During the first four weeks of our class, we have been reading and discussing
numerous essays on the study of "culture". Each theorist we have read
has questions and problems about the study of "culture". They have
suggested us solutions to the problems as well. I have decided to closely
analyze the essays from Richard Johnson, James Clifford, and Clifford Geertz. In
his essay, "What is Cultural Studies Anyway?" Richard Johnson goes
into detail describing critique. "Critique involves stealing away the more
useful elements and rejecting the rest."(pg. 575). By comparison, Johnson
defines cultural studies as a process of finding useful knowledge about
different analysis of culture. Johnson explains how anglicizing of old Marxism
is a good example of critique in cultural studies. By explaining how old Marxism
has a significant role in forming cultural studies, Johnson implies how history
of economics has a major role in forming "culture". Johnson believes
that there are three main premises where old Marxism has influenced cultural
study. The first is that social relations influence culture. I agree with
Johnson. Different class, sex, race, and age create different relationships. The
second premise is that each individual and social group has different limits of
power defining different needs. For example, homeless people have different
needs than the rich. This is an example of money being defined as power. The
third premise is that culture is influenced by social struggles and differences.
I don't know any culture where every individual is truly equal. There is always
a struggle for power. Critique in cultural studies raises several questions for
Johnson. "If we have progressed by critique, are there not dangers that
codifications will involve systematic closure? If the momentum is to strive for
really useful knowledge, will academic codification help this? Is not the
priority to become more 'popular' rather than more academic? …In any case,
students, now have lectures, courses and examinations in the study of culture.
In these circumstances, how can they occupy a critical tradition
critically?"(pg. 577). These questions have been puzzling me as well. I
don't see how cultural studies can be more 'popular' rather than more academic.
'Popular' means majority. Johnson questions the reason for classes cultural
studies. Does this mean that we need to study individually? If so, how could it
become more 'popular'? I believe that Johnson's questions makes the readers go
in circles. Another thing that puzzles me is that Johnson believes that old
Marxism has a significant role in cultural studies. Marxism explains how the
working group will overthrow the class system and establish a Communist society.
Yet, Johnson believes that the three premises discussed earlier influence
culture. Is he saying that he is against cultural studies? If this is so, I
don't see why he is a cultural theorist. James Clifford wrote "On
Collecting Art and Culture". Clifford starts by explaining about
universality and non-universality of collecting. "Some sort of 'gathering'
around the self and the group - the assemblage of a material 'world,' the
marking-off of a subjective domain that is now 'other' - is probably
universal." (no pg.#). This explains how human nature embodies hierarchies
of value. "But the notion that this gathering involves the accumulation of
possessions, the idea that identity is a kind of wealth…is surely not
universal." (no pg.3). This non-universal way of collecting has been around
in the Western culture for a long time. Clifford then goes on to explain the
different concepts of "collecting" and "fetishizing".
Clifford describes fetishism as a collection kept more in secrecy. It is hard to
say if a fetish has more value than a collection. I believe that fetish has a
much more personal value than a regular collection. A regular collection is put
out into display because the object has value to others as well. A fetish is
valuable to the individual. The difference between "collecting" and
"fetishizing" brings out the question of how different objects are
distinguished. Clifford distinguishes objects in the diagram call the
"semiotic square". Clifford explains how the value of an object
proceeds from bottom to top and left to right. I have several problems with
Clifford's diagram. First, with this diagram, Clifford has limited culture with
just art. By reading different essays from other theorist, we can see that
culture cannot be explained clearly with just the "Art-Culture System"
which Clifford explains. Another problem I have is that Clifford has classified
inventions and fakes, or anti-art, as a non- culture object according to the
diagram. I don't see how Clifford could classify anything as a non-culture. The
changing of technology influences the changing of cultures. And fake art could
be a culture. There are people who collect only fakes. Wouldn't the collecting
of fakes be considered a part of culture even if the size is fairly small?
Clifford should have given us his own definition of "culture" in his
essay. Another problem I have is that Clifford sates, " There can be no
direct movement from zone 4 to zone 1." (no pg.#). And also, Clifford
limits "art" as being original and singular on the diagram. I believe
an old furniture with a unique design could move directly from a non-art to art.
A chair, which has been reproduced for commercial use, could be a non-art in the
beginning. But as time went by, the chairs could be worn out and be destroyed.
Lets sat that there is just one out of many chairs has survived. Now, as
people's tastes for art changes and varies, this one remaining chair can move
directly from a non-art object to an art object. I am also troubled by the use
of the word, "value" is used so often by Clifford. He did not give his
definition of "value". Clifford has limited the concept of culture
significantly by linking culture with just art. In Clifford Geertz's "Thick
Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture," he explains the
limitations of using literary techniques to analyze culture. Geertz explains in
great detail about the philosophy behind "thin description" and
"thick description." He gives an example of two boys rapidly closing
and opening one of their eye to describe the meaning. "Thin
description" would be the simple explanation of one boy opening and closing
his eye very rapidly. A boy closing and opening his eyes trying to deceive
explains "Thick description" the other to make him think that a
conspiracy is in motion. The other boy cannot tell if he is blinking
unintentionally, winking, or fake-winking. So "thick description" is a
description with an explanation or a deeper meaning to the event. The example of
the two boys is told to show how ethnography is thick description. Geertz
explains that, "Doing ethnography is like trying to read (in the sense of
'construct' a reading of) a manuscript - foreign, faded, full of ellipses,
incoherencies, suspicious emendations, and tedious commentaries, but written not
in conventionalized graphs of sound but in transient examples of shaped
behavior." (pg. 242). Studying past cultures is like putting a puzzle
together with missing pieces. A person can put his own piece in for the missing
place to try to see the whole picture. Just because his piece fits doesn't mean
that it is the right piece. "Culture" is not always what it seems.
Ward Goodenough explains this perfectly. " 'Culture [is located] in the
minds and hearts of men." (pg. 242). Geertz way of thinking about cultural
study is very similar to the way Richard Johnson feels about cultural study.
They both feel that culture is just a summary and an interpretation. The
difference is that Johnson sees more dangers to the study of incomplete culture.
Clifford questions the reason for cultural study but does not try very hard to
answer them. On the other hand, Geertz sees the benefits of cultural study more
clearly. He sees it in a more positive way. "The whole point of semiotic
approach to culture is, as I have said, to aid us in gaining to the conceptual
world in which our subjects live so that we can, in some extended sense of the
term, converse with them." (pg. 252-253). The three theorists all believe
that cultural study is too generalized. I too agree with them. I have come in
agreement with Geertz the most between the three theorists: "…if one
looks for systematic treatises in the field, one is so soon disappointed, the
more so if one finds any." (pg. 252).