1 Introduction
The aim of these notes is to provide a basis for discussion on the role acquired by ‘Cultural Studies’ within the curricula and, more generally, the educational agendas of academic institutions in the UK. The paper is divided into three sections: a brief history of the development of Cultural Studies in the UK (and, to an extent, of its expansion in other English-speaking countries); an outline of the position currently occupied by Cultural Studies in UK academic institutions; some suggestions about problems and perspectives concerning developments in the area under examination.
No attempt has been made to produce a systematic survey of ‘courses’ in Cultural Studies, since this would constitute a paradoxical reduction of an intricately interdisciplinary area to a seemingly self-contained discipline. In fact, many of the problems and issues which animate the current debate around Cultural Studies stem precisely from the encounter between the non-disciplinarity of its approach and the necessary institutionalization of its practice within the academic environment. Many of these issues are related both epistemologically and contingently to the British origin and development of Cultural Studies. Yet their examination may be enlightening not only in order to understand the significance of Cultural Studies within UK educational practices, but also in view of their ongoing spread internationally.
2 The Name and History of Cultural Studies
Cultural Studies are, at one and the same time, one of the greatest success-stories of recent years in British (and not only British) academia, but also one of its most controversial ‘objects’, often just as vigorously attacked as they are embraced.
Even the label of ‘Cultural Studies’ is problematic, its two components denoting an uneasy combination of trends and approaches which have marked British academia for at least two centuries:
- Studies: the central role attached to the idea of discipline in the history of Western education, in the organization of Western knowledge and, in particular, in its institutionalized forms from the 19th C. onwards is in sharp contrast with the connotations acquired by the label ‘Studies’ in academic circles over the last few decades. ‘Studies’ (not only in ‘Cultural Studies’, but also in ‘Women Studies’, ‘Gender Studies’, ‘European Studies’, or even ‘Italian Studies’) has come to denote an inter- or multi-disciplinary approach to research and teaching, often linked to a widening of traditional canons (literary, artistic, etc.), a tendency to combine methodologies usually associated with distinct areas of knowledge (from the arts to the social sciences), and a refusal of traditional ideals of objectivity and impersonality of academic pursuits. Cultural Studies, in particular, configure themselves, from the beginning, as a programmatically interdisciplinary project intent upon producing a hybridization of the methods and objects of literary, social, anthropologic, historical, psychoanalytic, and other areas of scholarship. It is no wonder, then, that definitions of Cultural Studies as a subject are often declared impossible: Stuart Hall, who is often charged with the responsibility of being one of its 'founding fathers', has written that Cultural Studies are not 'a "discipline", but an area in which different disciplines intersect in the study of the cultural aspects of society' ; elsewhere he has called Cultural Studies 'a discursive formation, in Foucault's sense', and qualified the statement by saying that 'Cultural Studies has multiple discourses', 'it has a number of different histories' and 'it always was a set of unstable formations'.
- Culture: Even the connection of Cultural Studies with the concept of culture is not as obvious as it might seem, since 'the term Cultural Studies stands for, of course, the study of culture, but it is no more synonymous with that than the term women's studies is synonymous with the study of women' . Besides, ‘culture’ is a dangerous, ambiguous and polysemous word, which will need to be reckoned with by anybody who intends to venture into Cultural Studies. Raymond Williams provided a detailed analysis of the origins, evolution and different implications of the term as far as the English language is concerned (with some references to European influences, such as Herder’s). A similar analysis should be carried out for other traditions, including English-speaking ones developed in places other than England (from Ireland to the United States, etc.). And a comparison of these histories would certainly contribute to our understanding of such compounds as ‘Cultural Studies’. As far as the history of Cultural Studies in Britain is concerned, however, two definitions of culture have been particularly influential: on the one hand, Matthew Arnold’s assertion that culture is ‘the study and pursuit of perfection, the best which has been thought and said in the world’ (Culture and Anarchy, 1867); and, on the other, the anthropological view of culture as ‘a whole way of life’. Cultural Studies purport to favour the second view over the first, which was dominant in academic circles throughout the first part of this century (for example in Eliot’s Leavis’s idea of ‘The Great Tradition’). Yet, like many apparently antithetical concepts, these two notions of culture are not totally exclusive, and some of the moralizing, reformist attitudes of Arnold and Leavis are at times perceivable in today’s Cultural Studies.
- Cultural Studies: The name ‘cultural studies’ can be dated back to 1964 and the creation of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, under the direction of Richard Hoggart, whose place was then taken by Stuart Hall (1968-79). Every account of the centre and its activity starts with the mention of three founding texts, which provided the inspiration and sometimes the methodology for the initial work of the centre; the books in question are Richard Hoggart’s The Uses of Literacy (1957), Raymond Williams’s Culture and Society (1958) and E.P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (1963).
It is worth noting that Hoggart and Thompson came from ‘working class’ backgrounds, but where educated at Oxford and Cambridge, traditional strongholds of the British middle and upper classes. Yet it is also notable that the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies did not develop within ‘Oxbridge’, but at the University of Birmingham, a well established institution, but one which was both ‘younger’ and located at the centre of the largest industrial region of the UK. It is not a coincidence, then, that the work of Williams, Hoggart and others should concentrate in traditional areas of the humanities (such as literary and textual studies), at one and the same time continuing and rebelling against the line of work established by Leavis in the 1930s (and still dominant at Oxbridge when the ‘fathers’ of Cultural Studies did their degrees there). The moral value of the literary text and the emancipating role of culture are still in evidence, though canons may be changing and being enlarged - and it is in fact possible to view Hoggart’s and Williams’s projects as an attempt at what, in Bourdieu’s terms, could be called a redistribution of cultural capital.
Shortly after its formation, the work of scholars such as David Morley brought social sciences approaches and methodologies to the work of the Birmingham centre. This development placed the issues of subjectivity and objectivity, individual and historical perspective, textual qualities and reception mechanisms at the centre of the methodological debate which was to characterize Cultural Studies in the following years, leading to what is still one of its central nodes: the relationship between social and individual agency, between the individual or social subject’s ability to determine its own history and condition, and the influence of what has been differently named as ‘structure’, ‘system’, etc. Attempting an analysis of cultural phenomena which is neither simply deterministic nor naively based on notions of individual choice remains the largely unresolved goal of Cultural Studies, and provides strong links to currents of contemporary philosophy.
The attention devoted by Cultural Studies to the relationship between individual (or group) action and historic determinants is indicative of the strong links with Marxist notions of history. The Marxist imprint of the ‘founding fathers’, in particular, combined with their Leavisite inheritance to shape the initial scope and objectives of the Cultural Studies project. This uneasy alliance produced the interest for ‘popular culture’, which was meant to join (rather than entirely substitute) the notion of ‘High Culture’ promoted by the Arnold-Leavis critical tradition. The Marxist matrix also favoured an initial focus on the notion of class as the main determinant of individual and group identity, leading to the development of studies devoted to the working class, to popular sub-cultures, and to the effects played on them by the development of modern mass communication systems. Along the same lines are also studies such as Policing the Crisis (1979), which examined the relationship between hegemonic culture (and authorities) and marginalized social groups.
Outside academia, important connections linked Cultural Studies to the journal New Left Review (directed first by Hall and, later, by Perry Anderson), and the work of the Birmingham centre was influential for the development of the British New Left first, and the opposition against the Anglo-American New Right (personified in the Thacher/Reagan double-bill) later. From the beginning, then, the political and critical engagement of the centre were strongly linked, and determined a programmatic attention to social, cultural and other phenomena which characterized the state of British society in all its contingency.
The subsequent development of the centre has been described by Stuart Hall as a series of ‘interruptions’, kept together by ‘a will to connect’. The will to connect is to be found in a series of traits characterising the intellectual position of the work carried out in Cultural Studies: its interdisciplinary (sometimes anti-disciplinary) character; its ‘worldliness’; its attention to the relationship between theory, power and politics; and the ultimate engagement in ‘a practice which always thinks about its intervention in a world in which it would make some difference, in which it would make some effect’. The ‘interruptions’ start with the struggle to come to terms with Marxism and its ‘resounding silences’; here, at least for Stuart Hall, but not only for him, a key influence was that of Antonio Gramsci and his reflections on culture, hegemony, and the role of intellectuals.
Subsequent ruptures came from the encounter with structuralism (especially Althusser) and semiotics (including Barthes and Eco); from feminism and women’s appropriation of areas of Cultural Studies; from the growing interest in race and ethnicity issues... This evolution can be followed through the issues of the journal of the centre, Working Papers in Cultural Studies, and in some crucial volumes which punctuate its history: Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain (1976), Women Take Issue (1978), Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order (1979) and The ‘Nationwide’ Audience (1980).
The relationship between structuralism and Cultural Studies was essentially mediated by Althusser and his ‘anti-humanist’ perspective, which privileged a vision of individual action as a product of ideological and positional determinants. Yet in Britain structuralism remained mediated by the long tradition of empiricism, and was moderated by references to Gramsci and his vision of the complex relationship between hegemonic and subaltern formations, thus excluding all anti-humanistic mechanicism.
The encounter with feminism, on the other hand, marked a real ‘explosion’ in Cultural Studies, i.e. both a moment of growth, and one of profound change. Feminism challenged some of the basic assumptions held by the initial Cultural Studies group: it substituted an ‘organic’ notion of culture and identity, primarily based on the idea of class, with another which is based on multiple determinants, and posits difference as a central value. Sex, age, race, etc. join class as markers of difference, and impose the need for much more complex forms of cultural analysis, while at the same time boldly stating the necessary subjectivity, the personal, biographic investment of the analyst. Thus feminism brought about a radical rethinking of precisely that relationship between subjectivity and objectivity which was, from the beginning, central to the development of Cultural Studies. Moving away from the impersonality of structuralist approaches, the encounter with what was to become Women Studies emphasized the role of the subject, not only as the agent of the cultural phenomena under examination, but also as the already located, culturally determined and far from neutral individual who carries out the analysis.
The myth of objectivity was to be further exposed by the development of post-modern thought, but a much more influential connection, as far as Cultural Studies are concerned, was to be established between the influence of feminist thought and the development of post-colonial studies. With the new focus on ethnicity and race, the concept of identity (initially linked to the single determinant of class) was further fragmented, revealing the complex mechanisms of intercultural representation, and their complicities with Western colonial and imperial enterprises.
Today Cultural Studies (and here the picture gets larger again, to include developments in Britain and elsewhere) is mostly associated with work on a series of related areas which, to borrow the list made by Nelson, Treichler and Grossberg, includes ‘the history of cultural studies, gender and sexuality, nationhood and national identity, colonialism and post-colonialism, race and ethnicity, popular culture and its audiences, science and ecology, identity politics, pedagogics, the politics of aesthetics, cultural institutions, the politics of disciplinarity, discourse and textuality, history, and global culture in a post-modern age.’
In an attempt to sum up the development of Cultural Studies, Anthony Easthope has recently proposed its subdivision into three periods. The initial ‘culturalist’ phase was characterized by Hoggart’s and Williams’s strongly ‘humanist’ work, and the central connection between textuality and culture (which leads to analyse texts as cultural documents), accompanied by a still unresolved attention to the relationship between subjectivity and system, cultural production and power struggles (i.e. class struggles), hegemony and resistance. This was followed, in the 70s, by a structuralist moment, ‘flirting’ with continental theory (and effectively introducing it to the UK first and the USA next), but never fully abandoning the empiricist and humanist tradition of British thought, with its belief in the moral and social role of critical analysis). The following period is named by Easthope ‘Post-Structural-Cultural-Materialist’, with a label which emphasizes not only the complexity reached by the approach, but also its multifaceted character, partly due to the fact that Cultural Studies where by now no longer associated with the Birmingham centre alone, but had migrated to a variety of other locations and institutions, both in the UK and elsewhere. Characteristic of this third phase (notwithstanding its multiple character) are the attention to subjectivity as an integral part of critical analysis, and the focus on mechanisms of production and re-production of culture, on the ‘uses’ of culture (its reception, manipulation, re-readings and re-writings in different locations and historical moments). This refusal of absolute truth and objectivity constitutes a further link with post-modern positions (particularly Lyotard, Jameson and the end of ‘grand narratives’).
3 The Role and Location of Cultural Studies in British Universities
The development of Cultural Studies is widely recognized as one of the success stories in the recent history of British academic institutions: together with the ‘advent of theory’, Cultural Studies have all but revolutionized the structure, contents and methodological approach of a large number of degree courses and individual options in Humanities Faculties across the country. Yet, just like ‘theory’, Cultural Studies are the object of as much harsh criticism as praise - and in both cases the recent history of British Higher Education plays just as important a role as more ‘academic’ issues relating to traditional canons of knowledge or critical approaches.
The growth of Cultural Studies coincided with a phase of expansion and re-structuring of British Higher Education, which saw the birth (in the late 60s) of a few new universities (including East Anglia, Warwick, and others), and, shortly afterwards, a larger number of Polytechnics, as well as the Open University with its distance-learning courses. This period of growth was accompanied by increasing competition among old and new institutions, further encouraged in the late 80s by the drive to increase the number of students and widen the access routes to university education, and, in the early 90s, by the transformation of all polytechnics into universities (now universally known as ‘the New Universities’). The result was a redrawing of the maps and hierarchies of British academia, which did not, however, remove differences in status and financial treatment. And while the expansionist phase of the 1960s and 70s was characterised by a climate of intellectual renewal and creativity which fostered interdisciplinary collaboration and genuinely innovative projects, most of the 80s and 90s have been marked by a drive towards accountability and measurable standards, coupled with cuts in central funding, culminating in the imposition of fees for undergraduate courses starting from 1998. Universities have been given the opportunity to increase their income by enrolling more students, and/or by concentrating on achieving high ratings in research selectivity exercises (which are directly related to central funding). Although it would be theoretically possible to aim at both goals at the same time, the lack of financial security has effectively pushed universities to opt for either one or the other of these strategies, resulting in the creation of what looks increasingly as a two-tier structure, divided into teaching universities and research universities. In both cases, institutions increasingly need to market themselves. New universities, most of which became committed early on to increasing numbers of students and wider access, tend to market themselves externally, to perspective applicants, and to adopt their label of ‘new’ institutions as a general slogan, proposing courses which often diverge from the more traditional degrees, and offering an increasingly large variety of subject combinations. ‘Old’ and ‘less new’ institutions mostly opted for the drive towards research, and consequently need to market themselves to the students but also to the academic profession itself, which is in charge of passing judgement on research standards across the country. The result is a double pull: towards new and appealing subjects, but also towards well established, and recognized, traditions. The creativity and innovative spirit of the early days has been largely replaced by marketing techniques and the need to gamble on the ‘ratings’ of different kinds of research. And given that these ratings are discipline based, the trend is to either encourage research which either stays within established disciplinary boundaries or quickly claim disciplinary status for new fields.
In this less confident and more cynical environment, maintaining claims of radicalism, a-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and so on, is increasingly difficult (or suspect), and it is easy to see how Cultural Studies may be at once an extremely attractive and a profoundly distrusted label. From the outside, Cultural Studies are often accused of being purely a gimmick, a fashionable all-purpose container which is meant to attract students and to mask the lack of a rigorous definition of the field of study, the lack of a clear-cut methodology, etc. Inside the area itself, many are worried about compromising the academic and political principles of the Cultural Studies project and ultimately being instrumentalized by institutions for their own marketing goals (or even being brought to adhere to them in bad faith). Ultimately, Cultural Studies appear to be in a double bind: they are being pushed either towards constituting themselves as a discipline (thus renouncing their radical beginnings) or accepting the fate of an ‘everything and nothing’ label, easily instrumentalized in university brochures, and just as easily dismissed in academic circles.
With this caveat, where can we actually ‘locate’ Cultural Studies within the existing curricula of British universities?
Many of the scholars who worked in the Birmingham centre moved to other British as well as foreign institutions (Hall, for instance, made the controversial choice of moving to the Open University). New and ‘nearly new’ universities were initially more amenable to the introduction of cultural-studies-oriented courses, though by now both the terminology and the methodology can be found in old universities as well, and have even infiltrated the Oxbridge core which was at once the alma mater and the not-so-hidden ‘enemy’ of Hoggart, Williams and the rest of the ‘first generation’.
The subject areas which have been influenced by Cultural Studies are mostly located in the humanities, and particularly in English (literary studies), Media Studies, Modern Languages, parts of History (though with resistance from many social historians), and at times also Philosophy, History of Art, etc.
At undergraduate level the trend is not towards creating separate degrees, or even specific options in ‘Cultural Studies’ (or an equivalent, modified label), but rather towards adopting a Cultural Studies approach which informs the design, delivery, and contents of courses which deal with a variety of areas related to the study of culture. Examples of this trend include the general redrawing of canons in English degrees to include popular literature as well as other forms of popular culture (from cartoons to pop music to soap operas); or the inclusion of Cultural Studies, Women Studies, Post-Colonial Studies in foundation courses devoted to critical approaches to the analysis of texts and other cultural artefacts; or the creation of options in social and cultural history which take a Cultural Studies approach (for instance by using texts as cultural documents, or by promoting an in-depth analysis of a precise historical moment rather than a long-range view of historical periods). Further examples can be found in Modern Languages, where Cultural Studies represent the largest area of growth of the last few years, and is often perceived as a solution (or, arguably, a panacea) for the traditional dichotomy between language and literature/history components of such degrees: through the introduction of popular culture and the analysis of texts other than literary (including cinema, television, etc.) Modern Languages courses have managed to widen their scope, though this has not necessarily brought about a reconciliation between a model of the subject based on the idea of intercultural communication, and one centred around the notion of a (super)national core of (Western) human (high) culture and knowledge.
It is postgraduate courses, however, which have provided the area of greatest development for Cultural Studies, with Diplomas, MAs and PhDs in Cultural Studies (or similar labels) offered by an increasing number of institutions. Examples include the growing variety of MAs in British Cultural Studies, which are popular both among British nationals and foreign students of British culture and literature; or specific programmes in Irish Studies, which often combine the Cultural Studies approach with Post-Colonial theories; and, increasingly, courses in European Cultural Studies directed at students with a first degree in Modern Languages. Warwick, for instance, offers all of these options, as well as MAs in Cultural Policy, or in Comparative Culture, and has a postgraduate centre which is called ‘Centre for British and Comparative Cultural Studies’. All of these programmes offer students an ‘escape’ from the traditional dominance of ‘literature’ or ‘history’, and the chance to experiment with complex issues and interdisciplinary approaches to research. This flexibility, combined with the value attributed to methodology and to original, in depth research, makes postgraduate courses a particularly congenial environment for Cultural Studies. Besides, the smaller number of students and the less intensive use of staff resources in postgraduate courses, together with the assumption that they should be at the ‘cutting edge’ of research, favour faster renewal of programs at this (rather than at undergraduate) level.
Further proof of the success enjoyed by cultural studies within a variety of more traditional disciplines is represented by the increasing number of books and, even more significantly, textbooks, devoted to the area: they range from the Introduction to ... model, to Readers (retrospective collections of essays), to volumes specifically devoted to sub-areas of Cultural Studies, as in the recent Studying British Cultures: An Introduction, or in the series devoted by Oxford University Press to French, German, Spanish, Italian, ... Cultural Studies. Yet precisely a series such as the OUP one exemplifies some of the problems pointed out above: a quick comparison of the contents pages of the various volumes, for instance, clearly shows the different interpretation given by each editor and group of contributors to the label ‘Cultural Studies’, its scope, its methodology, and its goals.
4 Further Critical Perspectives
At least in theory, then, Cultural Studies are as clearly interdisciplinary as ever, and still refusing any form of canonisation; approaches, methods and areas of investigation draw on (and connect with) other areas or disciplines from anthropology to psychoanalysis, from sociology to feminist theory, from semiotics to text linguistics; and radical notions of resistance (to canons, hegemonic traditions, etc.) and intervention (in social and political struggles) are still advocated by scholars who identify themselves with the label. Yet a whole series of criticisms are emerging, both from
within and without Cultural Studies.
Warnings have recently bee issued about the dangers of transforming Cultural Studies into an internationally fashionable 'label'. Among these, two seem particularly pertinent here. The first comes from David Morley and concerns the inappropriate transplantation of what is in fact ‘British Cultural Studies’, as if it could provide a ‘ready-made template for work in this field, in other contexts than that (England in the 1960s and 1970s) in which it was originally developed’; this is not to claim some primacy or superiority for the British tradition, but rather to avoid meaningless homogenisation by reaffirming some of the essential characters of cultural studies: its context-bound, ‘conjunctural’ nature, and its relationship with political and intellectual forms which, by virtue of belonging to a culture, are also linked to specific geographical and temporal dimensions. The second warning comes from a historian, Carolyn Steedman, and concerns the risks implicit in a less than careful adoption of ‘the culture concept’; this may lead to an illusion she calls ‘the connectedness of everything’ and, in turn, to the destruction of historical perspective. Both these criticisms are, in the end, warnings against the establishment of dangerous orthodoxies and unwise generalisations, as well as reminders about the risk of cultural relativism and what is known in Italian as ‘tuttologia’.
An all-encompassing criticism has also been made by Marc De La Ruelle, who sees the attachment to humanist values and an essentially empiricist epistemology as a sign of the provincialism of Cultural Studies, of their reluctance to relinquish their ‘English’ matrix, rooted in a highly moralizing and normative liberal reformist tradition (the one of Arnold, Eliot, Richards and Leavis...), constantly proposing ‘values’ rather than accepting the findings of theories of culture.
Though essentially polemic, De La Ruelle’s article points to two highly relevant issues. First, to what extent do Cultural Studies remain an essentially Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, which is extremely significant in its historical and geographic environment, but does not constitute a model for other contexts, and whose impact may well have already been pre-empted elsewhere by what is known in English as ‘continental theory’ (the findings of which have effectively been mediated, in part, by Cultural Studies, for the inherently hostile British academic tradition)? How should one interpret, for instance, the current proliferation (in the UK and the USA) of French, Spanish or Italian Cultural Studies? And should there be some ‘continental’ resistance to Cultural Studies as a sort of Anglo-American backlash and colonization of ‘continental’ approaches to the study of culture? Second, on behalf of whom do Cultural Studies ‘act’, and who ‘produces’ them? Hall’s reference to Gramsci’s ‘intellettuale organico’ has been dismissed by Frederic Jameson, for instance, as merely utopian. And, as already pointed out, the progressive institutionalization of Cultural Studies renders their attempt to remain radical and maintain their intellectual autonomy increasingly problematic. The issue of institutionalization, in fact, seems to be the most recurring and substantial problem stalking the future of Cultural Studies. Perhaps the project can remain anti-disciplinary, even in the face of resurgent disciplinarity, by infiltrating other courses and disciplines, and not creating too many separate structures (though this is a risk-laden strategy). Yet the question remains of how to avoid manipulation and distortion: paradoxically, the fashionable ring of the ‘Cultural Studies’ label is both the best index of its success and its greatest enemy.
Bibliography
Bassnett, Susan, ed., Studying British Cultures (London & New York: Routledge, 1997)
Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere, eds, Translation, History, Culture (London: Pinter, 1990)
Blundell, Valda, John Shepherd and Ian Taylor, eds, Relocating Cultural Studies: Developments in Theory and Research (London: Routledge, 1993)
Clifford, James, The predicament of Culture (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: Harvard University Press, 1988)
Clifford, James, 'Traveling Cultures', in Lawrence Grossberg, Cary nelson and Paula Treichler, eds, Cultural Studies (London & New York: Routledge, 1992), pp.96-116
Clifford, James and George E. Marcus, eds, Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986)
De la Ruelle, Marc, ‘The ideological roots of Cultural Studies in England’, in Robert Clark and Piero Boitani, eds, English Studies in Transition (London & New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 97-104
Dunn, Tony, ‘The evolution of Cultural Studies’, in David Punter, ed., Introduction to Contemporary Cultural Studies (London: Longman, 1986), pp. 71-91
During, Simon, ed., The Cultural Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1993)
Easthope, Anthony, ‘But What is Cultural Studies?’, in S. Bassnett, ed., Studying British Cultures: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 3-18
Forgacs, David, 'National-popular: genealogy of a concept', in Simon During, ed., The Cultural Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 177-90
Forgacs, David, 'In Gran Bretagna', in Eric Hobsbawm, ed., Gramsci in Europa e in America (Bari: Laterza, 1995), pp. 55-69
Forgacs, David and Robert Lumley, eds, Italian Cultural Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. by Colin Gordon, trans. by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, Kate Soper (Brighton: The Harvester Press, 1980)
Grossberg, Lawrence, Cary Nelson and Paula Treichler, eds, Cultural Studies (London & New York: Routledge, 1992)
Hall, Stuart, 'Cultural Studies and its theoretical legacies, in Lawrence Grossberg, Cary nelson and Paula Treichler, eds, Cultural Studies (London & New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 277-94
Hall, Stuart, ‘Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms’, Media, Culture and Society, 2:2 (1980), pp. 57-72
Hall, Stuart, et al., Policing the Crisis (London: Macmillan, 1979)
Hall, Stuart, et al., Culture, Media, Language (London: Routledge, 1992; first edn 1980)
Hall, Stuart and Tony Jefferson, Resistance Through Rituals (London: Hutchinson, 1976)
Hall, Stuart and Bram Gieben, eds, Formations of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992)
Hamnet, Chris et al., eds, The Changing Social Structure (Restructuring Britain), (London: Sage, 1989)
Hermans, Theo, ed., The Manipulation of Literature (London: Croom Helm, 1985
Hobsbawm, Eric, ed., Gramsci in Europa e in America (Bari: Laterza, 1995)
Hoggart, Richard, The Uses of Literacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958)
Killick, D., and M. Parry, Developing Cross-Cultural Capability (Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University, 1997)
Killick, D., and M. Parry, eds, Cross-Cultural Capability: The Way, The Ways and the Means (Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University, 1998).
Lefevere, André, Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (London: Routledge, 1992
Morley, David, The ‘Nationwide’ Audience (London: BFI, 1980)
Morley, David, Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1992)
O'Sullivan, Tim, et al., Key Concepts in Communication (London: Routledge, 1992)
Punter, David, ed., Introduction to Contemporary Cultural Studies (London: Longman, 1986)
Said, Edward, Culture and Imperialism (London: Vintage, 1994)
Steedman, Carolyn, 'Culture, Cultural Studies and the Historians', in Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson and Paula Treichler, eds, Cultural Studies (London & New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 613-22
Thompson, E.P., The Making of the English Working Class (London: Vintage, 1993)
Venuti, Lawrence, The Translator’s Invisibility (London: Routledge, 1995)
Venuti, Lawrence, ‘Translation and the formation of cultural identities’, in Christine Schäffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes, eds, The Cultural Functions of Translation (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1995), pp. 9-25
Williams, Raymond, Culture and Society (London: Hogarth Press, 1993; first edn 1958)
Williams, Raymond, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (London: Fontana, 1979)
Williams, Raymond, Towards 2000 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985)
Women’s Studies Group (Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, Birmingham), Women Take Issue (London: Hutchinson, 1978)
|
