We’ll spend the first half of our time on Parts 5 and 6. They deal broadly with how cultural studies critics theorize personal and cultural identity (for purposes of our discussion I think it makes sense to approach sexuality, gender, and the concept of “queer” as identity categories along with race and multiculturalism). The theoretical approach here is generally poststructuralist and narrowly deconstructive, i.e. essentialist or foundationalist conceptions of identity, race, culture, gender, and sexual orientation have given way in our own time to social constructionist models based on a deconstruction of the nature/culture binary. Much of this may be familiar from introductory or advanced level theory courses you’ve already had (our Introduction to Graduate Studies, for example), but we will certainly spend some time dealing with questions you’ve got about 1) the theoretical concepts During reviews in these sections, and 2) how the topics he covers translate into major issues of practical interest to cultural studies critics. If you want to post questions here that would be great.
After the break we’ll spend the remainder of our time on Parts 7 and 4, in that order. Part 7 discusses the general interest in “popular culture” among cultural studies critics, and Part 4 deals with specific examples of popular forms of interest to cultural studies critics—TV, music, and “technoculture” (the list is by no means exhaustive, of course). These two sections, taken together, make for a nice transition to our study of popular culture in the form of networked public culture. As such, it seems to me we’ll want to orient our discussion of these sections around how the landscape of popular culture has changed in the few years since During wrote his book. How has TV changed, and to what extent is it marked by its convergence with the web? With regard to music, building on the foundation During reviews, how would we want to approach the study of music given developments related to its online use During doesn’t discuss? And finally, his section on “technoculture” is a brief, early sketch of the terrain we’re about to cover. We should try to talk briefly about some of the key developments that have transpired since the publication of his book as a way to begin to frame some of the topics we’ll be covering the rest of the semester.
Feel free to post questions – and suggestions about specifics you’d like to see us cover – by using the comments feature here. I’m outta here for the Super Bowl.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The internet has become an important location for emerging bands to promote their gigs and music. I know of a few local punk rock bands that use MySpace and FaceBook to invite people to their shows. They claim they’ve increased their attendance and reduced the cost of printing fliers because of the net. For smaller bands, the internet is a cheap and relatively easy way to get some exposure.
I’ve also noticed that some larger name bands have started pre-releasing songs on their MySpace pages. For example, last fall the heavy metal band Slayer, http://www.myspace.com/slayer who has a rather strong subculture following, pre-released their whole album on MySpace.
Anyway, I think we’ve touched on this in previous classes, but with music videos, CDs, a new resurgence in vinyl sales and the internet, music can be an interesting case study for “convergence.”
In our Jazz Age course last week, we were talking about the distinction between racialists, people who posit that races exist and are identifiable by biological and character traits, and racists, who are racialists that then classify races in a hierarchy. It didn't seem that this distinction was made in During's section on race, and I was wondering why- if this is just a matter of a particular cultural studies vocabulary or if it marks a difference in the way race can be/is imagined
In other news, way to rock hard core with a Slayer reference, Al.
Alison is certainly right that the internet's become an important location for emerging bands to promote themselves and stay in touch with their fan base. So when we move on to talk about convergence, this can be a key topic. The whole question of how the internet has become a point of convergence for the production, consumption, distribution, mashing, et. al. of music is fascinating. As is the question of whether MySpace is getting appropriated by big-time marketers, undercutting counter-culture aspects of the space.
Responding to Julia's interesting question, I wouldn't make too much of the fact During doesn't invoke the distinction David Chinitz was discussing. I think During would certainly recognize and acknowledge the usefullness of the distinction. It seems to me it's implicit in his treatment of race, though the nuance difference between "racialist" and "racist" is an important distinction. We can certainly discuss this tonight.
Also on the subject of race, does anyone else have trouble keeping all the right words in order? Before reading During, words like multiculturalism, cultural diversity, ethnicity, race, racism, cultural racism, ethno-racism, racialism, etc. all blurred together a bit. I'm trying to make distinctions between them as I read, but perhaps we can talk about terminology, as well.
During says on page 198 that cultural studies has taken popular culture as its study in order to combat the ways that high culture organizes society into hierarchies around both economics and culture at the same time. Some argue, however, that this “anti-canon” position ignores the main problem with pop culture: “that it is not the spontaneously produced culture of the community, but instead is the product of commercial enterprises whose ultimate measure of success is profit not quality” (198). However, with the popularity of YouTube and Googlevideo, it seems pop culture is combating the “spontaneity” issue. I wonder though, about the issue of quality. Perhaps not all YouTube posters are trying to make it big and make a profit. I’m more of a googlevideo watcher than a YouTuber (is that a word?) and not much of what is “popular” is what I would consider “quality” anything. Mostly, the videos under “popular” or “most viewed” tend to be those which are laughs at another’s expense, though is sometimes a conspiracy-type documentary is posted. Yet, when I reflect on why I don’t consider these videos “quality” I would have to admit it would likely be tied to the influence of “high culture.”
Joanna and All,
Regarding your intersting post, see the new links I've put on the blog under the heading "Online Video Links." The initial Washington Post article posted there takes a position much like yours (which I must say I sympathize with). The remaining links are to clips or sites mentioned in the article. We'll pick this up again.
Post a Comment