Week 7 – Barker Chapter 13

Cohen’s critique of CCCS’s “Resistance trhough Rituals” seems warranted.  While it seems clear that there is some element of resistence and intentionality in stylistic choice on bricolage, I do wonder if the use of these symbols is as active of a process as suggested by thHall and Jefferson.  I affirm Cohen’s critque, as paraphrased by Barker:

Style is over-inflated as resistance while resistance is reduced to questions of style.

The attempt to give meaning to all forms of stylistic expression may under-credit the novelty of genuine resistance and, at the same time, fail to take into account the arbitrariness of stylistic trends.

Week 6 – Barkers Chapter 12

It was interesting (and I think insightful) that Barker included a section on the internet in his discussion of city living. Gillespie and William’s suggestion that telecommunication has essentially eliminated the “friction of distance” perhaps needs further reflection. Though their point is clear, I would argue that cyber community, while very significant, doesn’t contribute to one’s cultural identity as much as the tangible life structures in which they are immersed.

Hence, the research which suggests that people’s internet friends are often people from the same regional areas. This tendency to associate with people from our region (even when distance is not an issue) suggests that there remains a very significant cultural gap and that globalization (at least for the time being) is not without limit.

Week 6 – Barker Chapter 11

The analysis of television was very thorough. I appreciated the emphasis on the audience as an active rather than passive element within the process. In particular, I was interested by the analysis of news – both looking at how it is defined and its interaction with society. I think its tempting to see the media as a source of problems (i.e. propagating violence or stereotypes, etc). Barker is right to acknowledge that the interaction between media and other elements of culture/society is a two-way street.

Week 5 – Barker Chapter 10

This chapter seemed rather long, and essentially seemed to explore the many nuances of the “nurture vs nurture” debate. It was helpful to see analyzed the various positions on feminism as well as femininity/masculinity. The challenge with a discussion of this nature is that one often is left feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the complexity and clear indivisibility of the various relevant factors.

Week 4 – Barker Chapter 8

The whole issue of subjectivity/agency seems on some level to model that of language studies. That is, we seek to define something (subjectivity) that we can never view “from the outside.” We necessarily must study the issue from within its confines: only as “subjects” can we begin to question the nature of subjectivity. Though the chapter does place some emphasis on the role of language in determining identity, one wonders in light of these remarks if the converse might also be a point of consideration. That is, perhaps we ought also consider that our understanding of “self” and “identity” (whether cultural/social or personal) necessarily influences our choice of language.

Week 4 – Barker Chapter 7

I think Foucault and Giddens together offer a novel and, in light of this chapter, appropriate characterization of the relationship between modernism and postmodernism.  Foucault’s rejection of a “clear , distinctive and final break down between enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought” along with his assertion that we need not necessarily accept/refute either position is helpful.  He asserts rather that we become aware of the “reason” that influence enlightenment thought and recognize its limitations.  Indeed, Bauman’s suggestion that “the condition of postmodernity is the modern mind reflecting upon itself from a distance and sensing the urge to change” seems to articulate a similar sentiment.  Further, there seems to be some validity to Giddens’ recognition that postmodernism might better be characterized as “radicalized modernism.”

Week 3 – Barker Chapter 5

I thought this chapter provided an interesting analysis and deconstruction of the “nature vs nurture” dichotomy. I think the approach was helpful in that it emphasized the interdependence of the two, and the general nonlinearity of the various determinative aspects (genes, experiences, culture, history, etc). One thing that I might challenge was a general tendency to view the human person as something much less than autonomous or rational. In particular, the discussions on evolutionary psychology and “meme theory” seemed to describe human behavior and thought as a consequence of chance rather than intentionality. Thus, people tend be portrayed not as subject and agents of choice, but rather as objects acted upon by history and nature.

Week 2 – Barker Chapter 3-4

I found that the reading in Barker this week was less abstract than last week but still challenging. Nevertheless, I found parts of it very interesting. I thought it was helpful to reflect on the various definitions of culture, and in particular found resonance with the ideas of culture as “ordinary” and culture as an irreducible system of autonomous and articulating elements. The discussion on ideology/hegemony leads to some worthwhile reflections as does the suggestion that culture is seminally tied to economics (i.e. Marxism, etc).

The discussion of language as a framework for cultural studies was useful. I thought that Derrida’s concept of “differance” seemed to characterize well some of the intricacies of sign, but also felt that Wittgenstien’s approach offers a necessary corrective in that it recognizes both the fluidity and limits of language. On a side note, I found it somewhat ironic, given Derrida’s understanding of language, that Barker characterizes his work as “complex, subtle, difficult and open to contested interpretations.” One wonders how Derrida himself would view such a comment since the characterization essentially lends credence to his theory.

Week 1 – Barker Chapter 2-3

While I understand the need to be introduced to the discipline of cultural studies, I found Barker’s introduction to be rather tedious. The first chapter involved largely technical definitions, which where explained articulately but nevertheless remain somewhat abstract simply because I do not yet know enough about cultural studies to place such concepts into some sort of useful framework. Similarly, the second chapter, while again relevant, dealt largely with abstractions and thus was somewhat difficult to read. A discussion on “problems” in cultural studies seems more appropriate after one has already become somewhat familiar with the field.