while intellectually rich, it can feel too anchored in one thinker’s legacy.
• Critics may note the need for a more diverse theoretical genealogy, incorporating other voices beyond Grossberg and Hall.

Insularity of Cultural Studies Jargon

• The text uses dense terms like rearticulation, conjuncture, structure of feeling, often without unpacking them for broader audiences.
• This makes the essay less accessible to newcomers, potentially reinforcing the critique that Cultural Studies is “too self-referential.”

Lack of Concrete Cultural Examples

• The article reflects more on theory and pedagogy than actual texts or cultural artifacts.
• For a piece about narrating “better stories,” there’s a surprising absence of applied analysis of literature, media, or politics.

Perpetual Reflexivity = Paralysis?

• Constantly “theorizing its own demise” might be intellectually virtuous—but some critics argue it leads to strategic indecision.
• When everything is always shifting and rearticulated, what can Cultural Studies actually do besides comment on its own limits?