FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2016283752> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2016283752 endingPage "125" @default.
• W2016283752 startingPage "92" @default.
• W2016283752 abstract "Why We Shouldn't Be Bored with the Political Economy versus Cultural Studies Debate Janice Peck (bio) Any analysis that commences by isolating thought from the other components of social reality (the mental from the non-mental) and then attempts to deduce the latter from the former (the idealist approach), or the former from the latter (the vulgar materialist approach), will, by virtue of its underlying principle, inevitably box itself into a corner. —Maurice Godelier, The Mental and the Material It is then ironic to remember that the force of Marx's original criticism had been mainly directed against the separation of areas of thought and activity (as in the separation of consciousness from material production) and against the related evacuation of specific content—real human activities—by the imposition of abstract categories. The common abstraction of the base' and the superstructure is thus a radical persistence of the modes of thought which he attacked. —Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature In 1995, a head-to-head encounter between two heavyweights in the cultural studies versus political economy skirmish ended in stalemate when Lawrence Grossberg rebuffed Nicholas Garnham's entreaty for a reconciliation of these strands of critical media inquiry.1 Where Garnham argued that the project of cultural studies can only be successfully pursued if the bridge with political economy is rebuilt,2 Grossberg retorted that the two approaches had never been more than distant cousins and asserted his disinterest in rapprochement in the title of his essay: Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is Anybody Else Bored with This Debate?3 Although media scholars such as Eileen Meehan continue to see cooperation between the two perspectives as essential if we are [End Page 92] to fully appreciate the complex phenomena collapsed into the term media, political economy and cultural studies have neither reconciled nor officially divorced.4 Instead, they have arrived at an uneasy truce born of having divided up the world—and their respective objects of inquiry—into the putatively separate realms of economy and culture. In Meehan's formulation of the distinction, political economy provides the context for media products as cultural artifacts, while cultural studies examines how particular creators, particular artifacts, or particular consumers operate within that context.5 This division of terrains is evident in Garnham's query, Where in the contemporary cultural studies . . . research program are examinations of the cultural producers and the organizational sites and practices they inhabit and through which they exercise their power,6 and Grossberg's reply, I'm tempted to answer that they are in political economy; that is, after all, what political economists do and why should they want cultural studies to do it? One could, after all, just as easily ask of political economy: Where are the studies of consumption and everyday life?7 With Meehan, and contra Grossberg, I believe the political economy vs. cultural studies debate deserves intellectual engagement rather than boredom. However, I locate the problem not in their focus on different objects of study8 but in their mutual failure to resolve the problem that provoked division in the first place: how to think the relation between something labeled the economic and another thing designated as the cultural. I propose that it is a shared belief in this separation—where culture and economy are conceived as empirically distinct areas or levels of human activity—that fuels the political economy–cultural studies debate and prevents its resolution. This separation of economy and culture rests on an enduring dualism within Western thought, which is variously construed as nature vs. culture, nature vs. society, material vs. mental, material vs. symbolic, conditions vs. consciousness, object vs. subject, things-in-themselves vs. the perceiving subject. In his history of communication studies, Dan Schiller treats the field's perennial failure to develop a theoretical framework capable of encompassing both communication and labor, or mental and material activity. This deficit, he argues, was reconfigured in the 1970s in communication and cultural studies in the form of a resurgent dualism between 'political economy' and [End Page 93] its compensatory rival, 'signification' that was to remain predominant down to the present.9 Responding to the Garnham–Grossberg joust, Graham Murdock suggests that cultural..." @default.
• W2016283752 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2016283752 creator A5069388473 @default.
• W2016283752 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2016283752 modified "2023-10-13" @default.
• W2016283752 title "Why We Shouldn't Be Bored with the Political Economy versus Cultural Studies Debate" @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1512941087 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1566298475 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1588812431 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1607272934 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1974407376 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1976567635 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1988100081 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W1994966324 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2007184369 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2035607492 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2036493763 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2040257024 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2051799795 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2089401885 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2101551314 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2121857841 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2123783214 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2125627035 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2316714403 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2317883216 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2322618661 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2482894967 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W2891730258 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W3096120016 @default.
• W2016283752 cites W612827457 @default.
• W2016283752 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2006.0029" @default.
• W2016283752 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2016283752 type Work @default.
• W2016283752 sameAs 2016283752 @default.
• W2016283752 citedByCount "30" @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522012 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522013 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522014 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522015 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522016 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522017 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522018 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522019 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522020 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522021 @default.
• W2016283752 countsByYear W20162837522023 @default.
• W2016283752 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2016283752 hasAuthorship W2016283752A5069388473 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C109913982 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C144218379 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C186720457 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C2777239683 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C107038049 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C109913982 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C111472728 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C138885662 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C138921699 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C144024400 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C144218379 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C17744445 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C186720457 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C199539241 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C2777239683 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C7991579 @default.
• W2016283752 hasConceptScore W2016283752C94625758 @default.
• W2016283752 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2016283752 hasLocation W20162837521 @default.
• W2016283752 hasOpenAccess W2016283752 @default.
• W2016283752 hasPrimaryLocation W20162837521 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W201520771 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W2124998006 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W2347948996 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W2377743224 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W2398287011 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W2897333907 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W3001403157 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W3124286824 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W3125203782 @default.
• W2016283752 hasRelatedWork W4298153950 @default.
• W2016283752 hasVolume "64" @default.
• W2016283752 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2016283752 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2016283752 magId "2016283752" @default.
• W2016283752 workType "article" @default.