HALL, Estudios Culkturales y Sus Legados Teoricos

8/14/2019 HALL, Estudios Culkturales y Sus Legados Teoricos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hall-estudios-culkturales-y-sus-legados-teoricos 1/7



i i l l l i c : siiiiic liiiic, ii tlclciiiiiii;ilioii lo siiikc oiit soiiic ~)o siti oiis iiliiii il ; i i i t l

Girguc f'o~.liciii. '1'1i;iI is tlic Icii.sioii- 11ic tlialogic nppro ¿icli lo Ilicor-y- 1i;i1

w:!!!! !O !!u !o si)c:!k 10 i!! ;! !;L!!!i!)cr o[ ' di[hrr!l! UI:LIIY jl! !]?!: C.O!!!.SC !)!' t ] l / >J I .. .J

IxyIer. 1 doii't Oelievc kiiuwletlgc is closed, but 1 do believc tliat politics is

iiiipossible witliotit wliat 1 Iiave called 'tlie arbi trar y closiire'; witlioul wli;ii

Homi B1i;ibtia called social agency as an arbitrary closiire. Tiiat is t» s;iy. Idoii't uiiclerstriiicl a prsctice wliicli aims to ninke a clifí'creiice iii tlic worltl.

wliiclr doesn't Iinve soriie points of difference or distiiiction whicli i t Ii;is (( 1

stiike oiit, wliicli re;illy nialter. I t is : questiori of position;ilitics. Now, i i i h

true l l i t i t thosc positionalitics are iiever final, tliey're ncver nbsoliitc. Tlicy

can't be traiislatcd intact froiii one conjunctiire to anotlier; tliey caiiiiot Iic.

dcpciiclctl oii to rciii;iiii ii i tlic s;iiiie plecc. I w;iiit to go hack to t I i ; i t riioiiiciil

of 'stakiiig oiit a wagcr' ir1 ciiltural stiidie s, to tliose irioriiciits ii i wliicli ilic

positioiis bcgnii to nistter.

'J'Iiis is ¿i wey of operiing tlie qtiestion of tlie 'wordliiiess' 01 ci~ltiir;il

siudies, to borrow n term from Edward Said. 1 ani no1 dwelliiig oii tlic

secu lar coiinota tioiis of tlie .me taph or of worldliiie ss Iiere, biit on tlil:

worltlliiicss of ciiltiir;il sliitlics. I'ni dwclliiig oii tlic 'tlirtiiicss' 01' il: Ilic

tlirtiriess oí' tlic seii~iotic ame, if 1 can put it tliat way. I'm tryiiig to rcturii

tlic project of cultiiral stutlies from the clenn air of nieaniiig aiirl textiialily

antl tlicory lo tlie soiiietliing iiasty down below. This involves tlic dif'liciill

exercise of exainiiiing sorne of tlie key tlieoretical turns or niorneiits ii i

cultural sti idies.

Tlie Iirst trace t l i r i t 1 w;iiit lo deconstruct has io do witli a vicw o í Uritisli

cultiiral studies wliicli ofteii distiiiguislics it by the fact tliat, at n ccri:iiii

iiionicrit, i t becaiiie a inarxist crit ical practice. Wliat exactly rloes t l iai

. assignatioii O S ctiltiirril stiitlies as a marxist critical tlieory mcari? 1-low

caii wc tliiiik ciiltiirel stiitlies n t that inonient? What moiiierit is i t we :irc

spcakiiig of ? Wiint tlocs tliat iiicaii for the tlieorctical legacies, traces, ¿ i i i i I

afte i--e ff'c cls wliich iiiarxisiii c oiitiriiie s to have ir1 cult ura l stutl ics'? 'l'licrc

rirc ri nuiiiber ol'w;iys of Iclliiig tliat liislory, íind let me rciiiiiicl yoii tliat I ' i i i

riot 111-oposiiig liis as tlic oiily s tor y. B ut 1 do waiit to set it u p i i i wlioi 1

tliink niay br: a sliglitly siirprisiiig way to you.

J entered culti iral studies from the New Left, and tl ie New Left al~voysregardetl marxisrii as :i pro\>lcn i, ;ts troiible, as da ngc r, iiot lis a solutioii.

Wh y ? I t l int l iiotliiiig lo tlo witli tlieoretical ques tioiis as siicli or in isolntion .

I I Iiotl lo clo ~v itl i lie frict t1i;it iiiy own (iiiid ils owii) polilical loriii. !'<1 1011

occiirrcd i i i ¿i iiioiiiciit Iiistoricrilly vcry niucli like tlic oiic wc are ii i iiow --

wliicli I ami ast«iiislicrl t l i i i t so k w pc oplc Ii; ivc riddrcssctl - lic nioiiiciit ol.

tlie tlisiiitegratiori oí's ccrf;iiri kiritl oí' rnarxism. Iri frict, tlic first I?ritisli Ncw

Lcft enierged i i i 10.56 at tlie iiioinent of tlie disiiitegratioii 01' an eritirc

Iiistorical/~ iolitical project. Iii tliat serise 1 came into riiarxisiii backwartls:

against thc Soviet lanks in Uudapest, as i t were. Wliat 1 iiie¿iii h y t1i;it is

cert~i inly iot tli;ii 1 wasii't profoiindly, and tliat culturiil stutlics tlieii w;isiill

:iIioiii ~ li c )cgiiiiiirig, ~~rttlociiicllyiilliiciicccl \ )y ilic cliicsiioiih i l i i i \ iii;iisisiii

:;5 iis ;i ~li cor ctic al ir ojc ct iit oii ilic íigerido: tlic polver, tlic global scacli niid;#

Iiistoi-y-iiiíikiiig crip¿icitics of c ;ipital; tlic qiics tioii oí' cl;iss; tlic coriiplcx%4 rcl;itioiisliips bctwceii powcr, wliicli is ;ir1 casier tcrrii tu cstiibiisii ii i ilier$a

cliscoi~i-scs f cultu re tli:iii exploitation, and cxploitation; t l ie questioii of a9 guicr;ii tlicory wliicli coiild, in a critica1 wiiy, cuiiiicct togetlicr iii íi critica1S icllcctioii tlií'fercril dom~iins f lile, politics aritl tlicory, theory and practice,Ií. i?c.oiioriiic, politicnl, itlcologica l qu estio ns, an d s o oii; tlie iiotioii of critical

ykiiowlcdgc itsclf ur it l tlic prodiictioii of critic;il kiiowlcdgc as ;i prticticc.

i'Tlicsc iiiiportiiiit, central qiiestions arc wliat onc inezirit

1iywcirkiiig

\.vitliiii

slioiitirig tlist¿incc of niarxisiii, wor king oii iii~ irxis m, workiiig ngniiist

iiirii-xisiii. workiiig witli it, w orkiiig lo try to c lcvcl ol~ ~i;ii.xisiii.

Tlierc iiever wns a prior inonie nt whe n ciilt ur;~l tudies nnd iii:irxisin

rcprcxctectl ;i pcrfcct Ilicorciical fit. From tlie beginniiig ( to iisc tliis way 01'

s p ~ i k i i i go r a rnomeiit) tliere was always-alreatly thc quesiion uf tlie grc¿it

iiiadccluacies, theoretically arid politically, tlie resourirliiig silences, tlic

5 great evasions of marxism - the things that M;irx dirl iiot talk ahout or

scciii to uiitlcrstiind wliicli wcrc oiir privilcgctl ol)jcct of siiitly: ciiltiirc,

irlcology, liiiigiiagc, tlic s ym bol ic. Tliese wcr e iilw;iys-;ilrcacly. iiistcad, tlic

tl i i i igs wliicli had iniprisoncd mrxisrn as a niorle oí' tliouglit, iis ari activily

o í' c r i~ ic al rac t ice - ts orthodoxy, its doctrinal charactcr, its detcrrniriii;iri,

its rcdrictioiiisni, its immutable law of history, its statiis ;is ii inctn-iiiirrativc.'Tliat is to say, the eiicounter between Britisfi cultiiral stii(lies and niarxism

Iias lirst to bc iinrlerstood as tlie cngagenicnt witli n probleni - iot ;i tlieory,

iiot cvcn a problematic. It begiiis, and tlcvclops tlirough tlie crilicliie of :i

ccrtain re ductioiiism aiid eco nom isni, wtiich 1 thirik is not extriris ic hut

iiiti-ii~sic O mzirxisrn; a contestatioii witli thc niodcl of base aiid siiper-

striictiirc, tliroiigh wliicli sophisticatcd aiid viilgar iriarxisiii alike liad tried

10 t li ii ik ~ l ic clatiorisliips bctween society, ccoiioriiy, ;iritl ciillurc. I I wiis

1oc;itcd antl sited i i i a necessary and prnlonged aiicl ns yet riiiciitling

coiitcstntiob with tlie questioii of false conscioiisiiess. Iri niy owii case, it

i rccliiirctl a iiot-yct-coinpletcd coiitestatiori witli tlie profourid Eiirocciitrisni

oí' marxist tlicory. 1 want to inake this very precise. I t is not jiist :i niiitlcr of

1 wlicre Marx happeneci to be born, and o f what he talked abo ut, biit of the

i iiiorlcl at tlic cciitrc of thc niost dcveloped parts of iiiarxist tlicory, which

siiggcstcd t l i n t capitalisin evolvctl orgariically frvni witliiii its own triiiis-

t.I'oi-i)i;ilioiis. Wlicr c¿is 1 carne from a socicty wlicrc tlic prof<)iiiicl ritcgiimeiit

i ol. ciipitiilist s ocici y, ccoiio rny, ;iiid cultiirc tiacl I~ ccii iiiposcd by coiiqiicstf

¿iiid coloiiizntion . Tl iis is ii theoreticol, iiot n vulgar criticlue. 1 tlori't hliimc

Mai-x I>cc;iiisc of wlie rc Iic wa s borri; I'm (~iic stioii ing lic tlieory for tlic

niociel around which it is articiilated: its Eurocentrisni.

I wiiiit to siiggest a different nietaplior for heo ore ti col work: tlie nicttiplior

o f striigglc, of wrestliiig with the angels. Tlic only tlieory worth Iiaviiig is

t l i ; i t wliich yoii Iiave to liglit of f, not tliat which yoii slie¿ik witli proloiirid



fliiciicy. f iiiciiii lo ~ i yoiiictiiiiig Iiilci t i i r i i i i l Ilic ;istoriisliiiig Ilicorclrc:iii

fliieiicy of cultiirnl stuclies iiow. Uut my owii experierice of tlieory - iiitl

iiirii.xisiii is ccrtaiiiiy ii cnsc ii i lioiiii - s oí' wrcsiiiiig wiiii i l i ~ i i i g ~ I ~ i

iiictriplior yoii caii tnkc ris lilcrally as you like. 1 reineniber wrestliiig wiili

Althusser. 1 reiueinber lookiiig at tlie idea of 'tlieoretical practicc' ii i

Readirig Capital and thinking, ' l 've gone as far in this book as i t is proper

to go'. I felt , I will not give aii irich to this profound rnisreading, tliis siipcr-

structuralist mistraiisl;ition, of classical marxisni, iinless Iie bcats nic dowii,

uiiless lic dcfc ats me in thc spirit. He'll llave to rnarcti over me to coiiviricc

iiie.1

warrcd witli hini, to tlic cleatli. A long, rarnbling piece wrote (I-Iall,1974) oii Ma rx's 1557 'Iiitrod.uction' to T l ~ e 'r-rrndrisse, in which 1 tried to

stltkc oiit tlic clillcrcricc hctwccii striictiiralisrii ir i M:iix's cpistcmology i i i i t l

Aliliusscr's, wiis oiily tlic lip of' lic iceberg oí' tliis lorig ciigagenicril. Aiitl

tliat is not siniply o persoiial question. Iri tlie Ccritrc for Coiiteinporriry

Cultural Stiidies, 10s five or six years, long aftcr tlie anti-theoreticisiii os

resistance to tlieory of cultiiral studies had been overcome, arid we decidcd,

in a very uii-í3ritisli way, we liad to take the plurige into tlieory, we walketl

riglit ;iroiintl tlic ciitii-c circiiiiife rciice of Eur opcoii Ilioiiglii, it i or tlc r iiol Lo

be , ii i aiiy siniplc capitiilatioii to tlie zeitgcist, niarxists. We rcnrl Gcriiií~ri

iriciilisni, we reatl Weber iipside down, we read I-Iegeliari idealisni, we rca<l

idealistic art criticisni. (I've written about this in tlie article called 'I'lic

Iiiiiterlniid of scieiicc: sociolo gy of knowled ge' [108 0a] as well lis iii

'Ciiltural stiidies nrid tlie centre: some probleriis and problcrnatics'

[ 19SObJ.)

S o tlie iiotioii t1i:it niarxism and cultural studies slipped iiito plricc,

recogiiizcd aii iiiiiiiediaie affinity, joined harirls ir1 sonie teleological oi.

1-1egeIi:in niomciit of syiitliesis, aritl there was tlic fouriding riioment 01'

ciiltiiral stiidics, is ciitircly iiiistakeii. It couldn't Iinve bceii iiiore differciii

from ifirit. Aiid wlicii, cventiinlly, ir1 the 197 0s, Rritisli cultural sludic s

did ;itlvriiice - iii in:iny diffcrciit ways, i t niiist bc said - wiiliiri tlic

pi-ol,leniatic ol' iii;irxisni, yoii slioulcl hear tlie terni prohleiiiatic ii i ;i

gciiiiiiie way, iial just iii a forrnalist-ltieoretical way: as :i problciii; iis

niuch riboiit struggliiig against tlie constraints and liinits ol' tliat rnodel as

aboul tlic iicccssriry qiicstioiis i t required LIS to addrcss. Antl whcn, i i i I1)cciitl, ir1 niy owii woi-k, 1 iriccl to lerirn froni aritl work wiili tlic tlicorc~ic;il

gains of Graiiisci, it was oiily bccause certain strategies of evnsioii Iiiitl

forcetl Graiiisci's work, iii a riiiriiber of differcrit w~iys,o rcspoiitl to wh;il 1

c~ i i i iily ciill (I icrc's aiiotlics riictaplior- h r tlicorciiciil wor k) tlic coiiiiii-

cli-uiiis ot' tlicory. tlie iliirigs whicli niar xist tlicory co~il< lri't iiiswc r, iic

thiiics abaut thc iiioticrri worlcl wliicli Gramsci discovcrcrl reriiaiiieil unre-

solved witliiri tlic tlicoretical frariiework of grantl tlicory - ri;irxisi~i- ii

\vhicli he coriiiriiicd io work. At a certain poirit, tlie qiiestions 1 slill w:intcd

to address in sliort were iriaccessible to me exccpt via a dctoiii. thi-i)iigli

Gram sci. Not bec aiise Grnriisci resolved tlicr~i biit 1,ecaiise Iic ii1 1c;isl

,itliiicsxcii iii;iiiy oí iliciii. I iloii't w;iiil to go ~liioiigliwli;ii i t is I i ~ c i - ~ ~ i i ; i l l y'5 tliiiik cultural stiidies in tlie Uritisli coritext, iii a cerlairi pericid, learned.g

!!-i)!li C;raiiisci: iiiiiiiciisc aiiiouiits iibout tlie natiire oí' culture itsclf, about

5 tlie discipliiic oi' thc conjuiictural, aboiit tlie iriiport;iiicc ol' iiistoricai

4 sl,ccilicity, abou l the enoi,mously prod uctive iiietaptior of hege mon y,3

Iiiboiit tlic way iii wliicli one can think questioiis of class relatioris only

f hy usiiig tlic displaced iiotion of enseiiible arid blocs. Tliese are tlie

3 p;uticiilrir gai ns of th e 'd etour ' via G rains ci, but 1'111 iiot tryiiig tu [nlkCE ;ilioiit Ilirit. I waiit to say, in tliis conte xt, about Gran isci, tliat wliile Grriiiisci

i I~cloiigctl iid belongs to tlie problematic of riiarxism, Iiis iinportaiice foriliis moinent of British cultural studies is precisely the degree to wliicli Iie1 iac1ic;illy t l i . s /~l~rccdoiiic oí the iiilicritniices of iiiarxisiii i i i ciiltiirnl sliidics .

i 'flic r adical cliarricter u f Gran isci's 'displ;iccriiciit' ol' iiiarxisiii Iins iiot yct

i Iiccii uiidcrstood and probably won't ever be reckoiied witli, iiow w e ar e

ciiteriiig tlie cra of post-marxism. Sucli is tlie nature of tlie iiiovemerit ofi Iiistory and of intellectual fashion. But Gramsci also did sonietliing else Sor

ciiltural studies, 2nd I want to say a little bit about that because it refers to

wliiit 1 ciill tlic iiccd to rcfle ct oii oiir iiistitiitioiial ~io siti oii, riiid ou r

iiitellectli;il practice.

1 tried oii many occasions, aiid otlier peoplc in Uritish cultural sliiclics

iiiid iit tlie Cciitre especially have tried, to describe what it is wc tlioiigtit we

werc tloiiig wiili tlic kind of intellectual work wc sct ii i place ir1 tlic L'ciitrc.1 have to confess tl iat , though I've read many, inore claborated and

sopliisticated accounts, Grarnsci's accourit still seeriis lo iiie to coiiic:

closcst to expressing what it is 1 think we were trying to do. Adrnittedly,

tl iere's a problem about his plirase ' the productioii of orgaiiic intellecluals' .

Rut there is no doubt in iny iniiid that we wcre trying to find aii institiitioiial

pi.¿ictice iii cultural stu dies that iiiight prod uce aii organi c inteIlec[ual. W e

z cliclii't kiiow prcviously what tliat woultl nieaii, in tlie contcxt 01' Dritairi ir1

tZ tlie 1970s, siid we wcrcn't sure we woiild rccogiiizc hiiii os Iier il' wc

iiiriiiaged to prod ucc it. Tlie probleni ab out tlie coiicepl of Lin org ani c

iiitcllcctual is tliat i t appears tu align iiitcllcctiials with an eiiiergirig

i liisioric rnovernciit aiid we couldn't tell tlien, aiid caii Iiardly iell riow,11 wlierc tl iat eincrging tiistorical movcnicnt was to be fouiid. We weref orgaiiic iiitcllcctuals witliout aiiy urgaiiic poiiit of rc ~c rci ice ; rguiiic iiitcl-

i lectiials witli a nostalgia os will or Iiope (to use Gramsci 's plirase fromI ;iiiotlicr coiitcxt)' t l i r i t rit sonie point we woiiltl I3c pi-cp:ired ii i iritel1cctii:il

woi-k for tliet kiiid of rclalioiisliip, if sucli a coiijiiiicturc cvcr uppcarcd.

More trutlifi~ lly, e were prepared to ima gine or ii iodcl or siiii i il i ite sricli n2 rclatioiisliip ii i its abscrice: 'pcssimisin oí' ilic inícllcct, oiiiiinisni 01 tlic

5will ' .

Biit 1 think i t is very important t l iat Grainsci 's thinking around tliese

t~uc stion s ertainly captures part of what we were ab out. Recause a second

:isjxct of Grninsci's definition of iiitellectuai work, wliicli 1 tliirik hasi



;il\\~iiys )ccii Ioclgctl soiiicwlicrc clusc to tlic iiotioii o l ciiltiii~~iltiitlics íis íi

~)io. jcc t ,ias bccii Iiis rccluirciiiciit t l i i i t [lic 'orgaiiic iiitcllectual' miist work

O ii t W 0 f i ' o i l t~it oiic iiiid tiic Si i i i iC iiiiic. On ihe uiic iiiiiid, w C !i¿ii\ iii ( i ~it

tlic vcry foi-efroiit of iiilcllcctiial tiieoretical w ork beca use, as Graiiisci says ,

i t is tlie job of tlie orgniiic intcllectual to know m ore thnn the traditional

inicllcctiinls do: really know , iiot just p retend to know , not just to havc tlie

f:icilily of k nowle dgc, but lo kriow deep ly and profou ntlly. S o ofteii kiiow-

lctlge for in;irxism is piire secogniiion - lie protlliction agriiii oí' wli;it wc

Iiiivc ;ilwciys knowii! If yoii are ii i tlie gam e of licgeiiio iiy yoii Ii ~iv c o 1)c

siiiartcr llien 'ílicrii'. Hence, there are n o theoretical liriiits froni wliicli

cultural stiidies can Iurn brick. But the second aspect is just as criicial: th;ii

IIic orgiiiiic iiitcllcciiiol ciiiiiioí ;ibsolve kiinscif [ir Iici-sclf frcini tlic rcspoii-

sil)ility ol' tr¿iiisiiiittirig tliosc itlcas, that kno wle dge , [ltrougli tlie inlcllcctiial

fui-iclioii, lo tliosc wlio do iiot bclo iig, proíes sioiin lly, i ii tlie intcllcctiinl

cliiss. Aiid iiiilcss tliosc two frorits are operating st tlie sanie tiinc, or at Icnst

iiiilcss tliose two nriibitioiis are part of the project of cultural studies, yoii

caii gct ciiorriioiis tlieoretical adv ance witliout a ny en gageme iit at tlic levcl

o f th e ~ ~ o l i t i c a lroject.

I'm extrerriely íiiixioiis thiit yoii slioiild not dec od c wliiit I'in say iiig ris ; i i i

iinti-tlieorctic¿ii (liscourse. 11 is no1 ;iiiti-tlieory, but it tloes Iiave sonictliiiig

to do wiili ilic coiidilions :iritl ~> rob len is f developirig iriicllectuiil aiitl

theoreiic:il wclr-k as a politic;il p racticc. It is an extrcii iely dif fjciili roorl,iiot rcsolviiig tlic tcnsioris bctwceri tlrose two rcquirements, but liviiig witli

them. Gr¿iiiisci never asked us to resolve t hem, but he gave iis a priictical

cxniiiple of Iiow lo livc with tlicin. Wc nev er protliicccl org anic iritellcctiinls

(would ( I i i i t wc Iiacf) at tlic Centre. We never coiinectcd with that risirig

tiistoric movcniciit; i t wns a niet;iplioric exercisc. N everthel ess, irict;ipliors

:tic scrioiis tliiiigs. 'l'licy al'fcct oiic's practicc. I ' i i i tryiiig Lo rcrlcscril,c

culturiil síiidics as tlieorctical work whicli miist go oii and oii liviiig witli

t1i;il Lcnsioii.

1 w;iiit to Iovk ;i t iwo otlicr tlieoi-etic:il iiioirients in ciiltural stuclics wliicli

intcrrupted ttic iilrcady-iiiterriipled Iiistory of its foriiiation. Soinc of thcsc

deve loprnents canie as i i were frorn outer space: tlicy wcre not at al1

gerierated from tlic insidc, tliey werc not part of an inn cr-iinfo lding gcricrnltlieory of ciiltiirc. Again aiid again, the so-called iinfoltliiig of ciiltiiral

stutlies wris irilcrruptctl hy a break, hy real ruptiircs, by cxtcrior forccs;

tlic iii~crsiiptioii, 1s i t wcre, ot' ricw idciis, which (leccntrctl wlint lookctl likc

tlic ¿iccuiiiuí~iliiigpríicticc of Ilic wo rk. 'i'hcrc's arioltict' iiicl¿il ~lio r1'or

tIicorctic;il w oi-k: tlicorctic;il wo rk as intcrruptioii.

Tlicrc werc ;i t Iciist two iiiterriiptions in the work oí' tlic Cciilrc 1'0s

C ~ i i ~ c i i i ~ ~ o r i ~ s yiiliiiral Stiiclics: 'l'lic first ;iroiind fciiiiiiisni, rinrl tlic sccoiirl

aroiiiid cluestioiis of rzicc. 'Tliis is iiot an att emp t to siirii ~ i plie tlicoretical

and politic:il advaiiccs ancl corisequcnccs for British ciiltiiral siiitlics 01' tlic

I'emiiiist iritervcntioii; lli;it is for nnotlicr time, ;iiiotlicr place. Diit 1 tloii't

b \ v ~ i i ~ ~ ,i ~ l i c i ,o iiivokc \ I i i i t iiioii1ciit 111 a11 o~)c ~i-c iitle tli i i t l c ; i s ~ i i l V ~ I Y . 1 '01 .

di1 ciiltui.;iI stiitlies (iii adclitioii to niriiiy otlicr tlicoretical projccts), tlic intcr-3

vi:!lfioii of icniiiiisiii was spccilic iiiid dccis ivc. It was ruptural. It rco rga-0:iiizcrl tlie fjeld iii quite coiicrcte ways. First, tlic openi ng o t iiic quesiiori

8.iIic pcrsotial as political, arid its coiiseqiieiiccs Sor chaiigiiig tlie object of

j stridy iii cultiiral studies, was conipletely revolutionary iii a tlicoretical aiitl

i.$ pr~icticiil iray. Sec ond , tlie radical expansi on OS the notioii of power, whicli1:P.

li;id Iiitlicrto I~ccii cry iiiiicli rlcvelo~icdwitliiii tlic fr;inicwork of tlie iiotioii

1 ol ' t l ic ~~ii l i l ic ,lic piiblic cloniaiii, willi tlic effcct tliat w c cu ~i ld iot use tiic

1 tcriii powcr - so key to the earlier probleniatic of Iiegciiiony-

n thc snrncway. Tliird, tlie ceiitrality of questioiis of geiider nrid sexualily lo the

l iiiitlci-stniicliiig of p ow cr itself. Foiirtli, tlic opciiiiig ol' iiiiiiiy of tlie ( [ L I ~ s -

tioiis tliat wc tliouglit we liad aliolislierl aroiiiid tlie cliiiigeroiis arca of ilieI siibjcctive i i i i t l tlic subjcct, whicli lotlged iliose qiicstioiis at tlie ccriire ofi cultural stiidies ;is a tlieoretical practice. Fiftli, ' tlie rc-operiiiig' of tlic1i closcd froiitici- betwcen social theory aiid tlie theory of tlie uriconscious -

1 psyclioanalysis. lt 's liard to describe tlie iiiiport of tlie opeiiiiig i>f hat iiew1 coiiíiiiciit i ii culturiil stiitlies, ~i ia rk cd iit \,y tlie rcl;itioiisliip - or ratlier,

wlint J:icqiicliiic 120sc híis cnllcd tlie ss yet 'iiiisetlled rclatio iis' - )etweeri

I'ciiiiiiisili, psyclioriii;tlysis and ciiltiiral studics, or iiidecrl Iiow i l \ViiS

! r i c c o i i ip~ is ~ ic (~ .

I Wc kiiow i t was , bul ii 's nut kiiowii gc iicrall y Iiow ¿iiid wlicr c feiiiiiiisiii

i f i rs t l ~ r o k c ii. 1 use the metaphor dcliberately: As the tliief i i i tlie riiglit, i tf brok e iii; iiiterrupted, made an uiiseemly iioise, scizecl the tiinc, crappcd o11

tlic tnblc of cultural studies. Th e title of tlie voliinie ir1 wliicli this dawn-ra id! wns first accoinplislied - Wonlerz Toke Issiir - s instructive: for tliey ' took1 issiie' ii i 110th seiises - ook over that year's book aiid iiiitiatcd a quarre l .

13ut 1 w;iiit Lo tcll yoii soirietliiiig elsc alioiit it . Bcciiiise 01' tlic gi-owiiig

iniportance of fen~ii i is twork and tlie early begirinirigs of tlie feniinist1 iiiovciiiciil oiitsidc ii i Ilic vcry eíirly 1970s, iiiiiiiy ol' lis ii i tlic Cciitrc -

iiiaiiily, «f coiirse, irieii - tlioiiglit i t was tinic tlicre was good feniiiiistIi

work i i i culiur-al studies. Aiid w e indeed tricd to buy i t in , to iriiport it, to

$attract gootl feniinist scliolars. As you miglit cxpect, niany of tlie womeii in

;

f ciiltural stiidies wercn 't terribly iii tercs ~ed ii this beiiigii proje cl. \Ve wcreI opeiiiiig tlic door to f 'eininist st~ idi es, ~eii ig ood, transfoi-iiied m en. Aiid1a yct, wlicii i t hrokc i ii tliroiigli tlie wiridow, evcry single iiiisiispected11

i-csist;iiicc rosc \o tlic siirl'iicc - fiilly iiistiillcd patriarc11;il powcr, wliicli

bclicvccl it liad tlisavow crl itsel f. 'l'hcrc ai-c iio lcader s Iierc, we used tu sa y;

we nrc al1 graduate stiidents aiid nicnibcrs of staff togctlier, Ic:iriiirig Iiow to

practicc cultural stiidics. You can decide wliatever you wnnt lo decide, cic.

Aiicl yct, wlicii i t canie to the question of tlic readiiig list . . . . Now tliut's

wlierc 1 rcnlly discovered about tlie gendered nnture of power. Long, lorig

:il'ter 1 was able to pronouiicc tlie words, L encouiitered the reality of

I~i,iic:iiilt 's profoiind insight iiito tlie iiitlividunl reciprocity of kiiowlcdge



; i r i t l ~ ~ o t v c r " .I 'alkiiig ;il)o ii~ iviiig I I UW C ~ s í i riitliciilly tlill'crciit cs11ci-i-cnce fr,orii Ilciiig silciicctl. 'l'1i;tt is niiotlicr way of tliiriking, rind :iiiollicr

riict;iplior Sor Ilicory: tlic wiiy fcriiiiiisrn brokc, and brokc irito, cii1iiir;il

stiidies.

Thcii tlicrc is tlie qiiestion of race i i i cultural stutlies. I've talkecl aboiii

the iinportant 'extriiisic ' sourccs of tlie formatioii of cultural sturlics - Sor

e xa m ple , ir i what 1 calletl tlie nioineiit of tlie New Left, iiiitl its originiil

<~u arrc l i l li i i i~irxisni- out of wlijcli cultural studics grcw. Aiitl yct, ol'

coiirse, tliat wns a profoiindly English or British inoment. Actually getiiiig

cultural studies to pul on its owri agenda the critical qucstioris oS rncc, ilicpolitics of racc, tlic rcsistaiice to r;icisin, the critical questioris of culturíil

polities, wns itsclf ii prcifoiiiitl ihc orctic ¿il striig glc, ii striigglc of wliicli

l'olicirig llie Ci.isi.s, wiis, ciiriously, tlic lirsl aiicl vcry Iiitc cxuiiiplc. 1 t

rcpresentcd :i dccisivc turn ir i niy own theorctical aiid iritcllcctii:il work,

as well as i i i tliat of tlie Ccntre. Agaiii, it was only accoiiiplished as tlic

result OS a lorig, arid sometimes bitter - certainly bitterly contested -iriterii:il strug glc again st a resoundirig but iinconscious silerice. A striigglc

whicli coiitiiiiietl in wliat Iios sirice come to be kriowii, but only ii i tlic

rewrittcn Iiistory, as onc of the grcat seminnl books of tlic Ccntrc I 'oi-

Cultura l Studies , Tlrc Erirpir.e Sti-ikes Brzck. In ac tua li ty , Paul Gilroy nritl

the groiip oí' people who produced tlic book found it cxlremcly clifficiiit to

creetc thc riecessary tlieoretical and political space i i i llie Cciitrc in wliiclito work on tlic project.

I warrt to lioltl to the notiori, implicit in both these exarnples, tliat

movenients provoke tlicoretical mornents. And liistorical conjunctiircs

insist on tlieorics: tliey are real rnoments iii the evolution of tlieory. But

licre 1 have to stop and rctrace niy steps. Becausc 1 think you coiiltl hciir,

oiicc iigairi, i i i wli;tt I ' i i i s;iyiiig ¿i kiiid O S invocatioii of a siiiiplc-iiiiiitlctl

aiiti-tlieoretic~il populisni, w hich d oes not respect aiid ack now ledg e tlic

crrici;il iiiiport;iiicc, ¿i t ciicli poiiii ii i tlic inovcs I ' i i i tryiiig 1 0 rcii;iri-;ii-

ivizc, OS wliiit l \voiilil c¿ill Ilic iiccess~ii-y clay or cletour tlirniigli tlicory.

1 want to talk aboiit tliat ' riecessary detoiir ' for a monieril. What dccciitrcd

and clislocnicd tlic scttlcd patli of the Centre í¿)r Coiitcniporery Ciiliiir;il

Stiidics ccrlaiiily, tind British cultiiral studies to sornc extent in gcncr~il, s

what is soinetiiiics called ' tlic lingui stic turri' : tlic rliscovery of tliscursivity,

of't cxti i;il i(y. l'licrc a re cnsii;iltics in tlie Centr e aroiintl thosc iinrncs :is wcll.

Tliey wcrc wrcstlcd witli, ii i cxactly the sarnc way I've trietl lo dcscrihc

carlier. Uiit tlic gairis wliicli were madc tlirough an engagement with tlicrii

are criiciallp irnportniit in iiriclcrstanding liow thcory came to be atlv:iiicccl

in t l i n t \vork. Arid yet, in riiy view, sucli theoretical 'gairis' c;in ncvei. he ri

sclf-sulficiciit moniciit.

Agairi, tliere is 1111 space Iicre to <Ir) niore thaii I~cgirio list the tlictrretic;il

advaiices wliich were niadc by tfie cncounters with slriictiiralist, scriiiotic,

: i i ic l post-striictiirrilist work: ilic crucinl iniport;incc oí' lniigiiagc ~ i i i t l S tlic

liiigiiisiic iiict;iplior i o orry sludy o l c~i1tiii.c; lic cxl>;iiisioii of ~ l i ciotioii O (

icxi ;intl tcxtu;ility, botli as a sourcc of riieariing, aiitl as tliat wliicli escapes

kii i t i j )u" 1~onc ~ne a i i i i ig ; tic recogiiition of tlie Iietcsogcricity, of tlie rliulti-

~ ~ l i c i t y ,f n iennings, of the struggl e to close arbitrarily tlic irifiriite seiiiiosis

I~cyoiid ~ieanii ig ;lic ;rckriowledgmeiit of textuality and cultural power, of

rcprcsciitation itself, as a site of power and regulation; of tlie sytiibolic as a

soiirce of itleiitity. Tliese are enormous tlieoretical ndvarices, tlioiigli of

coiirsc, i i Iiíit l iilwnys iittcrided to ( lucs t ior~sof 1;iiigiiagc (I<ayniond Wil-

1i:iins 's w osk, long bcfore th e scrnioiic revolittion, is central tliere). Ncver -

iliclcss, tlie refigusing of theory, made as a result of Iiuving to thiiikclucsii«iis of culture tlirougli tlie metapliors oí' 1:inguagc atid textuality,

scprcsciits ;r poirit bcyoritl wliich cultural stiidics niust iiow always iieces-

s;irily loca tc itsclf. 'l'lie inctaplior o l thc discur siv c, oS tcxtii ality, iiisi;iiiti-

;itcs ti iicccssnry delay, n ilisplaccirieiit, wliicli 1 tliitik is ri1ic~rry.s mplied i i i

tlic coiicept of culture. I f you work oii culture, or if you've tried to work on

soiiie otlier really iinportant things and you find yourself tiriveii back to

culture, if cultiire happens to be w liat seizes hold of yoiir sou l, you Iiave to

sccogiiizc tliat yo11 will alw ays be w orkii ig in ari arca o!' disl11:icciiicrit.

' I ' licrc 's always sonictliing dccentred aboiit tlie mediiiin of ciiltiirc, el~out

laiigiiage, textiiality, ;ind sigiiificatioii, wliicli always escapes aiid cvacles

ilic atlcitipt to link ii, direcily and immediately, witli othcr striicturcs. And

yct, at tlic samc tiiiic, tlie sliadow, tlic iiiipriiit, tlic trace, of iliosc otlicr

I'i~rii iation s, f the intertex tualit y of text s ir1 tlieir iiistitiitional posit ioiis, oí'tcxts as sourc cs of power, of textiislity as a site of rcprescntatioti arici

rcsistaiice, al1 of those questions can iiever be erascd froin cultiir¿il stiidies.

Tlie cjuestion is what happens when a field, wliich I 've bcen tryiiig lo

(lescribe in a very piinctiiated, disp ersed, and interrupted wa y, as constaritlyP cli;iiigiiig clirectioiis, niid wliicli is ilcf ined as a political projcct, tries to

1 tlevclop itself as sorile kintf of coliereiit tlieoretical interverition'? Or, to put

ftlic saiiie qiicsliori iii reverse, what Iiappciis wlieii n i i acnclcinic n i i c l tlicorc-

i: ticiil eiitcrprise trics lo erigage in pcdagogics wliicli eiilist tlie active

r. ciigagement of individuals and groiips, tries to rnake a tlifference in tlieitm.

iiistiiutional world ii i wliich it is locat ed? These are extreinely diflicult

gjissiics to resolv e, bccau se wliat is nsked of 11s is to say 'y es' arid 'no ' at o ne

! ; i i i t I tlic same tiinc. I t asks us to assuine tliat culture will nlways work

4: iliroiigli its tcstu¿iliiics - aricl at tlic s;iinc tiinc tliat textii;ility is iicver5'

j!ciiougli. 13iit rievcr enoii gh of wliat'? Ncv cr eiiougli fo r wIi;itg? Tlint is ¿in

$ extreiiiely difficult qriestion to answer becnuse, philosopliically, it has

1al\vays becn inipossible ir 1 thc tlieoretical field of cultiiral stiidies -wlictlicr i t is coiiceived eitlier i i l te rms of texts and coii tcxts , oi inte r-

1tcstuality, or of ilie Iiistorical foririatioiis in wliicli cultural prncticcs are

lorlgeri - o gct aiiyttiirig like an adequate tlieoretical account of ciilture 's

rcl~itio iis iid its effects. Neverthclcss 1 want to insist tliat until and iinless

cultiiral stiiclics Icnrns to live with tliis tensioii, a tensiori t l i t i t al1 textual



1 1 1 1 i ~ l i ~ c ai ) i ih I ; i j~ i i i i ic ii t c i i s i o ~ ~V I I J C I I Silid CICSC I I I )CS ;I S t l i ~ t t l ~ l y1 I I I C

text in its afliliations with 'irislitutions, offices, agencies, classes, acadc-

mies, corporatioiis, gruups, idcologically defined parties and profcssions,

nations, races, and genders' - t will have renounced its 'wor ldly' vocation.

Ttiat is Lo say, iinless aiid iintil one respects the nec essary dis placeme nt of

culture, arid yet is always irritated by its failure to reconcile itself with

other qiiestioris that matter, with other questions tliat cannot and can never

be fully covered by critical textuality in its elaborations, ciiltural studies as

a project, an intervention, remains inconiplete. If you lose hold of thc

teiision, yoii can do extrernely fiiie intellectual work, but you will havc

lost intcllectual practice as a politics. 1 offer this to you, not bcc;iiise that's

what cultiiral stiidics ougfit to be, or bcc ause tl iat 's what !he Centrc

riiaiiaged to d o wcll, l~ iit imply beca use 1 think tliat, overal l, is whíit

dcfirics cultural studics as a projcct. Both in the British ~ind lie Americ;iii

conrext, cultura l stud ies lias drawn tlie attention itse lf, not just b ecau sc of

its sometim es dazzlirig iii ternal theoretical de velopment, but because i t

l iolds tl ieoretical and political questions in an e ver irresolva ble biit pernia-

rieiit tensioti. It constantly allows the one to irritate, bother aiitl distiirb the

otlier, without insisting on some final theoretical closure.

I've been talking very inuch in terms of a previous history. But 1 have

heen rcminded of tl i is tension very forcefully in the discussions on AJDS.

AIDS is oric of t l ie questions w hich urgently brings before us our rnargin-ality as ciit ical i i i tellectuals in rnaking real effec ts in the world. And yct i t

has ofteri been reprcscnted for iis in contradictory ways. Against thc

iirgericy of people dying in the streets, what in God's name is the point

of culIural studies? Wliat is the point of the study of representations, if

tliere is rio response 10 t l ie questioii of what you s ay to someo ne who wants

io kiiow if tliey should take a drug and if that means tliey'll die two days

later or o few monllis earlier? At that point, 1 think aiiybody who is into

crrltiiral stiidjes scrioiisly nq ari intellectiial practicc, rriiist feel, on thcir

piilse, its ephenierality, its insiibstantiality, how little it registers, how little

we'v e beeii able to chang e aiiythiiig or get ariybody to do anything. If you

don't feel that as orie tension in the work that you ar e doing, theory has let

you off t l ie hook. On thc other hand, in the end, 1 don't agrec witli the wayii i which tlie dilemm;i is oftcii posed fur us, for i t is iiirlccd n rnorc complcx

and displaced question tliaii just pcople dying out tliere. Tlie questiori of

AIDS is an extrenlely irnportant terrain of struggle and contestation. In

addiiion to thc peo plc we know w ho ar e dyirig, or Iiave dicd, or will , t l iere

are the many pcople dyi ng wlio are ncver spoken o f. Ijow could w e say tliat

tlie question of AIDS is not also a question of who gcts represented and

who does not? AIDS is the site at wfiich the a dvance of sexiial politics is

beiiig rolled back. It 's a site at which not only people will die, but desire

and pleasure will also die if certaiii metaph ors do not survive, or survive i ri

the wrorig way. Uriless we operate in this tension, we don't know wh;it

,~ i i l i i i r ~ i l~ U C I I L \ ~ ~ i ilo, L ~ I I ~, L.,III I ~ V C I o , b ~ it i l ~ ) ,1i.i~ t biis 10 [lo, W I I < I L

11 alonc a privilegcd capacity to do. It Iias lo aiialyse certaiii tliiiigs" c

;about tlie coiisti~iitivc nd political nature of representation itseif, about its

complexities, about the effects of language, about textuality as s site of l ife

. :iiid death. Tliose are the things cultural studies can address.

I've used tliat example, i iot because it 's a perfect exaniple, but because

it's a specific example, becaiise it has a concrete meariii ig, because it

: ~Iia l lengesus in its complexity, and in so doirlg has tliings to teach LIS

: obout the future of serious theoretical work. It preserves tl ie essential

; iiriture of iritcllectual work and critical refiection, the irreducibility of theinsighls wliich Llieury can bring to political practice, insiglits which caiinot

bc arrivcd ii t iii any other way. And at tlie same tiriic, it rivcts us to the

necessary modesty of tlieory, the necessary nioclesty of cultural studies as

ari iritcllectual project.

1 want to end in two ways. First 1 want to address the problem of tl ie

institutioiialization of these two construc tions: British cultural s tudies and

Aniericaii cultiiral studies. And then, drawing on the nietapliors about

tlieorcticnl work wliich 1 tried to launch (not 1 hope by c la iming a~i thori ty

or autlienticity bo t in what inevitably has io be a polemical, positional,

political way), to s ay som ething about ho w tlie l ield of cultural studies has

to be dcfiiicd.

1 don't kiiow what lo say aboiit American culliiral sti idics. 1 a111 coili-pletely dumb founde d by it . 1 think of the strugglcs to get cultural studies

irito tlie instirution in the Britisli context, to sqiieeze tliree or foiir jobs for

anybody under sorne heavy disguise, cornpared w itli the rapid institutiori-

alizatiori which is going on in the United States. Tlie comparison is riot

only valid for cultural studies. If you think of the important work which h as

been done in feminist l i istory or theory in Britain and ask how many of

tliosc worrieri hav e ever had full-time academ ic jobs ii i t lieir l ives or ar e

iikcly ti), yoil get a sensc of what m argin ality is really a1~oiit.So tlie

cnoriiious explosioii of cultural studies in tlie United Strites, its rapid

profcssionalization and institutionalization, is not a momeiit whicli any

of lis who tried to set up a marginalized Centre in a irnivcrsity like

Birmingliam could, in any simple way, regret. And yet 1 have to say , intlie stioiigcst scnsc, tliat it reminds me of the ways in whicli , in Britain, w e

nrc a lways aware OS iiistitutionalization as a niomciil of prolouiid darigcr.

Now, I'v e beeii saying that dange rs are riot places you run away froni but

~ ) l accs liat you go towards. So 1 simply want you to know tlirit m y o w n

iccling is t l iat the explusion of cultural studies alo ng witli otbcr form s of

critical theory in the academy represents a moment of extraordinarily

~ ~ t o f ~ l i n danger. Why? Wel l , it would be excessively vulgar to talk aboiit

srrch tbirigs as how many jobs there are, how m uch m oney there is around,

;ii id Iiow miich pressiire that puts on people to do what they tli ink of as

critica1 political work antl intellectual work of a critical kind, wliile also



look ~iig vci I lici i s I ioi i l (1ci~i1 111c~ ~ r o i i i o ~ i o i i st t ikc ,~iiicI 111c ~ i i I ~ l i ~ ~ ; i ~ i ~ ~ i ~

si;ikcs, i i i i t l so oii. 12ci iiic iiistoicl rctiirii to tlic p oint tliai I niatlc hcSorc: ni!.

iistoriisliiiicril ti 1 wliiil 1 c;illcd tlic llicorctical Iliicricy « C cultiiral sliirlics ii i

~lic i i i tcd Siates .

Now, tlic qiicstioii of tlieoretical flucncy is a diflicull and provoliiiig

metaplior, and I waiit only lo say oiic word about it. Sunie tirric iigcr.

looking at wliot oiie can unly cal1 the deconstructive deluge (as opposc(1

lo tlccoristriictivc tiirn) wliicli liad ovcrtaken Americnii literary stiitlics, i i i

its form;ilist niode , 1 trietl to distingiiish tlie exlrcinely iniportaiit tlicorcliciil

;inri inlcllectual work whicli it had made possible ir1 ctiltural stiitlies frorii;i

mere repetitiori, a sort of rnirnicry or deconstriictive ventrilocjuisiii wliicli

soriictiiiics passes as a scrioiis inlcllcctci;il cxcr-cisc. My fear ii t t h ~ i t iioiiicril

W;IS thi i l il' cu I l i~ r ;~ It i i ~ l i c ~ ' g a i n c dir1 eqil iví l lci i t ins t i tut ion~il i~aiionii ~ l i c

Arncrican coritext, it would, i i i ratlier tlie saine way, forninlizc oiit ol .

existerice tlic critical cjiiestions of power, history, arid politics. I'ararlosi-

cal ly , wlial 1 nican by tlieorctical fluency is exactly tlie reversc. .i 'licre is no

moriiciit now, i i i Arncricai i cultural s tudies , where w c are r i o t able, exicii-

sivcly {ind witliout eritl, Lo tlieorize pow er - poli l ics , racc, cl ass ~ i i i t l ciiclcs,

siibjiigiitioii, doi~iiii;itiori, exc liisi o~i , iargiiiality, Otlierncss, etc. Tlic rc is

Iiardly ariylliiiig in ciiltiiral stu die s whicli isii't s o tlicorize d. Aricl yct, tlicrc

is tlic iiagging tloii0t t l i n t lliis ovcrwlicliniiig rcxtu¿ilizalioii oí' culliir;il

siiidics ' owri discourscs sonicliow coiistitutes power and politics as exclii-sively iiisttcrs oí' langu agc aiid textuality itself. Now, this is not to say I h ~ i i

<loiii1 lliink Ili:it questions of power aiid tlie politicul have to be aiirl eic

iilways lodgcrl witliiii represeritations, that they are always discursivc

ques t ions . Never theless , there are ways of cor is t i tu t ing power as ai i easy

f loating s ignif icr which jus t leaves the crude exercise ancl conncctioi is 01'

powcr aiicl culliire nllogetlicr enilitied of any signilicatiori. 'L'hat is wlint 1

lakc ir) bc the n ionient o f tlariger in ttie iiistitutionalizotion oí' ciilturiil

stu[lics ii i this Iiiglily r~irilied nd cnorniously clnboratcd :ind well-l'iiiitlctl

prol'essioiinl worltl of Aiiierican acadeniic lifc. I t has riotliirig wliaicvcr io

(lo witli ciilliirnl sliidics iiiakii ig ilself nio re likc Britisli ciiltural stiitlic.4,

wliich is, 1 tliink, an eritirely false and exnpty cause to try to propoiind. I

fiave specifically tried iiot lo speak of the past in aii attenipt lo policc ~licprcscril an d flic fiiiiirc. Bu t 1 (lo want io ex tract, fin:illy, froni tlie iiarrativc I

Iirivc corisiriicted of tlic piist so mc guid cli ncs Sor niy owii work arid pcr liii j)~

í'os soiiic of yoiirs.

1 coiiic biick lo Ilic tlciiilly scrioiisricss OS irilcllcctu;il work. I t is :i rlc;iclly

scrioiis niiiltcr. 1 coiiic I);ick 10 tlic crit ical disiinc tioiis bc lwccii iiitcllcciii;il

work : ind acar icinic work: they ovcr lap, t l iey at~utwilli orie ririollicr, tlicy

tcctl ol'f c>iic ;iiioLlicr, Ilic oiic pro vid es yoii witli 111c nc;iiis lo tlo Ilic ollicr.

13ul llicy ;irc riot llie s;iiiie lliing. 1 coine beck lo tlic tlil 'ficiilty oí' institiiíiiig ;i

gciiuiiie ciiliiir:il iiiid critical przictice, whicli is iiitcndcd to protliicc sonic.

kind of orgiiriic intclleclii;il ~)oliiic;ilwork, whicli tlocs iiol l r v ( 0 iiiscbi-ilw

i i i i l ic Ovii ; i ic\ l i l ig iiici;i-ii;iri;ilivc 1 ;~cl iicvc< l i i i > ~ ] c ( l ~ ~ ~ ,i t I i i i 1 ilic4,JI i i ~ s ~ i ~ i i ~ i o i l s ,c01iic \>;ick tu [Iicory oiiil liolilic s. l hc p i)litic s 0 s t l i c ( ) r ~ o i

8 iliciiry as tllC will trutll, hu i t ~ i e o r yas ¿\ se t oí' ~o l i i c s tcd . oca l i zcd.

, o i i j i i ~ i c ~ u r ~ i ~iiuwle(jgcs, wllicli Iiiive ti) Ilc ~Ichiitcd ii a dial(~gic; i lw W y

'd$I , , , ~ l i s o il I l l i ie~icc

B IW BY S tlljnks aboiit its iiite rve~iiioli n a lvorld

!: i l l wllicli it woiilc] mak e s»m c differe nce , in wliicli it wollld havc suiiie

, i rcct, F i l i ; l \ ly , a pr ;lctice wli ich i inders tands tl ie i iced f ~ rl i tel lectu¿~l

'3 l , lO,~cs~y ,do [[icre is tlic diffcreiicc i i i tIic \vorld I>etweeil'f i i l l ~ c r s ~ ~ i , i i ~ ~ i i g1 1 ~oliti cs illtellectu:il wor k aiid siibstitiitiiig iiitellcctu;il

i:rí I<LCl~lCl\lSNCES

$ ( . c l l t i c (or Contenlporary Ciiltur;il Studie r (1'982) ?/i r Eilipil e Sir i k c ~ ltirk. Loii-IE (loti: Huichiiisoii8 lirll, S (1974) 'Msrx's 1iotcs 011 method: ii rcading of th c 18 57 ~ l i t r ~ d ~ i c t i ( j ~ ' ,:lj

Working P;ipcrs i n Cultural Studies 6 , 132-71.il (,1<)80a)7he Iliiitcrland of science7, n Centre f i ) r Coiiieiii[iorary Cilllilr;ilii2 Stiidics, 0 1 1 Itleology, Loiidon: Hutcliinson.

_ _ - ( I < ) x ( ) ~ )~ u l , i i r a [ studics: solni pri~\>lcmiilicsiiid ~ ~ r ~ ~ I ~ ~ i i 1 ~ ' .il s. 1 l ; l l i#./, (,,is), Cii/,li% Mer/io, Loiigil[ige, Luiidoti: ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ i i i l s O ~ l / ~ ~ ~5 4 7 .

{ l l ; i l \ , S, ,~ r i i ~ i l ~ ~ ,., Jeff irson,T., Clirke, J . ;,nd Iliibeils, D . (1978) I'oiiciiib11 ( , ~ i ; r ; r : ~ i l s x ; i l g ~ ,/ l c ~,ri /< , ir!(/ I.oiu rrlirl O1<11,1~. .oii ii<iii: 1 liiicliinsiiii.

:ii ~ i l l i ; ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,1, ( 1 9 ~ ~ ) )ylC I()/;1ic~~f Moclrrriiiili, Loii<loii:V ~ r s o .

j w~~~~~~~~di^^ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,ccs (1978) Worlieii l"kr Ir.~i ic,Liitidul,: fliitcliiiisoli.

HALL, Estudios Culkturales y Sus Legados Teoricos

Documents

Transcript of HALL, Estudios Culkturales y Sus Legados Teoricos