What cultural studies needs is more theory
McKee, Alan (2002) What cultural studies needs is more theory. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 16(3), pp. 311-316.
The topic of the 2001 Cultural Studies Association of Australia conference was 'What's left of theory?' Not an easy question, of course, and one that I would like to approach by asking another: What do we mean by 'theory'.
In May 2001, I published an article in the CSAA newsletter called 'What cultural studies needs is less Adorno'. Some of the responses I got to this piece suggested that my underlying message was 'what cultural studies needs is less theory'. I am taking the opportunity here to suggest that a rejection of Adorno is not the same thing as a rejection of theory. In fact, the title of this article can be expanded slightly: 'What cultural studies needs is more theory. And less Adorno'.
The argument of my piece in the newsletter was that attempting to generalise cultural theories across different historical and cultural circumstances is not - it seems to me - always very useful. The distrust of mass culture evinced by writers of the Frankfurt School, for example, is perfectly comprehensible in the context in which they wrote: but I don't think it tells us very much about Australian - or British, or American - culture at the beginning of the twenty first century. We need to expand our theoretical bases, rather than contracting them.
But by this, I do not mean simply including Zizek in our reading lists. Rather, I am interested in who we call a theorist, and what parts of culture we honour with the title of 'theory'. I am worried that we tend to think that academics and participants in what we used to call 'high culture' (before we dismantled such boundaries) are 'theorists'; while workers in popular forms of culture rarely receive that name. Working recently on the related concept of the 'public intellectual', I was depressed to see how many cultural studies writers see 'intellectuals' are being only academics, literary novelists and performance artists. By contrast, the category of cultural workers most commonly derided (by several writers) is the talk show host.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LANGUAGES COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE (200000) > COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA STUDIES (200100)|
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LANGUAGES COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE (200000) > CULTURAL STUDIES (200200)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > STUDIES IN CREATIVE ARTS AND WRITING (190000) > FILM TELEVISION AND DIGITAL MEDIA (190200)
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Creative Industries Faculty|
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2002 Taylor and Francis|
|Copyright Statement:||This is an electronic version of an article published in [Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 16(3):pp. 311-316.]. [Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies] is available online at informaworldTM with http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/10304312.html|
|Deposited On:||16 Sep 2008|
|Last Modified:||17 Sep 2010 11:32|
Repository Staff Only: item control page