=

ü

. . ,.

"

"

AN HJSTORICAL AND THEOREnCAt ANAL YSIS OF THE CONCEPT . <>

..

, <

OF 'THE POPULAR' IN CUL TUR.AL STUDŒS )

.' . by

\ Morag Slüach

-Grad~te progra.:n in Communicaticn

McGill University, Montre81

August' 1913

• c1.'

A- thesis submitted to the,.faculty

of Gradœte \S~es and R .... ch in \ -

pértial fulflllment of tI\e

r~ts< for the dtgee of

Muter of Arts

•

, . . . . ,

<' •

..

-,' ----,' - , " '. ,~,." '

. '

/

'"

'. ~'" ..

"

1.

f\

? Il ni l' ,

"

. ~

) " ,/

"

)

. " AI ' 1 1

q PI

ABSTRACT ,

".1,

This thesis examines the extent to which contemporary analysës of popular

culture have distahced themselves from strategi~S of .,~efinitio~ of 'the peop~~~ .... /

their adture formulated in the Eighteenth Cent ury • It looks at the 'rediscovery of> ' . ~...//'

t~,e peopl~' and their cultural forms in the late Eighteenth Century, and concluçlés

that these were characteri~d by a distrust of history, a posing of thë people as

essentially unified, and ~ r~pression of social an,d cultural inequalities. It then -./ .

examines Gramsci and Brecht's theorisations of 'the popular' in cultural and political ~ e

practice. Both seem to provide alternative definitlons in' s~ing 'the popuIar" as

som.ething t~"t must be c~nstructed ,through theoreticâl and political labour. ,f

~

finally, it examines sorne contemporary analyses of popular cufture, conduding that

they are Hmited by an uncriticiil appropriation of the earlier tradition, crystalHsed

'&round the concept of 'resistance'.

,n

" , ..

, j

Co

o

, .. . ' •

'\ -.

4'

,

1

1 1 •

. j

i f

1

I-I

, .' 1

~ ;-1' ,

l

• c····

,'.

.., ,

RESUME

Ce mémoire examine jusqu'Où Jes anaJyses contemporaines de la culture,-,

populaire se sont dist~ncées des stratégies de définition du 'peuple' et de sa

culture formulées au dix-huitième siècle. Il étudie la 'redécouvert~ du peuple' et

de ses formes culturelles qui eut lieu à la fin du dix-huitième siècle et conclut que

ses traits caractéristiques furent la méfiance à l'égard de l'histoire,· une -vision du

peuple comme essentiellement unifié, et une suppression des inégalités sociales et ~ 1

o.lI:b .• "d1es. Il se tourne ensuite vers les théorisations de ~ramsci et de Brecht du

'populaire' dans la pratique culturelle et politique. Dans la mesure où ces deux

autan considèrent que 'le populaire~ ddit être construit par le travaii théorique et ,

politique, ils fournissent des définitions d'e rechange.' En fin de compte, il examine

quelques analyses contemporaines 'de la culturé pOpulaire et conclut que celles-ci

sont limitées par une appropriation' non-critiqu,e de la tradition- antérieure qui st!

crystalise autour du concept de 'rési!tance'.

" \ ,

./

/ ,1

•

~ - -- --- ,-~-------

.......

, ,

/ / c

".

"

. "

• J

7-111 7 1 2 1 tri • u 1

/. 1 ~

'II , / l'

l" t

• -1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS j

1

1 would like to thank my two thesis advisers, Marike FinJay-Pel!nski and

Pai$ley Livingston for their help and their constructive criticism throughout the

writing of this thesis.

1 wouJd also like to acknowledge the support and help of fellow stud~nts in d

the __ Graduate Program in Communications, particularly Paul Attallah, who helped

with the preparation of the abstract, and John Roston, who solved severa!

computer-related problems and thus assistec1 in the production of this thesis.

«

, ï /

. ,

u -

t.

, , '

j _., _____ iIIIIIJ.i __ lzzÀ .. ;,. __ .... I_XALUI __ ... ____ ~ .... ,~-_ ... rr!1"'A .. ~"I ............ '"J~_-'_ .. _ .... l' ...... rl""" ......... ___________ .....

\

\

"

; ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

/

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE ' CONCEPT OF 'POPULAR CUL TURE'

1. The- Rediscovery of The People

2. The People' in the Politlcal Philosophy of the Enlightenment

3. Strat,egies of Definition of the People

CHAPTER T'WO: GRAMSG:I AND BRECHT: SOME Al, TERNA TIVE DEFINITIONS ; <t\

1. Gramsci and the Popular

2. 8recht and The Popular

'CHAPTER THREE: BRITISH CULTURAL STUDIES ÂNO 'THE PEOPLE'

1. The Founding Texts of the" Birmingham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studi~

, 2. Resistance Through Rituals

.'

..

. "

î

G

1

5

5

9

18

26

26

42

.56

\j--.56

71~

" 91

; 1

~ r

-.,.;.

..

(

. & .1- """"y··--r" --- -.. - --,----- -- - ~----~- ~

- ,-

(" ""

INTROPUCTION

/J'

.. This thesis aims to aassess what is at stake in describing a culture, or an , ,

aesthetic, as 'popular'. 'Popular culture' is a crucial and recurring term in

_ ~ contemporary cultural analysis. The increasing interest in, studying the cultural

forrrs and practices of 'the people', which emerged in the late 19.505, signalled a

l'fl0vement away ~from theories of tmas~ culture' and t~wards an \acknowledgement

, , .... 1

of the agency of individuals or social groups in the construction of cultural forms.

This wâs particularly important in the context of political theories which pr!oritised

the 'cultural as the domain in which political configuration~ of a social formation

are both constructed and legitimised. Theorisation of the possibilities and ~ s ;._

limitations of cultural struggle demanded a more nuanced analysis than that allowed

by notions of mass manipulation.

Yet, despite the importance of the rrm~ 'poP!.llar culture' ls __ the site of

" unparalleled confusion and ambiguity. A text such as C.W.E. Bigsby's Approaches

~ Popular Culture, a recent and influentiaI asse~ment of the field" merely Ô'

reproduces the terms of this confusion in the hunt for the object that n is 'popular ê

cUlture'.! The frustrations of this exercise are clear:

• ~ ~ -. ~ sociology of popular culture has not yet fulfilled the .first two basic requirements of any systematic e~uiry, a clear definition and a comprehensive classific~tion"

. , \

Sigsby at times equates popular culture with mas~ culture, that is t~ say that

he reproduces arguments attributing manipulative and politically. regressive

c:haracteristics to aH popular cultural forms. Thus the defining feature of popular

- cuItlre becomes its reproducibility,1ts relationship to technology. At other times,

he speaks rather of "products inspired by or attuned to the popular, mind."~ Or, l

again, at other moments his approach becomes entirely defensive, in insisting upon !!"

the valicijty of studying popular culture against the ehtism of institutionalised forms \

of high culture': In all trust' however, no account is gfven of the .historicaJ

.\ ..

. ~

)

•

} ..

development of the conc. of popul~r culture, or of the theoretical implications "J.}

~ . of its contemporary use. o.

It is the contention of this thesis tha't no adequate account of the politics, , ,

the aesthetics, or even the existence of popular culture can be given without fir,st

.exploring the historical construction of 'the people' and of 'popular culture' as '" - ,

categories of social and poJitical analysis. To accept the category of 'the popular' ,

,as either;:. natural of universal is_ to ignpre the specifie power relations that

. inte(..acted historically m its construction:

This thesis thus ~egms by examihing the 'rediscovery of the people' and their

cultural forms in the late Eighteenth Century. It 19>oks at the methodology and the

motivations for the study of popular culture, and the assumptions about 'the people'

on which these were based. It then· traces a number of similarities between ~

assumptions about the nature and value of popular cult~re,p and the role of 'the

'people' ,in the political philosophy, of the Enlightenment. We find that both fields

displa~ a distrust of history; represent tJ1e people as essentially unified; depend on

the people in order to propose formaI equality in a structure· basetl on absolute

in~qua1ity; and finally constitute the people uncritically as a locus of oppositional

meanings and values.

Ctlapter Two turns to the work of Gramsci and Brecht as providing different

sorts of definitions of 'the popular'. Gramsci looks at 'the popular' as someihing . ' that can only be constructed through theoretical and political labour • In rus

, discussiorl of the constitution of popular consent, of the relationship between

Marxist theory and the people, and of popular philosophy or folklore, we find the

beginnings of a definition' of popular culture, no't, as an object, but as a ch~nging

and ccntradictory area' in the field of cultural relations. In Brecht we also fmd an

awareness of the contrad~ctions surrounding the 'term 'popular culture'. He rejects

the notion of a folk culture, wruch survives unchanged throughout history. He

argues instead for a theoretically mformed artistic practice, aimed at constructing ... ~

. ,

l ,-

representations which are 'popular' in the sense of chaUenging oppression and t ~

exploitation, and in -the sense of being bath accessible and useful. He urges a

C'-'

f

='

..

..

The Concept of. 'The Popular' in 4Gultural Stu~Jjes -3 . o ,0

selective and critical approp~iation of existing cultural forms.

In Chapter Three we ~xamine the work of the Birmingham Centre for:, ""

Contemporary Cultural Studi~s, as being one of the most powoerful and influential .

examples of the contemporary study of popular cultu(e. We look tirst oÎ aU at

what Stuart Hall describes as four "seminaJ and formative" textso for the Centrees

, work: Richard Hoggart's The Uses of Literacy, E.P. Thompson's The Making of the

English Working Class, and Raymond Wiliiam~' Culture and Society' and The Long _ c

Revolution.4 We examine these texts in order to assess to what extent they are

constrained by the sorts of definitions of 'the people' out1in~d in 'Chapter, One.

Again, we find a distrust of history, an uncriticaJ attributibn of ·the --Aualities .?f

opposition, and resistance to the çultural for ms' of the people, and a tendency to

- see tl1e ~ople as both autonomous and unified. We then assess to what extent

the'se ~orts _ of assumptions hav~ impeded -both the theoretical and the politi'cal

,; project of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural 'Studies, as expressed

" pticuJarly in Resistance Through Rituals.' Resistance Through Rîtuals attempts to

analyse the relationship between youth sub-cultures, articulations of class and the c

maintenance of hegemony. It thus places i tself in the very contradictory field of (1

contempora~y çultural relations. , It returns over and over, however, ta an , ,

untheorised notipn of resistance ~ constituting a unified and conscious opposition

, to hegemonic power. It basically re'produces uncritic!illy, and seemingly

unconsciously, many of the strategies of definition of 'the, people' outlined in

Chapter One. \

The purpose 'of thls thesis is not to find a definition 'o~ 'Popular ~~. It ,

1s rather to opéli up the terrn, in or der to demonstrate the mstoricaf. terms of its ~ ..

con~truction, and the recurri'i\g assumpt10ns "that have shaped and limited 1t5 use. e

ln reconstructing, at least partial1y, the h1story of the concept of 'popular culture'

we hope to demonstrate th,e power of mherited defimtions of social and c4ltural

relations, and the difficult1es inherent in reappropriating a term whlch 1s

damagingly inflected by its double origin; -in5

conser:vative cultural analysis and social democratic politics.

< •• "

L

" ,

c)

.. ': 8 l'

;~ '~oncept of 'The ;opular' in C~tura1 Studi~~ l '

" 1

.NpTES

1: See ~.W.E. ~igSby. (ed.)~ Appr~a,~es' ~"POpUI~ CUlt~r~, BOwling 'Green,' ,?~o: Bowling Green Uruversity Popûlar Press, 1976, espeoally Bigsby·s own. artIcle, "The Poli tics of Populâr, Culture." -. .

- , 2. "ibid., p. 39.

3.

4.

.5.'

,

ibid., p. viii. ..

.. See Stuart Hall; "Cultural Studies: Two -Paradigms," Media" Culture

, So,ciety, No. ~, 1980" p. '7.'. ~ '~, '

Jim Grealy,' "Notes on Popular Cultute," sêr:een E.dUcatio~, N~.' 2~Spring • • p . .5.

, , !" " . , ,

. . . ,

,-... . ." "

" ,\

, ,

'- /'

, ,

... '

- ,

.'

, . ' "

"

.. '\ "

'.

'. ,.-'

"

, . ' " ,

;

<1.', >

o

.'

. --

- "

, , . , , .. '

,,-

.' ,

" '

i',

. ,

0,

.i

, ,1

, t l'

.. ' " .

\ -,

.. '"

,\ \~

. "

•

; , f

{ r f 1

..

..

. ') ( '

_il JI? IL Il

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies

CHAPTER ONE

Historical Origins of !he Concept of 'Popular Culture'

\ \

Qui dit le" peuple dit plus d'~e 'chose: ' c'est une vaste expression et l'on 5'ytonneroit de\~Oir ce qu'eUe embrasse et jusqu'Où c:lle s'étend - . \

'.-

5.

,

'Contemporary attempts to name the object that 15 'popular culture' have

bas1cally fallen into two traps. Firstly, an identitfcation, of popular culture with

"'the-, people', w~ch. tries to explain the characteristics of particular cultural ~orm5

in terms of the essential attributes of, 'the people', and thus tends. towards

essentialisme SecondJy, an identification of popular. culture wi~h "'particular cultural

forms: film, television or popular n music, which eventually leads to ahis~~ricism. ln

all this, however, the ,category of 'the popular' is never really challftnged. The aim . ~

of· this chapter \ is to problematise the concept of 'the popUlar' in cultural analysis ~

by looking at the specific power relations that have interacted historically, in the

constr,JJction of the conce~~.~f 'popular culture' and of 'the ~' to ~hom it is

ttlought JO attach. The problefT) at this point is not whether popular culture

actually exists, but rather how we çan, or should, begin to speak about it.

1 have chosen to begin witn political, social and cultural discourses of the

Eighteenth Century for two reasons. The first 1s theoretical, and hinges on the

notion of dominant episteme, or structure and pra€tice of meaning, which has ~

survi ved from the Eighteenth Century and the beginrungs of the Ihdustrial

Revolution ta the present day~

By episœme we mean, in tact, the total set of relations that -tlunite, at a given period, the discursive practices that give

rise to ~pistemological figures, sciences, and possibly formalized systems •••• it is the totality of relationships that can be discovered, for a given J>erlod, between the sqenc~

. when one analyses them at the level of discursive regularity •

..

,. Il 'Tnt _TV F ln .w. ,.~ MI; l '1 '9

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Stùdies 6

W i thin the context of this thesis, the existence of this dominant episteme will be ,

assumed, and perhaps confirmed, rather than explicitly proven. l "

My hypothesis is _.~ ~': ....-.:~ ... ~,.

that ways of thinking the social formation whlch emerged in the Jate Seventeenth' , , 1

and Eighteehth Centuries are stiU prevalent, and even dominant, in contemporary , . -discourses, even thoSe which chàu.~nge mucb of classica1 liberal philosophy. The

second ·reasoh fOr -be&lnrùng 'with the Eighteenth Cèntury is practica1: the .hope ~t

an· historical persPective" will provide a diffèreht and" productive: èontext for the

anal ysis of 'the popular'o. \

Peter Burke argues that "the idea of popular culture as opposed to leamed

cul ture is a late Eighteenth Century one, firit formuJated by the German writer

J.G. Herder.,,3 The Eighteenth Century marks the rediscovery of the people, and

their art fOrms, by bourgeois intellectuals. AJthough in the Medieval Period the .

Court had partiq.pated in carnival, had read contemporary ballads and chap books,

the Seventeenth and early Eightee'lth Centuries were marked by a withdrawl of the

bourgeoisie and aristocracy from such cultural forms! and the consoli~tlon of a

more rigid definition of the cultural.

BlrIœ argues that in the late Eighteen~ Century the surviving popular fanns

of ballad or folk tale were reappropriated as a locus of values negated by

U1irtl!mporary cuJturé. Thus the creation of terms such as VaIIcIieder (17711) or later

Folklore '(1~6-) and VoIIaIpiel 1(850). Michel de Certeau observ~ the same

phenomenon: -,

~ sorte d'engouement pour le lpopulaire' "saisilltarïs:tocratie libérale et édairée de la fin du XVUle siècle.

In fact, the precise date, for this -change in perception of the field of cultural

relations- is bard to establisl'to. ln his analysis of the changing structure of EW'opean . Cl

pOliti~~l and "cultural ,Consci0us.T be'tween 1680 and 171.5,' Hazard sees t~ begin,nings of thls trend in the earIy Eighteenth Century. The point ~e is that

we are not dealing with a rupture in politi~ aI1d cultural anaJysis, but with the

Ct;;)'} graduaI introduction of a new system of concept,s with which to think and to

(~"

"

,

, ,

'- -

, -J.

,'.

.' -

• 4 If

The Concept of 'The Popular' in .çultural Studies 7

or-la"l~e a dev~oping social reality. 'The beginnings of this trend in the P,Olitlcal ...

sphere can, as we will see, be traced as far back -as Machiavelli. It is, however, .. in 1he '1ate Eighteenth Century that the implications of these devélopments become

dearest, and their use, at least seemingly, most unproblematic.

The impulses for .this rediscovery of the people were many. ,~ar culture .

.. w,as seen as a locus of values and meaning~ negated by th~ contemporary leamec:i

culture. Hazard notes Addison's interest in ballads and folk sangs, many of w~ch,

he published irl 2h! Spectator. lnitially, Addison justified rus, taste with reference

10 Homer and Virgil, bl,lt eventuaUy

~ il revenait à vanter le- naturel, 10 spontané, l'expression naïve d'un paysan rentrant du labour et· fredonnant sa chanson -l'expression de l'lme po~re. Ce 'chant est une. simple copie de la naturf's privee de tous les aides et de tous les ornements de l'art.

So popular cUJ.,ture was seen, ~d ~orised, ~ ~mm~atè' artistic expression: both ."

truthfùl and ·najve.

The rediscovery of popular culture alSo coostituted the ~bility of a national

identity, in the ~ of national institutions. Popular culture was the spirit of

a nation. :' De Certeau indicate5 the ~tradictory natUre of this attempt to locate . '

~ identity in rapidly and necessarily di$appearing cultural forms. It ,foUowed -~ \ -

~"oÏ'r · ... social· measures designed to ensure national homogeneity and to allow the . . commwûcation nec~y for the developmen~ of a nation-state. ~ in Prance

-the attempt was made to abolish patois, and to assert the dominance of Standard . . . , J Il •

~rench. -Qnc:e. this had beeti more or las succ;essfully ·adûeved regional dialects '. \

were redi:sàwèred, and studied as the source of a peè'uuarly French identity. Still,

, as' Hazard notes in h.i.s chapter entitled "les 'Eléments Nationaux, ~opulaires,

Instinctifs," the growing cosmopolitanism of European culture rendered the

distinctions between popular fonns in different European coWltries increasing1y

si&nificant.? Herder ~y ~w -poJ,wa.. culture as the intersection of the national

and the instinctive, and therefore truthful.

Anothè- charcteristic of 'popùlar cultlre' as it was ~opriated and Bpalysed

f -) ~

"

1 g

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies 8

• in the Eighteenth Century waS lts unchanging nature. It had survived ~mingly

• I

I.Bldlanged from the Golden) Age' of artisan and peasant.

\

Ils Y voient le c:a'1me d'~ ~ça de J'histoire, J'horizon d'Wle o ..Dature ou d'un paradis perdu.· ,

l'-Popular culture is at one and the same time both valorised and relegated to an

unspecified and unchanging.moment in history. Yet; as Barthes said, tlit is when \ .' '- .

history' is deni~ .t~t it. 1s most unmistakably at work.tl9

This pr~cupàtion with popuJar c~t~re was not !entirely disinter~ted • ..

La naissance des études cOhsacrées à la littérature de ~~8Be ••• est, en eff~t, liée à la censure sociale de leur objet. l ,

80th 8urkell and' Davis l2 pOint out how, having cUscovered the basis of popuIar

wisdom, or folk history, the attempt was made' to reform them. Using the form à

of almanacs, or chapbooks, moral and religious tracts were distributed to an (\

increasingly literate ~pu1i\tion. \

Finally, it should be noted that problems of defini~ion of popuJar culture are

not new. Much of 'the contemporary literatute assumes that it is the introduction

of mus media which ha.s made defiriition 50 difficult: that there was once an

,

unmediated ~d coherent popular culture. Certainly, even ~ the Eighteenth. 1

Century, othis would not seem to he the, case. De Certeau illustrateS sorne of the \

difficulties of defining popular culture. It cannot reaUy be defi~ in terms of . ,

authorship. Authorship is often uhknown, but where it cano he identified it is

ùnlikely to he ~ of the' people. The educated middJe dass regularly performed . .

the function of scribe for ballad or folk tale. ---.Such wr~~ 1s surely a form of

médiatlo"n. Readership is a1so no guarantee, since almanacs were found regularly

~ the librarles of the middJe classes. Nonetheless, the term 'popular culture' was .

l.IIed mare or less unproblematicapy, and certainly seemed to identify a recognisable

area in the field of cultural relations. In this, the categories of cultural analysis

cid IlOt stand alone, but were dosely linked to deve10pments in poli tical philosophy,

• :J L ,~

, ,.

,1

1 1 f~ a,

~---lfP \

'. -

"-')c TI;le Concept of 'The, Popular' in Cultural Studies 9

particularly the growth in the importance of 'the- people! as a poli~cally constituted . . unit, and as the legitimation of civil. government. It is thus to the development

,~ .. . .. '

of liberal theories' of the popular dem~atic state that we will now turn in order . , . ,

to dioscern the rhetorical, t~eoretical and political strategies by which 'the people'

were defined.

The origins oi} liberal ~litical philosophy can already be found in Machiavelli.

H~ provided th/terms in which political relationS based on' national expansion and c

imperialism couid be thought, and tbus' upset pol~tical theories based .on notionS of

stability, hierarchy' ~d permanence~ Machiavelli, in The Prince provided a . theoretical framework ln which emergent ~ial practices could be understood" and

thus in t\lrn legitimated. -He diagnosed .the lim~tations .on political effectivity and

. ga ve a prescription for effective control of a people by their prince. He arg,,!ed-1 •

for the necessity of movement and conflict for the health of ttie 'State an~. thûs 'f

provided a theory of power based largely on confHctual relations with other states.

MachiaveUi's political theory thu~ Tepresents a substantial departure from Medieval

theories of history, or' pol~tiCal theories of the ~ and inalienable rights of

kings. MachiaveUi's Prince had to be a' good poftician, both in order to survive

and in order to benefit the state. . .

By the late seventeenth Century, the conflict which Machiavelli had diagnosed,

and ~ as rential to the heal!hy development of the state has become displaced

onto the concept of a social contract. Hobbes, in ,The Leviathan, described the ~

introduction of the covenant as a means to avoid the destructIon necessitated by , .

a continuous State of War. His recipe involved the submission of the people to an of

~incividJal sovereign will. John Locke, in rus Two Treatises of Government, further . .

examined the role of contract in the formation o{ civil society and legitimate

govemment, deve.toping it vi~ the notion of consent. Locke argues that man, in . , the State of Nature, i5 at liberty and is equal to aIl other men. H~ is governed

,

"by the law of nature, which :i5 the law of reason. He is thus bound to preserv~ -

tVmself, and to preserve hi5 property. The State o>f Nature 15, here, understood. as

the state all men are naturally in. It therefore has both hi5toridll and analytic,

u

\

, C>

.­t1

. ,

" 10

\

status. The attributes of the State of Nature can ,be rationally determined by an "

-analysis of the nature of man. EquaJly, they can be posited as the conditions that

must have preceded the origin of civil society.

Locke argues that the acquisition of property occurs according to a

flJ'ldamental law of nature. Each man has property in his own self and his labour.

In mixing his labour with na.ture, in order to transform, or rather improve - it, each

man may acquire property. There a~e limits to this process o~cqUisition, since ') . /"

Locke argues that~. must !-1ways be "enough and, as good lett in common for

others." 13 He al&.s",~guJ th~t the acquisition of more property than one can use

without its spoiling is co"trary to the ·law of nature. This' check on the unbridled

growth of pro pert y is, h~'wever, negated by the introduction of money, whicn can

. be stored in great quantities without ever spoiling. Locke also allows for the ./'

possibility, and even the desirability, of one person's owning another person's labour.

This is justified via the principle of utility: who can produce the more efficient

tr~formation of nature?

F or Locke, the function of civil society is the preservation of property.· He

argues that society can only be constituted via contracta ~

It is against the law of

nat\.re for man to submit himself to arbitrary power. He may, however, resign his

naturaJ powers into the hands of the community. CiVil society is thus constituted

whenever any number of men i"t4the State of Nature enter into society to make one people.

\ 4

. The formation of 'a people' is thus an act of politicaJ ~ill) an agreement to sUbmit

to the laws of civil government.

Locke sees this process of consent as historically realised, whereas for Hobbes ,

the contract was rather a logical moment in a system of political thought. Hobbes

could not explain the passage from the State of War to civil society without

positing the existence of a contract: but this cOQtract preceded civil society, and

did not regulate its' functioning. Society was formed by contract, but not governed ,

by it. For Locke, however, it was the representative function of the government , ..

• .... ____ ... ___ .. r_. ____ ._ .. ~ "Jtl; jS: MM .n'.~~~I<~ .... tj1F''''' 1lièIJi' .......... r '1III1II.1I_1 __ 11.I.'.' ___ 14!11!1-__ ------_

c' , ,

l j

t ~ . J

l

...

The Concept of 'The PopuJar' in Cultural Studies 1

~ ':s-' 11

which legitimated its a~tions.\ The people had the right ta rem ove a government

... ,.~ "f'hich did not act in their interests. This right is, however, fairly nominal.

Although each person must ,consent to being governed, this consent may be tacit.

That is, by continuing to live in~ a state, and to own property, one consents to ~ 'J ,

governed. In the last analysis the right to withdraw consent from government was

more' of 'a retrospective justification of certain political events in England 1.5 than , -. )' . )

a credible basis for democratic power. .

Jean-Jacques< Rousseau used many elements of Locke's political system in rus

analysis of the origin and true nature of civil society. He is faced ~with the

dilemma that "man is born free, but everywhere is in chains.,,16 Thus he seeks to ..,

expJain bath the phenomenon by which the individual might concede ta being , ,

governed, and the processes by wruch government can be corrupted from its true

purpose towards despotis~ and arbitrary power. ~

Once more, ,Rousseau turns to the concept of popular contract. Unlike Locke,

however, he does not "posit tl1is as a contr~ct between government and governed, " 0

but rather as a process by which a general will may be estabJished and a popular

,sovereignty achieved. It is crucial for Rousseau that the popular sovereign will

cannot be represented, and cannot delegate its power. He makes a distinction L

betw~n sovereignty, which i5 a feature of the general will, and government, which

carries out its decisions. ln the concept of the general will Rousseau maintains

the ~ility b6th o~ freedom and of civil society. There is no power outside the

popular will. Thus in giving himself to all. each man gives himself to none.

Rousseau i5, here, not concerned with describing the historical process by , ..

'which societies were formed, but rather with the conditions in whi~the Good

Society: that is the society ruled by the law of reason, could obtain. There is,

however,~ a tension between the rational and popular bases of Rousseau's system.

ln the last analysi5 it is the notion of popuJar democracy that loses out •

Rousseau posits the Republic of Geneva as an ideal: all its citizens participate

in its governmenLand thus none surrender their freedom. Geneva is thus an

example of a people functioning as a self-conscious political unit. Rousseau's

- , -------

"

r • 1 FI

( 1 "- .

proble"! is to determine "how a people becomes a people," 17 and thus, how a

popuiar" sovereignty can ~ established.

Not every group of individuals constitutes 'a l>E:0ple' for Rousseau. The people

emerges in societies of a certain maturity," and can only he constituted in social c

groups of a relatively small size. Here is th~ tirst problem for Rousseau's political /

system, although it is historical rather ~han logical. Rousseau can only locate his

politically constituted 'people' in past history, and this under c~nditi?ns which the

risé of industrial capitalism had totally negat~d. Thus the philosophy of the r~ing

bourgeoisie can find litera! application only in pre-capitalist social formations. 'i •

The eqJation of popular sovereignty with the la~s of reason al 50 leads to

irresoluhle tensions in Rousseau's political thought. 18 For Rousseau, the laws of the

Good Society must he rational. He seeks to ground these laws, however, not in a

transcendental or, divine will, but in the people.

La voix de Dieu,' dest la- voix du Peuple.19

A.t the same time Rousseu refuses to equate 'unanimity with" legitimacy. _ He thus

distinguishes bétween the popular and the general will. He sets down certain o

guidelines for the conditions in which the two might coincide. Indeed, Scubla

claims that

toute son entreprise consiste à fixer les conditions qui p~r,!,ette20 de tenir la volonté du peuple pour la volonté generale.

-

ln all~wing that .they might differ, however, Rousseau undermines_much of the

radically democratic nature of his Good Society. If the people can be misled by

partial c1ig.ues, or by ignoran~e, there is al ways a possibility that their collective

decision can legitimately be ignored. The door is open for anyone to determine

"what the people real.ly think" and the basis of popular sovereignty disappears.

Scubla goes as far as to suggest that Rousseau has rumself in mind as mediator

between the people and itself. Certainly, the discursive stratégy of Discours ~

J'Origine et les Fondements ~ l'Inégalité Parmi les Hommes whereby Rousseau both

._ .. '--------P'I.N':~~,f ...... UJ' '~~1"_~"':: 't. .-y-,,~""1Y ~~~U (j_~ .. 1,i,,""_ ... <""'7'9""" .. """ _____ [r ..... l.lIIiI" _._1II1II1.1 __________ _ The Concept of 'The Popular' 10 Cultural Studies 13

. (

•

- ,

/

...

denies his politicaJ knowledge and powër ln describing hi~self as a simple "honn&te , '

homme," and manifests both knowledge. and power., legitima~ed by an appeal to

reason, favours such an interpretation. ,

In the Republic of Geneva, in th'e Good Society, Rousseau sees the stability

and permanence of the end of history: "perdue dans la nuit du temps.1121 In rus

Discour~ ~ l'Origine et les Fondements de l'lnégà!Ité Parmi les Hommes, ho~ever,

Rousseau's interest 1s very much in the process of change and corruption, a~y \ .

. from the State of Nature. The State of Nature is the founding point of Rousseau's

polltical thought and, as Galvano della Volpe ~otes,22 it 1s bëiséd on the conception "

that man, as an a priori, pre-historical being has certain qualities necessarily •. Man

in the State of Nature has the instinct of self-preservation. He is born both equal

and free.

Property is the foundation of civil society:

Le premi~r qui a di"2jced est à moi" était le vrai fondateur de la socié~é civile. -

With the acquisition of property, however, and the development of social .. interaction, the self-love which was a basic emotion present in the State of Nature

tlI'nS into self-interest, which can -only be satisfied at the expense of others. This , ~

. is the origin of conflict and-the basis of subsequent inequalities •.

In rus analysis of the State of Nature, Rousseau is often accused of a sort of

nostalgia. If this is held to mean that Rousseau advocates a return to the State

of Nature this is certainly not the case.l? Nonetheless., there are parallels between

the State of Nature and Rousseau's Good Society.' Both are, in a sense, removed

frolJ'l rustorY. Both are based on the autonomy of individuals, either as pre-social

or as absolutely rational beings. 80th are attempts to ~scape from the mediation

and c~rruption which have characterised civil society. '1

The point here 15 no~àa11Y to criticise Locke or Rousseau's political ,

philosophy, but rather to indicate the contradictions that had to "be repressed, or

occulted, in order to allow for the hegemony of a par'ticular system of political

- - -- ------ ------

.. ()

\

•

( L -..,

thought. For example, Locke1 rwo Treatises of Government' represents an attempt

to iD beyond formaI legitimation to the historical moment of creation of the civil Cà

state, to give substance to the concept of 'the people'. A.s he does so the

contradictions in rus poHtic~ system. become increasingly clear. Equality and

liberty appear as the foundiRg- points - of his discourse, but 'the people' can

ultimately only be understood as the owners of property. Clearly the equality \

involved ~re is formaI rather than actual. Della Volpe argues that Rousseau's ~. .

cOnception of the people is equally narrow: "

Rousseau wanted to emancipate ·the people' hy freeing ••• the common man, the artisan, the' sm~4pê~ant farmer - the small and middle bourgeois in short. ...... ~

-ln their analyses of civil society, and of legitimate government, Mither ~

~ , Rousseau nor Locke should be seen as idiosyncratic. They were part of the gener~

movetf1ent known as the Enlightenment, which Lucien Goldmann defines as

~ ~

les divers courants ae pensée rationalistes et empiristes qui se sont développés ~u XVIIe 2~èc1e dans les pays d'Europe occidentale surtout en France. .

Th!s was the theoretical and political context of the emergence of the concept of 1

'popular culture'.

Goldmann claims that the crucial determinant of the political philosophy of

the làte Seventeenth an~ Eighteenth Centuries was the growing hegemony of a

poli tical econolT\Y of' exchange. .'1

He argues that all 0(\ its major concepts are J

fundamental to, or derivable from, a political economy of exchange. Rousseau D

argued that "le contrat social donne naissance à la volonté~générale, dans laquelle ,

tous les citoyens sont égaux.,,26 As we have seen, this equality.. 1s formal rather -

Jhan actJ~, but Goldmann argues that formaI equality 15 all that the free market , ,"

'- ,

requires. Indeed, ,he argues that the functioning of the free market depends on

positing a formal equality, in order to repress the existence of inequalities and the

social exploitation of labour.

Marx notic,ed a simüar phenomenon in bourgeois polit~cal economy, and its

-

i -i,1

t f ç , ( , ,

1

The Concept of 'T~ Popular' in Cultural Studies 1 1.5

... ~ Of' the process of exchange.27 This' notion of ';xchange is itself' constituted

on the repression of the fundamenta! contradiction bétwèèn use value and' exchange

value. It posits as a natural process that which is, the expression of à particular,·

and' changeable, social relation. Interestingly, it is precise1y the concept. and

- practice of exchange that Goldmann as the pivota! ,point of Eighteenth ,Century

cliscoorses of social and political philosophy. (

Goldmann sees-the tenacity 01 the concept of c~triaCt as a function 'of its

importance _~o the process of exchange. Eaèh -açt of ex~ge has the status of a

contr:act" freely entered into by autonomous individuaJs, whether 'that exchange be

~-' one of labour for wages or gàods for 'goods •. Similarly, Goldmann explains the 1 ••

1

hegemony of philosophies of individualisme The- importance of the concepts of

propetty and equality has already been n()ted, and their relationship to the proc~ ~

of exchange 1s all too clear. .

Without necessarHy subscribing to the causality Inherent in Goldmann's . , position, it cannot be denied that he makes a" œnvincin& case. The concepts. of

equali ty , consent, pro pert y and indi'V1dualism recur' throughout the Eighteenth , .

-~ntury. Even Bernard Mandeville,28 who is in a sense antithe~ical to the 'projects

of Locke or Rousseau subs~ribes to a political theory of individualist consent: his

values are simply reversed. The problem is, however, deeper. It is not merely ~he

concepts with which Enlightenment phi~osophy t~ the social form~~ion which

have political consequences, but the very notion/of ra~onality itself. As we have 0'

seen, both Locke and Rousseau justify their::.analyses in, terms of their rationality.

Reason prov.wes a l~itimation, which is at one and the same tim~ a metgod. This , -

method involv~ an effacement of SUbject~vity _ and the. claim to, an objective

analysis of the functioning of society and of nature. Bacon's experimental method Q

finds its counterpart here. We have seen that Rousseau presented himselj as the ) ,

,simple "honn~te homme" driven only by his civic dut y' and his common sense. '

Montesquieu, in L'Esprit- des LOis, had a similar confidence in the effectivity of , --- ,

reason. Belieying in the coincidence of fundamental laws and human reason, he set

about tabulating the moving principJes behind a var:iety of geographically and

. -- --

Il

,( ) "" -

"

-r:: ' L Ed; es SI. 1 Cp.. DJ edits If SetzJa " ft

... polltic:aUy distinct social systems • • • 1

Since we have nOted the identification of ~ ~tW'e with the i~ve,

myst~rious and non-rationaJ, this valorisation of reason is clearly important. For

Adorno and Horkheimer, however, the ra~ionality of thé Enlightenment ~ more , ~ ~

massi ve political implications. In Dialectic 2! Enlightenment ~y arille that the \

potertiaUy emahcipatory project of general en1ight~ment is .nep.ted by the limiting . conception of reason developed in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.

Resson is here equated with power over nattJre: "Knowledge, which is pPWer, know~

}-, no obstacl~."29 'Reason is-a matter of analysis and ~der: "For the Enlightenmeni;

whatever does not conform to the ruie of computation and utility is suspect.n,30

A~ and Horkheimer contr;ast thi~ form of reason, whase simulacrum is the proof

tables of formal logic, with discursive-logic, or, with the 10gica1 relations implied

by an ad of rit~ sacrifice, where the specificity of each symbolico"r~, esentation

admits of no abstract general formulation of the type 'A=A'. ) 1 • . ,

Dialectlc of Enlightenment arguês for a feiation between domi 'on in the 4

"" conceptu'aI sphere and social domination. The abillty 'to exclude certain concepts ,t . and practices from 'enlightened' disèourse is _~ ~~ptom~ as weI! as a f~tion' of

totalitar~anism:

With the extension of the bourgeois commodity fonn, the clark horizon of myth is illûmined by the sun of ca1culating oreason, beneath wh'jf cold rays the seed of the new barbarism grows to fruition. ,

'By now the parameters of a system of thought are beginni!lg to emepge, in

~ch "the concept of 'the people' plays a ~finite~ if not always consistent rpl~.. It , .

. ~ thùs worth looking ,a little more c10sely at the role of the people in the politicaJ -

philosophy of the Eighteenth Century. We will, then look at sorne of the . similarities between strategies, of definition of tthe ~ple' and the ~ terms in ~ch

the concept of 'po~ar culture' was introd~ed into cultural analysis in the late

Eighteenth Century. '-...

The Encyclopédie WarIl$ us that 'the peOple' has no sim~e referent:

1

1.

..

"

•

/ -

1

The Concept of 'The' Popular' in Cultural Studies 17 1

On s'en, forme des. idées différentes "~fanS ,les divers temps et selon la nature ... des gouv~ments. - '

• -, Bnu\ot~ in Histoire de !! Langue Française,_ identifies th,~ cUfferent s~gnifieations of

,1 , •

"le peuple" with three latin words:33 ,

p-

pcpdus 'the peoplet is the entire population of' a cou,ntry, constltuted by national -

identity in 9Pposition ta other peoples. /

\.~ . l" _ 'the people' is the ma.jority of the population of a country, defined by its

exclusion from politica1 office, wealth and ~)education •

... 'the ~pl-e' is tbpse people who signify cüsorder, and thus a threat to thé

social structure: the mob, les canailles.

It is the second sense with which the' Enlightenment philosophers were chiefly

concemecl, 'although the notion of 'vulgus' is never too far away. , - • <f •

. At 'ale -ievel, 'the people' refers to a collection of autono~ous and politioaHy

conscious individuals united, by contract, in ci'lU society. For Rousseau, the -

o consti tution of 'the people' depended on a certain general level of enlig-ntenment.

Confronted with the ignorance and poverty" of a .large part of the contemporary -0

~ . French population, however, he clearly had problems: problems whi~h Voltaire, . ,

Diderot and Locke also had to negotiate. As the' "embodiment of ,unreason" the )

people \Vere obviously a threat to the universality of the Enlightenmerit. . .

"Se dépopuliser, c'est se rendre meilleur ,,,34 claimëd, Diderot. ln this he

c:issociated himself from cüsorder and ignorance. , The people are, her~, defined by

tÙrbulence, by economic ~, and by an uncritical demand for hovelty:, ---'

- The improving possibilities of éducation were certainly important for the .... . EnJightenment. Education is here understood as the diffusiOll of principles of

rationality. RousseaJ' in Emile, lays out a programme of education into

o independence and POlit~ responsibility. Such projects, however;were not really

The Concept of 'The P.opuJar' in Cultural Studfes ==<===

"

aimed at the peopl~ -ti

,c

Voltaire préfère placer ses espoirs dans les réformes" ~enues ' , d'en haut, inspirées 'par les philosophes aux s'ouverain~.#clëJÎrés ••• dont le peuple finira par bénéficier à la longue.

o ,

,,>

18

Thus reform\ should com~ trom above, and ~he people be er\lightèned by example •

. Althougn religion is antithetical to reasOn; it must be mai~tained for the people, o ' • 11 ••

whoJave neither the timè nQr the inclination to establish a rational code of ethics.

~ In" the process ,'of 'enlightenment, the role, of. the monarch is crucial • . , , ,~.. Despairil1g precjsely. of a project of general education, bôth Voltaire and Diderot

-,

a

". place their hopes in an enlightened and benevolent monarchy. Similarly, Rous&eau

. warns of. the dangerous consequences of a rponarchy cut off trom the general-

movement of enlightenment:

Tant que la puissance sera seule d'un è~té; les lumièrés et la si;Lgesse seules n'un autre, l~ savants penseront rarement de grandes choses" les princes en' feront plus rarement de I;»elles, et les p<:#ples continueroqt d'~tre vils, corrumpus, et malhereux. *

,.

l '

In challenging despotism and tyranny, the ,"philosophes aligned themselves, at , ,

least rhetorically,' with the people •. In, the expôsure of social-injustices instituted ~ .P '" ~ , "" 1

by tyrannical government, ,they' argued ttlat the people ~ere ovettaxed, that their

lot could and should be Improved. This philanthropie discourse was co.mbined wit~ . ,

a realisation of the utility and n.ecèssity of the p~ple as p~oduce.rs.Qf wealth:

.Leort»le primordial du peuple est' d~ rég~~'érer' jfr son travail l'ec-onomie d'un état pauvre comme la FraAce. .', , '_

"

In advôcating the" dominance 'Of reason, and thë project of geheral

~nUghtenment, the philosophes differentiated, th~msélves from. the people. As

Roland Mortier says, when the. 'philoSophes were oPPosed to the people ~it waS in 1 ~ 6> Il •

the name of reason; when the sover~ign was opposed to' :the peol?le it 'was in the 38 .

. ,name or-madness.

w. can now begin to see certëtin,consistencies between whlch 'the

.,

-,

1 . , ,

1

1 Q • 1

1 .

, ~~ (: ~~r--~;1

"

(

, '.

< .

..

thé cOile@!5[ ai 'i fié PdpdiM' IR C1UfnpaI SibaIes t9

people' played in Eighteenth Century poli tical philosophy and the ways in wbich the , .

~

concept of 'popular culture', as the culture of the' people, was first introduced. ; , "

-" ~ h~.. ." .'. ( l ' . ~ ,t .( ft J 0

Firstly, 'the people' was used to designate a collectivity, in a' time of increasing

hegemony of philosophies of individualisme It was, however, a collectivity that ,was

conceived profoundly individualistic, that is \J!Qsrossed byfJ1: ~ontradi'ctions. "The

people" was understood as a unit y, a group unifi~d in its !=' positiqn t~, or e:l;Ccl ion ,

from, other categories of the social structure. As Adorno and H kheimer rgue:

"the Enlightenment recognises as being and occurrence only what can be

apprehended in unity.,,39 Similarly, popular culture was seen as essentially unified,

and wàs neve~ ât thi~ stage theorised as the site of contradiction. 1 ,

Popular culture, as a unit Y , was assumed to be the locus of values and

..

meanings excluded from, and therefore oppositional to, the forms of high culture.

This exclusion was a function firstly of, thé archaic nature of the values expressed:

their expression of now sur,eassed custom and trad!tion. It related secondly' to ~he of

assumption that 'the people' had common needs, to which their cultural forms gave , ~ • IJ

unmediated expression. Both, political philosophy and the analysés of popu~ar culture , " \,

exhiblted a prOfound distrust of rustory. Rousseau based rus analysis of the State"

of Nat\re on the behaviour of ahistorical, pre-social man, ~d saw the Good S~iety

as removed trom the flux of history. Herder saw popular culture as having an , \

a-uthenti!=ity no .longer present, in learned culture. It represented stability and

,tradition.

,

We ha ve seen that 'the people' represented thè., malntenanèe of a form~ , • "è

, 1 equality in a social structure representative of, and'~based on, profound inequality.

,~

Popular culture o~cupied a similar pla~e in the '~nalysis of cultural forms. Its very

~oductio,n into the study -01 culture signalled a certain' willingness to ackn~wlédge

ttle,vaHdity of many cultural forms and practices; a sort of formal equality. This ~, '," .

,wis, however,. gained at the ·,expense of ~ts increasing marginalisation by the

categorie~, of rugh culture; it5 subordination in the field of cultural relations. , ,

:Finally, both" 'the people' and 'popular culture' w~re constituted by exclusion.

Ttiey spoke the inadeq~acy of other social categories, which could not be both

•• , s.

..

The C~cePt of 'The' Popular' in CultüraJ St~dies 20 •

/ . .

autmomous and totalising, but did not challenge these categories. Popular culture "

w~s in 'il sense ~mply that ~hich was not recognised as high or learned culture.

Its introduction into the debate on, or study of, culture le<! to !il change in

definitions of the cultural, but did not real1y undermine the hegemony of certain

sorts oj cultural forms and practices. Similarly, ~beral theories of the state

certainly modified the political structures and perceptions of Europe, but tbey did

not broaden the base of politicaI power to the cextent that sorne of their more

radical formulations might imply.

The interesting point here is not just what has constitutèd 'the peop~e' or 'the

popuJar' historicalJy, but by whom they have been constituted. 'The people' were

CI1JCial to a legitimation of the growing power of the bourgeoi$ie which culminated ., in the French Revolution. In constituting themselves a~ainst the aristoéracy, the

-bourgeoisie -aligned themselves with 'the people' who l'lad legitimacy to condone .. go~, but no legi timacy to govern. In the very act of political articulation

, the bourgeoisie said, "we are with the People, but not of them." as Jean

Baudrillard argues:,

Sinc~ ~he French moralists of the Seventeenth Century there has been a long literature on the social pSychology of. _____ distinCtion and prestige that is4gmnected with. the consolidation of thé bourgeoisie as a class.

. and it is on the .twin poles of '~stinction and differentiation that 'the people' is

constituted. . '1be emergence of 'the people' as a signific~t unit in polltiCal anaJy~s, or of

popular culture as a legitimate object of study, did not happen arbitrarlly or in

isolation. They form part of a complex shift' in aesthetic and poijtical vocabWary

and pr actices. 41 42 '

"Class" and l"mob" also become important units of political

analysis in this' period, reflecting different, but not antagonistic, theoretical'

definitions of the social structure.

, ASA Brlggs argues that the emergence of the language of "class," repl~ng •

that of "order,s," "ranks," or "degr~," marks a distinctive shift in the autonoftly

, ! •

·1

1 1.

1

, ..

J ~!

• 1

1

1 1 1

J ~

i : .....

(

(

•

and stature of the bourgeoisie. Manufacturers and merchants combine to articu1ate • ' 1

, , 1

'the middle c1ass as the origin of wealth, and the inheritors' of social, prestiae.

Interestingly, in 50 doing they appropriate, . ..both, the language of the aristocracy, in

describing tracte as chivalrous, and ~ identity of the people:

By the people 1 mean ~ middle dus, the wea1th and intelligence of the country.

As Stuart Hall remarks of Michel Foucault's researches into psychiatry and'

medecine:

, • L.

all of the major moments of transition .t. ap~ar to converge éU'Wld exactly that point where industrial capitalism ItPd the bourgeoisie, make their fateful, historica1 rendezvous. ' .

~ ~

At' this point we must tread a careful path. To daim that the phenomenon

of popular culture emerges aS a result of the transition, from Feudalism ta •

Capitalism, or as a result, of urbanisation. industrialisation and devel,opments in , .

communications technology throughout the éighteenth Century is tempting,4' and '

to a certain degree adequate in providing historica1 contexte It is inadequate,

however, precisely in that it assumes 'popular culture' as a given, and looks to • J ~

e.conomic or social factors to eXpIain its emergence and development. -It fails to

interrogate the social, poHtical and discursive fQrmations that led to its

construction as a category of cultural analysis. '-

50 how can we think the leve1s of determinacy :within this shift in economic

structures, political relations and polltical discourses? With Baudrillard, or indeed

with Lucien Goldmann, we can -assert 'the importance of symbolic' àrticu1ation as

~th legitimation and 1'éfeoIOgi~ mystification. As Baudrillard sàys:

AlI the major concepts (those worthy of a capital Ietter) depe~d on the same operation. The "People," f~ example, who.se ideal reference emerges with the coUaps.e of traditional community and the urban concentration of destructured masSes. Marxist analysis unmasked the myth of t~ people • and reve~rt what it ideally hides: wage earnel'$ and ~ class struggle. , ,

. .

,

/

-. The category of '"the popular' has, hc)w~ver, pi'oved a remarkably persistent·

one in Cultural studies. lts contemPQrary reappropriation ha$ mostly been from the

1~1t. ·this has happened as a reaction ta theories of mass cutture, which' posited

" the eorWmers of culture as atomised individuaJs~ unable ta lntervene in the process ,

of construction of meanings or values. Thus Richard .Hogart's study in The Uses ._-\

of l.iteraey of the survival of working c1ass or popular forms of cultwal practice -- - . \ and interaction, outside the determinacy of the media, or E.P. Thompson's analysis

9f the agency of the working class in the making of their own history.

De Certeau argues, however, that this revival of int~est in the popular by

, Marxists hoping ta give a more nuanced analysis -of thè interaction between - ,

different levels of' the social formation 15 'doomed to reprodUCf7 the invidious

theoretical and political strategies outlined above.

Cela veut dire qu'Wl amélioration' des méthodes ou tme inversion des convictions' ne ehangera pas ce qu'lIle opération ~rait de la culture populaire. n y faut ,IDe action politique. ' , - .

, -In 'the next, chapter we will look at the work of Gramsci and Brecht, • an

. . attempt to construct new sortS of definitions of 'the people' and 'the popular'.

~ ,

They repr~ an attempt ta think the ~ of popular culture historieaUy, ta

see it as a locus of contradiction and as a site for 'the orlanisatlon of popular

consent. Vie must see to what extent this might meet de Certeau's demand for

"une action politique."

•

... . .

\ '.

•

....

"

F

(~

(,- .-

, ," l, - -,

..

!If

NOTES

It La. Bruyère, "Oes Grands," in L~ Caractères, .hris, 1688 ...

3. ,.,iche1 Foucault, !!!! Arch.aeology of Knowledle, translated by A.M. Sheridan,' Smith, New york: Harper Colophon Books, 19n. p. 191. -','

3. See Peter Burk~, "The Discovery of Papolar Culture," in People's History and Socialist Theory, edited by R. Samuel, Londo'1, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.' . . ,

4. Michelade Certeau, La Culture au Pluriel, Paris: Union Générale d«!B Editeurs, collection 11°1.181, Ï974, p. 32.-

,. See Paul' Hazard, La Crise de la Conscience Européenne 1680-171.5, Paris: 801vin, 193.5. - - :- - ,

6., ibid., p. 220

7. ibid.

1. Michel ~ Ceneau, op. elt., p. .50.

9. Roland Barthes, Wri'ting Oe&ree Zer.o, translated by A. Lavera and C. Smith, London: Cape, 1967, p. 2. -

. "..

la. Michel de Certeau, op. cit., p. 49.

Il. See Peter Burke, Popu!ar Culture in 'Earl y Modem Euro~, New Yorla New York University Press, 1978. - _

1

12. See N.Z. Davis, Society and Culture !!! Early Modem Europé, Stanford: Stanford l!niversity Press, i9~. c

~ . 13. JaM Locke, Two Treatises of Govemment., New ,York: Hafner P~1ishing Co.,

1969, p. 13;;:- - -

. 14. ibid. p., 164. n'

'l..'

1.5. Locke's Two Treatises ~f Govemment were "witten in the conteXt ~of the "e~~lusioii"'""'ëris1s," whichwas ,an attempt. to render James ll, as a catholic, ineligible fOr the throne. , l , '

16.. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, TI!! Social \ Contract, translated -by F. Wat~ns, New York: Nelson, 195.3, p. 3. - . ': .

17. ibid., p. Ij.

18.. For a discussion of the contradictions between Rousseau-s grounding of the. Ceneral Will in the law of reason, and his assertion of an autonomous "people'l,

~ as the basis of government, see Lucien Scubla, "Sur l'Impossibilité de la -Volonté Générale chez Rousseau," in Moâeles Formels de la Philosophie Sociale ~ politi9';J!"J Paris: Centre de Recherchê sur l'Epistemologie et l'Autonomie, Ecole Polytechnique, .1982.

,l9. ibid., p. 78 •

20:, ibid., \ p. 78.

•

)

"

24

21. Jean..Jacques Rousseau, Le Contrat SOcial, cite<! in ,Goldmann, .op.' cit., p. 752.

22. See Galvano della Volpe, Rousseau and Marx, translated by_ John Fraser, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1978.- --

, 23. Jean-;Jacques Rousseau, Discours sur les Sciences et les\ Arts; Discours sur . , l'Ori~ine ~ les Fondements de liïrlégalité Parmi les Hommes, Paris:

Garmer-Flammarion, 1971, p. 205. .

24. Galv~o deUa Volpe, op. cit., p. 25. J 2'. Lucien Goldmann, "La Pensée des Lumières,'t Annales, Economies, Sociéteés,

Civilisations, Vol. 22, No. 4, July/Aug 1967.

26. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Le Contrat Social, cite<! in Goldmann, op. cit., p. 750.

27. Karl Marx, Capital, translated by E. and C. Paul, London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1 19.57, especia11y Vol. li Part l, Chapter 1, Sectiôn 4, "The Mystery of the l Fetishistic Char acter of Commodities."

28. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of The Bees, New York: Capri corn Books, 1962. -----

29. Theodor VI. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic !!! Enlightenment, translated by J. Cumming, New York: The Seabury Press, 1972, p.' 4. .

~ ~

30. ibid., p.' 6.

31. ibid., p. 32.

_ 32.

33.

Ferdinand Brunot, Histoire de la Langue Française, Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1967, p. 724.

Denis Diderot and J.I.R. d'Alembert (eds.), L'EnCYclopédie des Sciences, des Arts. ~ des Métiers, Paris: Chez Briasson, 17.51-65, t. XII, p. 475 •

• 34. . RQland Mortier, "Diderot et la Notion du Peuple," Europe, No. 41, Jan/Feb

1963, p. 78. i cl'

35. Roland Mortier, "Voltaire et le Peuple," in The Age of the Enlightenment, edited by W.H. Barber et al., London: Oliver and Boyd, 1967, p. 1.51.

36.

37.

',38.

Jean-Jacques Rouss~au, Discours !.!:!! les Science ~ les ~, Paris-Garnier-Flammarion, 1911, p. 59.

Luc Begin, Le Rê>le du Peuple dans la Philosophie Sociale de Voltaire, ~ Mont~al:, Unpublished M.A. thesis, McGill University, 1966, p. 8.

Roland Mortier, "Diderot et la Notion du Peuple," Europe, No. 41, Jan/Feb 1963, p. 84.

39. Theodor W. Adorno and Max, Horkheimer, op. cit., p. 7.

- 40. Jean BaudriUard, The Mirror of Production, translated by Mark Poster, St. Louis: Telos press;l975, p. 122.

41. See Asa Briggs, "The Language of 'Class' in 'Early Nineteenth Century Eng1~d," in Essars in Labour History, edited by Asa Briggs, London: Macmillan, 1967.

- c

tri ï

Cl ' if I~'

~.

..

( \ .~

The ConcePf of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies

\ ~ , h,

42. See Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, New York: New=­Yo~k ~mzersity Pre~s, 197&.

43. Asa Briggs;,<>p. ci'" p. 58.

44. Stuart Hall, "Cultural. Studies: Two Paracfigms," Media, Culture and Society, 1980, p!. 71.

45. See, for example, C.W.E. Bigsby's introdùction to Approaches ~ Popu!ar Culture, edited by C.W.E. Bigsby, Bowling Green Ohio: Bowling .Green Unive~sity Press, 1976.

46. Jean Baucl.rillard, op. cit., p. 56 •

46. Michel de Certeau, op. ci t.~ p. - 52.

- \

. . ..

. "

'F

0'.

- \

J.

0 •

. , , -

-

, .

• d p

( )

t. the Concept of 'The PopuJar' in CUltural Stucli;~

'.

"'1' CHAPTER l'1rO

"-

The history of aU the falsifications that have been operated with this conception of Volkstum is a long and lcomplex story, which is part of the history of class struggle. _

26

f.) "In this dlapter we will examine Gramsci's account of 'the popular' in political

and cultural practice. Far from seeing 'the popular' as something which attaches

t.nprOb1ematically ta. a unified group known as 'the people', Gramsci argues that 'the

popular' is something that must be constructed through theoretic~ and political

labour. Thus, he discusses the conditions for constructing popular consent, the ~

relationship between educational institutions and popular' perceptions, and the

.' importanœ of popular culture as a site of ideological struggle. Many of the terms "

"

( , .. ) '-

of political and cultural analysis discussed in Chapter One will recur: the

"' legitimation of government, civil sodety, the enlightening potential of education,

but they will now be theorised historica1ly, in relation to their role in the

maintenance of hegemony. , .

Gramsci relocates 'the popuJar' within the context of the struggle for social _ .

power and hegemony. He does, however, give little attention to the aesthetics of .

particular cultural forms. _ We thus turn to Brecht, in order to see how ~he concept

'of . 'the _ popuJart'" can be rë-appropriated for a radical theatrica1 practice. Brecht

rejects the unit y and ahistoricity of the concept of 'folk' culture, and argues instead

for a theoretically informed construction of cultural forms that will both become

popular and be realistic. Bath Gramsci and Brecht together provide the basis for

a very clifferent understanding of 'popular culture'.

Writing on Gramsci presents sorne. unique problems of interpretation and

analysis. His texts are fragmentary and immense. His early political writings are

. J

--------,-~--.. --. . ..

- ..

(

•

'\"

The Concept of 'The Popular' ln Cultural Studies 27

more a series of responses to and critiques of Immediate political crises than

coher,ent ~r sus.t.ained political analyses. Even his prisoll writings, on which 1 will

concentra te, requil'e a careful work of recov~ry in order to find their systematic-

basis.·

The Prison Notebooks, of which only a selection are available in tr~nslation,2

were written while Gramsci was serving a prison sentence in fascist Italy. He was

the leader of the ltalian Communist Party (PCI) ",hen he was arrested in 1926.

The notebooks represe\t G~amSci'S theoretical and historical exploration of the

immediate issues confronting the Italian working c1ass. •

The political and ~storical eontext of Gramsci's' writlngs is crucial, since ,

m uch of his work represents a development of contradictions or blockages he

perceived in contefT)porary political analyses. The phenomenon of It~an fascism

was the crucible in which many of Gramsci's ideas took form. Immediately after v

~ the First World War, Gramsci, like many other Marxists, believed th'!t.:-the capitalist

system could not possibly survive the ecOnomic crises and cultural upheavals that

beset it: the problem was not if a proletarian revolution would take place, but

when, and on which terms. The Bolshevik Revolution seemed to he both exemplary

and prophetie.

The massive and rapid success of fascism, ho..yever, problematised this sort of ,

analysis. Thus Gramsci's interest in the specificity of Italy's economic, political

and cultural structure. Gramsci's leadership of the PCI was marked by a series of

confrontations and debates with the Comintern over precis~ly \ this issue. The -

failure of Popuiar Front initiatives against fascism led to analyses of the cultural

and philosophical articulations of state power and Civil hegemc,>ny in various

moments oT European history. Yet the transformations in Gramsci's political

thought are slow, hesitant and often contradictory. Jhe idea that fascism was just

a transitory reaction of social democracy to an unprecedented attack on its

legitimacy and power Anever really disappears, although much of Gramsci's analysis

renders such, a position, at best, implausible •

GramsC1's importance as Cl politicà1 organiser is c1ear from many of his

..

_____ •• "0-' 1i1IIIIIf1""". ~ep( or YTne t'OJ'Utar In CUlnJraI ::mRJle5

, '

•

...

.

bio.,graphies.3 His eminence as a political philosopher, however, is a much more

recent affair, which i5 closely linked. to the history of the PCI, and to

developments within 'Western Marxism'. 'Western Marxism' is the term applied to

the body of theoretical texts emanating from Western Europe as a reaction to the

Stalinisation of Marxist theory ln -the Soviet Union. Gramsci and Lukacs are two

of its earliest, and most influential theorists. Western Marxism is characterised by

an, interrogation of the specificity of the political/cultural/economic structures of

deve10ped social democracies, and a prioritisation of the cultural and political over_

the economic. The importance of Gramsci's work lies in its analyses- of the

pGssibilities 'and limitations ~f, and on, revolutionary organisation in a social -

structure characterised by unprecedented state intervention and organised 'popular

consent.

The complexity of Gramsp's ideas in the Prison NotebOOks -is crystalliseq is"

a writing style and textual organisation whlch are dense, elliptical, and often

/ am,biguous-. Whilst not agreeing with Christine 8uci-GlucksmaM's ~ertion 4 that­J

this textual practice in itself rep"resents a guarantee of political productivity, (a .

rejection of repr1sentational strategies of closu're - ancr a foregrounding of

cxntradiction), It is c1ear that the productivity of much of Gramsci's writings would

be lost in trying to ~duce ail rus concepts to unambiguous labels. His work can

only - be understood in the context of the 'interaction between soine of rus key o

concepts: hegemoriy; state and civil society; organlc intellectuals; the Modern

Prince. The slippages in the signification of these terms are not arbitrary. They

",àre rather markers of fundamental transformations in rus thought, or of

and recurring problems in rus theoretical framework and vocabulary. 5

unresolved

\ Gramsci's political vocabulary is a fairly unique hybrid, and therein lies much

of i ts fascination. He borrows from Marx, from Engels, from~ Lenin, from Croce -

and from Màcruavelli in order to find a language ~o express and analyse the totality

of political, cultural and economic reI'ations of contemporary Italy. His analyses

constantly move backwards and forwards. Finding the roots of a particular >

transformation of the soGial structure at one particular historical moment: he

,

1, !

1

.. i , , 1

1. '.,.

c. . ,

-;'

, The Concept of 7he Popular' in Cultural Studies 29

,.. dissects that transformation, extracting the 'conditions of lts possibility and the

, dyIwnic of its .development into the future~ His writing.is polemica1, often better

understood -as metaphorica1. As he says of bis, military analogies, they are often .

better taken with a pinch of salt. He wrott: Under censOrship, and not . without a

_ sense of, irony.

His IeI1IÏtlvlty to the importance and imp'ncations of political ,v~ary make -

his texts particularly fruitful for this thesis. As we will ~, he use's many terms -1 4> " --. - ~

tha:t have èmerged as crucial in our analysis of the pÔlitical philosophy of ~

Enlighttunent. In focussing on the historica1 terms of their construction, however,

he offer:s US a new dimension.

There has been minimal discussion of the COf,\(:ept of 'popular culture' i~ Gr.amsci's writinp. Geoffrey-No~el1-Smit~6 acknowl~es the importance of the -

'y '. -' :-. , concept of. ,'the national-popular', but this inslght has oot really been developed in

, , - 1

QIher aitical tem. é~nJy, Gramsçi developed no coherent argument about "")he

raie, nature and importance of popuJar~cuJture, although the'~ollowing--comment-on ~ • 1

hls proposed fle1ds of study in prison ~uggests the, concept was never far fr0!ll his

mind. He wrote to rus sister in law that he intendep to resea.rch the emergence

and !unction of -ltaJian int~U~s, comwati ve linguistics and. the work of

'. Pirandello, and 'to write' ar; essay on feuUletans' and pOpuJar taste in art.

. ---. "

If you look cJosely at these four arguments, a eommon thread fUlS through them: the popular creative 'spirit, in j1$ diverse p1)a.ses of qevelopment, is equa.lly pr.esent in each •

ln looking at Gramsci and the concept of popular culture we-- should not forget I!.

tù 0'Ml me~odologic.a1 advice, that a "seardl~for thé ~Y, -for the rh~. of

the thought as it de!.elops, should he more im~t than that for single casual

\ aff~rmations and isolated aphorisms_n8 I~ examining a series of concepts f~damental to Gramsci's political analyses we will find that the constitution of popuJar consent,

the relat1.onship between Marxist theory and the people (l'!'ediated by ~he

inteUectuals) and the significanc~ of popuJar philosophy or folklore provlde much of

the rhytlm of his thought which returns _ over and over to ~ search fo~ t~ elusi ve,

-.

•

, 1

l)

. x ' l'lie eenNl't &1 Ill\! POpmE th cmtOFIi smma $ J6

but ~tial, 'national-popular'.

ln his ailalysis of ltalian history of the IrisoFgimen1O, Gramsci's purpose is

twa-fold. Firstly, in comparing the bjtth of the wûfied ltallan state, with the,­

d.evelopment of the 'French bourgeois state after the revolution, he is trying to', \

discover and lDlders~d ~ origins of· ~ortions in the ___ tallan poli~ca1 and

eë:onomic structure which ultimately allo"ed the emergence, of fasçism. SeœndJy, . . - ~ ... cl

in lookiiig at the 1ilFerâction of. economic, cultüral and political forces .. and ~t· the , ~

relainAaldf> between the intellectuals of an emergent dass and the people, he is .. trymg to construct' a model for con:œmporary Italian dass potines.

F asqsm, for Gramsci, 'lias an expression of the bankruptcy 01 the ltalian

~, ,and the archaic nature of its political structures: , "the old is dying and the h -

new ~t be bom.n9 T~ ~stand the natu~ of this ~itique 'lie must look, 'flrst + • •

of aU, 10 his analysis of the Fren~ Revolution, and the role of the Jacobins. This,

'lias, for him, ihe mode! bourgeois -revolution.

The French Revolution 'lias marked oot only tiy the economic ascendancy of

the bourgeoisie, bt,rt by their ascendancy at the politica1 and cultural' levels. They

$I:CfSSfuüy engineered the' cOnstruction and expression of' a" 'popuiar Q)Uect1ve will'. 1 • ,.

,_ ,.J-

ln this, the role of the Jacobins 'lias crucial. They were the party of the

revolution in progresse They i~posed otheir der,nands on the bourgeoisie, forcinS.

strategic alliance and win~ng :th~ sup~rt of the peasartts. ,

Gramsci constructs a mode~ of th1s pr~ess. Firstly, new sub-groups are , • ~ 0

fcrriied due to trdformations in the· economic base, in tlle relations '.of production.

,; These groups artlculate their interests and perceptions via numerous politica1 parties -

. and organisations. These par.ties' initiaUy make Umited demands: they_ .fight for

their interests Wlthln the existing structure. They are thus functioning at-an -

eeonomic/corPorate level. Their demands are limited, but punctua1. 'In ltaly,

Gramsci argUes, the 'process stoppëd here.

The Jacobins, however, went on ta organise demands that could not be

contained within, the existin&-POlitica1 or economic structure., They asserted their

autonomy in the exercise of ~ffeCtive politica1 hégemony. Thi$ invoAved the-

-'#".

'1

j f

, .

i , ~ !

c·

( \

1

(," \ \.:.'

1 •

t· "-'f ' j

\,

o :

The Concept of 'The PopuJarf' in ClPturaJ Studies 31

• constructiOQ of' a heg~moniC'. group of popular forces. The French Revolution

reprèSented a qualitative advanée in the social structure, and its slogans Qf'Liberty, -

: E.quaJ.ity and Fratemity' were at first to be taken quite literally. Thèy r~presented.

a 'new politicaJ vocabulary that.. f.orced reorgahisàtions ln the basis of state powèr.

~ coutse; these slogans r~idly lost any substance, and the- alliancé b;oke).

Nonther-è'ss, the bourgeoisie had forced the construction of- a new fotm of stat-e ,,'

power, to which, and round which, they coul<;l organise popular support. ~, .

-1lle history of lt..alian ~fication, . that is of the birth of th~ Italian stat.e, was

quite different. No party was Capable of asserting its hegemony witrun this

revolutionary process. Italian intellectuals faile.d to transcend the

economic/corporate phase, in order to create i8 truly national state. Instead, the

Risorgimento was characterised .by cavour's opportunism, and a series _of political

compromises.- It was a passive, and largely incomplete, revoluti~n. The. Jacobins

had SllCX:eeded in reawakening' French popular energies, whiètt were then allied 'with

the bourgeoisie. The Italians, however, never managed to articulate, or fight for, , -

\rification"on a 'national-papular' le~eT, Sut rem~~ed .cosmopolitan on the model qf

-the church. Indeed, Gramsci argues that the Moderate .P~ty had

the determ~atiQn to abdicate and capltulatè at the first' serious threat of an Italian revolutioro that would be

~ profoundly popuJar, i.e., radiacally nationa1~ - .. "

Italy does not stand _ alo,?, in ~his critique, although obviously it is with Italian

histary that .Gramsci 1s mo~ familiar, and in its political structure that he is m'ost , 9 •

interested . ln England too,. Gramsci argues, the bourgeois revolution was

. incomplete. -'Ev~n into the Twentieth CentufY, the old aristocracy maintained a

fairly large degree of politica1 power and cultural hegetnony. The resulting hybrid

was unpredictable and precarious.

Gramsci 's interest in Itali.&n- his.tory was nol. èntirely academic. ~ln a close

. anal ysis of the functioning and development oL European baur.geois revolutions . .

Gramsci hoPe<t to find a mode! for the revolutionary process. Perry Andersonll ,

~ests that -proposîng such a struéturat simîlarity bet~ee'1 the ,bourgeoisie and ~he ..

-'- -

...

ln! ail i Ii@ eOilLept dl i fiE P6pdiar'1n CUltural StUOles

; .

proletariat in their' respective revolut~onS''''ïs, at best, dubious. It does, however, :

allow Gramsci sorne _prof~und insights "irflto the process of organisation of popular ,

consent, the relation between transformations in the politièal/cultural and economic

Jevels of society, and the ·changing function of the stat~ in Western democracies.

It is worth pausing here· to consider 'Gramsci's concept of hegemony. The 1

term has at least two diverse 'Significations in' G.ra~scits work,. "Firstly, it refees

to a Junction of the state: dl'the maintenan~e of control through organised, although 1 J po .. 1

seemingly spOlttaneous consent, rather than through coercion. Seconcfly, it ,refers . ... .,-'

to the leadership function of one particular, class or gr~up in relatio~hip to, other .

political organisations or groups. It is in this sense that the Jacobins can be said Q

to have been ~egemonic. Gramsci argues that a group rt;lust already lead, thàt is , .. o

have the ability to frame intellectual, mora~ and political problems on what will be o , ,

.!o 0 c ~ perceived as a universal level, before it ~ân actually win power.

.. We.,are less concerned here with the concept of state hegemony, although this . ~.

was certainly one of Gramscils most original insights. It was 't~s" con,cept w~ch

aJlowed him to theol'lise the distirction between East, and WeSt: to advocqte the., .

.importance ,at certain strategiê moments of a 'war of position' in'.order' to weaken

• the coherence ~md strength of the hegemonic apparat us of the. social-democratic

stat~, an.d thus to challen'ge the universal: applicability· of the, Bolshevik , '0

revolutionary' model. Hegemony in tbe sense of relations œtween groups in the . social formatl?n, however, addresses preci~ely the issue of a, 'popular collective

will'. The ëcho of Rousseau here is quite startling •. His problem was to locat~'the

conditio~ under which a collective will could be assumed as the legitimation of

the' i,ntrod~ction of go~ernment and civil sQCiety. Gramsci, howevër, looks at the . ~

process of construction of a popular collectivé will, and its changing articulations

and allegian.ces. a

i'h,e relationship b~tween these two conceptions "of 'collective will' is clearly "

cr':1cial to any ~rgument that Gr~msci's thought repr~s~nts a qualitative development.

t'rom enJ.ightenment polit~cal philosophy and~ methodologY._ We have seen that -

Rousseau's collective will sterted ou~ as a universal, quasi-Iogical concept whose J ..

',1

1

J

"

l'

1 , . 1

1 l,

1.'

1

(

\

BI ,. • T .. _ ... _~~- ... --~------

The Concept oJ 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies !')

33

actua1 historical pertinence was limited, at ~~t, to those who owned property. It

was a necessary moment in a political system, which_ could not really give it any

historical substance. For "Gramsci the collective will i5 also a necessary moment,

but one; which he seeks to artlculate and to undefstand historically" He looks at

the French Revolution as a moment when such a collective will was 5ucces5fully

constructed. Popular energies were 'reawakened' round a platform that represented

substantial political advances. Such a collective will. does not emerge

spontaneously) however. Thus Gramsci's attention to the development of poli ti caJ

hegemolJY. Collective will· can only be organised around a group that represents

progress and represents it in terms that cornmand popuJar ass.ent.

We have aJready noted that Gramsci functioned in a politicaJ environment in

which the demise of capitaJism seemed imminent, indeed long overdu.e. This

judgement was pased on the contemporary balance of power, on the frequency of

economic and political crises and- on the success of the Boishevik Revolution. It

often appears, however, to take the form of a theoreticaJ assumption of certain

stages of evolutionary rustorical deve!opment, thus imposing a teleological model on

the analysis of particular historical mo~ents.. Certainly, elements of Gramsci's

work allow such a reading. The attempted para11el between bourgeois and

proletarian re*olutions has already, been note? AIso, when Gramsci talks of

''rei\wakening'' popular energies he may be reaq..-as'lsJJggest~g that certain political

interests and positions can be assumed as existing, and need only to be tapped:

Gramsci, however, increasingly became aware-...A:hat revolution would not be , . automatlc. He was se'lerely criticâl of mechanistic'or economist ; eo~Of social

transformation and revolution. The aim of his historical analysis was ecisely to . . ,

. demonstrate how the interaction of poli ti cal , cultural and economic J vels could

pr-ovide radically different results, although each could be understood in sorne senSE! 1 0

as" a bot.rgeois revolution. 'His attention to the roie of intellectuals, and tneir role

in the construction of popular consent, is further confirmation of his rejection of

any mechanical model of the revolutionary process.

4J;emsci's attention to the role of the intellectlills has certainJy been part of

, .

,

\

(

M 1""pt S i A@ CBriMpt et $ i n@ PdpdlâF !ri Cdltopm "iQdlE$ ;0 lJÇ

\ .

,1" the reasoo for rus receot revival, but it should be noted that Gramsci's definition

of 'the intelleetu~ls' is very wide, and does not oecessarily correspond to those who

function in academic institutions: For Gramsci there is 00 such thing as a

nOl}-lntellec~ual, since everyone "partl~ipates in a particular conception of the

wcrlcf,12 and acts, at least to sorne extent, to develop or change these conceptions.

There are, however, those whose i~stituti(jnal placement accentuates the importance ~

of and fadHtates this process. These Gramsci divid~ ioto organlc .and traditional

intellectuals. Organic intelleètùals are linked to the interests and perceptions ,of o

one claSs, often that wruch is in t~e process of gaining ascendancy. They are the

thinking and organising elements of a particular c1ass. Traditional intellectual5, on

the other hand, have divorced themselves from c;,pnscious class allegiances, and 5eek . e

instead to 'assert their autonomy. They may survive, seemingly unchanged, through

major social and political upheaval.

The intellectuais are impor.tant for Gramsci becal,tSe of their role in the

construction of an effective hegemony. What that hegemony has to overcome is

what Gramsci calis 'common sense'. !Common sense' is the heterogeneous collection

of concepts and principles with whic~ most people grasp their world. It is a sort

of popuiar phfosophy or folklore. It i5 the result of a sedi~en:tation of variops

fonns of dass ruIe. It incorporates in an incoherent fashion elements of numerous

., systems and beliefs.

This folklore must be contrasted with certain pertinent and criticaJ judgements

that can be derived from practical activity. Gramsci argues that the working'c1ass

ha ve two conceptions of the world. One is manifest in particular actions, and ",

derived from an understanding and critique of productive activity. It is manifest o •

only when a. g~oup functions as, an'l aware of, its ,organic totality. The other

conception of the world, expresse<:! in f~lk1ore, 1s incoherent and disjointed. It is •

normally,and quite Passively, fol1owed.

/""-The problem for Gramsci is how to priori tise the critical perceptions and (' \ J' rrunimise the effectl vlty of common sense. He ar,ues for the importance of

o education which should ~

•

•

• ,-

,

(

The Con~~pt [ od 'The Popular', in Cultu~a:I

aim . to insert young men and wom into social activity after ~ng them to a certain leve1 of aturity, of --capa.city for int~l1ectuaJ and practi~, creativity and of autonomy of orienation and initiative. , ,

, .. '

Her.e; too, Gramsci may ~t seem so far removed from the philosophes of the

Enlightenment,. who argued for the importance of education in spreadjng a universal

rationa:lity. His discussion of, education, however, argues against such an idealist

position.

Gramsci's discussion of education in The Prison Notebooks takes place in the [ .

context of a pt>lemic against the educational reforms pro~ed' tiy MÛSsolini\s '\

~ent in 1923. These reforms hinged on a distin,ction between ~ucation and

instruction. Gramsm attacks this distinction as idealist, and argues that such

enllghtening notions of education actually repr~ent reaction, and a consolidation -of c1ass distinctions.

The pr0J:?0sed new curriculum sees a child's ConsciOUSneS5 as something ...

individual. I~ thus ignores the social context of family or neighbourhood which give

the chiJd the t~ls and expèriences to a;proach the proèess of education. In ..

looking for the development of an undifferentiated cult\U'e, through education, the

new curriculum suppresses the cultural articulation of many sorts of ~al

experiences.

The individual consciousness of the overwhelming majority of chHdren reflects social and cultural relations whi.ch are different f[rom and ~tagonis't.ic to those which are represented in school curricula.

Gramsc1's strongest criticism of the new educationaJ system Ï$. lts lack o{

discipline, fnd ks cavalier attitude towards the imparting of facts.

what is 'certain' 'Vil! be missing and what is 'true' w~re a truth onJy of words: that is to say, preclsely, rhetoric.

His argument here makes sense only in relation, to his discussion of traditional

systems of ed~ation. He argues that these wer~ based on a basic principle of

work, that is a knowledge of nàtural laws, and an understanding of the process '"

•

. ! .

. "

(

5 r ; t'Re eoncept ol 'the Popular' in 'C~tural Studies

whereby the relations between the social and natural orders' are mediated by work •

This provided the grounds for the deve10pment of an historica1 and dialectical view

of the world which unclerstands movement and, change. Similarly, he defenas th~

teaching of latin in schools,; since it allows a 'child the poSSibUity of gr~ping 'thè •

historical deve10pment of a language. . ,

He is' thus arguing for the importance of certain, el~ments ,of instruction in

the educational process. Children must be given a certain amount of 'bagage'

( which they can put in order, criticise, or transforme Not to offer tms basic sort . !

of material is merely to privilege those who, through their social background, have . o

already acquired it, and not to deny its validity. Similarly, Gramsci talks of

discipline as 50 many psycho-physical habits of study that have to be acQU;ired.

Hicing bis critique in' the rhetoric of conservatism makes Gramsci diffiëult to

read at this point~ Ke does, however, give us some indication of rus intentions \ \

It was right 10 struggle against the 1 gld school, but reforming it was not 50 simple as it seemed.

The avowed project of developing an emancipatory, egalitarian system of education \ ,

Ny turn out to be something quite different. Gramsci hU in minci, however, the ,

pO$sibility of giving -rea1 substance to these c1atms. ffis aim is' te produce· a

stratum of organic intellectuals from a "group which has not traditionally deve10ped ~ ,

the appropriate, attitudes.nl7 Thus he tri~ to find the elements in instit~~ education which allow for the dev~oprnent of a cr;itica1 understanding of cult\.l'e

and of the ~a1 formation. He looks for the mechanism mat will turn cor,nmon

sense into good ,sense: that is into a eritical/historica1 perspective derived from ,

.. an analysis of practical activity. . :

Again we might be reminded, here of the move 'lie discovered in Eighteenth . \ eerm.v discourses: differentiation and reforme What separates Gramsci's critique

of cclbmon sense from arguments about the naivety and 'dùldishness of· folk

wiscbm? Gramsci certainl.y means to say somethin& quite different. -: He criticiles

Gentile's equation: 'thë' people=chlld::primitive phase of thou&ht', since thiS

..

-

. )

:

i ne Concept M il ne PopUïat' 1ft CwtUfat j COOles

represen'ts lia (tendentio~) ~~bandon~ent' of the aim of educating the J)eC!ple." 18

If! talking about this process of education, Gramsci borrows MacruaveUi's , ,

cxlnœpt of 'The Prince'. The Communist Party is to function- as the Modern Prince. -~.. .

Part of rus pur pose here 1s to show up the hypocrisy of. those who deplore

Machiavell-i but rely absolutely on tUs' philosophy. 'Yet"Gra~sci is also 'to be

understood qL!ite literally.. The ,Prince, GramSci argues, was caimed at, the

revolutionary class of i~s time. Its aim was to educate politica11y those who werè . .

net in the know, but needed to recognise certain actions as necessàry• The Prince " - ~;;;,.-;~ -was quite simply a recognitiorrof th"e.politica1·forms necessary for th~ ~velo~ent

, ... " of the power of the state and for the organisation of bourgeois hegemony.

Interestirlgty, Gramsci notes Machiavelli's strategy\of appropriation of the voiée--of

the people, pointing out that bY"ihe end of The Prince what started as a 10gica1 U . r-. . .

argument assumes the status of auto-critique by. the people. . ,

Gramsci argues for the organising and ed~ting function of ,the MOdem

Prince., It ha,. a unique role li'l the construction of the national-popular collectivé .' ",' .. 1"

, '

will. ' It must establish the hegem~y, or directive function of the proletariat over . . the peasants,_ jUst aJ Machiavelli had advocated the establishment of a mllitia' th

order to br'ing the peasants into national lite. The Modern Prince

. cari C!'Üy be an organism, a . compte!' element of society in which a collective will, which has a1reacfy been tecognised and has to some e~t asserted itself in action, begins to ~ conaete forme

.' The organic metaphor hère, is interesting, and important, Si.nce it recurs

throughout Gramsci', work. It appeatS whenever he is trying to articulate a -

'resistanc:e to mec:hanist models, and in his discussion of the Communist Party soch ' . '

is certain1y the case.

Debates OVef Gramsci's Leftbam, that is over the nature and importance 'of

the ~ party ,in , POlltical thought~ have ~ long- ~tory20 al'Id ~il1' ~tain1y not be resolved within the context of this thesis. lt is worth noting, however t that ~

- l ' \ ' .

Gramsci does not posit any substituti~ concept of the role of the party. He ...t",,:.. •• ,.' \-

• , '

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies • 38

does flOt assume that the party 'stands for' the people, or that it unproblematically

represents their interests. His focus is rather on the process of constructing a , .

progressive role for the party, and the rélationships that could, or shOuld exist +

between the party and the 'popular masses'. o •

. . Gramsci's analysis here is suggestive rather than definitive, \but given his

enforced isolation trom any broad context of political activity and> organisation this . is hardly surprising. He identifies the party with t,he role earlier ascribed to

-organic intellectuals. Reworking this relationship in subj~ve terms he argues for

, ,

the necessity of a "sentimental conneétion betweel the intellectuals and the \

people-nation," or more pc:SlemicaUy, "intellectuals' canoot know .without feeling the

elementary passions of ~he people.n21 All this is to say that knowledge is not

disinterested.

At other moments Gramsci stresses the separation of' intellectuals from the

people. Admitted1y, this separation is historically con~ent, ànd something to. be

struggled against. It ,is the result of the 'fact that nnew conceptions have an ,

extremeJy unstaple position among' ~he poputar-masses.n22 Critica1 positions

developed by organic intellectuals within the party may not subsequentJy command

assent. Thus he argues that the phiJosophy of praxis (marxism) has had to make

certain compromises, has had to ally itself wittl other tendenc,ies, in order "to , .

combat the residùes of the pre-capitalist world that stiU exist among the popular .

il

. . masses.,,23 It thus largely remains in a po~st phase, unable to combat the ideas . . . . of the traditional intelJectuals. Likewise, ' however, idealism never managed to

elaborate a 'popular culture', since materialism .is always ~much "doser to popular

conceptions of society. Idealism thus "remains the culture of a restricted

inteUectual aris~ocracy.,,24

Gramsci thus understands the dialectic poplJlar culture/rugh culture in

explicitly political terms. It is a' question of whQSe perceptions of the world have \ # (.. .J

dominance and legitimacy, and how these perc~ptions are organi~ed and ~

communicated. A revolutionary' strategy must aiin to negate the rupture between

high culture and low culture. This shouJd not be done, as in the past, by

, i

p i

t '1 1 l-l

f ~ !

,.

, ,.

..

. ,

'" < ,

presentinç the peo,~!e with the lowest common denominator in politicaJ thought, b~t '. .

ratner by developing their critical ~rceptions and systematising elements of,. good

sense •. 'Good sense' refers to the general capâeity for philosophical or systematic ,

thought. Gramsci introduces this concept in or der to challenge the dichotomy

between 'scientifie' philosophy and popular 'philosophy,' or ~ndeed between p~losophy

and polities. Good sense ,is

the healthy nucleus that exists in 'common _se~' ••• whieh deserves to be macle more unitary and coherent.

Gramsci looks at the suecess of Calvinism and Lutheranism, and at the

Enlightenment as reforming movements with broad popular support. The phUosophy \ ..;,

'of praxis must-combine this reformation with revolution: that. is it must develop

both a philosophy and a poHtia. lt is important to remember here the dependence

of the philosophy of praxis on practical productive activity. This is the buis of . '

its critica1 project, which is the fragmentation of common sense., It must take as

its ~tarting point existing conceptions withln the history of philosophy.

This emphasis on the educational role of the Modern Prince may seem

surprtsing, since its function is more often seen as agitational and organisational.

Gramsci quotes on several occasions from Marx, however'

A 'distinction shouJd always he made between the material . transformations of the economic conditions of production, which 'can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, poHtical, religious, aesthetic or philosophie - in short ideologicaJ forms in which men become conscious of this confliet (i.e., that between the, material producti ve forces of sode1f6 and -the-existing relations of production) and fight it oàt. . •

It was the terrain on which conflict are fought out that occupied Gramsci most.

This coneem with the ideological form in which relations are understoocl and

'. acted upon did not, however, take the form of idealism. Gramsci argues that ideas

should b~ consider°ed as a 'material' force, with social forces behind them. Thus,

the dominance of particular philosophies must be understood both historicaIly and

1 poütically. Transformations in the dominant i~logy cannot be affected mer~ly by l '

."

~""" ____ I ••• - ____ '_i,aa._~~

The Concept of 'The .Popular, in Cultural Studies

'-

ü

.!

( )

\ 40

confronting one, set of ideas with another, but must. take due account of the

institutional and politicaJ investments in particular sets of ideas. Ideas are not

simply born: the y have an institutional centre of formation. It was with the

construction of new sorts of centres, or sites, for the creation of a popular and ,

critica1 philosophy, that Gramsci was concerned. Since

the- popular element 'feels' but does not always know or understand; the intellectual element 'knows' but does 2'1't always understand, and in particular does not aiways feel

-------.::...~ -r--~ .JIIJ

such a pr~ss could only take place through the synthesis of the intellectual-ânQ

\ {

the popular, that i5, for- Gramsci, through the -Moder'n Prince.

, Descriptions of 'the people' as feeling, ~as passionate, as energetic, seem to

suggest a form of essentiallsm in Gramscj's thought. 1t might elsewhere have been

said that 'the people' are honest, ignorant or simple. At other moments, however,

Gramsci argues agaMst such ..arustorical Generalisations. In rus discuSsion of

sexuality, Gramsci criticises the 'myth' of the savage, and the appeals to the

natural construction of the human.. species it entails. Indeed, he attacks.

Enlightenment prulosophy for the ideological nature of its starting point in the

human species. For Gramsci, the starting point is not 'What 1s man?' but rather

" 'What can man become?'. The human is the point of arriva! of political analysis,

nor its ,starting point.

Another point of divergence in Gramsci's thought from the philosophy of the

Enlightenment lies in rus definitions of 'civil society'. Ttus concept, in Rousseau

or Locke's system marked the end of the State of Natur-e, and was virtually

synonymo'us with government. Gramsci posits no such evolutionary sche_ma. Civil

society is, generally, t~at part of the social formation that is not characterised by

force. ln fact, Gramsci's definition, - as Perry Anderson 'points out, is remarkably

fluid. At times it approaches what Althusser was to cal! 'ideologicaJ state

apparatuses',28 that 1s to say that it seems to identify all aspects and forms of

civil society wlth the interests of the state. At other moments it is to be

distinguished trom the state. It designates those aspects of the sociaJ formation

!. 1 1

(~

, ,

( , ..

-.

t 1 , ,

Hk C&ieepE! hl IIiE 1 opmm 11# eUiE811H SIGllies 1 mm L 1 mu

which distinguish' Western social democracies from pre-revolutlonary Russia. lt thus.

indudes the political structure, institutions of democratic government, educational

institutions, the family, and the political party.

An tnderstanding of the comple~ty of civll society ledGramsci_ to argue for

the str~tegic importan~e of 'war of position' rather than 'w~r of rrtanoeuvre'. Since

the power of the state could not adequately be grasped in lts coercive functions,

any ~le against the state could not adequately be theorised in terms of direct

confrontation. )uch a war of position required an awareness Q.f the relative \

strength and ,weâkness of differ'ent facets and institutions of civil society. -

. Popular culture was an important part of civil society, and one that ha-d to .

be addressed in any analysis of the social formation. As the articulation of

com,mon sense it contains a vast number of contradictory beliefs and practices

distilled from a sedimentation ~f~~iOUS periods andâl'ld forms of class rule. " ~/

.f

Popular culture thus emerges as a crucial site of ideological struggle.. The . . ablH ty to mainta1n hegemony depends on the ability to produce cultUral

répresentations wNch êommand popular assent. The strugg1~ against tNs hegemony

must' thus involve an intervention in those forms which c1aim to express the

interests or perceptions of the people.

Gramsci takes ~o moralistic-posltion towards popular culture. He does not

descrioe it as wrong or nai ve. It 1s what it is for verygood rea5E)ns, although it -

is constantly changing or being changed. NonethelesS, Gramsci does not give a

purely sociological account of popular culture, that is to say he does not merely , b

reacf it off the structure of the social formation. He speaks not of popular culture _

in general, but <?f pari1cular POpular initiatives and the transformations wrought by

them. Popular culture is always seen in the context of the construction of the

'nationaJ-papular'. Ttus term 1s crucial to Gramsci's thought, but is characterised # - ') L -

basica11y by its absence. Since he attributes the term both to the 801sheviks ~

... ' to the Jacobins, however, its valorisation 15 dear •

. Gramsci describes the national-popular as a cultural concept, riOt to be ~

eq.ated wlth populism. Nor is it to be understood m~ely as a combination of the

t l'

\ .

11f' utl Il .n r.

The Concept of 'The Popu.lar' in Cultural Studies' • d 42

na tiOnal . and the popUlar. It is better unc:lerstood as an historical bloc between

prQgressive nationa{ "forces and actions or theories which are Popular, both in t~

seme of advancing the objective interests of the people, and in..commanding popular

assent.

It is the combination, or articulation, of existing elements, national ... popular, and the transformation produced by ~ir c0l'!'bination tAa~ defines the elusive and ~a~S1fnt nattonal-popular. t' ,

_ The ,cultural strategies such a programme implies, however, remain l.I1C1ear • .

ln order to examine' the cultural forms and practices which might giye some "

Sl.Dstance te) .the possibility of constructing a national-popular culture we mUst turn

to

"un autre dialecti~ matérialiste. dont il (Gramsci) est souvent très proche":

. Benoit Brecht.

~ In his theoretical works and, and in his theatrica1 practice, Brecht addressed

...

rnéI'ly issues concerned with a definition of,:=and an intervention in, popuJar culture.

If Gramsci can be seen as a politica1 theorist with an unusuaJ intereSt in the

cul tural, Brecht can be unc:lerstood as a cultural ·theorist and practltioner with an ,.

unusual and enduring awareness of the political. His writings disp~ay a concern

with many of the issues central to Gramsci's fllought: the emergence of fasclsm',

thë organistion of consent, the· function of the party, the role of education and ~~ ~ ..

dew=klpment of dialectical and historicaUy'specific methods of -cultural and politi~

.. yU. His plays and dramatic theory, however, also-.address the formai methods

and narrative techniques which would allow for the construCtion of representations ...

~t present historica1 and social relations in a surprising and comprehensible \Vay • .. that is for the cons~uction of a popular culture.

Brecht, like Gramsci, must be seen in his historical context. The object is

not to extract from his theories a universal and politi-cally progressive theory of

-l"eIX'esentation. His w~k must be 5een. as an engagement with a particular cultural

nt

"

, '.

tradition and 'a particuJar hlstorical moment}1 It is precisely because of Brecht1s '\W

awareness Qf this that he is of ,interest here. He knew ~hat ideas, and cuitur~

forms, were both material and historica1ly constructed. The dassics, the German , . --

tradition, or Shakespeare, could not simpJy be ignored since they representéd the .,. . 'common sense" of cultural arialysis and production. 'Brecht's object was.. to

undermine ~ natur~ness of these forms and to transforrn them ••

'Sk~Wis~, Brecht, must. be consideFed in the context ~f/ Twentieth Century

,German political and cultural analysis. His relationship to Benjamin is weil known,

-and indeed ~jamin was one of his most perc~pti\le critics.32 He- was a1so g;eatlY -. . infJuenc:ed by the German M~x,ist --Karl Korsch33 who was one of _the ,few peap,~e

he described as rus 'teacher'. The deb:at~ reproduced in Aesthetics and Politics,34

however, a1so gi ve us sorne indication of the wider iotellectual, context in which

Brecht operated: the legacy of Expressiorusm, Adorno's critique 'of the alienation.

and passivity engendered by new forms of mus culture. We cannot do justice to

these debates within the context of this thesis, but perhaps just noting their , "

existence will help us avoid the temP'ta:.tions towards a f~hisation' of Brechl as

intell~producer..and literary genius.

Throughout his lite, Br~t was preoecupied 'with rnany of the same Pcoblems

as Gramsci. CJearly their positions wer~ ,not i~tica1. Gramsci was ~ membei- 9f -

" ' the, Communist Party. His lnterest in the organisation of ,consent,-in the history • 1

of the ltalian ~geoisie or: in the exercise of hegemony 'lias tied to very precise . ,-"', .

and pmctual analyses of working dass organisatiotl. He' was eventua11y imprisonned , .. J ..

by, and di~ under, a' fascist regime. 8rech~ was never a m~ber pf the

CDmI'n\.IÙSt PàrtY. ·He .esc:aped from fascist Germany"<8.lid -eventually retumed to live ~ .

under a commwûst government. NonetheJess, during the 1920, ~ )Os Brecht

shared many 'Of Gramsci's theor.etlcal and political cooœms, and _ in tradng his

interest in consent. ip eduéation, in the role of inteU~ua.ls, or in the practica1

application of MarXist .t:Ustorica1 analyses we will come nearer to an understanding

of why, for him, 'the, populisr' wu' both Ji difflcu1t and a crucial terme

8recht's object, for the theatre was . ...

• . -.

( ) ~

';=: The Concept of orThe P.opular' in Cultural Stucües

td

44

1

10 deYelop the means of pleasure 1nto an object of ïnstruë:tion and 'to con vert çertain institutions trom ~ac~s of entertainment ioto organs of mass, communication

----•

and the process. of edu~tion Wa$ continually to fascinate him.

Brecht liked ta describe himself as tthe t~acher', and the teacher recurs in

'sewca1 of his plays: The Mother, in rus adaptation of The Private TUtor and in He - -- - -Who SaY! Yes and He Who, SaYS' ~. The leaming plays represent 'Brecht's attempt

to &amatise the process of education, by presenting concrete actions, making their }

origins and their implications c1ear.. 1

Bre,cht, like Gali1eo, be~ï'eved in reason, and the seductive powers of truth • . He tried ta ctevelop' an aesthetic ,w~ch would aUow for understandingi for ,the

ple8$Ure of âiscovery.

bourgeois revolutionary aesthetics, founded by, such great figures of the ,Enlightenment as Diderot and Lessing, ~ ~ the theatre as a place of entertainment and instruction.

"

ëRi this is a definition _ \Vith whiç:h Brecht largely co~. Diderot in Paradoxe 2-

le Cam~ 11 argues for' a theatre that is morally instructiye, and r~tiona1, ràtl)er , .

than emotionally çharged 'and titillating. He advocates a form of "theatrica1

\ presentation based-on table!aux, where a situation ~d its' implications bec-Ome clear - , ,

and compr~hensible.38 As a ~ scientist ,and a materialist, Diderot argues ,that

knowledge is only possibl~ in a struct~èd framework: experimentation must proceed

: fro,!,,' a detailed and interested observaÙon of nat~e. Brecht' was to' adapt 11lany

o{ thése terms in rus critiq~ of Aristotelian' theatre. He attacks the 'cu1inary"

theatre for its recJuction of spectating to a process of consumption 'Of vicarious

emotional crises. He proposed instead a form of 'epic' theàtre, a term he borrowed . .

from 'Inscator, where the "spectator will be pr~ented with concrete events, shawn

in 1heir. tistorical context. The spectator should always remain outSide the events,

, interested in them but capable of judging them. For Brecht, the ideal r~ctiOJl to

his theatre is not "How reallstîc~ Of. course, it had ta happen that way," but

rather .. "Ho. surpdsin8L Many other things could have hapPf!ned. 1 wonder why

'"

~,

1

..... ~--_ .... -

:

The Concept of 4'The PopuJar' in Cultural Studies \.

45

they clidn't." He summarises these 'clifferences of emphasis' in the epic theatre in

the ',f~Uowing way:39

DRAMATIC THEATRE

plot

implièates the spectator in a stagé situation

wears' . down his càpacity for action provides him with sensations - '

experience

the spectator is involved in somet~ng - . '

suggestion

instinctive feelings are preserved

the spectator is in the truck ,of it, shares the experience

the h~man bèing is taken for granted

he is unalterable

eyes on the finish

one scene makes another

growth

.unear development

evolutionary determinism

man as a fixed PQint

"'thought det~ belng

feeling

1)

EPIC THEATRE

narrative

turns the spect;tor into an observer but

arouses his capacity for action

forces him to také . decisioll$

picture of the world

he' is ~ade to face something'

argument

brought to the point of recognitioo

the spectàtor stands outsidè, studies

the human being 1s the ob~ of the inquir-y

~ ~ alterable and ·able to alter

eyes on the course

each $cene for itself

montage

in curves

'jumps .

man as a process

social heing -determines vthought

reason

-\.

,

, ) ,

i 1 le COI Icep'., OI: lllc~ r1JIpUICLI 1.11 '-'Ul1..Ul Q.L ~ "U~.l,","~

In his mnc~ptiop of science, Brecht differs somewhat from Diderot, and from . .

the pnilosophers of the' Enlightef)ment discussed in Chapter One. Marxism, for

Brecht, was a science, and he sees the experimental method as an attempt to grasp r,

_ 0

the contradictory nature of realify. The Life of Galileo represents Brecht's analysis ---- . of- the, scientific method. It is grounded in precise observation and'" profound

scepticisme Nothing is taken for granted so that nothing may seem unalterable.

Science beGOI;fleS a' tool of critical analysis in cnallenging the 'common sense' of .• . . ..

phYSièaI and social relations.

-'

His i~ more an ideal o.f PClpular mechanics, technology, the home chemical set and the tinkering of a GalBeo •••• Brecht's particular vision of science was· for rum the means of annulling Fhe separation be.tween'· physical and mental activity ••• it Q,.~ knowihg the- world back together' with changing the world.· _

c 1 The t,uth, for Brecht,) ~as somehow addictive. Thr"oughout The Life of

--, /-,-f

Gameo Galileo!s desire for knowledge, his determination to cfiscover an? understand

the truth, i~ as indulgent and as sensu~ as rus desire for food and drink: "An apple

from the tree of knowledge. He's aIready cramming it in.,,41 But the truth does

oot simply emèrge, and -reason does not a1way~ triamph': "the victory of reason can .. only ~. the victor y of reasona~le ~ople'.,,42 Old' ideas are powerful, espéci~lly when

they supPO..rt political institutions. Brecht argued, that the theatr:e could make an :- 1

intervention on the side of new ideas. ~

. il s'agit toujQurs -de former, par le thétltre,. des' hommes •••• aptes à déchiffrer leur prollff situation historique et à agir sur celle-ci pour la ~Jlanger. 'tJ.

The theatre could both present new situations and, more importantly, present oid -8

situatioll6 in a new way. Brecht asks, "Quels services le prolétariat attend-lI des ; , , .

intellectuels?" and answers that intellectuaIs _have a dut y to destroy bourgeois

ideology, to study the forces whlch determine sodal reality,: and to ad vance

_ th~ry. f4.f4. For 'these' ~tasks, he prèsllmably' had Gramsc1's organic intellectuals in . . lTlind.'

i

,t' ' - .

, \.t

\

!

..

-___________ ~-------œ---.~--.-.~~~~ff~~~-.@;œs!~mm=,~ __ ~S~&~~.~~.~W$U .. ~'"~-~-%~-~L~-~«~-~ftJ4j~a--~~~"~iW __ ..... F ......... ... ___ • ____ ... _ .......... tMf , _"li!I~1

( ,

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies 47

Problems of political org~sation, leadership and the orgarusation of consent

are explored in several of Brecht's plays, particularly in the letntucke, or 'learnmg

plays'. The Didactic Play of Baden Baden of Consent,. He Who Says Yes and t!!

Who Says No aU explore the conditions under 'whlch the mdividual might reasonably

OJnSent to rus destructIon in the 10terest of the greater good. The Measures Taken

examines the same sort of dilemma. Here a group of Commurust Party members

re-enact the events that made them kill thelr comrade. His fauIt was ln beiAg too

soft-hearted: "ternble is the temptatîon to do good." In react10g spontaneously to

sufferillg the young comtade Ignored the discipl10e necessary to acrueve long term

revolutionary goals.

r-Instead of being on! y good, try c

to bring about a: state that makes goodness possibJe Or still better: "45 Makes it unnecessary.

• (>

Brecht has frequently been attacked for the dogmatic ,tone of this piece, both by

the left, who daim It is unrealistic, and by the nght, who say it' IS qwte realistic,

but accuse Brecht of condoning it. Such ,,-~mbiguity is scarcely accidentai, and ~t

least against charges of Brecht's Utopianism we cano always say 'he never said it

would be easy'. Thls piece 1S to be taken qUlte seriously, however, as àn attem,pt

by Brecht to understand what might be involved m effectIve pohtlcal organisatIon,

1 and the constructlon of a revolutionary party.

The problem of consent re-emerges 10 Th~ Lue of Galileo, but ln, this case

it i5 the consent of the oppressed: "1 perceive the divme patIence of your people,

but where i5 their divine anger?,,46 Galileo'~ sel1-condemnation is based on the fact

that he had a 'unique opportunity' to communicate a 5dentific method ~d lts

insights and failed to do 50. The triumph of faith, and the ir-rponsibility o~

science are laid at Galileo'5 door.

the analysis of fascism, popular consent- emerges once more. FasCl5m

"repose sur une certaine complicité de la population, "étendue à tous les

domaines. ,,47 Brecht aimed to underrru.ne this consent in a senes of plays de.ahng

,"

}

" ,

= 48

\ . explicitJy with fascism: Round Heads and PGinted Heads, Fear and Misery of the

1llird Reich and The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui. There i5 a tone of dèsperation -- ---in these plays, a fear that reason has broken down. He abandons the form of the

Lehrstudœ. Fear and Misery of the Third Reich presents a number of sketches , ~

deaJing with the actions and attitudes which mamtain a fastist regime. The

Resistable RLSe of Arturo Ui depicts Hitler as a Chicago gangster., a familiar

element ID Brecht's caSt of characters. The satire works, aimost, but in C!isplacing

fascism' ooto the indIVlduaJ ahd eccentric figure of HItler the play l.oses precl~ely

" that histoncal Speafldty wruch Brecht saw as 50 Important: ContradiCtlOn is

dlsplaced by charisma. , We 5hould not underestimate the difflcu1t;les of writlOg at

this partlcular moment of European history. Brecht describes it 10 terms of "five

dtfflCUJtJe5 in wntmg the truth.,,48 These difucultles appJy 'to those in exile, to

those lIving under fasClsm, but also to "ceux qw Vivent dans les démocraties

bourgeOISes." Writ10g the truth reqwres courage,' mtelligence, an abillty to turn

the truth into a weapon, discretign as to who to give it to, and cunning to see it

is spread. The strategy might be compared to Gramsci's 'w~ of position', replacing .. the 'war of manoeovre' of the Lehrstuciœ..

In the same arti,pe Brecht argues, that no-one has any interest in discovering , '

or representmg the truth unless he ,has someone to teU it to. Brecht did not

always have an 'audience, but he was quite unambiguous about who he had ln minci

for tus writing:

lt iS· the mter1.· o~ tne people. ~ btoad ,.,orking rn_. that literature should g1W'e them truthfuJ re,present4ltions of Jjj.e; and truthfu! representations of life are in fact only of use to the broad w.orking masses, 50 that theY4ja..re to be sugesti ve and intelligible to them, i.e., popular. .

" 1 1 t 1:1 "'

ThiS staterJlerl1 elldes the 'poPl;Üar and the iei.listlC as the t1ll0 detenninants on

r.evo!utionary artistlc pract1ce. It 15 writter:' wit!Un a falt'ly poJemical piece, e-un~4shed, untiJ 19~8, which ,attadced L~ concept~on of real1Sm.' Srecht ~gues

~gainst defining reabsm in terroS of' aiready, .existmg' works of att. . 'l'hat is , .

realistic, that i.s, capable pi representing 'the ~uth .m·,alt' iu contradictionS, in fa(:t .. \ • p ~ ~

, .' , r

......

(

, .

\ \

., fT • lU

The Concept of 'The PopuJar' in Cultural Studies 49

changes historically. For Brecht, realism cannot be given a purely aesthetic

definition: •

the spirit of realism designates an active, experi mental , subversive - in a word scientific -- a50i tude towards social institut.j.ons and the

world.

curious,

matèrial ,"

Real1sm r~presents both a philosophical ,and a pohtical commitment to finding

cul:turat forms capable of appropriatmg and expressing a changing an~ complex

• social reality.

What 15 popular will- also change historicaUy. Brecht 1s very carefuJ with rus ~

analyslS of 'the people' and 'the popular': ''The German word for 'popular,'

Vo1Icsbn1ich, 1S l'tSelf none too popuJar. 1t is unrealistlc to imagine that it is."51 ..

nus 1S because lt has fonned part of t very reaction,\ but ,pervasive rhetoric:

in this the folk, or' people appears with its 1mmutable characteristics, lts time-honoured traditions, forms of art, astoms and habits, its rel1giosity, its hereditary enem ies , its unconquerable strength and all the rest of it. '5~ pecu.1iar unit Y is conjured up of tormentor and tormented.

As we have seen, thls sort of definitJ.on goes back a long way. At times,~ indeed,

Brecht seems, to feeJ the word 15 bètter not used at alla . ,

\ Le mot 'peuple' implique une unité fondée sur des intér1:ts communs, on ne devrait J'employer qu'au pl~l car il n'y a 'intér~ts communs' qu'entre plusieurs peuples.

He suggests instead the word 'population' 51nce it avoids the suggestion of illusory

unit y and allows for- an analY51S of different, and op~ing, mterests~

In "The Popu.J.ar and The Rea.listic," however, Brecht aclcnowledges !hat.tlle _ J

. œncept of 'the popular' ~ crucial, althOugh iu signifl~ needs t~ be (têthought.

It is cruclal because it marks a determmation to construct repre5(mtations that are

both comprehensib1e and useful. He defines the popular thus:

'" -,'" 'Popular' means iJ;ltell.igi.ble to the broad masses, taking ove!" their own forms 'of exp-ession and enr~ching tbem/adopting and consolidating their standpoint/ representing the mon

- ---,0----

progressi ve section of the people in such a way that it an take over the leadership: thus intelligible to othe!' sections too/lihking with tradition and carrying it further/handing on the achievements of the section now leadin~,f0' the section '\)f the people that is struggling for the lead.

To lIlderstand what this- statement might involve, we must re-insert it within

Brecht's theatrical ,practice. ' FirstJy, the requirement for accessibility was \

something Brecht took qui te seriously. His inter est in Chinese theatrical forms~

arose from his observation that they could treat compl~x problems with the utmost '. simplicity. He pr81SeS' the Chinese poet Po-~hu-i, whose songs were "on the lips

of fanners and stable boys ••• on village schools and temples.,,55

This accessibility was not to be gained, however by the WlCritica1

appropriation of existing cultural forms. •

The ointelligibility of a work is not guaranteed by its being written i"36the same way iS another work the people under'stood.

'. Equally, theatrica1 representations couJd not be created in a vacuum. They could

orfJy be constructed in relation to some sort of traditi,on, _ or as a fWlCtion of

already existing cultural forms. lndeed, the productivity of Srechtls / theatre lay . .

precisely in the extent to which it used known cul'tura! forms -~ problematisèd., -.

or historicised them. It worked on the cO!OJllOn-sense of cultural production.

So far, Brecht's' ~- -of the popuJar is limited to r-epresentations

-construct~ in the lnterest of the people. His attitude to cultural forms lof the

~J people' is more compJex. ln rus wriungs Brecht barro ed fairly widely trom what '

might be called an "unlitetary' tradition. The of ~merican gangster

mOVle5 is c1ear 10 St. ~ of !!!!: Stockyards, _H~ .......... Ë!5! and ,:rœ Resistable ~

. of Arturo Ui. Herr Puntila and rus Man Matti i:s based on the fonn of Finnish folk - - - ---=,.;.-. tales. Brecht was fascinated ~Y sports. In.an early piece Brecht writes, "We pin

011 t:lopes on the sporting public.n57 He saw in the sports ~ence rus ideaJ theatre

audience: they knew what they wanted, cared that it Was done weil, and had ftn.

F9r . yean Brecht toyed with the idea of writing a biocr.-.t 01 the Germ ...

>

\.

1 F $ g • r

The Concept of t'The Popular' in Cultural Studies .51,

middleweight boxing champion Paul Samson-Korner, although tms prolect was never

actua11y compl~ted. ~

Brecht did not argue, however that these popular forms çould be assumed '0 express the interests, or the perceptions of the, people. We have already noted

_. BrechtJs çritique of' the consent, the popular political perceptions which allowed the

emergence of fascism. Again, he c~mments specifica11y that "powerful institutions , -.

have long preverlted tms 'folk' from developing fuUy.II.58

For, Brecht, the forms and practices of t.heatrica1 representatlon 'played an

important ~t. in the construction of consent, and the legitimation of dass ruIe.

it was ttrOugh an interrogation of ~he p..0Ce5s of :re.,resentation that an interv~tion

could be ma~ in popular culture.

50 we ret\rh once more to Brecht's theatrical. writing and his dramatic tt:'eory. ... .

These and his political writings' coalesce ~ound rus distim:tlon between 'being

popdar' an~ 'becoming popu1~'! .59_ The valorisation of that which ~ a1read~ popular

is merely reactionary. The object mus1- be to' construct representations that

châll~ge old forms and ideas: "What was popu1~ yesterday is no longer 50 today,

for the people of yesterday were not the people as lt is' today.,,60 His projec( is

to create new cultural forms: to demystify ru;torical events and aétions and the-"

process of cultural production and to find the means to represent contradiction •

. Thus his theory of the epic theatre, which latterl~ he preferr~' to cali the 1

1

dialectic theatre. There an actress co~d present mstory as a passer-by might

reconstruct a car accident: with intelligence, with skill and with. an interest in

explaining things to he! audience.

Not aU of Brecht's plays achieved this goal. ln the G:ontemporary recuperation <

and depoliticisation of his wOrks we might even say that he has failed. Certainly,

an adqption of 'Brechtian forms' will not be' a,hy guarantee of the cQllStruction of

~ truiy popular Culture. .~

. The point, howevet" , is not to canonise Brecht, or' to suggest that he has

constructed an aesthetic which is necessarily progressive. His work is of inter est

sim ply becaùIe at a certain historical moment it wu clear to mm' that 'popular

( f

" '

( . .

, ,

i lie ccnlcepL Ol: 111\:: ropwc:u- 111 ~W"W-A1 .. nu,,"~

0Jlt\a'e' was both a crucial and a problematic term. It was a· term worth' strugling

o~er. He rejected the iUusory unit y implied by 'the people'.and insisted on • •

represe~ting tt)e social formation as antagonistic .. Q He saw Jhat 'the people' changecl

. historica11y. He worked with, and against, existing cultural- forms in order to .' .... .,

canstruct representations that might become popular, 1:hat is which wouJd tell . ~hose.

who' Y'ere oJ,>pressecl what they had ~ interest in knowing, in ways which were

accessible, useful, and fun. He hoped to transform the popuiar imagination: na

sp~CiaJ effprt is needed today to write in a popular

it has become easier: easi~ more urgent.n61

way. But at the same time ---

ln the next chapter we wiU examine whether writing about 'the popular' has , , ,

become .... any easi~. We will thùs look at contemporary analyses of the popular in

relation to the approaches .<fiscussed in Chapters One. and Two~.

•

\ , .

('

The Concept of 'The PopuJar" În_ CultUral Studi~ .

NOTES

1. 8ertoJt Brecht, Brecht .on:Theatre, transJated by John Willett, London: Eyre > Methuen, 1964, p. loI. - , ' .

2. See Antonio Gramsci, Selections tr~ the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, New York: Inter~tionaJ Publishers, 1971.

,3. See, Alastair' Davidson, Antoruo Gramsci: Towards!!! Intellectual Biography, ~t1antic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1917.

. . 4. Christine Suci-Glucksmann, ,Gramsci et J'Etat, Paris:' Librairie Arthème

.. ' Fayard, 1975; p. 20. - -

s.

-6.

7.

8.

See Perry Anderson, "The Antinomies of Antonio Gral11sci,ff New Lett Review, No. 100, 1976/77. ," ---:- - ,

GeOffrey Nowe1l-Smith, "Gramsci and the National-popwar," Screen education, ~. 22, Spring 1977 •.

\

Antonio GramSci, "Letter to Tatiana," March 19, 1927. Cited in James Jo11, Antonio GramJci, HarmondswOrth: Penguin, 1977, p. 101.

F ~ . Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci,

_ edited by Quintin, Hoare and GeourëY Nowel1-Smith, New York: International .Publishers, ,1971, p. 383-4.

~ 9. .ibid., p. 276.

. 10. ibid., ,fôotnote, p. ,~. . . ,

11. 'See Perry Anderson, "The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci," New Left Review, No. 100, .1976/77. - -- .

12. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited by Quintin Hoare and ~ffr;yNowell-Smith, New York: International Publishers, 1971, p. 9.

'r

13. ibip., p. 29. .

14. ibid., p. 3S. ,. lS. ibid., p. 36.

~

1'. ibid., p. ~. ~

17. ibid., p. -43.

18. ibid,.,' footnote, p. 41.

19. ibid., p. ,129.,

20. See AJastair Dtvidson, "The Varying Seûons of Cramsci Studies," 'Politica1 Studies, Vol 20, No. 4, Deœmber 1912-

21. Antonio Gramsci, SeJections trom the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramscl, edited by Quintin Hoare âild GeolfrëY NoweIl .. Smith, N~w -y orki t~ternational'

",.

(

-

The Concept, of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies ,. .. J _

Publishers, 1971, p. 411. -\ 22. ibid., p. 340.

23. ibid., p. 392.

24. ibid., p. 393 •

. 2.5. - Antonio Gramsci, .Selections from the PriSon Notebooks_ of Antonio Gramsci, edited by Quintin Hoar~ and "GeOffrey Nowell-Smith, .New-York: IilternationaJ Publishers, 1971, p. 328. ' -

, . 26. Karl Marx, Preface .to A Contribution to the Critique of PoliticaJ Economy,

edited by Maurice Dobb, New Y~k: International P~blishers, 1970, p. 21.

27. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edlted by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowel1-Smith, 'New York: International PublÏ$ners, 1971, p. 418.

28. See Louis Althusser, ''1deology and IdeologicaJ Sta~e Apparatuses," in Len!n and Philosophy and other Essax.,s, ,London: New Lef! Books, 197J..

-29. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, "Gramsci and the National-Popular," Sereen Education,

No. 22, Spring 1977, p. 12. ,

30. Christine Buci-Glucksmann, Gramsci et l'Etat, Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 197.5, p. 28.

" ~

31. > See H8f\S Mayer, "Brecht and the Tradition," in Steppenwolf and Everyman, translated by J.O. Zipes, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., ~l.

,

1 . f i t

32. See Walter. Benjamin, Undetstand,ing Brecht, translated by Anna Bostock, , . L~ndon: New Left. Books, 1977.

,~ -:n. See Douglas Kellner, "Brecht's Manast Aesthetic: The Korsch Connection,'" in Bertolt BreCht, Polltical Theory and Literary Practice. Edited by B.N. Weber and H. Heinen, Ath,ens: University of Georgia Press, 1980.

,,34. Ernst". BIQch et al., Aesthetics and Poli tics, London: New Left Books, 1977.

3'" Bertolt Brecht, Brecht on Theatre, translated by John Willett, London: Eyre Methuen, 1964, p. 42. -

36. ibid., p. 131.

37. See Denis Diderot, Paradoxe §ur le ColT,l édién, Paris: LiQrairie-Théltrale, 1 ~ 53.

38. 1 See Roland Barthes, "Diderot, Brecht, Eisenstèin," Sereen, Vol.16, No: 2.

39. Bertoit Brecht, Brecht on Theatre, translated by John WHlett, London: 'Eyre Methuen, 1964, p. 37.- -

40. \ Frederic Jameson, "RefJections ln Conclusion," in E. 'Bloch et al., Aesthetics .!!!2 PoUtics, London:' New Left Books, 1977, p. 204. ..

41. Bertoit Brecht, The Life of Galileo, .translated by Desmond 1. Vaey, London: Eyre Methuen, i960,p.79.

42. ibid., p. 79.

_--.... ; '" .

, ,. " -

- (~~

- > •• , ,

41. Bemar~ Dort, Lecture ~ Brecht, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1960. p. 199. -/ ... '

44. ~tOlt Br~ht, Ecrits !!:!!: la Politique !! la Soêlété, Paris: l'Arche,"'1970, p.

J -Bertoit Brecht, "Why G~," in Poems, 1913-56, edited by J. WiUett R. Manheim, New'York: Eyre Methuen, 1979.

46. Bertolt Brecht, The !:!.!! of Galileo, translated br .Qesmond 1. vesey, LIV\IlInn , Eyre Methuen, ma, p. '19. .

Bertolt Brecht, "Les Cinq - Difficultés à Ecrire la Vérité," in. Les Lettres Nouvelles, Nô. 46, Février 1957, p~ 259.. -

47.

See Bertolt Brecht, "Les Cinq Difficultés à Ecrire la Vé~ité," in Les J,.ettres Nouvelles, No. 46, Février. 1~57. .

4&.

49. Bertolt Brecht, Brecht on Theatre, translated by John Willett, London: Eyre Meth'lien, 1964, p. 107. "7

50;- . Frederic Jameson, "Reflections in Conclusion," in E. Bloch et ai., Aesthetics and PoUties, London: New Left Books, 1977, p. 20.5. For general discussion--;;---­or-Brecht and realism, see Terry Eagleton, fiA Note on, Brechl and Realism," in 1936: The Social ogy of Literature, Volume 1: The Poli tics- of MQdernism, ~ edited by F. Barker et al., ESsex: University of Essex, 1979.

51. Bertolt Br~ht, Brecht on Theatre, trans1ated by John Willett, London: Eyre Methuen, 1964, p. 107.-

", . ibid., p. 108.

./ . , . ... 53. Bertolt Bre~ht. "Les Cinq Difficultés à Ecrire la Vérité," LEs. Lettres Nouvelles,

No. 46, Fevner 195r,-P- 25.5. , -

54. Bertolt Brecht, Brecht. on Theatre, translated by John Willett, .London: Eyre "Methuen, 1964,-p. 108. -

5'. See Hans May~r, "Brecht and the Tradition," in Steppenwolt and Everyman, -translated by, J.O. Zipes, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell -Co., 1971, p. 137 •

• 56. Bert~lt Brecht, Brecht ~ Theatre, translated by John Willett, London: Eyre

Methuen, 1964, p. 112.

57 •. ibid., p. 6. -

5&~ ibid.~ p. 108.

59. ibid., p. 112.

60. ibid., p. 110. .. -.. ..

61. ibid., p. 107. ~

~

• ..

(

, .. \ .. " l

.\

'.'

, \ \

-Classical Marxism largeJy shares that Enlightenment web of \ rationality - that, web of histOl'ical assumptions as to wpat

is to count as truth, reason, meaning, value, and identity •.

, ,

The object of this chapte~' is to' determine - ~ow far certain· con"lemporary

theorists of popuJar culture have distancf:d themselves from t~~ strategies of

'. -definition of 'the people' "outÜned in Chapter One~ It will also e~ine the terms

in which Gramsci and 8recht's insights into the relationship between cultural forms,

popu'lar consent and the maintenance of· hegemony have been appropriated within , '

the field of cultural studies, and aDalyse the' implications of the often uneasy

~ between paradigms which are. es~entiaUy populist and those whièh are based ..

on a Marxist analysis of contemporary dass and cultural relations. , \

1 --

We obviously cannot hope to analyse all the various traditions of cultural, -

political and s~al analysis which have converged around the contempdrary concerris '

of cultural studies. We will thus concentrate on the work of one of the first

institutions created speclfically for the study of popuJar culture: The Birmingham

Centre, for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Work undertaken at _the. Centre has

been crucial for the definition of the field of cul,tural studies, cert~r\ly in Britain 1

and North' America, and it continues to provide both theoretiCal and methodological

- leadership in man)' of the debates arqund popu1ar culturF.~ AJthough it would be - - 1_

- erroneous to see the work produced at- the Centre as coristi~ng a 'schoo!', Vte

eontinuity of their interests, sharpened b.y' the intertextuality . of many of their

publications and the recurrence of theoretical contr-lbutionS by specifiè individuals,

at least allows ~ to address the archaeoJogy of thelr theor.etical concerns and

political analyses.

Stuart Hall argues that "Cultural Studies emerges ~ a distincti~e problematic -in the mid-19'0s.H2 He relates lts formation to the concerns expc'esseéI and \

"'. a

{ f J i 1

(

i ,.e COiNCpC VK l'WU. "P'-.~ ...... _ • .....,. - -----

strategies adopted in ~our books pUblished jn 8ritain in the late 19'05 and early

19605. These are: Raym_on~ Williams' Culturé and Society and The Long

Revplutîon, E.P. Thompson's The Makin! of ~ English Working 9!!! and Richard . Hoggart's The ~ of Literacy. The relationship between a major re..writing and

, . re-evaluation of the Great Tradition in English literature,' an histdrical analysis of

the formation of the working class in the early ~Nineteenth Century, and an .

-a,rthropological/phenomenoJogis_al reading ~f tM values and pr.actices of the working _.. -1' •

~ass in the, 19505 may nol,immedlately be clear.' It requires a significant amount e

of recovery. and analy.sis to recohstruct the historical and intellectual mo~ent to

wrCh S,tuart Hall, ,quite rightJy, at~ributes such i~portance.

~ This rustorical moment was, however, crucial to the later development of -

J:u1tural studies. The terms and, limitations of many current debates have their

origil1 here. It i5 thus worth pausing to consider ~~ch of t~ above-~~ioned

texts, and, the context wruch shapecf th~ir theoretical c~ and fo~Ulb...0!)5.

Why were they led to an analysls of particulat cultùral ferms, and wha1; was the Cl

nature of their interest in, -'the people'? ~~ '/

-E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English .orking Class, published. in 1963,

.. ", was bOth an impressi ve historicaI ~econstruction of racüêaJ 'and working dus

traditions of resistance in the late l!ighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries, and --

.,

a SUSTained polemic aîili~t bath elitist and reductionist practices of historiography. o

His' argument basicaUy was that ''the working dus was 'present 'at its own

~.,3 and rus cruqa1 presupposition was that of human ag~y as an important ;

and ~termini~g fàctor in history.

~ Makina of !!!! Enslish WorkinS Q!!! presents evidence of the contiowty

of the Eighteenth Century radical tradition, it~ transformation via the ~

anti-œnstitutionalism of Tom Pai,,!'.s RiJhts of_ Man, and its survival lOto the early

Nineteenth Century. Thompson then e~ines. the !!xw-ience of ,tne Industrial

Revolution, as llved by a nUl'!'ber of sections of the developing wor'kilig clus. He

looks at the terros in which individuals and sOcial, groups reaèted to the changing . sodal nriations of industria! capitalism. - Finally, Thompson analyses the emerJeRCe

, . ,

-\

1

l,

The-r'Concc;pt of -'The Popular' in Cultural Studies 58

of tfle new w~rklng dass, wruch lie defines;. crucia1ly, in terms of its consciousness.

He charts the various industrial and polltical struggles which led to a new

F consciousness by the working class of thelr common interests, and of. thelr . -

opposition to other inter.ests, through new institutions, new publications and new .' .. ~ctices of organisation for' resistance.

His argument 1s that the working dass was not subjected --to- the Industrial

Revolution, but rather "suffer~ the experience of the Industrial Itevolution as

artiOJlate, free-bo~ Engllshmen."~ Much of rus evidence 1s found in cultural forms

and practlces. He conduç~s a sustained anaJysis of Methodism, of i.ts tene~ its

organisation, its power and its implications. The establishment of "à radical

indèpendent press i. part of the dynamic of th~ texte - Even seemingly anachronistic

~vals, such as the myth of the Norman Yoke' emerge as sites of resistance to

certaifl forms of - power. JÎ /

Despite the wealth of histodca1 detail, however, it is real1y Thompson's

m ethod that is of in!erest and importance here. The publication. of this _ teit

represented a major break with dominant practices of history writing, and

~ work, from ~ Making 2! ~ English Working 9!!! 10 ~ Poverty ~

!heory has continued to function as a raUying point for Marxist, humanist analyses

of historiCal, political and cultural processes. • <,

-Ttonpsonls insistence on agency has aIready been mentioned. His attack here ,

~ is on analyses which stress the ~ic motor of history at the expense of the

t-u:nan. 11\1s polec;nlC became ~ven sharper With the publicatiOn of T~ Poveny ~

Th.ory, an attack on Alth~ and rus alleged prioritisation of structlXe-o, and

determination over consciously wilied change. Althusser's Conception of history as

a process without a sUb;ect, or of mmvidÛals as supporters of particular relations

..

of production, is lrreconcilably opposed to the whole movement and substance of

Thompson's work •

As Perry Anderson points out, ho~ever 1 Thompsor:l ·wins more. w~h this ,rhetoric

of consciouS choice than rus historica1 evidence reaUy permit5 mm, basica1Jy

beca~ . of the ambiguity of his concept of asency. 6 Conscious Soaf-directed

_L -

•

)

.'

T i a f~illal '1"'~~1t.~.d':!.JI.~~...ool.~~_,.:l~",~~~

The Concept 'of --'The Popular' in Cù1tural Studies 0 59

activity can take many J.orms, not all, or even maoy, of _ which representl an , '

Îr'I'tI!!I"W!Ion in the political or ecQoomic forces of history. For Thompson, ho~ever,

it seems 10 be-all or nothing. Either the working class Cjl[l always be found to be

conscious of, its own interestsy and, witron certain social and political limits,

pursuing them, or we must condude it they never is. As A.nderson says,

Thompson's "ever-baffled, ever-resurgent hurilan age!lts,,7 have a disturbingly timeless

quality,

, Afthough the assertion of agency is crucial ta Thompson's argument in The • - 1

M4lkin.& 0 of the English Class, -we are ~ver really gi ven the éhance to judge i~s -

Economie analysis is not only subordinate, it is barely present. We are - '. . aware of the presence of, the Industrial RevolutiOn, and of its local manifestations,

but never really see its structural relat~on ta the transformations Thompson

discusses.

Experience is another recurring term in Thompson's analysis, and one that is o (

equaUy süppery. If the point is to look not just at historicar processe5, Dut at the ....

tel'ms in ~hich. they are understood, or the way in which they are re-interpreted,

communicated, and thus transformed, we certainly q-hav~ no argument witt} it.

'... , TI1cmpson does, ho~ever, eteter ex.c-essi vely to the authenticity of experience, seeing

it as something that teaches, and thus 'as something inherently progressive.' The , -

., ... question' of the validity of certain sorts of experience-Îs thus never r:aised, nor is

that of the .necessary m~ations expr~d in the ver~ term 'experience'.

An emphasis on agency, on experience, and on traditions of resistance leads

Thompson tao valorise much of the popular culture of the Nineteenth Cent\,lry.

Indeed, giVerl rus emphasis on .the funçtamental .s~al, political ahd economic J

transformations which marked this particular historical period, Thompson seés in

'cultural forms an atypical continuit.r.:

?,

there "as nothing in this process 56 'violent as ta ~orce a distuption of older tràditions ••• local customs, s~stitions 'and diaJect were ~ther ~vered nor ~ansplanted.

-... Perry Anderson argues that thirs -constitutes the reaJ centre of Thompson's work:

,

o

(

" 60

"the survival and continuity of so many popular values and tr~ditions of

resistance." 9 - 'jf -

It Is precisely this "daim to continuity that Gregor McLennan challenges: . ,

He ovetestimates the progressiveness and co~~nuity of the radical tradition of the Free Born Englishmarf.

(

The illusion of continuity is to an --extent , '

\. . created by a very selective focus. We

look at "handloom weavers and -artisans" ~ut n7'. at factory hands. 11 Thompson

such aft extent that the destruction of concentrates on dissent and radiciùism to , .

moch of trus traditioQ in the later Nineteenth Century is literally incomprehensible

-within the terms of The Making of the English Working Class, wruch stops at 1832.

The devèîoping practices of working class organldtion and resistance are thus seen ,

as the unmediated expression of çlass interests, wruch are held to be unified. Thus

.( . \\

The idea which he $ometimes implies that historical a~2"ts, and especially collectives, have a unified consciousness. ~ ..

"'- Thompson also gives the ilT!pression that "the identfty t of the working class

was in some sen~.e completed by 'the early 1830s.,,13 He thus affects a closur~ on

thG?process of the 'making' of the English working ~ class! and dec~ares it, by 1832,

effectively 'madeY• ,.. He concentrates on trus particular historical moment as the J .. f ~ - ~ , •• ..

determining one in th~ esta'blishme~t of working class organis,àtions, .(lnd strategies

of resistance .. Their legacy, for us, i~ leU in DO dOUbt: l

They had aIso nourished, for fifty yeacs, ahd with' incomparable fortitude, the Liberty TrfîF. We may thank them for these years of heroic culture.

~ d

Perry ,Anderson~ in Arguments Within English Marxism, ar,gues tha~ 'thompson

leaveS too m!,Jch out of rus account: the history of capital accumulation, ~ the role ----..

of military conflict and the ~onsequent growth of nationalisrn, and the influence of \

the American andO French Revolutions. As the' previous quotation makes clear:,

howev.er, Thompson constructs his historical ODjec;' with vety definite interests in

mihd. In the recov~ry' of ~orking class participat~n in the construè,tion of its

:. ~ j

. 1

1 i

t .L

• __ S1 .... ;s ....... ür .... ""IIItil ... :; ..... Il-_ .... ~ ........... ~~ ...... ...,..,... .Id ~lt .... P.~~ _ .... ""-.. h"~_,,""~~ ... ~ -,-","~- 1 ... ~~ The Concept of 'The Popular' ln Cultural Studies

z a ~, • 1

61

(

hlstory, Thompson IS qUlte consetously rnakmg an mterVefltlon ln contemporary

polI tlCaJ analyses. The mterestmg pomt 1~ the terf!1s of !tu.s mterven~lon, and hs

relation to earlier and later lrutlatlves m pohtlCal and cuJtural analysis. c

Bûl Schwarz's analysls of the work of the Commurust Party H.1stonans Group

(CPHG) between 1946 and 1956 15 may help us to understand the context of

Thompson's work, and the ongms of Its concerns dfld commltments. The work of

the CPHG focuss~d on popular movements :hroughout hlstory, wlth the exphClt aIm

of reconstructmg the posslblllty of a natlOnai-popu1ar consaousness. "They returned

to the Seventeenth Century ln search of an orgamc popular cUlt.ure, .. 16 hopmg to

rediscover the mechanlsms of res.1stance. ln !rus endea vour they rehed 'faId y

heavlly on a traruuon of socla4 and cultural cntlque, concentrated ln the fleld of

hterary cntlClsm, and mamfest, for example, 10 the Journal Scrutmy.

a dorrunant set of themes 10 the MarXlst hlstonography came to mlrror the Scrutmy endeavour, partlally mvertlng Its elitlSm 1(70rder to dëvelop a celebratIon of the culture of the people.

ln thls tradItion the emphasls was always on contmwty. AuthentlC popular

culture was seen as the expreSSIon of a cOF)tmuous revolutlonary consaousness.

Much of !tus was a very necessary correctlv~ to analyses whlch had seen ... any

m anif es ta tIOn of collectl ve reslstance or" protest as Inherentl y lrra tlonal. It

, effectively redr\w the map of SOC.1al and cultural relatIOns ln the Eighteenth and

Nmeteenth Centunes. Its relatIon to the k~nd of CritIque of contemporary cultural

degradat1'on embo<lled 10 Scrutmy contmued to be problematlc, however, and the

polltical ImplicatIon of I,ts chosen ldtom of research were not aU positive. ~

ConcentratlOg on the contmwty of· a radlcal tradItion allowed the more·

lOteresting and thorny problem of ItS discontlOwtles to remaIn unposed. Also the c

valorisation of authentlc cultural forms led to a narrowly natlonallstic and baslCally

reactionary reJection of all Amencan cultural mfluences. Fmally, 10 presentmg the "i

revolutionary trarution as. smgular and Imear, the CPHÇj .,.

remforced the belle! that the contemporary popular culture \

r

..

. .

was a1~ Slhguiar 0 and nomogenws', uruufected by mternaI dl ViSIons, of gender, age or race. '"

• But antlClpate.

1.

~ ln dus context, t~ pnoflUe5 and, assumptlons of Thompson's ..vark rnake muCh

more, sense. He tao 15 aJ.mmg at a rewritmg of certaln moments in hlstory, and

at a: recov~ry and valorisatiOn of a cert.a1O popular tradition. We fmd hlm stress mg <f'

the conunwty of, that tradmon over~: msconunwty, emphaslsmg the uruty of the

popular consclousness, and removlng .~he essentlal charactensucs of the workmg <;

ç1ass, that IS the people, from the flu~ of hlstory aiter l8~2. Thus, we fmd many

of the same strategIes we located 10 Ëlghteentb Century mscourses of the people

and the.tr cultural forms, ~though the consClo~ thrust of 'Thompson's wori< 1S qulte

other. Ta' the question posed earher, "who has the f-lght to defme 'the peopl~,?,j

we must, ln the last analysls, answer "E.P. Thompson."

.. , hlS manner 15 ta assume tht~ tus ear 15 doser to vox pàpUÜ than ms deluded opponents' .

l'

When we look at Rlchard Hoggart's work, we find he shares many of

Thom'pson's concerns. The Uses of Literacy is a study of the organisation of

popular Consent through the media of mass communicatIons. He analyses the

degree to whlch l1ved experience and sedimented ,forms of cultural expression

~ provide sites of resistance for the working class to values embedded in new, mass

'produced cultural forms. HIS Interest, however, rs not in the acti~ely pohtlCal

traditIon of workmg class organisation, .but rather in the only passively, or

marginally, ~lcal positions and attitudes expressed in th~ habIts and practices of

working class communi ties.

!he first part of Hoggart's book is the more powerful. Here he attempts to

artlculate ,the vanous social relations and attitudes embodied in common sense. His

re-cr:~ion of the many layers" of experience expressed in seemingly meaningless .. clichés or habits is convincing. His account is so intensely personal, however, as

to be at times almost unreadable. Descriptions such as

. ..

'.

.'"

The Concept of 'Th~ PopuJar' ln Cultural Stuciles 63

the lron thumps On th~ table, t~ dog scratches and yaWfl5 or the cat mlaows to be let out; t~ son, drying himself on t~ family towel near the hre, wtustles, or rustles the communal l~tter trom his brother 10 the army wtuch has been lYl~on th~ mantelplece behia t~ photo of tus slster's weddmg

, no,,", seem to be more of an expres~lon of Hoggart's Imagmary than ~ hlstori~

réconstructton of th~ domestlC relatl()fl5 of the workmg class ln the 1930s.

" ThJS 'asJde. Th~ Uses of Llteracy represented a slgmficant challenge ta the

hlerarducal cilstmctlon .between rugh and 10""' culture, ln l00kJ.Qg at the values and

mear'ungs Qf workmg dass liie as a teX! whlch admlts of academlC analysis. Ttus "

\Vas a new- endeavour, for wh!ch Hoggârt had tG try ta forge an adequate

'TIethodology. 'Hls SyntheslS of ilterary .. CntlClSm, Sociology and phenomenology is

not, however, wIthout as probJems.

Ho'ggart's argument depends on establlshmg a $Obd basis of reslstance and . ,

tradition 1~ thé,· brst part, agamst wruch he can read the likely effects of changes

~n "œmmurucations' praCtlces and products dlscussed in part two. His tendeI)CY,

h~we:fr; 1S to oYeremphasls~ the uiuty and ~e~city of the tracht10n he describes.

f;ie constructs a hermetû:alJy-sealed workmg c1ass worJd, where values and practices ...... , . r'epresent an unmedlated expression of working dass experience: a world whlch 1S

'dangerously cilsturbed by the "candy-Hoss world" of the "newer mass art."Zl l'

The oorizon of Hoggart's historical world 15 the horizon of his experien6e. ,He . . looks no further back thaFI Bntain in the 1920s. He has thus no possibility of .

l.Ilderstanding the relations,hlps or practices he describes histoncally: as the result

of generations of shiiting dass relations. He dnfts instead towards a sort of

essentialism, talking of features that "are indeed part of the outlook of the

Icommon people' in any generation and in almost any land.,,22

Hoggart certainJy acknowledges many of the difficulties such a position 'f1

entails, in critlcising the dangers and temptations of the myth of 'the common \.jr-naanl. Nonetheless, his formulations owe much 'to this mytholQgy. His descriptio~

of the world where father and son "share the real world of work and menls , .

pleasœes" and "the mother is the working centre,,23 really amounts to a celebration

.',

•

Tne concept 01 'Tne pOplUar' ,ln CWturaJ ::,tUClle5

----. of the naturalness of trus arrangement. Seemg and valori$ing the possibiltties of

~

reslStance ln a communal and essentialJy tolerant workl;ng class lifestyle, Hoqart ...

r eproduces the. contradictions of the working class world wtthout comment or

8IJ crttique.

The 1mage of a separate workmg class worid 15 really an expression of one

of the hmlt.s of Hoggart's anal)'Sls. He looks at the working class world of the .. 19205 and '305 as an enclave. He never cOflSlders 1t, or ItS cultural ferms, ln

relatIon to other classes, or other types of cultural expression. The t~ of

negotiation, transformatlon and appropnatlon that must a1ways be part of the field

of dass and cultural relatiOns IS here entirely absent. Once more, the emphasls 1.5

on uruty and homogeneity.

The second' part of Hoggart's analysls consists of a critique of new, emerging

forms of popular culture. He reslsts notions of mass culture, ~tressing instead the

selectl ve and negotiated nature of the encounter between oid and new cultural

forms. Nonetheless, he sees the emergence of glossier, more superficial

publications as essentially negative. He points to the mechanisms whereby

magazines, or popular songs, use element5 of common sense, and transform them

or empty .them of meaning. Thus general tolerance becomes an empty concept of

freedom without responsibili~y; communal values give way to, a defens,ive and

assumption of progress. For H~ggart, the danger in aU this i5 c1ear:

even if substantial inner freedom were lost,' the great new, classless class ~ould be unlikely to khow it: its members would stil~4egard themselves as free and, be told t~at the y were free.

;" \.

to an easy

Hoggart's assessment of why 'se?(-and-violence' novels, or juke boxes and mUk

bars represent a decline i,n cultural richness is not al ways convincing. Although he

tries to resist the cultural hierarchy implied by a rejection of aH popular forms, , .

he is often driven back to 'quality literature' as the basis for judgements. of value.

To comPé!-re Spillane to Faulkner, however, is not realJy that helpful. Indeed it

.J_II ............ ___ -""!!'-.-.. ~-, _._Jf1_,~~,,,-_ ..., .. _ ....... ~...I<~ t",r~.I' .. 'hI ..... \, .. , ,~, .-~'- ... ~~" The Concept of 'The Popujar' JO CuJ~ural Studies

,

(

repte.llts a regresslon to analyses that see mearungs, attitudes and impbcations as "

residing so.lely 10 the text. ln ~ ,end rus Judgements cao only seem arbitrary,

al though rus genera! argument about a ttparalyS1S Qf .the moral wiU" that wilf

.tunbend the,. sprin&s of acYlon" remams powerful.25

Thus we have seen the thrust of Hoggart's Critique undermined by severa!

factors: his negJect of history which" leads to a natutallsatlon of the sooal and

cultural relations of the 19205; rus tendency to assume that working class culture

1$ both homogenous and autonomous and rus reliance on Judgements of hterary •

value, which he lS unable to grc;>und in the soci~ context he has 50 pamstakmgly 1

described. We cao abo fmd much in ~ Uses of Llteracy that represents a moye

towards a -dlst1O~ field of inquiry that will later be called 'cultural studies'. His

concern wlth strategies of resistance and re;appropnatlon, wiH re-emerge in

Resistance Through Rituals. His attention to the form ln wruch mass pubhcatlOns ':..

e'ngage with elements - of common sense in ordèr to construct and reproduce , . . ,t1

hegemonic representation will be taken up in On Ideology. fïn~.l1y, rus continuous

polemic in support of a. humanist and essentially tolerant tràdition has much in

common with W i11ia!11s' analyses in both Culture and "~ety and The Long

Revolution. ... . Bath Culture and Society and the Long, Revolution are best understood as part

of the same' project. In Culture and Society, Williams clarifies the British tradition

of humanist critique signalled by developments in the meaning of 'culture'. He

argues against the tendency...d>to equate culture with imaginative or intellectual

artefacts and proposeS instead a definition of culture as "the way of hfe as a

wl"x>le.,,26 The Long Revolution tak~s up this analysis, exploring the implications of , ~

an 'expanding culture'. Williams shows the historically spedfic nature of certain

key terms of cultural analysis: 'creativity', 'art' and 'the indivi~ual'. He opens up

these terms in or der to rethink the limitations on and possibilities of an expanding , .

network of communication, education and cultural expression.

_. \The changin,g signifi,cance' of the word, 'culture' represents a series of reactlons

to transformations 'in social, poUtical and economic relations during the Industrial , .

A

, \

... \

..

.(

, "

The Conc~pt of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies

Rt!volution. Williams argues that the

generaJ pattern of chan&e in this word ••• can be used as a special kind of map, by whiell it is ~e to look apin at those wider chanJes in _life and thoupt. . ,

rie shows the range of Ipolitica1 and social critique which has relled on the notion , ..

ot 'culturt!': culture as 0'ppOSed to capitalism, or to çivilization, or to anarchy.

"hat tht!se have in C'Ommon is tJieir identification of culture as a locus of values

l'legated by the mcreasingJy hegemoruc philosophy of acquisitive individualism. ihus

WiUiams demonstrates ho" Burke and Cobbett arrive at opposite ends of the

poli tica1 spectr.um, while stiH making the same sorts of assumptions about the, -

importance of an. o..g8nic, community and of humanitarian values:

their positions were drawn up in terms of inherited categories, which thells revealed unsuspected and even opposing implicat~ons. .

Ttus is particularly interesting sinœ the same sort of observation might weil

be made about Williams' own work in both ~ texts. He sets out to deconstruct

a tradition, ~t still flnds 'himself ~iousJy within, its grasp.

Williams criticises the seJt!Ctivity of the 'Great Tradition', that body, of serious , 0

'and important texts erl$hrined in the curricula of Englisl1 litera~ure courses. He

dèscribes its construction as necessarily shaped and limited by the availability of ,

historical texts, the interests and commitmt!nts of thOSt! studying them, and by 1

ccntemporary cultural and politicaJ priorities and obsessions. Nonetheless, h~ gives

it a significant legitimacy in using it precisely as an adequate expression of social

reactions towards industrialism. I~ provides, he argues a "record of our reactions

ia thought and feeliJ'g to the changed conditions of our common life."29 But, who

are we, and do we all have the same reactions?

If Williams' object of anaJysis oWëS 'much to traditions of liteFary criticism,

so too does his methodology. What Terry Eagletoo "descr:~~ as his "sensuous

empiricismll30 amounts to a valorisation of informed and intelligent perception over

theoreticaJ anaJysis: an extension of the méthodoiogy of practical criticism.: At lu

-

r,,,,,,~--""""---__ "'.""!I."""" __ ..... ___ r ....... ' ____ IU_' .... ' ......... _ ..... V lIf_ ... __ .... ·0I ..... _ .......... ~4.{-o<" ..... "4 -_~J,., .r ....... tA"~~ ~' .... ~

67

(

The 1 CO(lCept of 'The Popular' ln CulturaJ $tudies

best, -this ~ lead to a refusai of reductionist or overly c:Ieterminist models. At

lb warst, it can lead to a refusai to thèorise the pr~ of cultural production:

fie have ta plan what an ~ planned, according to our , common decision. But the emphasis of the idea of cuJture is right when lit reminds us that a culture is, -essentîally, unplannable."

From the point of Vlew of this thesis, however, the most signifjcant continuity

between Williams' ~yses and the-positions outlined in Chaptef One~ ~ies in h1s ,

.repression of contradiction and conflict. Although he admits that different sodal

groups may display diffe,rent social characters, he does oot see these as -

fundamentaJly antagonistic; The 'structure of feeling- ~f Any histori~ mom~t is \

the resuJt of the interaction of different social characters. But\' Williams gives

little attention to the aspects of sUbordination which dictate the terms of this

interaction.

But in our own society, because 01 the way,we produëe, there is sc large a degree of necessary common interest and mutual effort that Any widespread withdrawl of interest, Any gelleral mood of disbelief, cao quite Cer1ain1y be disastrous. The answer to it •••• ijes in conceding the practice of democracy _ It lies, in terms of communication; in adOpting a düferent attitude· towards transmission, one -that will ensure that -its origins are genuinely "fi'tiple, that aU sources have access to the common channe1s.

- ,

The removal of culturaJ subordination is here redUCed to an effort of will, an act

in 1he common interest. ?nee again, we are reminded of one of the strategies 'Of

definition of popular- culture outlined in Chapter One. In arguing for the equal

validity of ail forms of cultural expression, Williams tends to repress the

fundamental- social inequalities which bath shape and support the field of c~ltura1

relations. Williams' structuring concepts are community and consensus. The

conclusion of Culture ~ Society, is a demand for a 'commQm culture':

'fi e need ~fommon cuJture ••• because we shaH not survive without it."

Clearly, such a- culture might represent nothing other than the r~presslon of

oppasitionaJ values and meanings by a dominant bourgeoisie. V/hat Williams has in

mind, of cour~e, 1s the extension and maintenance 0.1 the humanist tradition through

. its incorporation with working dass traditions of co,mmunity and democracy. lU

Anderson notes,' ~weVèr, \

\

"iUiams' attempt _ to solve the difficulty by attributing an indèfinite expandabUity to workins- class, but I\9t to.bourgeois institutions, besides its factUaJ weaknesses, rests 3i" an evacuation of conflict concepts from rus whole idiome

Williams rejects thé notion of an autonomous popuJar culture, at leest ~b1e 1

narrow sense of a body of imaginative textS produced by the working class. He

qUe5.- rather tKat working ~ass culture consists of "the basié collective ,idea, and

the institutions manners, habits of thought and intentions which pr~ from - .9.

this.Hl ' This sort of by now, familiar. The people are"posed as the

locus vaJues which, in trus case act as the guarantee

of a more universal ard enduring hufnéUÛsm. The origin of these vaJues is never -. r,eally explained, however, and their survival and coherence are assumed. Yet,

round this "communal idea" a number of contradictory traditions and practices

COiÜesce, whase implicatlpns ooty a detaiJed structural and rustorica1 analysis can

begin to assess. By the end of The Long Revolution, Williams sees his position as 1

fundamehtaUy marginal. ir:a the absence of a revolutionary tradi~ion, he gives a

somewhat ambig~us, valorisation to the praCtices,and traditions of the Britis~ L~ft,

aware of ·the complexitreS ,and -contradictions of such a position, but not, perhaps, . -of "the structural' complicity between (its) values and socià1 democracy.,,36

We noticed the importance to Eighteenth Century politicaJ philosophers of the

enlightening potentiaJ of education. This is equally crucial bo\h for Williams and

for E.P. Thompson. Thompson, and indeed the Communist Party Historian's Group ,

before him, $aw their ,mtellectual project as one of recovery. They would make

~vailable new kinds of knowledge whtch would rec1aim for the working class their,

own tUstory. Education about the past was a form 0) intervention in the present. -

For Williams, the object and dynamic of the 'long Jevolution'· was the

1 t

Î Of-, "

(

.. expanding possibiUtles of education, coupJed with new forms of communication.

Orly education couJd de~elop criticaJ laculties and ensure t~ survÎval of a-common

culture. "The human crisis is aJways a crisis of Wlderstanding.,,37 Ignorance is a , social Jiability.

,

ln this attentIon to the poUtics of inteUectuaJ production, both WiHlatnS and

Thompson are exemplary. They tend to subscribe, however, to a rat~

undifferèntiiited and universaJ notion of the process 01 education. Certai nJ y, \

Williams looks at education In some detail, even going so far. as to propose a

generaJ. curricuJum. What tus analysis Jacks, however, is a recognition of the social

and politicaJ forces that con'+,(erge in struggles over thé definition of knowledge.

ln the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci deconstructed 'Uberal' definitlons of

\ education in order to demonstrate their role in the maintenance of\Ït dass -

•

distinctions. He argued .that the expansIon of education couJd not simply be a

matter of making more knowledge availabJe, since the very constitution of ,that

knowledge ·and the processes of its dissemination were ~ready an expression of the

concentration of ,social e9wer. The nature of education iuelf needed to be , -

rethought.

Neither Williams nor Thompson takes up the implications of trus sort of ,

analysis. Their belief in the liberating potential of education, and its .role in

restructuring the field of cUltw-al relations <:an thus ultirnatèly only seem idealist.

Finally, both CuJture and Society and The ~ Revplution, alt~gh they

present a history of definitions of 'cuJture', and histories of various cultural

institutions re$pectiveJy, are to sorne extent "consciousJy abstracted from the

effecti ve movement - of history ... 38 That, is ta say mat the real centre of thelr

enter prise is a critique of a particular trad.iti~ of political ,and cuJtural analyslS:

what Stuart _Hall deScribes as a very ~y "settling of accounts.,,39 Parti~ularly

.in Culture !2! Society, the rustorica1 contexts of di~ferent writers tenâ to. disappear

before the power and continuity of the theoretlca1 argument. We have a sense of

movement, but no clear understanding of lts history. -

ln lookiog at Williams, Hoggart and Thompson's work as we have above, we

/

1

1 -1

\

Tfle concept 01 'Tfle POpUJar' in CUltural 5tucües 70

~

have run two risks. Firstly, the- redUCtion of their analyses to a smaU num~ of

theoretièal and methodological convicti~ may leave ·the nature and magnitude of

theJr contributions to cultural studies obscure. 5ecofidly, in stressing Slmilarities in

their approâch to the anaJYS1S 01 pOliticaI, soejal and c:u1tural formatlons we may

neglec:t to acl<:n.Q.wledge Important differences. To answer the first point, we should

perhaps . recall Perry Andersoo's assessrn"lent that Culture and Society and The Long , "'

Revolution represente.<i ''the major contributions to soctalist thought in England -since

the war."40 As the foCal point fot renewed interest from the -left in cultural

analyses that rejecteci notions oi mass society whHe .acceptlng those of cultural

domination, all these tem were cruCial. It is precisely for tms reason- that their

1imited acknowledgements of h1story, their ~ri5ing of the people as essentially

unitie-d and necessarily oppositional, and their dtslike of contradiction merit

attention. They rëpresent recu('ring and tenaCI0US aspects of contemporary analyses

o~ popular culture. Th& continuity between these texts. and the strategies of

definltion outHned ln Chapter One should, by now, be c1ear. The commitments and

conclusions are very different, but the categorieS of cultural and political analysis

are disturbingly simUar. These texts between them address Many of the concerns

of the New Left in ·the 19 .50s. 41 Anderson's characterisation of . / ' ''\.

be extreme, driven Perhaps by a frustrating realisation of its

. .. this New L~ft may

hegemOr:tY over the

development of' socialist thought in Bntain, but he does at least address the

impücations of- its theorisation of the people. Describing the analyses produced by

the New I.elt'~ popuhst and pre-sodaHst, Anderson notes that --". ~

, i t tended to rely on a, simp1istic ~ rhetoric - in ~mch the 'common - people' 112 were opposed to the 'interests', the 'establishment', etc.

ft was. thus unable to theorise the compJex ~d contradictory articulations of state

power, or ~o account for' popular accession to these articuà1tions .. Despite the continwties that allow us to speak, for ,xample, of a New Left,

the, four texts discussed above display significant gifferences. -Indeed, E.P.

Thompson attacked Williams' approach in The Long \ \

arguing that he

".

1 ne COiiCept 01 . 1 ne ropurcu- In ~un:ur dl .:JLuun:::!I

negated the Importance of class struggle,·.lAd of P.cil1tica1 and economîc

transformations. \ ~ If we stretch our temporal hmJt; a Utile, 'Ne will even find ,

significant differences wlthin Wilhams· own work. Respondmg to cntiClsms of t~

politica1 gradualism and, ideall.sm of Culture ~ SoCJety and The Long Revolution,

"ilhams looked to an emergmg European tradition of Manust cultural analysis in

ordet to develop -an accolant of the fWlCtlon of culture ln the maintenance of

hegemony. He has effectively worked through many of the hmlltatlorls of his

earlier texts; provmg ofte,,! tus own most perceptive cntle. _ .

Our ob}ect, however, has never been to reduce the arguments of Wl1hams,

Hoggart and Thompson to one monohthic set of prinClples. As Wilhams noted,

mherited categories~ may lead to opposlng or even contradictory conclUSIOns. We

have tried, ~ather, to see si~ilarity in difference, in~rder to understand the terms

in which contemporary cultural studies has constructed 115 object: popular culture.

If we choose to look at the work of the Birmingham Centre fo~ Contemporary

CUlnral Studies as a dominant strand in the study of 'popular culture, then' we find

that, at least at one level, their debt to the work describeti aboye ls clear.

,lfJeed, they demonstrate a clear consciousness of thi'S' in ~numerous ~alyses, . ..

cri tiques and reworkings of Thompson, Hoggart and Williams· work. The Preface . . to Working Class Culture,.43 cites The Uses of Ltteracy as one of the "founding

téxtsll of the Centre. ln the recently published Making Histories44 two chapt ers

are deâicated to an attempt to lay ~hese ghosts to rest. Stuart Hall's "Cultural

'Studies: Two Paradigmsll -demonstrates the importance of tt)ese texts and their

-

.~

continuing influence on the work of the Centre:- Indeed, Àe--USeS them to

CXJU1terbalance what he sees as sorne of the more unfor!unate or untenable aspects

of 'struc:turalism·. These aspects indude the tendency to dismantle different levels

of soCial analysis and transfer the reality and' maintenance of SOClaJ power to -the

proèess of construction of subjectivity, and ~he- alleged deruaJ of htstOrlcal

specificity _ implied by uni-versal theories of tustorical determination.

At a œrtain biograph.lcal leveJ, this 1S quite understandable. RIChard Hqggart,

for example, went on ~o f7 the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Our

1·

1 !

, 1 1 ~

l

•

The Concept of 'The Popular' ln Cultural Studies 72

object, 'however, 1S to understand trus continuity both theor~tieally and politically

and ta- assess, at least to -sorne extent, its implications for contemporary analyses

.of popular culture.

The rangè of work produced at the Centre over the last flfteen years means

that any analySls must, regrettably, be partial, and must always run the flsk of

reductiorusm. Work 'produced àt the Centre has engaged wlth a number of

thèoretlcal tradit10ns an orcier to account for cultural practlces and fon'ns rangmg \

from skinheads to Rastafarl&nS, and trom teJevision production to history writmg. ~ 1

Nonetheless, some charactenstlc concerns and positions can be observed. These

include the relatlonshlp between cu1tu~al expression and class, an Opposition to

notions of passive cultural consumptlon, and an awareness of the politics of

inteUectuaJ work. We will thus look at the araalyses contained ln Resistance

TIrough.. Rltuals, which address all of thëse areas both in theoretical essays and in (

a num ber of case st udi es, as an sorne sense paracfigmatic of the work undertaken

at the Centre in the 1970s. Our task w111 be "facihtated by the debate which took

place over this text an Scr~, wtuch represents a fairly rare assessment of the

Centre's work form a very cfi1ferent theoretical space.

Resistance Through Rituals 15 a study of various youth sub-cultures, and their .......

rdaticn;hip to articulations- of dass and the maintenance of hegemony. lu dynamic

'consists of a critique of ,existing sociological methods for the analysis of youth

cultures, and an insistence on the relationship betw.een cultural forms and dass

Culture IS understood as

that level at which sooal groups develop distanct patterns of lite, and give Wcscive form to their social and matenal life-exper iences.

{J'

Distincti'ie sub-cultures thus represent different attempts to make sense of, or to

handle, ma~enal condItiOns and SOC]al relatiOns. The forms in which this activity

~ *ce are severely limlted. Each su!>-<=ultural group, from mods and skinheads

to hippies represents a negotlation bath wlth the 'parent' culture and with the

domlnànt or hegemonic cuJtural values. '

-

(

, .. ~- -

\

The eXlstins. cultural patterns form a sort of historical reservolr - a Pre-constituted 'field4ef possibilitles' - which groups take up, transform, develop.

Although Resistance Through Rltuals dlSCUSSes middle dass counter-cultural

,l'TlOVer1leOts, its, concent,ration is on the polttics of workmg class., youth sub-cultures.

Its aim 1S to "penetrate beneath a popular - constructlon,,47 of the menace and

violenté of skmheads or mods. It looks, at both groups' tustoncally, seeing both . '

continwty and disruptlon 10 their negotlatlon of the hmltations of thelr matenal

conditIons. The skinheads demonsttate a reassertlon of "the values of a cJass":48

terntonallty, communaJity, and aggresslve masculu:uty. ".The skulhead mob - .

. may be vJewed as an attempt to retr-i-eve the disappearing' sense of community,4J1th 1tS emphasls on mutuaJ asSistance. 10 moments of need. .

The pomt may be overstated, but the Importance of seemg the meamng of certam

cuJtural practlces for those who engage ln them remams.

The studtes of particular sub-cuJtures are always placed ln the context of

SOCIal and cultural subordinatIon, and strategies of resistance---to It:

just as different groups and classes are unequally ranked 10

relatIon to one another, in terms of thelr productIve relations, weaJth. and, power, so cul'h.res ar50 differentJy ranked, and stand In opposition to one another.

1 • )

The cOncept of cuJture as creative activlty, albeit wittun stnctly determmed l1mits,

'is O"UClal to ttus argument, and Is developed through the concept of 'style'. Style

15 the actIve appropriation of cultural artefacts. It refers to the combmatl0n and 1

adaptatIon of existlOg artefacts In order to construct new and often Oppositlonal

mearungs. Thus, fo~ exarnple, the Teddy Bo~ adopted the Edwardian swt, of1gmally

designed by SaviHe Row for an upper ,dass consumer. Changmg the coJour 'and ,

sorne features of, design, comblOmg It with a distmctlve haïr-style, the Teddy Boys

~ effectively changed the' slgnif1cance of this look, making It thelr own.

ThiS argument 1S structured round the daim that "workmg class culture has

consistently 'won space' from the dommant culture.,,51 That is to say that whilst

''''

-1

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies

[J

lhe successful maintenance of hegemony requires

the power to frame alternatives and contail1 opportunities, 'te)

win and shape consent, so 'that the granting of legitimacy 4 to the domina~classèS appears not only 'sMntaneous' but natural and normal r. j •

74

hegemony is, ln fact, never completefy successfully maintained. The sub-cultural ,

response represents one challenge to 'this organisation of consent. It is not simply

a question of cOf\Structing oppo'si tional meanings, but also of creating institutlonal

space,. marking out time for leisure, appropriating territory, and redefining 1

relationsrups to instituhons of the state: the school, the police.

The relationsrup between the studies in ~esista~ce Through Ritu~ and the

discussio~ of popular culture ~bove may not immediately -be clear. Indeed, many

of the critiasms made of that tradi:tion seem not to apply. Resistance Through

Rituals is located specifically witrun the problematic of hegemonic control and 'the

'constitution of popular consent. It looks at the symbols and practices of different

sub-cultures and analyses their rèlationship to and appropriation of various ,cultural

traditions, always wltrun the context of the cultural articulation of social power.

It sees cultural expression as a negotiation, within a structured and severely limited

field. Most importanlly, it proceeds historica1ly, looking at the social and cultural

transformations that led to certain dominant perceptions of the 1950s. It poses

resistance as a constantly transformed, and transforming practice. For Rosalind

Cowarcd, however, the problem lies precisely here.

Coward, in "Class, 'Cul:t\}re' and the Social Formation,,,53 conducted a lengthy

critique of the work of the Centre for Contemporary Cu1t~ral Stuclles, focussing

particularly on Resistance Through Rituals. The terms of trus critique will serve

to clarify sorne of the continuities between this work and earlier traditions of the

study of popular culture.

Flrstly, we m';lSt note that the term 'popular culture' is replaced by that of 1

'working class culture' throughout Resistance Through Rduals. Clearly, this is, not

an insignificant substitution., It indicates a concerh 'fIith the relationship b.etween

-----~-------------_ ... -

•

{

..

,

}

. o

.\ "

(

15 , -

p

cultural forms and sooa! subordmation. It -lS preclsely the nature of ttus

relatlOnshlp, however, that Coward questlOns.

Baslcally, Just as we sav. that the study of popular ,culture proceeded on the

baSlS of pre-establlshed deflmtlOns of 'the people' manlfest ln the polltiCal J.

phdosophy of the Enllghtenment. Resistance Through Rltuals tends to read the

sigmflcance of 'workmg class cul ture' agatnst 1 pre-establlshed deftnJtlons of class.

Certam cuJturrJ forms are 'workmg class' because they are practlced. for exampJe, ..

by workmg tlass yolJ.t.h. A t a certain descnpu ve ievel, thls 1S moffensl ve. W hen

an a:ttem pt 1S made, however, to attnbute certàln IdeologlCa! and polltlcal values ~

to these forms, on the baslS of 'thelr çlass,ongm,

L (

.J " where the l~logtcal and the pohtiCal are hnaUy ~uced to bemg an expression of a c1ass tnterest or 'positlon,

the situation 1s th en more problematic.

What thlS ~mount5 to 15 a demal of the speaflclty of the cultural. It , assUlT),es that meanil\g lS a functlOn of SOCIal poSItion: that matenal expenences are

, 'transformed unproblemattca!ly lOto Qcultural expresslOns, and thus that SOCIal struggle

lS' repeélted, but not slgruflcantly translol\med, 10 the realm of the cultural.

Wltlun the cont~xt of Grams-ci's work, WhlCh lS extenslvely cited 10 ReSistance -ï

rhro.lJgh Rltuars~ thlS ~S a S~priSl~g position. Gramsci stresséS the matenal

i~rtance of srsterns ,of rëpresent~tlon' 1!1 the mamtenance of hegemony. He

<:--4monstrates <how subordinate classes may expenence thems~lves, identlfy wlth -and 1 •

fmd ,pleasure in -cultural' forms produced à,nd mamtained by the bourgeoisie. He

". demonst~ates the theoretlcal and practical labour nécessary t9 deconstruct these

.. cultl.K'al f.orms, and G ...

.. ,natlonal-p<wu1ar culture. . ~

to open up the possibllity of constructing a

: Resistance' Thro~gh IÙtuals tends Jow~rds- a reductionlst account of tbe , , ," (' ...

"', r~IÇlilonship be\ween cultural fGrms ~nd class origin for two rèaso~s. Firstly, -its \ \. .. \)

4 \. '.. 1) \

/ con~ption of· clJH:f.&re, and secondly its functionalist account of the nature of , , 1

, - '

'. ~, 'l(:ieol~gy" \.·AI we saw.,' Resistance Through Rituals argues that 'culture' is best

"p , r ,J t 1 \ )

- , ~.

• '" 1 Ç:~'

\

· 1'he Concept of ~e Popular' in Cultural Studies

'",

understood as the 'level at wluch mdivlduals and social groups make sense of and

express thelr matenal condItions. Th1s sort of poSI t10n 15, by now, .faml11ar to US.

" the term 15 clearly mfluenced by the llberal humarust cultural anal ys~ ryplfled by the work of RIchard Hoggart ln the hfties.

~ 1

Agam, It lflvolves an emphasls on the creative actlvlty of mdlvldua15 and SOCial

groups. Thls emphasls, however, tends to deny the medlated nature of thl5 actlvltt

and l'CS wTUtatlons. Cultural expression 15 hmlted by many tlungs. not the least of

them bemg the eXlstmg structures and forms of representat:Jon and meanmg.

The aCCbunt of the role and nature of Ideology moblhsed 10 thlS telèt

eventually renders It necessary that w"orklng c1ass culture be theonsed- as both 1

autonomous and 'OppoSltlOna1. Resistance Through RltUalS employs a concept/n of

ldeology wluch owes much to Althusser. 56 ldeology thus tunctl0ns tq mamtaln the

conc1ltlons of productlOf1 and reproductlOn of the eXlstmg SOCial formation Even

Gramsci IS read, for example by Corngan and Fnth, ln a very funCtlO~allSt manner:

Takmg our lead trom GramscI, we argue th~t <tK~~ h~story of r workmg class culture can't be understood wlthout reference to the hlstory of the State, lO the hlstory of those inStitutIOns wh.tch functlon t57 reproduce and mamtam the SOCial relatlOns of capltalism.

Here there L5 no account of the SpeClflCJty of the ideological level. The relative

autonomy which Althusser proposed for the Ideologlcal has here been subsumed by

itS functlOn in the maintenance of capitalist relations of pro~uctlon., However, , q .. ..

without an account of the determmacy of the representational or ideological level,

and the possibility of struggles within its structures, the only way to escape from

a' total1y deterministic and economist account of the workings of ideology is to

posi t the existence of an autonomous level of working class culture, which

necessarily exists in opposition to do~inànt cultural values. 1 1

The limitations surr,oundmg the definition of culture, and "the a priori 1

assumption of working cl, 5 culture as both autonomous and oppositiQnal come

together around the concep of' 'resistance'. We have aJready noted the importance

,"II! ..

-( .

.,

(

( p

, 1

of trus term for the traditIon of rustory wnt!ng~presented by E.P. Thompson.

The concept of resistance shapes the directlon and details of aU the studles . /~

undertaken ln ReSistance Through RltUalS. Baslca11 y, the term/"sfgrufles thatLhe

wide range of cultural practJces and sub-cuJtural styles dlSCu.s4~ come together ln

expressmg values and meamngs that are not ~.,..y dJ.fferent from, but consclOusly

Oppositlonal to, those of the dominant culture and the dommant SOCIal class. q. f, ...

nus nonon of resistance h~ several lmpllcatlOns. Flrstly, It amounts to the .... ~-..-

cla.m that soaal groups are IIfundamentally not lmpltcated ln representatlons whlch . "

are net homologous w1th thelr matenaJ mterests.,,58 This lS to say that even though

sub-CuJtufal forms represent a hmlted and medlated negOt1atlOn wlth dommant

cultural values and practlces, they always maintain thelr autonomy, and thelr

contlnUJty vnth a traditJon of worklng class reslstance to the encroachment of

capltallst SOCial relatiOns. Since wor\(lng class _ youths" expenencè different matenal

COAdi tlons of eX1stence, ln partlcular they expenence SOCIal relations of

subordmatlOn and oppresSlon, they will represent these experlenC;e5 Ln different

cultural forms ...

The research undertaken ln ResIstance Through Rftuals seems ta bear trus

assumptlon out. There are particular sub-cuJturaJ styles a,ssoClated wlth partlcular

classes, reglons or, genders. The notion of 'reslstance', however, carries a further

implication: that these sub-cultural forms represent a challenge ta hegemorUc

control, ln hlghlighting social differentlation and' oppression.

If thlS is the case, and the cuJtures are expressions of material interests, even if framed in defence against bourgeois definitions, the remaining cultural forms of the working class can be interpreted as expressing an inherent anti-capi talism ••• This is because working c1ass culture is- understood as an

@ expression of interests which are not those of the bourgeoisie. The problem as to whether anti-capitalist values do in fact constitute a contribution ta the development of sodalism, gi ven t~ir contribution'f to, W example, the rhetoric of Fasdsm, ils apparently ignored.· , ~

Thus ,in ,ppeàling to an untheorised tradition of ~orking c1ass resi:stance, Resistance ,

Through Rituals assumes more than 1t can demonslrate .

..

)

'.

The Concept of 'The Popular' m Cultural Studies 78

Resistance IS not just a question of difference, but of positive oppositi,on • .

ThIS 1S what it IS clalmed urutes Mods, Rastafarians and T~dy Boys. Resistance

" Through Rauals 15 thus po5mg a continuity, an autonomy and a ~l1ty of workthg

c1ass cultural forms and practlces. it does not investigate the contradic~ory nature

of sub-cultural artIculatIOns, or thelr Implications. If Rastafanarusm leads' to

POl1t1~. as lS argued, what IS ItS relauonsrup to res1stance? Why have

the practlces and style of the skmheads shown an affmny for the polmes of the

NatIonal Front? What 1S the pohtlCaJ baslS of a "sub-culture that dehnes ItsèU 10

terms of hosullty to and dommatiOn of women? These are important questiOns; "

and they are Slmply not asked.

issues such a~ the' reconceptualfsation of the femmlst movement or the posslblllty of poliucaUy reactlonnary pOS1tiOnS of the worktng' 'c1ass are either ignorecf or, in the latter case, lnvested wlth a racücal potentiality wruch IS

displaced 6tccordmg to the dIstortlons operated by bourgeoIs 'ldeol ogy' •

~ contradictions and d1fferences 'wltrun working claSs cultural forms are repressed

VIa the concept of 'reslstance'.

ResIstance Through RituaJs is not an easy text. Much of it represents a

reJeC1lon of reductl<?nist accounts of the social formation, and an insistence on the

histoncaJ spedficity of cultural forms, and their very mediated relation to dominant

cultural practices. Other moments in the text faU bad, on the concept of

l resistance', neglecting the material significance of hegemonic practices of cultural J.

domination and relyi,,:,g on an unltimately idEialist definltion of culture. l ' Throughout \

the text each tendency interrogates the other. It' is for this reason that the H,

authors of Resistance Through Rituals could rèact to Coward's criticisms with

'-"'" genulne and 'very articulate horror. They accused her of misrepresenting their'

work, and of mistaking its poUtics. Clearly, her's was lonly one possible reading.

lt 1s not our purpose here to, condemn Resistance Through Rituals. \ It is

precisel y because 01 'the power and continuing influence of its analyses that~it is

worthy of close attention. The important thing 1s to understlnd it, not as one , ..

\ r

(

, ,

( , -,

The Concept of 'The Popular' m Cultural Studies

~

IdiosyncratJc attempt ta theonse working c1ass culture, but as a very problematic

artJCUlatIon of dJfferent traditIons of cultural analysis. ln its tendency to see , ~,

working class culture as autonotylous, urufled, and as partJCJpatmg Hl a contlnuous ,

tradttlon of reslstanc~, It owes much to strqtegles lof deflnltlOn ",of 'popular culture'

dlscussed Ln trus thesJs. In attemptlOg to look .at cultural forms and practlces In

relation ta the_ mamtenance of hegemoruc control, and at the complex appropriation

and transformatIOn of eXlstmg cultural artefacts and symbols, It pomts ln another

dlr'ectlon. In the last analysls, however, Jt 15 the framework of 'resistance' that

has greater power, and eff~uYeJy hmlts the analysls of the posslbilJties of

cultural forms. ~

transforhtatlon uiherent ln) partlcular

Throughout the work produced at the Birmmgham Centre for\ Contemporary 1

CuJturaJ 5tudie5 In the 19705, we can detect the same tension. A struggle to

produce analyseS equal ta the compleXlty of the malOtenance of hegemoruc power ,

ln contemporary BrI tain, with a "tendency to repress the contradJctions and \

dlscontmwtles 5uch an enterprise Implies. Thus certain texts reJy very heavily on

the resistant and opposJtJonal values inherent in tradition. Charles Cntcher's paper

on "Football Smce the War,,61 demonstrated how football h~ moved from being a

sport organised on a strong territonal basls, with small locally controUed fan clubs,

large attendances fllld local f~tball heroes, to ljecoming a business with massive

investment dominated by a small number of clubs, producing une~citing fQ9tball

played by national superstars. BasicaUly rus argument is that football, which was ~,

once a fatrly autonomous, popular cultural form, has been incorporated by dominant

definitions of leisure and consumption. The implications of tms, however, are never

really explored. We are left in5tead with a feeling of nostalgia for a moment when . ' ..

a football player was lia Saturday hero by and of ~he people.,,62 Quite what trus

means is not clear. We 'are never really sho~n why this tradition lost its kppeal,

why masculinity anô regional identity found different. forms of expression. Yet, we

ar~ left with a feeling of ,profound 1055 since )

1 for football as a genuinely po~,r cultural àctivity the final whistle may already have gon~.

o .

1

.'

(,

The concept ot 'Tne popuJar' ln CUltural ;)tUClles

Other w~rk undertaken at the Centre has pursued different sorts of strat~gies

to glve an account of particular cultural forms and their relattons to social 'control

and power. The work undertaken ln the study of 'muggmg,64 seems exemplary ln

'tbIS contexte It looks at the sud den emergence of 'muggmg' as a category ln lega1.

)UdlClai and popular press Q1SCourses ln Bntai.n. It demonstrates the SOCial and i

\

ecDIlOmlc transformations WhlCh created the feelings 01 aruoety and dislocation that

pa ved the way for the moral panic caused by muggmg. It shows the lncreasmg

IOterventlon of the State, and the Law and Or~r cam pal gn, in response to

hegemoOlc crlSlS. 1t further demonstrates thé reaspns for the \success of

reactionary discourses on cnme, and espeaa11y those on the threat posed to Bntish \

soaety by 'mugglng'. The success of thlS text lies preclsely ln the extent to which 1

it does not assume an endave of 'resistance to dommant. and very reactlonary ,

ideologaes of cnmmallty. ln fact 1t shows how these discourses present themselves ,

as adequate to the experiences of the working c1ass, exploiting the contradictions . . in such powerful notions as 'respectability', 'common sense' and 'decency'. t:.iberal

,

discourses on crime, in contrast, have been consistently unable to engage with the

terms in which cnminality impinges on and threatens the life style of the working

class. The study basically illustrates both the necessity and the extreme difficulty ,

of producing an?ther sort of ~ discourse on mugging, criminality, and its relationship

to the maintenance of control by the British state.

Finally, and perhaps too briefly, we should mention one other featur~ of

historical definition of 'the people' which has so far gone unnoticed, or at leas,t­

unremarked, but wh~hh has certainly been reproduced in contemporary analyses of

popular culture. 'The people' is undifferentiated by gender, anp normally presumed

to, be male. The vast majority of studies undertaken at Birmingham have been of '\ p

male sub-C~tural, or cultural pr~ctices. Only one article in Resistance Through

Rituals deals with 'girls and sub-cultures' and from the other analyses they are

more or less excluded. This is not a question of maIevolence, but rather of the \

power of irtherited defirùtions of the object ot study. TheSe definitions are,

how.eve~, being challenged. Women Take issue65 deals with cultur.al articulations

ft

..

(

•

(

,~ __ ,,,,,6~",~ ~ ""<&1. __ •• ",, '."'1 T.lIItl'f?â .. ,~. ~~~,/'~Î1If""''''''~\''~~''''''''I;.#,Jr, ..... '~~- .. h .... ,.,

\ \

The Concept of 'The Popular in èu1tural Studle5 81

of. femininity, and with the relation between 'these articulations and the: social ~d

ideol<lgicaJ requirements of Capitê~l1sm. These initiatives, however, remai~ marginal,

and the paradigm of 'resistance t'hrough ntuals' lS still resolutely male.

- Heterogeneity has never been a strong point ln defirutions of "the people'.

\ .

"

\ \

.....

\ 'r-v. ..

II

\

, .. " .

(

, . - '"

~ -- - - --~.-- -- ------.--~ ------------

1. Terry Ea&1eton, Walter Benjamin: EssaY! in Revolutiooary CritiC1sm, London: .' Verso, 1981, p. 17'_

2. Stuart Hall, "CuJ'tural Studies: Two Paradigms," Media, Culture and Society,

3.

4.

5.

7.

8.

9.

10.

No. 2, 1980, p. '7. .,.

E.P. Thompson, The e Maki~ ~ ~ Enre:Sh workiUft Class, New York: Pantheon Books, 1963,P. 9. S 15 to say t t the wor ng c1ass-pas:ticipated active1y in transformations surrOWlding the industrial revolution, and were not merely produced- I as a class through the changing social relations of production.

ibid., p. 831.

This refers to the ldea that -the EngHsh monarchy was illegitimate, ,because founded on the baslS of the tyranny of the Norman Conquest.

See Jrry A:derson, Arguments V/ithm Engiish Marx.ism, l..ondon: Verso, 1981,' chapter two.

ibid' t p. 21.

_E.P. Thompsom, op. dt~Jo p. 405.

1

Perry Anderson, op. dt., p. 34. 1 . 1

G. McLennan, rlE.P. Thompson and the Disdpline of Historica1 Context," in Mak!rE Histories, Stucües in Histor~ Writing ~ Po1iti~ eCnted by R. Johnson et al., London: HutchînsonTcentre or Contemporary Cultura) Studies, 1982, p. 110.

---. 11. ibid., p. 11 O.

\ , 12. ibid., p. 111.

13. Perry Anderson, op. cit., p. 32.

14. E~P. Thompsor, op. cit., p. 832. ,

10. Bill Schwarz, "'The People' in History: The Communlst Party Histarians. Grbup, 1946-56," in Making Histories, Studies in History Writin and PoUties, edhed by Richard Johnson et al., London: Hutchînson Centre Tor Contem~rary Cultural Studies, 1982., - . - \

16.

19.

20.

. ." Ij ibid., p. 64. \ .Ir, \

G. ~CLennan. 'op. cit., p. 129. - \

Richard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1958, p. 2~ ~

p

•

(

=-\

"

\

(

,4 '-"./~ ... ~._~

The Concept of 'The Popular' in -Cultural 5tU<11es O.J

21. ibid., chaptet seven.

22. ibid., p. Il.

23. ibid., p. 26 and p. 46.

24. ibid., p. 287.-

2'. Ibid., chapters rune and ten." !

2.6. Raymond W l1hams, - Culture and Society 1780-19.50, Harmondsworth: P1enguin Books, 19 '8, p~ 272. :--

27. ibid., p. 16 ••

28. ibid., p. 38.

29 .. ibid., p. 285.

JO. Terry Eagleton, "Critictsm and PoUties: The "ork 01 Raymond WlUiams," ~, Leit Review, No. 100, Jan/Feb. 1976, p. 6. '

,31. Raym~ Williams, op. cit., p. 320.

32. ibid., p. 304.

33. ibid., p. 304.

34. Perry Anderson, "Origins of the Present Crisis," in Towards Socialism, edited _by P. Anderson and R. Blackburn, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965, p. )9.

3.5. Ra)OTlond Willi~ms, op. cit., p. 313.

36. Terry Eagleton, "Criticism" and Politics: The Work of Raymond Williams," ~ Left Review, No. 100, Jan/Feb. 1976, p. 12.

--.;...;..;..~-

37. ibid., p. 323.

38. \

Perry Anderson, ftOrigins of the Present Crisis," in Towards SociaHsm, edited by P. Anderson and R. Blackburn, lthaca: Cornell University Press," 1965, p. 12., .

\ 39. Stuart Hall, op. cit., p. .58.

~o. \

41.

Perry Anderson, "Origins of the Present Crisis," in Towards Socialism, edited by P. Anderson and R. Blackburn, Ithaca: Cornell University 'Press, 1965, p. ~ 11.

See Perry Anderson, "The Left in th~ Fifties," New Left Revi~w, --No. 29, Jan/Feb. 1965. -r-- \

42. ibid., p. 17. .. 43. J. Clarke et al. (eds.), Working Class Culture, Studies in History ~ Theory,

New York: ~t. Martin's Press, 1979. 1

44. ",

R. Johnson et al. (eds.), Makin" Histories, Studies in History WritinR 'and Polltics,. London: Hutchlnson Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies,

\

..

\

(

-- -"nW'·colicept "O!'~ 'P6pwat' m -rC.,.W"'totaJ'""'!IT'" .... j:9"lnJWrII'I'I'es-- ---- - --~----

. J " 1982.

45. J. Clarke et al., "SubCuJtures, Cultures and Cl~," R§jÏt&nce Throuah RituaJs, ("«king Papers in CuJtyral Studies Nos 7 and 8) 1 5" P. 10.

.46. ibid., p. Il. "

47 .. ibid., p. 9.

--------

- ...

48. ibid., p. 48.

49. John Clarke, ''T'he.,Skinheads and the Study of Y,outh Culture," StenciUed Paper No. 23, BIrmingham ,University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1973, p. IS.

50. John Clarke et al., "Subcultures, Cultures and Class ," Resistance ,Tt)rough Ritua1~, 'li orkmg Papers !!! Cultural Studies Nos. 7 and 8 197.5, P.. 11.

.51. - ibid., p. '42 •

.52. ibid., p. 38. -,

.53. Rosalind Coward, "Class, 'Culture' and the Social Formation'~Feen, Vol.' 18, No." 1, Spring 1977. /' '

.54. ibid., p. 76 •

. .5.5. ibid., p. 8.5 •

.56. See particularly, L. Althusser, ''1deology and Ideological State Apparatusest" lin' Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, London: New Left Books, '1971

57.

58 •

Paul Corrigan and Simon Frith, "The Politics of Youth Culture," in Resistance Through Rituals, (Working Papers in Cultural' Studies Nos.' 7 and 8) 197.5, p. 233. ' \

Rosatind Coward, op. cit., p. 93.

.59. ibid.; p. 83.

60. ibid., p. 90.

61. Chàrles Critcher, "Football Since the War: A S~udy in Social Change and Popular Culture," Stencilled Paper, No. 29i Birmi~ham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 197.5.

~'tI62. ibid., p. 29.

. ·63. ibid., p. 29.

\

.. 64. Stuart -Hall et al~ (eds.), Polidng ~~: Mugging, The State and ~ ~

65.

Order. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1978, '

Women's Studies Group, University of Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studi~, Women Take Issue, Aspects of Women's Subordination, London: Hutchinson/Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1978.

---\

\

.. ,--

1

1 \ '

.(

.-, The ,Concept of IThe Popular' ln Cultural StudleS 85

CONCLUSION

ln trus thesis we have dJ.scovered a signlflcant contlnwty ln approaches to the, e

analys1s of popular culture ln two very drfterent htstoncal moments. The

'rediscovery' of the popular culture ln the E1ghteenth Century was not an lsolated

phenomenon of cultural analysls. It was very c10sely 'tled to developments 10

0) pohtlCal and social phJlosophy, partlclpatmg In the Interests and methodologjes

which both const1 tuted and celeorated 'the people'. Contemporary analyses of

popular culture have approached their subJect for very different reasons. They have

looked to popuiar culture as' the SIte of resistance to hegemonic power, and to the

transformatiOn of leisure lOtO ,commodity. Yet" between these two moments, we

have found sorne surpr:ising slmllantles. ,#,

The point of thls thesis, howev~r, has not been to condemn the study of - .

popular culture., ~Indeed, it 15 preCÎ'sely a commitment to studying the aesthetics

and politiCS of contemporary cultural 'practices and forms which has motivated trus

" ,,!,,ork. Nor has the point been to single out the work of the Birmingham Centre '.

for Contemporary Cultural Studies for condemnation. Work carried out at the

Centre 15' undoubtedly among othe most imaginative and theore.tically conscious of ~

the numerous cont~mporary atterqpts to de al with popu!ar culture. The poi~t has ,

~, rather, to' highlight sorne of the difficulties that surround t'he concept of 'the

popular', and tp illustrate the power of inherited definitions and ways of ihinking

the social formation. We mentioned earlier Foucault's concept of episteme. We

l have situated ourselve~ in relation to Fouca~'s wor~ because 'Ne hold it to offer

new sorts of insight into the determinants on the social, ànd academic, production c

of meaning. The attempt to study particular cultural phenomena, to explain. them, '

to celebrate them, or to condemn them, is nothing other than a' project of

constructing or reinforcing meaning. Clearly, this thesis has not attempted to

reconstruct ~ complete history of the social uses and transformations of the

concept of 'the popwar'. It 1s not, in that sense, a discourse analysis. It has

\

(

The Concept of 'The Popular' ln Cultural Studles 86

attempted, however, élt least partlally, to 'grasp, the rustory that lies berund the

study of popular culture, and to suggest, or brmg to consclousness, the discurSive

( constralnts that shape our analyses of 'the popuJar'. Smce Foucault has

demonstrated the close relatlonshlp between knowledge and power;- 11 mlght not be

.1Oappropnate ta question the poli tlCal unphcatlons of deflnltlons of the popular

wtudl remove 'the people' trom rustory, constltute them' as Unlty m oppoSitiOn, and

ulumately reslst the complexlty and contradictiOn whlch charactense the

contemporary fIeld of cultural relations . . It has. become clear that there 15 much at stake ln the use of the concept of-~ ~

'the popular': It forms part of a very complex set of assumptlons, methodolo81es

and social practlces. ln the 'Elghteenth Century, 'the people' was a crUCIal element

in a system. of polltlCal tholight WhlCh sought to liberate man by umversahsmg

reason: to lnstltute the right rule .of reason. Ttùs project was ta proceed by

educatIon into enlLghtenmer)t- and SOCial responslbll1ty. The study of popular culture

,was part of trus general! movement. It defined 'the people' and studied thelr

cultural 10rms, presentmg them as essentially unifled.

Popular cultural forms were deemed ta be important as an expression of

unmediated human nature. Thus they supported an arustoncal account of social \

'organisation: society must be èonstructed in a certain way because man i5

essentiaUy rational and sociable. Rationalîty was assumed as a universal good, and

consequently education was seen as unproblematiC. It was the diffusion of agreed,

principles of rationallty and value.

This ,concept of rationality led to the procedure of scientiflc enqui,ry as

domination. Thus, the people are defined, characterised and evaluated by the

philosophés.. Such a procedure could not accommodate contradiction, or accQunt for

historical change.

"

In looking at sorne recent studies of populal culture, we discovered the

tenacify of this matrix of assumptions about the people, the nature of education,\

and the role, or rather ruIe, of reaSon. Again, we observed a distrust of history,

and an attempt to define th~le as 'unjfied~ Here the concentration was on

,.1 , .....

--'

-\

/ 1

The Concept of 'The Popular' m Cultural Studtes 87

the oppositionaJ nature of the people, but thlS OpposltJon was assumed to an extent

that It could not reaHy' be proven._ , Culture was once more seen as unmediated

expresslqn. The people wére defined, characterised, and evaluated, dus time ln

relation to the concept of res1Stance.

ln referrmg to GramscI and Brecht, we have sought to draw attention to

alternative att.empts to the.onse the 'popular'. Our cholce here has been somewohat

arbl tray, although It 15 hoped, also strateglc. ln GramscI, we have found the

begmnmgs of an analysls of popular culture as an hlstoncally changmg and

contradlctory sIte for the constructIon of popular consent. HIS attention to the

role and functlon of ~he lOtel1ectuals forced a degree of self-cons'ClOusness about !

the procedures and mterests of sClentlflc enqulry. HIS account of education

hlghl1ghted lhe selectlvlty of recel ved deflnltlons of ratlOnaJlty, and the matenal

Ihterests (whlch subtend them. Both come together ln tus account of the

dlfflCulty of struggle over deflnltions of the popular. ~The mJPortanc

possibllttles r mterventlon thlS permlts, however, remaln unc1ear, particularly for

those who c only feel uncomfortable wlth the pnority Gramsci glves to the role

of 'The Mo~ern Prince'. Equaily, Brecht's contributIons can only be understood

w 1 thin ms *tOriCal and theoretlcal context. HIS was one attempt to construct a

theoretically \mformed and popular cultural practice, which would take account of \

existing CUltur,l forms without naturallsmg them, but does not constitute an

ahistorical guarfntee of 'popular' culture. , ,

Actually, vie chose to look at Gramsci and Brecht for two reasons. Firstly, "

\

both seemed to fQreground the need for seeing popular cultu~e as something that 1

could not be assum~d, or simply read off existing cultural forms. It was something )

tha t could - only be grasped through" political, cultural and ~ historical ~nalyses.

Secondly, both theorists have, at least to sorne extent, been appropriated by

contemporary çultural analysts. It was thus hoped that Juxtaposing their 'ideas with

Ei~hteenth Century and contemporary analyses would foreground the choices that

have been made in the study of popular culture. We are not daïming that Gramsci

and Brecht have splved.>- the problem, but rather .. that they have at oleast

\

(

TT1~ co.,cept or '!ne popular' m CUltural ~tuOles

acknowledged It. Th( study of popular culture must be conjunctural, looking at

bath text and context, and the y have provided us with certam tools for the analysis

of both. We mlght develop these lnsights, for example through the work of Mikhail

Bakhtm. l For Bakl),tin, the most Important challenge to hegemony lies in texts, or

practIces, constructed on the, basls of mteraction and dialogue. Dialogue repres'ènts

a challenge to hlerarchy and closure. which have characterised not only hterary

texts but a wlde range of socIal and cultural practices. Bakhtm relates the

productIon ef polyphonIC texts, that is texts with many competing voices and no

f1nal resolutlon, to the behaviour and structures of the Medieval carnival. He thus

tries to theonse the condItIOns for reconstructing the terms of this popular cultural

practice.

50, \'Ole have tried' to illustrate the difflculties surrounding the study of 'the

popular' ln culture, and to suggest alternative directions which might be pursued •.

We have also tried to de-naturalise the contemporary gr~wth in interest in popular /

cultl.re. Why have we 'redlscovered the people' now, and what do we intend to do

with them?

AU 'this muSt finally be understood, hoW'ever, in the context 9f a commitment

to the study of popular culture. If used critlcally, the concept of popular culture

is an important one for cultural studies. It maps out a ,-certain area in' the field .

of cultural relations, an area that cannot readily be equated with 'working clàs%

culture'. Cultural forms of a developed social democracy are not directly -

appropriated ln class terms. The crucial determinants of pleasure, that is

" recognition and identification, and leis~e, that is the institutional organisation of

cultural life, intervene. Indeed, the successful maintenanc~ of hegemony depends J, '

on the repression of basic class oppositions. This!s not to say that cultural

relations are not best understood in class ter.-ms, but rath~rl that we should. avoid 'fi

., an a priori identification of particular cultural forms with objective clasi inter~sts.

Popular culture could be theqrised in a way that acknowledges the complexity

and contradictions in the appropriation of various cultural forms. This would

involve . precisely What de Certeau describ'ed as 'une .aGtion politique': a -radical

9

\

l

'.

".111

, 1

1 • i 1 1

G

• " •• f

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Studies 89

(. ~. re-assessment ,ol.Jhe nature and structure of what we Cali 'populat' culture. _ Yet,

as Richard Johnson 'says:

(J

~ probJem has been, a,.d 'remains, the inorganicity (or nOn-popul6ri'tY.,l2 o~ new waYs of thinking. about soci,ty -and. about ~Y. ' ~. ,.

, a

", , ----------------------------~--,--------------------------------------------T_-

. (

! ( \ I-

r 1

• ' '>"

.~\ -.

( ,

(

J ,

...

'stns '1 '. The Concept of 'The PopuJar' in Cultural Studies 90'

,

1.

2.

NOTES - _ II

, 0 o

See, for example, M. 8akhtin, Problèmes de la Poétique de Dostorevski,

trill\$lated by G. Verret, Lausanne: Editions çl'Age d'Homme, 1970:

R. Johnson, ft Against Absolutism! tI. in ~ Peoples ~ History and Socialist Theory, . ,

editeci by R •. Samuel, London: Routledge and-Kegan' Paul, 19&1, p. 393.

" -

'. .. . .

/

• " \)

-'~~~-'~~'-~-~-~.-.~.~.~.--------------------~--~--------------------------------------~--------------------~ .. ' "

. i \

1 "

•

..... ~ ~~~.""

- .. !. .~' • 1

ü

1

. j

1

1 1 ~

• 1

1

! ,1 t

1

1 ••

- Il

"

c~

-.

. '

1,' 1 ne eeacept 61 tiR! PapWIF 1K emidPlf stGMiS ~ p

~91

AdamsOn, Walter' L. Hegemony and Revolution. Los Angeles:, UniverSity of . caIüornia Press. 1980. / "

o.

Adorno, T.~ and M. Horkheimer. Oialectic!!! §nlightenment, translated by J. Cumming. New York: 1 The Seabury Press, 1972.

~ ....., .~ . . Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Phllosophy .!!!5! 2!!!.!:' Essa)'S. "London: New Left

Books., 1971."-- ) 1) •

and Etienne Bali bar • Reading Capital; translated by Ben . Brewster) London: Verso Editions, '1979.

Anderson, Perry. Arguments Within En&Jjsh Marxism. London: Verso, 19&1. . _ • lb ' _

__ ..,..,..,,.--~~-=' "The Antinomies of· Antonio Gramsci,,", New 1:!!.! Reviewt No. 100, 1976777" , . $

--- . --" - . '. "Origlns of the Present Crisis," in 'Towards' Sociallsrn, edited by

~ ---P-. -An"-"-d::-er-son- ,and R. Blackburn. Ithaca: Cornell University press, 196'-, '~'t;;j,

__ ..,."..=-__ • "The Left in the Fifties," N~ b!!!! Review. No. 29, lan/f.eb. -1967.

-8ahner, W. "Le Mot et la Notioo"du"''Peuple' dans l'Oeuvre de Rousseau," Studies ~ VOltaire, No. '.5, 1967.

8akhtin, .~. Problèmes de la Pojtigue de Dostoïevski, tnnIIated by G. ~ Verret. Lausanne: Edition:s l'Agi d'Fromn:a~, 1'970 _ ,,0

a.tJer, fi .H. et al. (eds.). The' Ale of· Enlightenment. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1967. -

Barnard, F.M. Herder's ~ anct PoliticaJ Thou&h!;' From Enli&htenrnent !!! NationaUsm. OXford: ClareiKlOn Press, 19&'. .

f·

Barthes, Roland. "ri~ r.Qegree Zero, ~translated by A. 1..avers and C. Smith. London: Cape, l 6 •

, ______ • "D4derot, Brecht, Eisenstein," Screen, Vol. 16, No. 2-

Baudrillard, Jean. The Mirror of Productian, translated by Mark Poster. St. LoUis: Telos Press, mS. -

--------------------~----

, Be8in. Luc. Le R&le du ~e dans. la ~~e Sociale ,!! Voltaire.. Montreal: U~.A. TIiii1i; iIël:iIr Uruverslty, l~ ,

Senj~in, Walter. U~ 8rech~ translated by Anna Bost~. London: New Left, Books, 19n ~ ,

8eilaett, Tony." "Popular Culture: A 'Teaching Object'," Screen Education, No. 34, Sprmg 1910. "c,

.......' , -SipI)y, C.W.E. (ed.). ~!2 Populu Culture.

Bowling Green University PopuJar Press, 1976. Bowling Green, Ohio&

-~

Sirminpam University Centre for Contertlporary" Cultural.Studies. on ldeology

,

1 ,-j

1 " !

1

l"

1

-

-,

!

f

c -

o . "

'1

The Concept of 'The Pbpular' in Cultural Studies 92

-,<workj'.l' Papers in Cultural StudieS No. 10),~ 1977.

,', , ~

'Birmingham University Centre for Cont~mporary Çultural Studies. Resistance Through Rituals (Working Papers in Cultural Studies Nos. 7 and'-8), 197'.

" Bl~, Ernst et al. Ae§thetics!!'.!2 Polilies.. London: New Left800b, 1977~ / J\}"

Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht OQ Theatre, translated by John Willett. LondonL Eyre Methuen, i 964. -: ~<,-- •

c,) ., "'Les Cinq Difficultés à Ecrire la Vérité," Les Lettres Nouvelles, ';' --~N""'O-.""4~6:-,-:F~évri~ 1957.,) . - i A

. '

~ !!:!: .!! Politique '!! la Soélé.!é. Paris: l'Arche, 1970.

__ ~-=--_~. Fear!!!!! Misery in !!!! Third~. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga, 1942.

• The LUe of Gallleo, translatec:l by Desmond 1. Vesey. London: --~E""yr-e--:"M'=-e-t""'huen-,mO:--_. .

• The Measures Taken and Other Lehrstucke;- translated by C. --':":M=-uet--:-:'ler-,-=R=:"". Màilhëlm 'and W. Sâuerlaildër .::-LOndon: Eyre Methuen, 1977.

, . the Messinkauf Dialogues, translatecl bYl J~ ~illett. London: Eyre Methuen, 1977. • ' , (1 - .

1/1#

Poems, 1913-56, edited by John Willett and Ralph Manhelm. New York: Methuen, 1979.

, __ ""="'"_~_. ',The Threepenny Opera, translated by Hugh MacDiarmid. London:

Eyre Methuen, 1973. .J. 'Bricp, Asa. 'r(he Languag~ of 'Clus' in- Wly' Ninetenth,-Ctlfttury E~opelt in

Essars in Lal»ur History, edited by A. Br~. London:' Maanillan, 1967.

Brunot, Ferdinand. Histoire de la,. Langue Franç!!!!. P.,.ls: Librairie Armand Colin, 1967. ,~

F

8ud-Glucksmann; Christine. Gramsci et l'Etàt. Paris: Ubrairie Arthème Fayard, 1975 •

Bur.ke, Peter. Popular Culture in Early ,Modern Europe. New York: New York University Press, 1978.

IF,..

l' ~- --"'-- ~~------, -;--~-~~---;;--;~--~ ___ ----;-........ --o----+-____ -.;l..." _.. ~ Discovery of Popu1~ CW!,-,e," in People's History and Sociali.t

1hêôrY, edited- by R. Samuel. London: Routledge ~ and Kegan Paul, l'Il.

Certeau, Michel de. La Culture au Pluriel. Paris: Union Générale des Edlte\ft, collection '10/lSÇ-1974. -- - '

1

Chisick, Harvey. The Limits of Reform in the Enlightenment. Princeton: - Princeton University Press, 1981. ~

Chambers, Iain. "Rethinking 'PopuJar Culture'," Screen Education, No. 36, Autumn . 19S0.

C&aiœ, J. "The Skinheads and the Study.of Youth Culture." Stencilled Paper No. 23, Birmingham UniverSity Centre for Contemwrary Cultural Studies, 1973.

_~... ~ L ~"1J4J • a ,.~ u'4t';

'f. • F r' - Il o~W'~ ,4. ~ let! _ C&ilt!!iSt .&1 1 lie: "PJ)pdtâfl"'1ft. CdlUr!! StdMI§ 11 5 ""', .. ~ , .... 3", ~

, . 111 /93

"

i

1 \ 1

j

j

". .. . ""1> o....·, ~ .. '. t "' , (, •

, ... ";. '1\ ') ", ~ 1 Iz: : ~ • ... .. .. [; ~

~ ,

( )

".

., • l'" J • ",4J .'... 0 _) b r'

'\1 .. <.;,_ .. ~ -'. J o! (.. '" e<' _ ~

~lar~è, 'J. et al. (edsj •.. ~otking, ~ ~tur Stucfies in History .!!!S! • Theory. ',' New York:. St. Martm s Press, 1979.

, ,~

Colletti, Lucio. From Rousseau to Lenin, Studies in Ideology and Society, translated" by J. White. London:-Monthly Review Press,1972. '

Coward, Rosalind. "Class, 'Culture', and th"e Social Formation," ·Screen, Vol. 18, , No. l, Spring 1977.

'Critcher, Charles. "Football Since the, War.: A Study in Social Change and Popular Culture." Stencilled Paper No.--29, Birmingham University Centre for

",:, Contemporary Cultural Studies, 197'. '. ,

Davidson, Alastair. Antonio Gramsci: Towards!!! InteUectual Biograpny. Atlantic • 1,. Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1977.

_--:--:":-~=--:-.---::-. "The Varying 5easons of Gramsci Studies," Political 'Studi~ , Vol. 20, No. 4, Decsmber 1~72. <

Davis,' N'.Z. .., Society and Culture ID Early Modem France. Stanford: Stanford - University Press, 1975. .

Diderot, OéiUs. Paradoxe sur le Comédien. " --

.\

Paris: Librairie Thé~trale, 19".

Olderot, D. :md J.I.R. d'Alembert (edS'.). L'Encyclopédie ~ Sciences, des ~ !! ~ Metiers. 17 vols. Paris: Chez Briasson, 17.51-65.

Dort, Bernard. Lecture de Brecht. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1960.

Eagleton, Terry. Walter Benjamin: Essays in Revolutionary Criticism. London: Vèrso, 1981.

"A Note on Brecht and Realism,1I in 1936: ~ Sociology ~ Literature, yolume 1: The Politics of .lY'odernism, edited by F. Barker et al. Essex: University of Essex, 1979.

~_~.."...-=--.:...,...-'. "Critiosm and politi'cs: The Work of Raymond Williams;" New !:!!! Review, No. 100, Jan/Feb. 1976.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge,. translated by A.M. -Sheridan Smith. -:-New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1972. ,/-~.

~ Goldmann,! Lucien. "La Pens~e des Lumières," r Annales, Economies, Soçiéf~

. Civilisations, Vol. 22, No. \4, July/Aug. 1967. \

" Gramsci, AntonioLSelectioDS-irom th~Prison -Notebooks oLAntonio GramsCi~ editecl by Quintin Hoare and G'ëOffrey Nowell-Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971.

~lections ~ !!!!: Political Writings of Antonio.' Gramsci, 1910-20, edited by Quintin Hoare. New York: International PUbljJflers, 1977.

Grealy, Jim. "Notes on Popular Culture," Screen Education," No. 22, Spring 1977.

Hall, Stuart. "Cultural Studies: Two Parad.igms," Media, Culture !!:!!.2 Society, No. 2.., 1980.

Hall, Stuart and Paddy Whannel. The Popular Arts. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967.

" >

.>.>

o ,

i 1.

'.

- . ............................ _______________ .~Q_r~ .. _~M5~~'~m_~H~~~~~I •• U.I ••• j .. d ......... _ ............... q.l.fI.n .... J .... _ •• ~"

\

" i

, , .

c·

o

\

The Concept of 'The Popular' in Cultural Stuclies 94

Hall, Stuart et al. "Politics and Ideolog}':, Gramsci," in Working Papers in Cultural Studies 10, On Ideolog~. Birmingham: Birmin~am University Centre, for Contemporary Cultural tudies, 1977. ,

.. Hall, Stuart et al. (eds.). Policing the CrisiSJ. Mugging, the State and Law and

Order. New York; Holmes ancTMeier, .l77&. . . . Hazard, Paul. G, La Crise de la Conscience Européenne '1680-1715. Paris: Fayard,

1961. '

. Hobbes, Thomas.' Leviathan. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.

Hoggart, Richard. The Uses of Literacy. 'Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 19.5&..: ,

Johnson, Richard. "Cultural Studies' and Educational Practice," Screen Education, "1 No. 34, Spring 1980. "f",,~v

, . ,:Jôtrlson; R. et al. (eds.). ....Making Histories, Studies in History Writing ~1\:Poli,cs.

London: Hutchinson/Centre for Contemporary' Cultural Studies, 1982.

, Joll, James. Antonio Gramsci. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977. ~ .. , . ,-

Jones, Bryn. ,"The Politics of PopuJar Culture." Stencilled Paper No. 12, Birmingham University 'Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studi es , n.d.

- , Kellner, Douglas. "Brecht's Marxist Aesthetics: The KOfsch Connection," in Bertolt

, Brecht, Pqlitical Theor'y and Literary Practice, editep by B.N'I Weber and H.

Heinen. Athens: ,University of Gëôrgia Press, 198Q.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. New York:, Hafner Publishing' - Company, 1969.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. - The Prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin Boo~, 1961.

Mandeville, Bernard. The Fable ?f ~ Bees. New York: Capri corn Soks, 1 ~62.

Marx, Karl. Capital, translated by E. and C. Paul. London: J.M. Dént and Sons, 19.57

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, edited by , Maurice Dobb. New York: Internation~ Publishers, 1970.

~

Mayer, Hans. Steppenwolf and Everyman, translated by J.O. Zipes. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1971. ,

--- -Mercer, Colin. "After Grêlf!!sci," Screen Education, No. 36, Autumn 1980.

"Gramsci and Grammar:," in 1936: The Sociology of Literature, Volume 1: The Politics of" Modernism, edited by F. Barker er aJ~ Essex: University of Essex, 1979.

~ontesquieu, C.-L. de Secondat. L'Esprit des Lois. 2 Vols., edited by Victor Goldschmidt. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1979.

Mortier, Roland. "Diderot et la Notion de 'Peuple'," Europe, Nos. 40.5-6,. Jan/Feb. 1963.

"Voltaire et le Peuple," in The Age of Enlightenment, edited by W.H. Barber et al. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1967. "1

-"'1-' .' .·II.I_"'-'-·'~1IIIIJI1I1rh~e~ë~-~o~;;~f ·the' pop~~;~j;~ë~it~;~"Studi;~ .JT ( .; 0

9.5

(:) , ,

. ,

o •

(

Needle, Jan and Peter Thon;tson. Brecht. Oxford: Basil BlackweU, 1981.

NowelJ-Smith, Geoffrey. "Gramsci and the National-Popular," Sereen Education, No. 22, Spring 1977. i

, Payne, H. The Philosophes and the People. New Haven; Yale University Press,

• ~, 1976. ' . '

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discours sur les Scienc~s et les Arts et Qiscours sur l'Origine et ~ Fondements de Plnêgalitê parrhl les HOiTImes. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1971.

Emile: 2.!:! de l'Education. Paris: Editions SO'pah~s, 1958.

--~---.,.-..,...,.....,.--....,..~" York: Nelson, 1953.,

The Social Contract, translated by F. Watkins. New

Samuel, R. (ed.). People's History and' Socialist Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. "

Scubla, Lucien. "Sur j'Impossibilité de la' Volonté Générale chez Rousse~uJ,i in Modèles Formels de Jâ Philosophie Social et POliti~ue. Paris: Centre de Recherche SLU' llEpmémologie et llAutonomië, Ecole olytechnique, 198~.

, .., J 01\

Th,ompson, E.P., The Making of th~ EngIish Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books, 1963.

1978. The Povertr, of Theory and ~ Essars. London: Merlin Press,

. --37.10l"'",-1rJ>9~'''''1.

''The Moral Economy of the English Crowd," Put and Present, No •

VoJpe, Galvano della. Rousseau and ~, translated by John Fraser. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1978.-'"

Willett, John. The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht. London: Eyre Methuen, 1977.

Williams, Raymond. Culture - and SocietX 1780-19.50. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1958.

The Long Revolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961.

" V/omen's Studies Group, Birmingham University Centre for Contemporary, Cultural

Studies. Women ~ ~, Aspects of Women's Subordination. Hutchinson/Centre for Contemporary cûltural Studies, 1978.

i , " ,

i

1 i i 1 ,