“What Is Cultural Studies Anyway?” by Richard Johnson: Summary and Critique

Cultural Studies as a Multi-Moment Inquiry

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

---

📚 Text-Based Analysis and Its Limitations

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

---

🧠 The Importance of Formalism (But Not Too Much)

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

---

📺 Critique of Structuralist Foreshortening

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

---

👥 The Reader as a Social Subject

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

---

🧵 Connecting Lived Culture to Public Forms

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

---

🚩 Critique of Expressivism and Cultural Empiricism

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

---

🔧 Toward a Post-Post-Structuralist Theory of Subjectivity

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

---

📈 Future Directions: Integrated, Conjunctural Cultural Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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