Brian Holmes on 9 Feb 2001 15:17:00 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Stockholding and Cultural Studies |
1. Stockholding The notion that you could have a popular capitalism - i.e. workers, or more often retired workers, becoming owners by buying stock - is, I think, an awful outcome, and not only because the small players have poorer info and slower reaction time, and therefore tend to lose their savings in the downswings. The worst thing is when huge numbers of people become owners, not of any directly usable tool, but of a possible cut of the proceeds of exploitation. But the stockholder can't see it that way (it would be illegitimate, unbearable), so any such critique goes out the window: stockholding makes social critique of the economy impossible for the holder. Instead it means watching the movements of the market like they were your own beating heart. It makes people narcissistically anxious about the extra income they might have. A very private, even privatizing, feedback loop is set up, where the world news is important insofar as it affects my stocks, which in turn affect my fantasies and mood, which in turn affect the way I see the world news. The day the US goes to war to buouy up the fantasy market will be a sad day indeed. 2. Cultural Studies McKenzie Wark writes: "..People particpate already in culture in ways that are complex, subtle, and require that we treat them with some respect. There is, in short, a democratic impulse in cultural studies..." Well said, that's why I read so much Birmingham school and Raymond Williams. The impulse was definitely there. But the results are before our eyes now, and they are very ambiguous. By equating "pop" with the popular, by focusing so heavily on the range of meaning and use-value that can be created in reception, while preferring to ignore the degree to which the initial consumer-media product actually sets that range of possible meanings and uses, cultural studies has pushed itself entirely away from its early critical position. If you reread, say, Resistance Through Rituals, you will see that the point is not to celebrate people's ability to do whatever they want with music or fashion etc., but to observe how they negotiate their class position and preserve or develop their particular take on society _despite_ bombardment with a message that tries to impose another view. What the authors of that book, at that time, found most positive were the rare moments when people became fully aware that by shifting their interpretations and uses of the dominant cultural products, they could transform the social order. At that time, the authors thought they could encourage those moments. I rarely see that point being made anymore. I did, however, see Dick Hebdige give a slide/video/music show at the Tapies Foundation in Barcelona about three years ago. Basically he was documenting subcultural or even cult variants on the reception of musical and filmic icons, culminating with evident delectation in a report on a Scottish (or Welsh or Irish) village where the main activity of the primarily retiree population is to dress up as the characters in Western movies (cowboys and Indians I mean). Freedom and community as lived fantasy. Notably absent from the entire show was the idea or reality of a productive, transformative social conflict. I don't mean that good work can't still be done out of a very rich tradition. And it is true that in Britain (I don't know about Australia) it's a lot harder to disconnect cultural studies from class issues than in the US. But I do think that cultural studies, in its worldwide extension from the US springboard, now mainly documents the ways that people "negotiate" the dominant ideological messages, which were actually formulated in Britain: "society doesn't exist" and "there is no alternative." The negotiated answer, at least in Hebdige's version above, is to make micro-societies and autistic alternatives out of the very products that deliver the message. I don't think the academic celebration of that answer really deserves our respect. BH # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]