Critical practice and the future of cultural studies
Seminar by Ted Striphas
Cultural studies has long touted itself as a "critical" intellectual practice. But however much the field may identify itself as such, more often than not the concept of critique has remained ill defined. Typically-but often vaguely-the term refers to interrogation, circumspection, demystification, contestation, opposition, refusal, resistance, and any number of related activities, all of which seem to carry a predominantly negative political charge. The goal of critique, moreover, is usually taken to be the revelation of some truth about the world, or, alternatively, of the processes by which specific truths have been constructed. The underlying assumption seems to be that this type of critical insight will lead to better, more complicated forms of knowledge and thereby empower people in and beyond cultural studies to better challenge dominant authorities.
Recently, however, some scholars have begun troubling these understandings of critique, in one case even going as far as to claim that critique, so conceived, has "run out of steam." Their concerns are grounded in a sobering recognition. Indeed, the last 40 years have seen a relentless, global expansion of the forces of conservatism, militarism, and capitalism-this despite the apparent success the field of cultural studies has enjoyed over roughly the same period of time. And while it would be imprudent to suggest that this planetary political right turn is attributable directly to cultural studies-or rather, to its failures-it should nonetheless prompt us to take stock of our definitions of critique and the critical tools at our disposal.
This seminar aims to do just that. The session will be organized around a close reading and open-ended discussion of three articles, each of which advances a compelling critique of, and vision for, critical practice within the field of cultural studies. We will address questions such as: if in fact critique has "run out of steam," then how might we reinvigorate it? How have the relationships among truth, reality, historicity, politics, and critique been figured within cultural studies, and how might they be refigured in light of the aforementioned concerns? How productive is it to approach affirmation as the "other" of critical practice? What are-or should be-the goals of critical engagement, and how might we go about achieving them?
Although our conversation will focus primarily on critique, it's worth bearing in mind that the subject is a means, not an end. Critique, that is to say, is nothing more than a context or occasion for talking about the future of cultural studies and the ability of its practitioners to respond both meaningfully and creatively to the complex political realities of our time.
Readings
Latour, Bruno (2004). "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern." Critical Inquiry 30(2) (Winter). 225-248.Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (2003). "Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay Is About You." In Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity (pp. 123-151). Durham: Duke University Press.
Seigworth, Gregory J. (2006). "Cultural Studies and Gilles Deleuze (One Paradigm Less)." In New Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory (pp. 107-126). Ed. Gary Hall and Clare Birchall. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
