Cultural Studies in the Future Tense

complexity completeness contexts

Grossberg (2010, 16) argues that Cultural Studies focuses on complexity by refus
ing
to reduce the complexity of reality to any single plane or domain of
existence. It would be decidedly antireductionist (ibid., 17), contextual and
opposed to universalism and completeness (ibid.). Radical contextualism is the
heart of Cultural Studies (ibid., 20). This contextuality is expressed in the use
of Stuart Halls concept of articulation, the transformative practice or work of
making, unmaking, and remaking relations and contexts, of establishing new relat
ions
out of old relations or non-relations (ibid., 21). It focuses on discovering
the heterogeneity, the differences, the fractures, in the wholes (ibid., 22). Pow
erhas multiple axes and dimensions that cannot be reduced to one another (ibid.,
29). Contexts are always in relations to other contexts, producing complex sets
of multidimensional relations and connections (ibid., 31). The commitment to
complexity, contingency, contestation, and multiplicity is a hallmark of Cultural
Studies (ibid., 54).
Grossberg sees an important role for economics in Cultural Studies today. He
argues that Cultural Studies should take on and take up economic questions
without falling back into forms of reductionism and essentialism (ibid., 101),
which logically implies that previously there was a neglect and ignorance of eco
nomic
questions. Grossberg argues that Cultural Studies does need to take questions
of economics more seriously (ibid., 105). He says that it should do so in
a way which would not reproduce the reductionism of many forms of political
economy (ibid.). Looking back on the debate between Cultural Studies and
Marxist/Critical Political Economy of the Media, he says that Cultural Studies
opposes economic and class reductionism and refuses to believe that the
economy could define the bottom line of every account of social realities (ibid.)
.
Paul Smith argues in this context from within the Cultural Studies field that
the claim by certain Cultural Studies scholars that Marxism is reductive and
economically determinist is a rhetoric used to eschew the economic (Smith
2006, 337).The result would be an anarchist or nihilistic stance in relation to t
he
object (ibid., 338). As a result, Cultural Studies would have followed numerous
dead ends and crises and would have been held back from realizing its best intelle
ctual
and political aspirations (ibid., 339).
Grossbergs own approach of reconciling economics and Cultural Studies
starts with a discussion of Marxs labour theory of value (Grossberg 2010, 151
165). He argues for a radically contextual theory of value and, hence, a radicall
y
contextual reading of Marxs labor theory of value (ibid., 156). Grossberg
aims at decentring the value concept from the labour concept and therefore
interprets it in its broader meaning as representation, desire, measure of a deg
ree
of singularity and what is good and desirable (ibid., 158159). He suggests a
general theory of value (ibid., 159) that is based on the assumption of a multiplic
ity,
dispersion, and contingency of values (122). Value would involve the
production of all types of surplus so that the real is always greater than, in exce
ss
of, the actual (ibid., 160).The contemporary crisis would be constituted by
manifold crises of commensuration (ibid.) and the inability to measure/value
various differences, which would have resulted in religious, political, economic
,
intellectual and financial fundamentalisms (167168) that demand the extermination
of the other (168). The financial crisis would have been caused by
the existence of an enormous set of financial (toxic) assets that cannot be commen
surated
that is to say, their value cannot be calculated (ibid., 167), but it
would just form one of many simultaneous crises of commensuration. The Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) is an assessment of research conducted in the
United Kingdom that aims at producing quality profiles for each submission ofrese
arch activity (www.rae.ac.uk). It tries to measure the quality of research and
to thereby compare and rank higher education institutions and departments.The
results have implications for budget allocation. In the 2008 RAE, 45% of the
submissions of Middlesex University in the unit of assessment area of philosophy
were classified as 3* (internationally excellent) and 20% as 4* (world-leading),
which makes a total of 65% excellent (4* + 3*) research. Seven institutions
received better, 8 the same (including the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford)
and 26 worse results.According to this assessment, philosophy at Middlesex
University was very good. In April 2010, Middlesex University announced that
it would close all philosophy programmes and terminate further recruitments in
this area for simply financial reasons and based on the fact that the University
believes that it may be able to generate more revenue if it shifts its resources
to
other subjects.1 The announcement was followed by protests, an occupation,
the suspension of staff members and students, many protest letters to the univer
sitys
administrationsigned by such leading intellectuals as tienne Balibar,
Judith Butler, David Harvey, Martha Nussbaum or Jacques Rancireand the
institutional relocation of the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosoph
y
from Middlesex University to Kingston University. In 2012, no courses
and research in the area of philosophy were indicated on Middlesex Universitys
website (see www.mdx.ac.uk, accessed August 30, 2012)philosophy had formally
ceased to exist at the university. In 2011, philosophy at London Metropolitan
University and the University of Greenwich was facing similar debates
as at Middlesex University. Modern universities are based on an enlightenment
idealthey accumulate systematic knowledge that aims at advancing the status
of human knowledge about the world as well as society. In this accumulation,
universities compete with each other. Capitalist industry and governments apply
the accumulated scientific knowledge, whereas the workforce and management
in the modern economy apply the accumulated educational skills created by
higher education. The Nobel Prize, established in 1895, is characteristic for th
e
modern competitive assessment of knowledge and universities in the areas of
chemistry, economics, literature, medicine, peace and physics. Modern universiti
es
are inherently shaped by an economic logic of accumulation, competition
and ranking. At the same time, the university has also been a locus and space
for the formation of counterculture, critical ideas, and political protests that
question the very logic of accumulation and resulting inequalities in society at
large. An important step in the institutionalization of quality assessment was t
he
establishment of the Science Citation Index in 1960 that is today owned by a
commercial publishing companyThomson Reuters. The index originated in
the natural sciences but was later extended to cover the humanities (Arts and
Humanities Index) and the social sciences (Social Sciences Citation Index). Nati
onwide
research assessments (such as the RAE) and global university rankings
are more recent developments. The first RAE was conducted in 1986 under
the Thatcher government. The first Times Higher Education World University Ranki
ng was published in 2004. The Academic Ranking of World Universities
has been conducted since 2003.
These phenomena are indications that economic logic is one immanent feature
of the modern university system and that in neo-liberal times, the economization
of higher education and research has become an even stronger feature
of universities.The closing of philosophy at Middlesex University is an indicati
on
that fields, programmes, and people engaged in areas that are difficult to subsu
me
under the logic of revenue generation and industry are prone to being dropped.
In this example, the contradictions of economization became fully apparent: Alth
ough
receiving very good results in one form of economization (research assessment),
philosophy at Middlesex University was closed because of another
form of economization (monetary revenue): the university management thought
that the department does not generate enough monetary revenue. I have chosen
this example because it shows how modern culture and contemporary modern
culture in particular are shaped by economic logic. It shows that the central
(moral) value of modern society is (economic) value. The radical contextuality
that Lawrence Grossberg propagates does not allow grasping the particular role
that the economic logic of accumulation and money plays in modern society. It
advances a peculiar kind of relativism disguised under headlines such as context
uality,
multidimensionality, heterogeneity and difference. Modern society definitely
is complex in that it is made up of many interacting and interdependent spheres
(the economy, politics, everyday life, private life, the public sphere, the medi
a,
higher education, health and care, nature, arts, entertainment, sports, etc.), b
ut
there is a need for a conceptual apparatus that allows one to analyse the power
relations between these spheres. It is unlikely that all spheres and actors in a
state,
phase or conjuncture of society have the same power.There are indications that
the economic sphere has in capitalism always been the dominant (although not
determining) sphere. A radical contextualism results in a dualistic relativism tha
t
cannot adequately analyse power relations and power distributions (and as a cons
equence
power struggles) and sees power as independently constituted in multiple
spheres. Rejecting such a position does not mean that struggles against capitali
sm
and domination are impossible, but it does mean that in modern society all strug
gles
necessarily have an economic dimension that is of particular importance. It is
important not only that there are multiple spheres of power, but that these sphe
res
are related to each other in variable dimensions that are determined in struggle
s.
Radical contextualism risks conceiving and analysing power as independent contai
ners,
not as power relations. Grossberg propagates the equal importance of all
societal spheres, which results in a concept of multiple values that dissolves M
arxian
theory into a general theory of value and classifies all attempts to stress a
particular importance and shaping role of the economicwhich has in media
and Cultural Studies especially been stressed by Marxist Political Economyas
economic and class reductionism, economism, capitalocentrism, essentialism
and so forth. Grossberg calls for respecting each other as allies (Grossberg 2010,
201) but at the same time continues to uphold old prejudices against Marxist
Political Economy that were most fiercely expressed in the debate between him
and Nicholas Garnham, in which he concluded that he must decline the invitation
to reconcile Cultural Studies and the Political Economy of Culture and the
Media, stating,we dont need a divorce because we were never married (Grossberg
1995, 80; see also Garnham 1995a, b).
Grossberg calls for giving more attention to the economy in Cultural Studies.
He does so himself by engaging with economics, including Marxs labour theory
of value, which he introduces and dismisses with the argument that the value
concept needs to be broadened in order to avoid economic reductionism and to
conceive, based on Marxs dialectic, the economy as contradictory. So he sets up
a Marxist camouflage argument (the importance of contradictions) in order to
dismiss Marx and the labour theory of value and instead use a relativist approac
h
on cultural economy.Toby Miller argues in this context that Grossberg caricature
s
the political economy approach and asks him to rethink the anti-Marxism because
it is the wrong target (Miller 2011, 322).
A recent book by John Hartley represents another prominent approach that
advances the idea of connecting Cultural Studies to economics.