The future of Cultural Studies, as a practice and a politics

In the inaugural issue of the International Journal of Cultural Studies from July 1998, John Hartley, as editor of the volume, details the journal’s mission and in doing so also indirectly illustrates the scope and hoped-for aims of Cultural Studies in “post-disciplinary” and international fields. As I would have expected with any new journal oriented towards Cultural Studies, Hartley names five areas of thematic focus: politics, communication, collectives, production and social relations; among these, Hartley finds it important to, at least in part, define ‘social relations’ in terms of “relations between publics and professionals whose ‘power’ is based on knowledge.” (Hartley 6) I found this to be crucial, as it incorporates into the journal’s mission the task of self-reflexive inquiry, a subtle commitment to examining all power structures, including those to which Cultural Studies and the Academy are equally complicit and reflective. The rest of the first volume further develops these stated themes, including Joe Moran’s essay “Cultural studies and academic stardom,” which critiques the power structures of academic celebrity, and which I will also be assigning for the class to read before my teaching activity on the final day of class.

For my final paper, I propose to pick up the concerns of Moran while also examining the issues of critical literacies and profitability/marketability in regards to the current field of Cultural Studies. Since Moran’s 1998 essay, many other scholars have voiced similar critiques, including Alison Hearn from this week’s readings, as well as Tony Thwaites, Ted Striphas, Janneke Adema and, as we saw last week, Graeme Turner. My aims for doing so are twofold: First, I hope to apply thoughts raised by these scholars (and others, including Pierre Bourdieu’s in his examination of the ‘field’) to my own current research surrounding annually reported adjunct and tenured faculty salaries within departments typically associated with Cultural Studies (film & media studies, communications, sociology, anthropology, public policy, and education). As Moran, Hearn, and others have pointed out, there is a great disparity in the field between the mission(s) of Cultural Studies, established early in its formation, and the power structures it can at times perpetuate, as in the case of adjunct vs. tenured salaries or the hierarchies of academic celebrity. Second, in working through this analysis, I hope to also look forward to the future (and the potential revitalization) of Cultural Studies by considering how such self-reflexive analysis and application might rectify these disparities in keeping with the field's political aim and ideals while also addressing the practical needs of ‘marketability’.

Bibliography
Adema, Janneke. “Practice what you preach: Engaging in humanities research through critical praxis.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 16.5 (2013): 491 - 505. Print.

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993. Print.

Bowen, William G. Higher Education in the Digital Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Print.

Hartley, John. “Editorial (with goanna).” International Journal of Cultural Studies 1.1 (1998): 5 - 10.

Hearn, Alison. “Through the Looking Glass: the Promotional University 2.0.” Blowing Up the Brand. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2010. 197 - 219. Print.

Moran, Joe. “Cultural studies and academic stardom.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 1.1 (1998): 67 - 82. Print.

Striphas, Ted. “Banality, book publishing and the everyday life of cultural studies.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 5.4 (2002): 438 - 460. Print.

Thwaites, Tony. “‘Vigilant hospitality’: The online imperative and teaching cultural studies.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 5.2 (2002): 479 - 493. Print.