04.08.2020

British School of Cultural Studies of Mass Communication. Critical Media Studies: Neo-Marxist Theories, Frankfruit School, British Studies. Here we can mention such representatives of this school as D. Hebdige, P. Willis,

Firstly, that social theory should be based on a certain set of values and be the basis for criticism of social institutions and social orders in general. Second, the purpose of critical theory is to guide the reform or transformation of social institutions or social orders in order to realize important values. Third, critical theory often first examines specific social problems, identifies the sources of those problems, and then offers recommendations for solving them. Fourthly, proponents of a critical approach are often participants in social movements and try to put their theories into practice with their help. Sometimes critical theory is the program of a social movement that sets as its goal constructive reforms of society, and sometimes it summarizes the results of its activities.

Critical theories often analyze specific social institutions, examining how fully their goals have been achieved. It is not without reason that the mass media and the mass culture they promote have become the focus of attention of academic critics - they have been associated with a number of social problems. Even if the media are not considered to be the source of specific problems, they are criticized for obstructing the identification and solution of these problems. Critical media theories have established that the production of content is so tightly constrained that it inevitably reinforces the status quo and thwarts the media's attempts to meaningfully reform society. Journalists find themselves at the center of the battle.

Leaders of various social movements demand that their critical speeches against the government be reflected in the media. Elites tend to minimize coverage of such events or resort to “manipulation of facts” to present their position in a favorable light. According to research, such materials almost always portray the social movement in a negative light, and the elite in a positive light.

Critical scholars are interested in how powerful groups use the media to promote and perpetuate certain forms of hegemonic culture in order to maintain their dominant position in the social system, systematically suppress alternative forms of culture, and how elites enforce hegemonic culture.

Ironically, it was in the 1970s and 1980s, when Marxism demonstrated its inadequacy as a practical guide to politics and economics in the countries of the socialist camp, that the popularity of large social theories, based on Marxist ideas, has increased in Europe.

4.2.1. Neo-Marxist theories

According to the ideology of Marxism, media are means of production corresponding to capitalist industry in its most general form - with productive forces and production relations. Monopoly owned by capitalists, they are organized on a national or international scale to serve the interests of their class through the exploitation of cultural workers (extracting surplus value) and consumers (receiving excess profits). They perform the ideological work of disseminating the ideas and worldviews of the ruling class, rejecting alternative points of view that might lead to a change or increase in the working class's awareness of their interests, and preventing the formation of an active and organized political opposition. Because of the complexity of these assumptions, several variants of Marxist-inspired analysis of modern mass media have emerged, among which McQuail highlights political economy theory.

Despite the fact that, at first glance, all neo-Marxist approaches seem complementary, there is intense rivalry between their supporters. They differ on important theoretical issues and also use different research methods and draw on different academic disciplines. By focusing on economic institutions and emphasizing the idea that economic dominance leads to or facilitates cultural dominance, political economists have been slow to recognize that economic institutions can be affected by cultural change. Moreover, they did not take into account the diversity of popular cultures and the ways in which people make sense of cultural content. To reconcile, supporters of different directions need to abandon a number of concepts and recognize that the superstructure and the base - culture and the media industry - can influence each other.

Political economics of media theory is an old name that has come back into scholarly use to describe an approach to the study of media that focuses on economic structure rather than ideological content. It places the dependence of ideology on the economic base at the forefront and directs the attention of researchers to the empirical analysis of the ownership structure and the activity of market forces in the field of mass media. From this point of view, media institutions should be considered part of the economic system, although closely related to the political system. The predominance of knowledge about and for society produced by mass media can be largely explained by the contemporary costs of various types of content in the context of expanding markets, vertical and horizontal integration, and the fundamental interests of those who own the media and make decisions.

The consequence of these trends is considered to be a decrease in the number of independent media, increased concentration of media in larger markets, refusal to take risks, and ignoring smaller and poorer sectors of the potential audience. The operation of economic forces is not random, and, according to Graham Murdoch and Peter Golding, they constantly seek to exclude: "those voices that do not have economic power or resources... the underlying logic of value operates systematically, consolidating the position of those groups who already established themselves in the major media markets and excluded those groups that lack the capital to compete successfully. Thus, the surviving voices largely belong to those least inclined to criticize the prevailing distribution of wealth and power. Conversely, those who might challenge such a system are prevented from making their grievances or opposition known because they do not have the resources to do so. effective communication with a wide audience."

Although at first glance both schools of neo-Marxism seem complementary, there is intense rivalry between them. They disagree on important theoretical issues and also use different research methods and draw on different academic disciplines. By focusing on economic institutions and emphasizing the idea that economic dominance leads to or facilitates cultural dominance, political economists have been slow to recognize that economic institutions can be affected by cultural change. Moreover, they did not take into account the diversity of popular cultures and the ways in which people make sense of cultural content. Supporters of both directions need to abandon a number of their concepts and recognize that the superstructure and the base - culture and the media industry - can influence each other.

McQuail sees the main advantage of this approach as being that it allows for empirically testable assumptions about market determinants, although the latter are so numerous and complex that empirical testing is not easy. The disadvantage of the political economy approach is that it is not so easy to describe media under public control in free market terms. In accordance with political economy theory, mass communication should be approached as an economic process, the result of which is a product (content), although it is believed that in fact mass communications produce audiences in the sense that they provide advertisers with an audience and shape people's behavior in a certain way .Marxism, which is the ideological basis for critical analysis of the structure and economics of media, however, does not have a monopoly on scientific tools, which are also widely used in all social disciplines. While focusing on economic institutions and emphasizing the concept that economic dominance leads to or facilitates cultural dominance, political economists have been slow to recognize that economic institutions may in turn be affected by cultural change. In addition, they denied the diversity of cultural forms and the ways in which people comprehend cultural content.

Media hegemony theory (to use a term coined by Antonio Gramsci) is concerned not so much with the economic and structural determinants of class-tinged ideology, but with the ideology itself, the forms of its expression and the mechanisms for surviving and thriving with the explicit consent of its victims (mostly the working class) to so that it invades their consciousness and shapes it. The difference between this view and the classical Marxist and political economic approaches lies in the recognition of the greater independence of ideology from the economic basis.

Ideology, in the form of a distorted definition of reality and a picture of class relations or, in the words of Louis Althusser, “the imaginary relationship of individuals with the real conditions of their existence, is not dominant in the sense of being forcibly imposed by the ruling classes, it is a pervasive and deliberate cultural influence that serves to interpret experience.” reality in a hidden but persistent way.

The theoretical work of a number of Marxist thinkers, especially Poulantzas and Althusser, contributed to the development of this approach, focusing attention on the ways in which capitalist relations are reproduced and legitimized according to the more or less voluntary consent of the working class itself. The tools for carrying out such work have emerged mainly from advances in semiology and structural analysis with their methods of isolating hidden meanings and underlying structures of meaning. The shift of theorists' attention from the economic reasons for the survival of capitalism to the ideological ones raised the prestige of mass communication among other "ideological state apparatuses" (Althusser's expression ) and led to a split in Marxist theory.

4.2.2. Frankfurt school

One of the first outstanding neo-Marxist schools was the Frankfurt School, which emerged in the 1930s. The most prominent representatives of this trend were the director of the Institute for Social Research, Max Horkheimer, and the authors of numerous theories, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse.

They were interested in the obvious failure of the revolutionary changes in society predicted by Marx and, trying to explain this failure, they began to analyze how the superstructure, especially in the form of the mass media, can influence historical processes.

Monopoly capital could only achieve this through universal, commercialized mass culture. The entire system of mass production of goods, services and ideas has, to a greater or lesser extent, contributed to the spread of the system of capitalism, along with its commitment to technical rationalism, consumerism, short-term gratification and the myth of “classlessness”. The product is the main ideological instrument of this process. The Frankfurt School argued that both man and class depend on generally accepted definitions, images and terms. Marcuse called the society created through the “cultural industry” “one-dimensional.”

Unlike most later forms of neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School combined critical theory with cultural issues. Considering the problems of the cultural functioning of mass communication, they remained committed to the Marxist postulate about the importance of the historical approach to the analysis of the factors determining social relations in society. The main blame for the ideologization of the economic basis in the interests of the ruling class was placed on the mass media. Mass production of cultural forms is also associated with the automation of society, when interpersonal contacts are weakened and feelings of social and moral solidarity are lost. It has been argued that stereotypical forms of culture can even change the psychological type of a person.

Adorno, who specialized in the theory and sociology of music and other arts, showed the destructive impact of media on the individual through the spread of stereotypes of mass culture, which lead to the unification of individual characteristics. In his opinion, the quality of reproduction of examples of high culture in the media is so low that it kills people’s desire to enjoy the originals. For example, recordings broadcast on the radio are not capable of adequately reproducing the sound of a “live” symphony orchestra, and reproductions of masterpieces of art in popular magazines or publications of literary works of world classics in a condensed, serial form are simply harmful. If cultural surrogates are readily available, too many people will become content with them and refuse to support higher forms of culture.

In its philosophy, the Frankfurt School tried to combine elements of a critical approach to bourgeois culture borrowed from Marx with the ideas of Hegelian dialectics and Freudian psychoanalysis. She was criticized for being too elitist and paternalistic.

In certain respects, the school's criticism of the media coincided with the ideas of the theory of mass society. From their point of view, the power of the media is aimed at preserving the existing order rather than changing it.

4.2.3. British cultural studies

Work carried out at the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham in the 1970s put the British school at the forefront of the field. British cultural studies combines Marxist theory with ideas and research methods drawn from a variety of sources - including literary criticism, linguistics, anthropology and history. This school attempted to trace elite dominance over culture in a historical context, criticize the social consequences of this dominance, and show that certain minorities and subcultures are still under the yoke of the elite. The elite's support for high culture and its disdain for popular, everyday forms of culture practiced by minorities were particularly harshly criticized.

The name of Stuart Hall is most closely associated with the activities of this school. Its influence has been particularly strong in a number of media studies that have directly challenged notions of limited effects and proposed innovative alternatives. In his opinion, mass media is better understood as a people's forum, in which various forces seek to instill in people their own ideas about social reality and demarcate the boundaries between different social worlds. The culture expressed in this forum is not a simple reflection of the superstructure, but the result of the dynamic interaction of conflicting groups. Elites, however, have many advantages in the struggle to shape their version of social reality, so opposing groups have to work hard.

Proponents of cultural studies argue that one cannot be a good social theorist without personally promoting reform. They actively participate in a variety of social movements - feminists, youth, racial and ethnic minorities, the British Labor Party faction. But this sometimes interferes with an objective analysis of the movement and its culture. As a rule, theorists of cultural studies are of little concern about this, because they deny objectivity and even question its necessity in social research. Their goal is to carry out research that furthers the goals of the movement, rather than serving the traditional goals of science.

In the book series Bad News and More Bad News et al., the Media Research Group at the University of Glasgow used a range of methods to study news about trade unions in England. The work of this Group exemplifies deep, long-term research into mass communications that makes extensive use of critical research methods. Content analysis was mainly carried out on BBC news. The findings were controversial, but convincing.

The group cited a range of evidence to support the claim that unions were systematically biased in news coverage. For example, almost all news stories about unions featured strikes, and typical television stories portrayed managers more positively than union members. However, two important criticisms were made about this study: 1) only those messages that did not meet their criteria were used for content analysis; 2) there was no attempt to find out whether viewers interpreted these messages in the same way as the Group. In other words, the Panel did not even consider it necessary to determine the degree of oppositional decoding.

4.3. News analysis

Although the question “what is news?” Journalists themselves consider it clearly metaphysical and difficult to answer, unless one resorts to intuition, “feeling” and inner conviction; attempts to answer it by analyzing the media give a certain positive result. The “founding fathers” of news sociology were professional journalists who used their experience to try to figure out the nature of news. Walter Lippman focused on the process of news gathering, by which he meant the search for “an objective clear signal of an event,” hence “news is not a mirror of society, but information about some aspect of it that has come to the fore.”1 This way, the audience is offered something noticeable (and worthy of attention) in the form of a standard information message. It is for this reason that the media maintain close contacts with law enforcement agencies, courts, hospitals, where the first signs of an event may appear.

The expansion of the range of communication research at the end of the last century was clearly manifested in the growth of scientific interest in the content of mass media. The genre has become the unit of content analysis, replacing the usual individual headlines, incentive calls and acts of violence. Genre is seen as a kind of "contract" whereby "directors", "actors" and "the public" tacitly agree on the production and consumption of cultural goods. Researchers focus on the institutions and organizations - from the record industry to the BBC - involved in the implementation of such “agreements”.

The term "genre" in common parlance simply means a type or type of an object. In the 19th century it has served to designate certain types of realist painting, but in literary criticism and film studies the term is usually used to mean any recognizable category or type of cultural commodity. In film theory, it is particularly ambiguous, because the creator’s own view of his work and its attribution to one genre or another often do not coincide. For most media content, the concept of genre is not particularly controversial because it is generally not associated with the question of artistic authorship and the term serves as a cue for the audience.

None of the proposed definitions of genre in journalism can be considered exhaustive. These can be “stable groups of publications, united by similar content and formal characteristics.” Or any category of content that has a distinctiveness that is recognized in relatively equal measure by its producers (media) and consumers (audience). This originality (or definition) depends on the purpose (for example, to inform, entertain, etc.), form (duration, pace, structure, language, etc.) and meaning (reliance on real facts) of the work.

Genres, as a rule, are established over time and have recognizable features. They preserve cultural forms, which, however, can also change and develop within the framework of the original genre. Each genre has a standard narrative structure or sequence of actions, is based on a predictable assortment of images, and includes several variations of basic themes.

In television journalism, the genre helps to find a form; it includes the entire range of artistic techniques, various combinations of image methods, artistic and musical design that contribute to the most effective disclosure of the topic. Genre is the specific means that helps all mass media to establish continuous and efficient production and relate their products to the expectations of its consumers. Since it (the genre) is also a practical means that allows an individual media user to plan his choice, it can be considered a mechanism for regulating relations between the two main participants in mass communication.

This view is supported by significant evidence from a study of the portrayal of terrorism on British television in news, documentaries, socio-political programs and drama series. The analysis is built around two conceptual oppositions: “open” image versus “closed” and “dense” versus “loose”. An open image allows room for multiple views on an issue (in their case, terrorism), including alternative or oppositional viewpoints. A closed image contains only the official, dominant or consensual opinion; the “dense” the plot, the more the viewer is inclined to the conclusion chosen by the author, editor or presenter of the program. Both parameters are interrelated but can operate independently, and both apply to both reality and fiction. Thus, television news is both “closed” and “dense”, while documentaries and feature programs are more diverse. However, the larger the audience for, say, fictional scenes of terrorism, the more “closed” and “dense” they can seem, thus merging with the “official” version of reality presented in the news.

The theory of genres, like practice, is constantly developing, changing and becoming more complex. Specific type logic associated with one means of communication penetrates into another. In the course of live interaction and modification of genres of various mass media, boundaries between genres are broken, new genres with their own characteristics are born4. For example, there is reason to believe that television entertainment (and advertising) has a major influence on the manner in which news is presented and the structure of news releases in general.

Any theory, notes N. Picor, must contain the following elements: assumption, explanation, ability to generalize and foresight. The theory must answer the main question “why?” It interprets the entire phenomenon, including what happens to it and around it. Theory draws on experience (observation) and then produces knowledge (explanation). In the process of research, a specific conceptual model is the result of an assessment of the situation (processes, context, understanding) and the assimilation of existing literature (constructs, theories, research findings). A new theory may emerge based on the development of such a model. The theory explains the nature of causal relationships, so it must be able to answer not only current questions, but also provide for the patterns of functioning of this phenomenon in the future.

There are a large number of theories, concepts and hypotheses of mass communications, which have different status and field of application for different authors. The American tradition provides the greatest number of examples. Although the development of American science, based on the systematic conduct of media research, in many theoretical sources is of European origin. We will look at 41 theories, based on the results of the study by J. Bryant and D. Miron, “Theories and Research in Mass Communication.” All of them are arranged in chronological order. Mention will be made here of sociological theoretical schools that have influenced the study of mass communications, general theories of mass communications and, finally, applied theories that address specific issues of influence on communication processes.

Chicago School: pragmatism. Founded by J. Dewey during his 10-year teaching at this university (1894-1904). D. Mead, J. Tufts, J. Angel, E. Ames and E. Moore united around him. After J. Dewey moved to Columbia University, this group of scientists worked under the leadership of J. Tufts. Pragmatists challenged idealism and metaphysics. Only that which is useful to people and gives practical results is true and valuable. Dewey was an evolutionist and an empiricist (his empiricism was individualistic and phenomenological in nature). He believed that human consciousness and thinking are determined by the content of practical actions. The second major legacy of the Chicago School, which made important contributions to media science, was humanism, which grew largely out of American journalism's emphasis on issues of social reform. Charles Maurice introduced semiotics and “neopragmatism” and worked closely with the Vienna Circle.

Vienna Circle: logical positivism. The circle of scientists and philosophers, organized by M. Schlick, began its activities in 1922

It included G. Bergman, F. Frank, R. Carnap, C. Godelier, F. Weissman, A. Nerath, G. Feigl and V. Kraft. The Vienna Circle also attracted K. Popper and L. Wittgenstein. The circle mainly focused on the logical analysis of scientific knowledge. Contrasting science to philosophy, logical positivists believed that the only possible thing was scientific knowledge. The subject of philosophy should be speech, primarily the language of science. Representatives of this direction argued that knowledge has only two sources: logic and empirical experience. The Vienna Circle disintegrated after the occupation of Austria by the Nazis in 1938. Many of its members, including thanks to close collaboration with Charles Morris, emigrated to the United States. Until the 1950s Logical positivism was the most influential movement in the philosophy of science.

Frankfurt School: neo-Marxism. It was founded by F. Weil at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in 1923. It included: M. Horkheimer, F. Pollock, K. Grunberg, T. Adorno, G. Marcuse, E. Fromm, K. Landaver, A. Kirchheimer Yu. Habermas Representatives of the Frankfurt School introduced the concept of social philosophy and methodologically expanded the scope of Marxist ideology, correcting its dogmatism. The Institute for Social Research left Germany with Hitler's rise to power and worked for a long time in Geneva, London, Paris, and since 1936 - in the USA. The Frankfurt School is famous for developing a method of analysis called critical theory, which seeks to uncover hidden power relationships within a cultural phenomenon. Other advances include theories of cultural hegemony and the authoritarian personality. In 1950 the Institute returned to Germany.

Birmingham School (British Cultural Studios). She worked at the Center for Contemporary Cultural Research at the University of Birmingham, founded by R. Gogtarth and S. Goll in 1963-1964. The main representatives, R. Williams, D. Gebdige, A. McRobin, created a metatheoretical framework using Marxism and political economy, post-structuralism, critical theory and feminism. They borrowed their methodological tools from sociology, history, ethnography, and media studios (including text and audience studies). The Birmingham School's theoretical contributions span sociological and philosophical perspectives in culture, linguistics and semiotics. its representatives were especially interested in mass media issues, which was reflected, in particular, in the development of the concept of media imperialism. The Birmingham School views audience interpretation and youth movements as forms of opposition to dominant ideology.

Marxism (1844). Based on historical materialism and political economy. Forms the basis of many theories of mass communication. History itself is interpreted as the history of class struggle. Progressive classes arise in connection with the development of new forms of production. Therefore, new social forms are closely related to the victory of these classes, which usually results from revolutionary violence. This happens because the ruling class never gives up power without a fight. The state is the means by which the ruling class maintains power over other classes by force. K. Marx proposed the political doctrine of communism, conceived as the elimination of class division and the struggle to make the state the owner of production products, which were consumed by all citizens equally according to the principle: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. The USSR was the first historical experiment in Marxist communism.

Psychoanalytic Theory (1909). 3. Freud was the first to use the term “psychoanalysis” in 1902. He interpreted mental disorders not as a consequence of physiological or chemical problems, but problems with the subconscious. The unconscious appears in Foyd as the sphere of primary instincts, primarily sexual drives. This is also a system of the psyche, which consists of: It (a set of unconscious drives-instincts) I (Ego) Super-Ego (Super-Ego), which is formed under the influence of family and then holistic cultural upbringing. For the id, the most important thing is the opportunity to discharge the excitement, the sexual energy that accumulates in it. This can threaten a person’s psyche, influence behavior, and cause neurosis. However, through protective mechanisms (sublimation), sexual energy can be transformed into spiritual and creative energy. The theory of psychoanalysis has been developed by many authors. It is projected onto philosophy, cultural studies, political science, and mass communications studies.

Behaviorism (1913). It arises as a methodological reaction in psychology, stimulated by scientific objectivism, as opposed to the interpretive (speculative) direction represented by psychoanalysis. It was introduced as a theory of learning and acquisition of new behaviors. J. Watson was a supporter of methodological behaviorism. He said that only behavior can be studied objectively, while thought processes cannot. Therefore, the latter do not fall into the category at all scientific research. Behaviorism ignored motivation and the mental type of action as the basis for its implementation. B. Skinner developed Watson's ideas and proposed a theory that describes achievements in behavior as associative learning from experience (the consequences of previous reactions to environmental stimuli). It was heavily influenced by the social sciences, especially education and sociology, and was also very much in tune with the principles of communication.

Functionalism (1915). The French sociologist E. Durkheim was one of the founders of structural functionalism. He explored the connections between the facts of social life, social structures, cultural norms and values, and face. Functionalism spread to Great Britain thanks to the efforts of anthropologists at the beginning of the 20th century, and in the 50s and 60s pp. became the dominant movement in American theory. The cornerstone of functionalism is the metaphor of a living organism, all of whose parts and organs are organized into a single system. A similar view exists on society, social institutions and the people who are members of this society. R. Merton and P. Lazarsfeld most recently applied the ideas of functionalism in the study of mass communication. They examined media use as a function of knowledge acquisition, which is influenced by social structures. They were also particularly interested in propaganda and influencing mass beliefs through the media.

General semantics (1919). The founder of the theory is the Polish scientist A. Korzybski, who emigrated to the USA after the First World War and worked at the University of Chicago. Studied the so-called semantic reactions of a person to information coming from the environment. Korzybski believed that the ability to communicate is the essence of man. The theory includes three principles: the map is not the territory (words have many meanings); the map depicts only part of the territory (any statement is polyphonic) maps of maps of condensed territory (the overall picture consists of the study, assimilation and generalization of many pictures, impressions and information on the same topic). Otherwise, instead of understanding the whole problem, we will get a mosaic of secondary matters. That is, there is a threat of losing understanding of the essence due to false adherence to rhetoric, which always tries to present the matter one-sidedly.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development (1921). The basic concept of the Swiss psychologist J. Piaget is known as “genetic epistemology.” He left an empirically based theory of the growth of an individual's knowledge from childhood to adulthood, presented in the form of a progressive construction of logically introduced structures, replacing each other in the process of sequential inclusion of the lowest logical value in the higher one. According to how a child grows, he enters into the process of socialization and goes through several stages. Piaget distinguishes four stages of intelligence development: the sensorimotor period, the operational stage, the stages of concrete operations and formal operations. Piaget's theory has made valuable contributions to the development of artificial intelligence and computer science, contributed to the study of child development, influencing educational reforms, and created a platform for research into mass communication with children.

The theory of mass society (1930s pp.). It was a natural response to rapid industrialization, atomization and individualization. The mass of isolated individuals has lost the cultural ties between its members, has a traditional society, is disoriented and easily succumbs to various manipulative influences of the media. But there is also a cultural “elite” that must lead these “masses”.

Symbolic interactionism (1934). It originates from the works of the German sociologist M. Weber and the American philosopher D. Mead. The name of the theory was proposed by G. Blumer (1969). For interactionists, people are pragmatic actors who constantly adjust their behavior to the actions of other actors. We can accommodate these actions only because we are willing to provide meanings for them, interpret them as symbolic objects, and mentally rehearse alternative courses of action before we even do them. Interactionist theorists view people as active participants who construct their own social world. Therefore, society serves as a model of such interaction between individuals. Symbolic interactionism put forward a methodology for the study of interpersonal communication and the sociology of communication in general, which, however, was criticized for being unsystematic and “impressionistic.”

Two-step communication movement (Two-step flow, 1940). Empirical studies of the 1940-1950s pp. disproved theories of strong media influences. Functionalist P. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues suggested that personal communication with public opinion leaders acts as an intermediary link in media influences. This model was subsequently used by innovation diffusion theorists.

Attribution theory (1944). The founder of this theory was the social psychologist F. Heider. The subject of attribution theory is the mechanism by which people explain their behavior. This concerns the information they use in making causal connections and what they do with that information to answer the question about causation. External attribution draws attention to forces that are beyond a person's control and therefore does not feel responsible (example: the weather). Internal attribution connects causality with the actual human factors that make choices, and therefore a sense of responsibility (for example, intelligence). In general, people tend to attribute their successes to internal factors and attribute their failures to the influence of external forces. Examples of external and internal attribution of a certain person are manifested through her self-positioning in the group of people with whom she is associated.

Linear Models (1946). Early models of mass communication processes were based on the uncontrolled movement of information from communicators through media to the audience. G. Lasswell (1948) proposed a model that has become a classic example of mass communications research: who reports? What? through the channel? to whom? with what effect? The following theorizing focuses on individual segments and aspects of the thus defined process.

The theory of four functions (1948). G. Lasswell (1948, 1960) suggested that the media perform three main social functions: monitoring current events (news production), interaction between members of society (selecting, interpreting and criticizing current events), transmitting social heritage (socialization). C. Wright (1960) added a fourth function: entertainment.

Cybernetics. General systems theory (1948). The father of cybernetics, mathematician N. Wiener, described random networks that underlie communication and organization of processes in dynamic systems. Cybernetics forms a metatheoretical superstructure for specific disciplines such as systems theory, communication theory, or decision analysis. The achievements of cybernetics as an auxiliary discipline are also applied in other sciences.

Shannon and Weaver's (1949) mathematical theory of media. The mathematical theory of communication, proposed by K. Shannon and W. Weaver, describes communication as a linear process, including the source of information, the message, the transmitter (technological), the signal, the noise that distorts the signal during its transmission through the media, the recipient (technological), the transmitted message and destination (person).

Gatekeeper model, 1950. The term belongs to D. Bytovye, who called one of the editors, whose activities he researched, “Mr. Gates.” Byte assesses the work of the "goalkeeper" as extremely subjective and comes to the conclusion that the personal motivations of the goalkeeper are most responsible for the selection of news. However, later studies showed that the main factors are those that influence it from the outside. At the first stage, journalists and reporters collect “raw” news, at the second this material is selected and reduced by Gatekeepers, who, because of this selective control, literally make the news. In addition to their subjectivity, bureaucratic, commercial, and political control are taken into account. There is also the concept of news values - news values, an informal code used to produce news. This is not the prerogative of individual journalists, but a standard of corporate style and professional ideology.

Mediation theory of meaning (1952). Ch. Osud argued that meaning plays a mediating role in shaping human behavior in response to external stimuli. First, a person reacts to the sound of thunder with his receptors. She then relates this sound to her experience (what it might mean and what the consequences might be). And only after that it seeks shelter from the rain. Together with his colleagues, Ch. Osud empirically developed a semantic differential as a means of objectively measuring meaning. Three basic dimensions were established: score (is this good or bad for me?), Strength (is this stronger or weaker than me?), and activity (is this faster or slower than me?). Osud believed that these three emotional reactions (dimensions of affect) are universal and are a means to open up semantic space. He also studied how people achieve consistency or consistency in their evaluations of certain problems and other people.

Four Theories of the Press (1956). In normative theory, F. Siebert, W. Schramm and T. Peterson describe four main types of press that have become classic. They reveal the logic of the functioning of four press macrostructures that belong to different socio-systems. The authoritarian model presupposes the loyalty of the press to the authorities; journalists do not have independence from their media organizations. A free press operates in a free market of ideas; journalists and media professionals are independent. The social responsibility model assumes that the free market has failed to deliver on freedom of the press. Emphasizes the important role of media in society and high professional standards. QMS must self-regulate. According to the Soviet (totalitarian) press, it is completely subordinated to the state and the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Freedom of speech and professional independence are not considered here.

Cognitive dissonance theory (1957). This theory by L. Festinger states that people try to coordinate their behavior with their own views and the views of other people. During a conflict between beliefs and actions, the individual adjusts the cognitive component to eliminate its inconsistency. In an effort to eliminate dissonance, one may change one's behavior, attitude, or seek new thoughts about what is causing the dissonance.

Dominant paradigm (1950s). Another name is the paradigm, or theory, of modernization. It was popular in developed Western countries after World War II. In this perspective, development was viewed as a type of natural social change if productive methods were introduced into the social system of a certain country social organization. This was facilitated by the strengthening of the Western countries themselves, the success of the Marshall Plan, the emergence of post-colonial states, the spread of communist ideology, Western liberal-capitalist thinking, which was based on Darwinism, functionalism and M. Weber’s theories of social and economic change, as well as the results of quantitative research in the social sciences. That is, developing countries must introduce the Western social model. Local characteristics were not taken into account, which required solving a different order of cultural, economic and political problems.

Lerner's modernization theory (1958). D. Lerner applied the results of ethnographic research in the Middle East, which confirmed the destruction of traditional culture and at the same time the promotion of the spread of a modern way of life as a consequence of the introduction and influence of radio. This theory was the basis for modernization policies in Third World countries, in which mass media were used to promote desired changes. In the same context, E. Rogers (1962) also focused on the problem of diffusion of innovations, adaptation of positive changes and development of the social system. V. Schramm, in his influential work “Mass Media and National Development,” noted the role of the media as an agent of social change in developing countries. Social change was viewed primarily as a unidirectional, top-down process. Schramm believed that social change is the cumulative result of changes occurring in individuals.

Uses and gratifications theory (1959). The official birth of this theory is associated with B. Berelson's statement that communication research seems to be dead, and E. Katz's response - research should move from finding out what the media does to people (persuasion) to what people do to media. The theory states that each audience member, based on his own differences, selects different messages for himself, in different ways and reacts to them differently, since the information itself coming from the media is only one of many social and psychological factors that determine the choice on the part of the consumer . This means that the individual social and psychological characteristics of audience members determine the influence of mass media in the same way as the media information itself. Therefore, consumers' selection of programs, films, newspapers, etc. to satisfy certain own needs is an active process.

Theory of Diffusion of Innovations (1962). According to this theory, any innovation (idea, technique, technology) spreads in society according to a certain predictable pattern. E. Rogers addresses the role of media and interpersonal communications (opinion leaders), as well as the characteristics of innovations that influence the speed of their assimilation (comparative advantage, compatibility, low complexity, testability, reviewability). Influenced by the theory of linear models of communication, Rogers formulated a sequence of steps in the diffusion process: knowledge, beliefs, decisions, implementation, confirmation. It distinguishes between innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%). In the field of mass communications, the theory of diffusion of innovations is used in studies of the process of assimilation of new technologies and the spread of news. Also used in many other industries.

The addiction paradigm (1960s). It arose in the countries of the “third world” as the antithesis of the theory of modernization. Considered development from the point of view of post-colonial countries, which must unite to solve common (including economic and media) problems. Associated with anti-imperialist rhetoric of neo-Marxism and structuralism. The disadvantage is the overestimation of external and underestimation of internal (corruption, etc.) causes of development anomalies.

McLuhan's theory of expansion of sensation (1964). It is also called “The Theory of Technological Determinism”. M. McLuhan viewed media as an extension of human feelings. In his opinion, the main influences of media are due to form more than content. McLuhan argued that the medium itself is the message and distinguished between “hot” and “cold” media. The former expand one sense of a degree of high certainty, that is, fullness of data. This is radio, television, books. they are characterized by a low degree of audience participation. Cold media is characterized by a high degree of consumer participation or personal completion of what they are missing. These tools only provide a form to the audience and require a lot of personal input (telephone) to function. When a medium overheats, it changes into another medium. Cold media are technologies of the tribe (they draw people in), while hot media are technologies of civilization (they exclude them).

The Social Construction of Reality (1966). Austrian sociologists P. Berger (emigrated to the USA) and T. Luckmann argued: reality is socially constructed and the sociology of knowledge must analyze the processes by which this happens. People create their own social environment together. The specific nature of a person presupposes its sociality. Any human activity is learned, that is, assimilated and becomes a model for subsequent implementation. Thanks to the distribution of labor and innovation, the road will always be open for others to accept the generally accepted one. The next step is institutionalization. This is a consequence of the mutual typification of the actions taken by various actors. Institutions provide for historicity and control. We qualify the institutional world as an objective reality. According to the mass media, they play an important role (mainly through news and entertainment) in the processes of inclusion, institutionalization and stabilization of social systems.

Cultivation Theory (1969). D. Gerbner and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania believed that people are drawn into the cultural environment created by the media and cannot escape the influence they have “cultivated.” This theory begins with a research program on media violence called the Cultural Indicators Project. The main statement of the cultivation theory is that the more time the viewer spends in front of the TV, the more his perception of the world approaches the image that he sees on the screen. Depending on certain characteristics of television viewers, the cultivation effect may be greater or less pronounced. Research has shown that the worldview of consumers with a high level of education is less influenced by television reality. Key concepts: television as the main provider of images; mainstream; resonance; interaction; complex psychological processes.

Knowledge gap theory (1970). The theory of P. Tichenor, G. Donahue and K. Olien states that part of the population with a higher socioeconomic status tends to acquire information at a much faster rate than those with a lower status. Moreover, this difference between both groups tends to constantly increase. The knowledge gap is widening due to technological advances.

Media Hegemony (1971). The concepts of cultural/media imperialism or hegemony (A. Gramsci) are associated with the Marxist theory of economic determinism, reinterpreted by the Frankfurt School. Media hegemony theorists argue that a class that has economic power uses not only politics (ideology, government structures) but also culture (science, art, education, public communication) as a means of controlling an entire society. The concept of media imperialism also expresses the belief of anti-colonial ideologues that the cultural institutions spread throughout the world by the West (including the media) continue to be used in those countries that have gained independence as a tool for controlling public opinion, social, economic and political practices. Serving the government as a function of the media was formulated in opposition to the "watchdog" function and the free market of ideas.

Agenda-setting, 1972. B. Cohen said that the press could not be successful if it only told people what to think, but it is amazingly successful because it tells its readers what to think. Agenda research was initiated by M. McCombs and D. Shaw, who conducted longitudinal analyzes of media content to determine the influence of the political agenda on the media agenda. More recent research has focused on the questions: who defines it, whose it is, by what technique, at what time interval the main provisions move from one scene to another, what factors are important for each arena. The main factors that are important for each arena and the techniques by which the agenda is built are studied. J. Dearing and E. Rogers consider it a way of a kind of competition between those who want to achieve the attention of media professionals, the public and political elites.

Spiral of Silence (1973). E. Noel-Neuman noted: those who do not find their opinion in mass communication remain silent. This theory explains why people are reluctant to publicly express their views, hide their views, or change their positions when they are a minority in a certain group. Here are the main positions of the theory: first, people try to find out about the dominant public opinion; they are generally willing to adapt to it; people are afraid of being isolated; they hesitate to express views that would classify them as a minority. People distinguish for themselves the time when they can speak and when they must remain silent. This creates opportunities for manipulation, since only one side is represented. The media has a lot of power. According to E. Noel-Neumann, they can even present the majority as a minority. Television not only conveys public opinion, it also creates it.

Social learning (1973). A. Bandura's research on children's learning aggressive behavior led him to develop the theory of social learning from the experiences of others. This observational learning, described by Bandura, has become prominent in theories of learning about media effects (positive and negative). It explains behavior through the interaction of three types of factors: cognitive, behavioral and environmental. Cognitive abilities include symbolism, self-regulation, and self-reflection. In the process of social learning, a person relies on the ability to substitute, observe, model, motivate, and abstractly model. When an individual perceives information, it can influence him in the form of restraining or permissive factors. This theory is widely used to theoretically substantiate various information campaigns and study the influence of scenes of violence in the media.

Framing Theory (1974). The main assumption of E. Goffman's theory indicates that the context leads our actions, behavior and understanding. Frames are cognitive structures that guide our perceptions and representations of social reality. These are unique rules of the game that can evolve. In media, these are the principles of selection - codes of emphasis, interpretation and presentation. Media producers typically use them to organize media products and discourses, verbal and visual. In this context, media frames enable news journalists, for example, to process and format large amounts of varied information quickly and in a standardized manner. They are very important in encoding media texts and decoding them by the audience. As a research methodology, framing analysis examines a set of specific aspects of issues, images, stereotypes, metaphors, style, composition, etc. that are used to hint at a specific answer.

Media Addiction (1976). The theory of S. Bol-Roquechaux and M. de Fleur states that the more an individual or population relies on the media to have certain answers to their questions, the greater their dependence on the media. Any unpredictable change in the social environment, which entails worries about matters that are important to everyone, will be due to increased interest in media, which will only increase anxiety.

Alternative paradigm (1970s). Pluralistic perspective: Each society, region or group must find its own path to development. Struggles for civil rights and peace, environmental and feminist movements in industrialized countries, liberal and national movements in communist and developing countries. Communication requires diversity, deinstitutionalization, locality. It was criticized for being utopian.

Feminist media theory (1970s). Mainly influences media culture studios. It comes from the fact that the media, in their socialization function (through the repetition of gender roles and strengthening of stereotypes), distort the role of women in society. In particular, the media have always traditionally represented a woman’s place at home and assigned her secondary roles in all spheres of life. Feminist media theory also extends to challenging the view that women's experiences in society—historically, culturally, and factually—are sufficiently different from men's experiences. This follows from the fact that the media is controlled by men or, if this is not the case, female audiences are still viewed through the prism of certain male values. This, of course, should be changed. Feminist motives are often reflected in other theories of cultural studies, mainly on the left.

Third Person Effect Theory (1983). V. Davison proved that people tend to overestimate the influence of media on other people, while underestimating these influences in relation to themselves. The term "third party" comes from the expectation that the media will not have a strong impact on "me" (the first party) or "you" (the second party), but will have a "them" - the third party. The theory consists of two parts. The first is the mentioned individual assumptions. The second contains a behavioral component: people's expectations about the effects of media on others incline them to take certain actions, perhaps because they want to thwart those perceived effects. That is, we have an intuitive appeal to the third-person effect. Such decisions are influenced by the desirability or undesirability of a message, social distance, personal and group differences. In some cases, a person recognizes the influence of media on himself, considering it socially desirable. Then we are talking about the so-called. first person effect.

Normative theories by McCpaill (1987). D. McQuail added two more to the classic “four theories of the press”: development and democratic participation. The first emphasizes the specific features of developing countries, including: the lack of infrastructure, professional skills, production and cultural resources, a specific audience, necessary for the development of a mass communication system, and a lack of awareness of the need for independent media. Preference is given to horizontal communications. The state legitimizes the possibility of censorship; journalists must be loyal to the government. The main idea of the second is the interests and needs of the active recipient of messages, in particular regarding the rights to quality information and response. QMS should be used for interaction in small communities, in the interests of the group and subculture. The theory rejects centralization, commercialization and bureaucratization, focusing on interactivity, access to media, and broad participation.

Propaganda Model (1988). E. Herman and N. Chomsky in their theory proceed from the fact that in countries with a market economy the media do not have freedom, but only serve the ruling elite. There are five filters through which news passes before reaching the audience. These are property (the interests of big capital), advertising (the main source of income), power (newsmaking by the bureaucracy), legal pressure on the media (lawsuits, bills, statements, etc.), anti-communism (focusing only on the victims of enemies). Therefore, American QMSs emerge as effective and influential ideological institutions that perform the function of propaganda support for the market system without any special coercion. their activities are sanctioned by consent within the power elite. Later, E. Herman clarified that this is not a conspiracy theory as such, the propaganda model represents a “controlled market system.”

Priming theory (1991). Related to cognitive research. It provides that concepts are interconnected in some way, combined into certain mental structures, so that if one concept is activated, all the others are activated. The effect of priming (preliminary preparation of the audience) depends on: the individual’s assessment of the situation; the justification, from his point of view, of the violence he saw; degree of identification with the character; reality of events; connection with previous experience. The priming effect is considered as one of the aspects of large mental models that make up a certain set of an individual’s knowledge about the world, his memories, impressions, and feelings. It is not always realized by a person. There are several concepts that explain it. These are the basket (topical) models, the battery (activation frequency) and the synoptic model (recent impressions have a stronger and short-term impact).

Media Literacy. This theory posits that audiences, through the acquisition of specialized knowledge, can learn to resist unhealthy media addiction and have their own views on media messages. It formed the basis of a broad educational policy in the United States, where there is a significant gap in knowledge between different social groups. Although scholars note that the purpose of media literacy is to enable individuals to control (understand and interpret) media programming, media literacy comes not so much from specific manipulative threats as from the danger of a person’s disorientation in the face of a flood of information. The Special National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy, sponsored by the 1992 Aspen Institute, emphasized that it is about the "citizen's ability" to use mass information. In Ukraine, B. Potyatinik works in this direction (media philosophy, media criticism, media ecology).

Luhmann's theory of self-reference (1996). It is a derivative of system theory, which N. Luhmann contrasted with critical theory. As a conservative, he was in opposition to representatives of the Frankfurt School (T. Adorno, J. Habermas). Everything we know about our society and even about the world we know from the media. The main principle of the existence of media is self-healing (autopoiesis). The theory considers two realities of mass media: the first is based on their functionality, the second they create themselves. Media works through the interaction of self-reference and other-reference. A person must distinguish an individual's perception of reality from others through his own contribution to communication. Luhmann distinguishes between first-order observations (observation of objects) and second-order observations (observation of observations). Mass media belongs to the second. They guide the process of self-observation of modern society.

Work carried out at the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham in the 1970s put the British school at the forefront of the field. British cultural studies combines Marxist theory with ideas and research methods drawn from a variety of sources - including literary criticism, linguistics, anthropology and history. This school attempted to trace the dominance of the elite over culture in a historical context, to criticize the social consequences of this dominance and to show that certain minorities and subcultures were still under the yoke of the elite. The elite's support for high culture and its disdain for popular, everyday forms of culture practiced by minorities were particularly harshly criticized.

The name of Stuart Hall is most closely associated with the activities of this school. 1 . Its influence has been particularly strong in a number of media studies that have directly challenged notions of limited effects and proposed innovative alternatives. In his opinion, the mass media are better understood as a popular forum in which various forces seek to instill in people their own ideas about social reality and demarcate the boundaries between different social worlds. The culture expressed in this forum is not a simple reflection of the superstructure, but the result of the dynamic interaction of conflicting groups. Elites, however, have many advantages in the struggle to shape their version of social reality, so opposing groups have to work hard.

Proponents of cultural studies argue that one cannot be a good social theorist without personally promoting reform. They actively participate in a variety of social movements - feminists, youth, racial and ethnic minorities, and the British Labor Party faction. But this sometimes interferes with an objective analysis of the movement and its culture. As a rule, theorists of cultural studies are of little concern about this, because they deny objectivity and even question its necessity in social research. Their goal is to carry out research that furthers the goals of the movement, rather than serving the traditional goals of science.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Cheremushkina Elena Fedorovna. Origins and formation of the British "Cultural Research" project: dissertation... candidate of cultural studies: 24.00.01 / Cheremushkina Elena Fedorovna; [Place of protection: Mord. state University named after N.P. Ogarev].- Saransk, 2009.- 148 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 09-24/81

Introduction

CHAPTER 1. ORIGINS OF “CULTURAL STUDIES” IN BRITISH CULTURAL THOUGHT OF THE 19th-20th CENTURIES. 13

1.1. “19th century: the opposition “high” / “low” culture in the works of S. T. Coleridge and M. Arnold 13

1.2. 20th century: cultural concept of representatives of British literary modernism (T.S. Eliot and F.R. Leavis) 31

CHAPTER II. FROM “LITERARY STUDIES” TO “CULTURAL STUDIES (LATE 1950S-1960S) 66

2.1. R. Hoggart as founder of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Research 66

2.2. The concept of “ordinary culture” by R. Williams 83

2.3. "History from Below" by E. P. Thompson: Popular Culture in the Context of Class Relations 106

CONCLUSION 121

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST 127

Introduction to the work

Many academic humanities disciplines (history, philosophy, literary studies, etc.) have long defined their own interests and boundaries. However, in recent decades there has been a renewed interest in interdisciplinary cultural studies, and an area of intellectual activity has emerged that provides new insight into the diversity of human cultures and reveals new perspectives. This is due to the fact that the term “culture” itself has a complex history and a wide scope of application, which provides a legitimately determined area of study for several academic disciplines at once. In our country, cultural studies has become such an integrative field, defined as an independent scientific and academic discipline in the mid-1990s. In Britain, such integration of social humanitarian knowledge in the field of cultural studies are "Cultural Studies" ("Cultural Studies".

Cultural Studies, abbreviated as CS). “Cultural studies is not understood as a separate social or humanitarian discipline, but as a certain disciplinary field, within which the methods of a very wide range of disciplines are applicable - from sociology and ethnography to history and literary and artistic criticism,” writes A. Erofeev.

In 1964, the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies (BCCS) was created, which marked the beginning of the development of this direction, which today has become one of the main ones in the study of culture - both in the English-speaking world and beyond. According to A. R. Usmanova, today “Cultural Studies” “has turned into a huge cultural research industry for the reproduction of living... force, which has covered with its influence almost all Anglo-Saxon universities (from South Africa to Canada), as well as the rest of the world. .." .

Relevance of the research topic. It is obvious that the role of research in the field of culture especially increases during destabilizing periods of social development, the consequence of which, as a rule, is the marginalization of not only individuals, but also entire social groups that lose their social identity due to sudden changes in the socio-economic structure of society.

The events taking place in our country over the past two decades have clearly shown the importance of the influence of cultural factors on socio-political and economic life. Declaring the intention to build a democratic society does not automatically eliminate attempts to manipulate mass consciousness. Transformational processes in the post-Soviet space lead to axiological chaos, confusion of values, and therefore to the need to build and transmit new cultural patterns, codes, lifestyles, as well as the need to study them.

Culturological knowledge contributes to understanding and rethinking the relationship between cultural traditions and innovations, the role of norms and values, patterns and modes of behavior, and allows, through inculturation, to keep society within the framework of positive social existence. The British Cultural Studies project has accumulated vast experience in both empirical research into cultural processes and theoretical conceptualization of culture.

The relevance of the research topic is thus determined by the following factors.

Firstly, the need to master and critically comprehend the experience of world social and humanitarian knowledge for the development of cultural disciplines and cultural education in our country, to overcome tendencies towards self-isolation from cognitive approaches and concepts that are used in foreign science.

Secondly, the need to overcome the widespread in cultural thought of the 19th-20th centuries. the opposition of “culture” and “civilization”, based on the reduction of the first exclusively to spiritual values and the dismissive interpretation of the second as a “lower”, inferior sphere of material, technical-technological and technical-communicative practice, in the formation of a systematic view of culture, allowing us to see in it a complex interaction and the integral unity of material and spiritual forms of activity, as well as the syncretic artistic activity that unites them.

The degree of scientific development of the problem. Understanding the history of the formation and development of the Cultural Research project occupies a significant place in English-language literature.

A general overview of the theory and practice of British "Cultural Studies" is presented in the works of Barker, M. Green, J. Storey, Hall and others.

The evolution of Cultural Studies in the United States and other countries is analyzed by J.W. Carrie, A. O'Connor et al.

Problems of the development of popular and mass culture are considered by English-speaking theorists T. Bennett, D. W. Brogan, D. A. Drake, R. Johnson, J. Fiske, D. Hobson, M. Shayek, I. Shils, as well as domestic researchers A V. Avramov, K. Z. Akopyan, G. K. Ashin, O. Yu. Birichevskaya, N. I. Kiyashchenko, A. V. Kukarkin, G. I. Markova, V. V. Molchanov, K. E. . Razlogov and others. The phenomena of elite culture and European aestheticism are analyzed by Yu. N. Davydov, N. I. Kiyashchenko, I. V. Klyueva and others.

In Russian science, the origins and formation of the British “Cultural Research” project have not yet been the subject of special analysis.

Mastering the experience of this area of humanitarian knowledge in our country began in the 1990s. “Now... in Russia the discussion is just beginning about what cultural studies and cultural studies actually are,” emphasizes A. Erofeev.

An important role in this direction was played by the Center for the Sociology of Culture of Kazan State University, which published the works of a number of contemporary representatives of British “Cultural Studies”.

There are works devoted to individual representatives and predecessors of “Cultural Studies”, in which they are considered from the perspective of various branches of social and humanitarian knowledge.

S. T. Kolride/s is interested in domestic science exclusively as a poet (A. A. Elistratova), his cultural views were not the subject of special analysis.

There is a large number of literary works devoted to various aspects of T. Eliot’s work (A. A. Astvatsaturov, Y. V. Lyubivy, O. M. Ushakova, etc.). A literary analysis of M. Arnold's work is presented in the dissertation of O. B. Vainshtein. The cultural concept of F. R. Leavis is considered by T. N. Krasavchenko.

An analysis of the historical and cultural works of E. P. Thompson is presented by S. V. Obolenskaya. Brief mentions of him can be found in the works of historians D. A. Model, as well as V. V. Sogrin, G. I. Zvereva and L. P. Repina.

R. Williams attracts the greatest attention from domestic researchers. One of the first to outline the significance of his works for modern cultural studies and sociology was S. A. Erofeev, who wrote in 1997: “... it is necessary to emphasize the significance of the work of the outstanding British historian, literary critic and Marxist sociologist Raymond Williams, with whom the domestic reader is practically unfamiliar, but whose interpretation of the history and basic meanings of the concept of "culture" played a large role in modern development theoretical concepts of culture". A general overview of the problems of Williams's work is presented in the articles by D. V. Galkin, A. R. Usmanova. His concept of mass communications, primarily television, is discussed in the publications of E.N. Shapinskaya.

The research hypothesis represents a set of the following scientific assumptions: “Cultural studies” in Britain are associated with the intellectual tradition of the 19th century (line of conservative liberalism: T. Coleridge, M. Arnold) and 20th century. (conservative-enlightenment positions: anti-liberal (T. Eliot) and liberal (F. R. Leavis), which are characterized by antidemocratism, elitism, literary centrism, critical pathos. In the second half of the 20th century, the young generation of intellectuals (R. Hoggart, R. Williams, E.P. Thompson) radically reconsiders not only the relationship between elite, popular and mass culture, making the everyday experience and consciousness of representatives of the English working class the center of his attention, but also the very concept of culture, understanding it not as the highest achievements of geniuses, but as "lifestyle" of ordinary people.

The object of study is British Cultural Studies.

The subject of the study is the origins and formation of the British “Cultural Research” project.

The purpose of the study is to identify the origins and develop a panorama of the formation of the British “Cultural Research” project.

In accordance with the purpose of the study, it poses two sets of tasks:
1. Tasks related to identifying the theoretical origins of “Cultural Studies” in the British intellectual tradition of the 19th-20th centuries: to consider the opposition “high” / “low” culture in the works of English thinkers of the 19th century. T. Coleridge and M. Arnold; analyze the cultural views of representatives of modernist literary criticism of the 20th century. T. Eliot and F.R. Leavis.

2. Tasks related to the analysis of the works of the founders of British “Cultural Studies”: to determine the sociocultural reasons for the emergence of the Birmingham Center for “Cultural Studies” and to characterize the cultural concept of its founder R. Hoggart; present a model of the concept of “everyday culture” by R. Williams; consider the principle of “history from below” in E. P. Thompson’s studies of working-class culture.

Research methodology. The research methodology is based on a combination of biographical and interdisciplinary approaches.

It is carried out at the intersection of cultural studies (theory, philosophy and cultural history), literary studies, social history and sociology, on the basis of fundamental theoretical principles obtained by world and domestic science on this issue. The work uses ideas developed by such outstanding thinkers as M. M. Bakhtin, X. Ortega y Gasset, as well as modern researchers A. Erofeev, L. G. Ionin, N. I. Kiyashchenko, E. N. Shapinskaya , A. R. Usmanova, etc.

An integrative, comprehensive approach allows you to apply the knowledge gained from various humanities to solving the problems posed in this study.

The dissertation proceeds from the principle of biographical and sociocultural determination of creativity, which involves taking into account the semantic horizon, the subjective experience of representatives of British “Cultural Studies” and their predecessors when analyzing their works.

The author applies scientific methods that are adequate to the complex of tasks determined by the subject and purpose of the study: comparative-historical, which makes it possible to consider the various stages and stages of the evolution of the paradigm of British “Cultural Studies”; historical-genetic, which allows us to identify successive connections in this process; historical and logical reconstruction, with the help of which the concepts of culture of the authors in question are reconstructed.

Analytical and interpretive, which makes it possible to consider the concepts of representatives of British “Cultural Studies” and their predecessors from the perspective of modern cultural studies; The work also used a complex of general scientific methods: abstraction, concretization, analysis and synthesis, analogy, induction and deduction.

The source base of the work was made up of the works of the founders of the British “Cultural Studies” project (R. Hoggart, R. Williams, E. P. Thompson) and their predecessors (S. T. Coleridge, M. Arnold, T. Eliot, F. R. Leavis ).

Scientific novelty of the work. The dissertation is one of the first studies of the stated topic in Russian cultural studies. It is the first to analyze the origins of British “Cultural Studies” in the 19th-20th centuries, and provides a general description of the texts fundamental to this project from the late 1950s - 1960s. Most of the analyzed texts were not published in Russian.

The following provisions are submitted for defense: In the 19th century. The origins of British Cultural Studies were:
1) romantic critical analysis industrialism in the works of T. Coleridge, which separated “civilization,” which belongs to the nation as a whole, and “cultivation,” which belongs to the humanitarian intelligentsia (“clerisy”) - a small minority that ensures the advancement of civilization; 2) criticism of modern civilization by M. Arnold, who believed that the “high culture” of the elite (the ability to know the best; everything that is best; following the best) is called upon to suppress the anarchy of the working class (“low culture”) through the system of education and enlightenment.

In the 20th century, the origins of British “Cultural Studies” are the critical concepts of literary modernism (T. Eliot and F. R. Leavis). Eliot's ideas about the existence of a reality independent of the subject, based on absolute metaphysical values, are expressed in the principles of “depersonalization” of art and “functional tradition”; culture is interpreted as a dialogue with tradition (not excluding the transformation of popular forms in elite forms of art). For Leavis, “high culture” is the lot of the “university elite,” the humanitarian intelligentsia, surrounded by the hostile environment of commercial mass culture; function of “high culture”: the formation of mature individuals who are aware of the “meaning of life”; functions of mass culture: “compensation”, “distraction”, psychological control over the audience, “standardization and leveling with a downward bias”.

The impetus for the emergence of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Studies was the need for a critical analysis of changes in British society after the Second World War, associated with: 1) the loss of the old imperial identity and the difficulties of acquiring a new one; 2) the destruction of the traditional culture of the working class; 3) “new unrest”, the causes of which were: a) increased social contradictions; b) increasing the role of people from African countries, youth and women in society and in the sphere of consumption; c) the emergence of the “new left” movement.

R. Hoggart's book “The Advantages of Education” determines the main theme of British “Cultural Studies” (the topic of popular and mass culture), their problems (problems “ ordinary life ordinary people", everyday family life, political confrontation among the working class), methodology (anthropological approach, comparative historical method), technique (direct observation, use of ethnological data, etc.) and the main paradigm (contrasting traditional popular British culture modern commercial, decadent, global mass culture spreading from the USA).

R. Williams, considering the culture of the working class from the perspective of “renewed Marxism,” “democratizes” and “socializes” the concept of culture, emphasizing that it is 1) material and “ordinary”; 2) represents not only and not so much the totality of the highest intellectual and artistic achievements of mankind, but a certain “way of life”, as well as a way of interpreting and representing life experience. The methodological significance of his concept lies in the recognition of the polyphony and heterogeneity of culture; in the creation of a new research paradigm (identifying private, specific, often “invisible” aspects of the cultural process), which defines the main methodology - “documenting experience”: recording life worlds hidden from society. The concept of “everyday culture” blurs the distinction between the concepts of “popular” and “mass” culture.

The neo-Marxist concept of E. P. Thompson reveals the historical significance of popular culture in the creation of class relations, defining the culture of the English working class as "the most prominent popular culture of England." Class is a relationship of unity and difference in the process of experience and in consciousness. By presenting “history from below,” Thompson challenges the “old” Marxism, which views the history of capitalism as predetermined only by inevitable changes in modes of production and social formations, and does not attach importance to culture as a way of life, experience, values, ideas, actions, desires, creativity of “ordinary people” " The concept of “history from below” involves the study of a variety of documentary materials, helping to identify the state of consciousness and the nature of everyday life.

The reliability of the results and main conclusions of the dissertation is ensured by: methodological validity of the initial theoretical provisions; required sample size; adequacy of research methods to its goals and objectives; variety of research methods; implementation of research results into practice.

Theoretical and practical significance of the research results. The materials, content and results of the dissertation work can be used in research on problems of mass culture and intercultural interaction, for generalizing works on the problems of the development of cultural thought, in the preparation of basic and special courses in cultural studies, regional studies, cultural history of Great Britain, cultural communications, English language and literature in higher education.

Approbation of research results. The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of Cultural Studies of Mordovian State University. N. P. Ogareva May 6, 2009. The main provisions of the study were presented in the dissertation author’s speeches at all-Russian and regional scientific and scientific-practical conferences (Saransk, 2003, 2005-2009) and reflected in 13 scientific publications of the author.

“19th century: the opposition “high” / “low” culture in the works of S. T. Coleridge and M. Arnold

British Cultural Studies cannot be adequately understood apart from its ideological and cultural premises, unfolded in historical retrospect. The main problem considered by their representatives - the problem of the relationship between elite, popular and mass culture - has a long history in the British intellectual tradition.

One of the earliest cultural concepts related to these issues is the concept of the representative of English romanticism, poet and thinker Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834). In Russia he is known as a poet - one of the representatives of the "Lake School" - along with William Wordsworth (1770-1850) and Robert Southey (1774-1843). In Russian science, his work has until now remained almost the exclusive property of literary criticism. .

During Coleridge's lifetime, his importance as a philosopher and teacher eclipsed all other properties of his talent in Western historiography of the 20th century. he also received recognition, first of all, as a prominent representative of socio-political, philosophical, religious, and cultural thought. From these positions, Coleridge's work has not been considered in Russian science.

In Britain, Coleridge is considered an outstanding theorist of his time, who largely determined the further development of the country's social thought. British researcher K. Brinton believes that in Coleridge’s “constant doubts and tossing,” a critical method was created “for the first time in the history of English philosophy.” “Universality” of knowledge and aspirations - this characteristic feature of the thinker is noted in the works of researchers of English romanticism: “He developed a new style and covered a wide range of topics,” emphasize R. Carter and J. McRae.

The son of a poor provincial priest, Coleridge studied at Cambridge at the Faculty of Theology, but became interested in the ideas of the French Revolution and was forced to leave the university (after some time he was allowed to return there). In 1796, the first collection of his poems (“Poems on various subjects”) was published; Within two months, Coleridge published the democratic journal The Watchman. Coleridge's early work is distinguished by his interest in social issues, condemnation of the ruling classes of Britain, who robbed and oppressed the people and carried out trials and reprisals against them on behalf of the English royal power. From 1789 to 1793, Coleridge wrote the ode “Destruction of the Bastile” (“Destruction of the Bastile”, 1789, published 1834) in honor of July 14th. However, having become disillusioned with the French Revolution, already in 1794, together with Robert Southey, Coleridge created the anti-Jacobin drama “The Fall of Robespierre,” which condemns revolutionary terror. The struggle against the ideas of revolutionary terrorism continues in subsequent works. Disillusioned with “old Europe,” Coleridge and Southey decided to go to “free America” to organize a commune there, which Coleridge intended to call “Pantisocracy.” The trip did not take place due to lack of funds. Following this, a period of final disappointment in all revolutionary and educational ideals began for Coleridge.

In 1795 Coleridge and Southey settled in Bristol and married the Fricker sisters. In 1796, Coleridge met Wordsworth. In 1796, their first joint collection was published, in 1798 - the second (“Lyrical Ballads”), which became a manifesto of English conservative romanticism, looking to the past and opposing the revolutionary romanticism of J. G. Byron and P. B. Shelley. In 1798-1799 They visit Germany together, Coleridge listens to lectures at the University of Göttingen. Fascinated by German literature and idealistic philosophy, Coleridge became their propagandist in England.

During Coleridge's stay in the "lake region", a religious revolution took place in him, he became a believing Christian and began to write a lot on religious and philosophical issues. All of his prose works were written at this time. The best of them: “Literary Biography” (“Biographia Literaria”), “Aids to Reflection”, “Church and State” (“Church and State”), “Literary Remains” and religious reflections entitled “Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.”

20th century: cultural concept of representatives of British literary modernism (T. S. Eliot and F. R. Leavis)

Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1965) - the greatest Anglo-American poet of the 20th century. (both avant-garde and classic), literary critic, Shakespearean scholar, cultural critic, philosopher, publicist. He belongs to that generation of English-language poets and critics whose views were formed mainly in polemics with late Victorian romanticism and who, as a result, are traditionally considered “modernists”. While speaking out against romanticism, Eliot was also an implacable opponent of philosophical positivism.

Eliot is American by origin (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant). He was born in St. Louis (Missouri) into a wealthy and respected family of British immigrants. The Eliot family moved from England to America in the 17th century, which by American standards means belonging to the aristocracy. The grandfather of the future poet, a conservative in matters of politics, education, culture and at the same time a liberal in theology, established himself in St. Louis as a zealous champion of the Unitarian faith. It was the spirit of Unitarianism that colored the life of two generations of the Eliot family. Their faith, liberal in its foundation, which assumed that the measure of a person is the person himself, had a clear social orientation. They saw the purpose of human existence in serving society and fulfilling moral obligations to it. And William Greenleaf Eliot was a worthy example in this regard for his children and grandchildren. He built a church in St. Louis and founded three schools and a university. His son, Henry Ware Eliot, shared his father's beliefs. Having failed in the field of fine arts, he became a good businessman and for a long time served as President of the Hydraulic Campaign. The poet's mother, Charlotte Champ Stearns, was also interested in social activities and, in addition, she was an extraordinary poetess. Her worldview was somewhat at odds with the doctrines of the Unitarians and represented a kind of synthesis of the Christian religion and scientific concepts of the late 19th century. Probably, under the influence of his mother’s authority, her unshakable faith in imagination and intuition, the future author of “The Waste Land”, as a teenager, felt the obvious inferiority of Protestantism with its flat rationalism that destroys the imagination and holistic vision of the world. The interior decor and atmosphere of the local Catholic church, where young Thomas was taken with his nanny, a devout Catholic, always awakened in him with its noble grandeur a feeling of contact with another reality that revealed the depths of the universal soul. The idea of a person’s personal responsibility, the recognition of moral obligations to society, the internal need to act as an educator - all these norms of behavior characteristic of Eliot were associated with the upbringing that he received in the family.

After graduating from a private school, the young man went to study philosophy and literature at Harvard University (1906-1909), where he studied Sanskrit and Pali. Then he travels around Europe, improving his education at the Sorbonne and at Meriton College (Oxford University), where in 1914-1915. is working on completing his doctoral dissertation on the English philosopher F. G. Bradley (1846-1924).

In 1915 Eliot moved to England permanently. There, after unsuccessful attempts to start a career as a school teacher, he entered Lloyds Bank, where he served until 1925 (in the international department). Having accepted English citizenship in 1927, he changed his confession to traditional (although not without some opposition) Anglo-Catholicism.

In September 1914, Eliot met the poet Ezra Pound in London, who recommended his poems for publication. Eliot's literary fame began after the First World War as part of the so-called "Lost Generation", English par excellence. Eliot wrote about the loss of all humanity, all of Western civilization, but at first this was perceived precisely as the tragedy of a lost generation. It was during these years that Eliot wrote most of the poetic works that brought him world fame, as well as many critical, journalistic and philosophical works.

While serving at Lloyds Bank, Eliot was engaged in literature and literary construction - literary stewardship. He published two literary magazines with a tiny circulation: from 1917 to 1920 - a small poetry magazine "Egoist", where his first book of poems was published, and then for seventeen years - a quarterly magazine "Criterion". "), where his poem “The Waste Land” was published in 1922. In the poems of 1917-1919, written in the form of quatrains, the satirical effect is achieved through a deliberately pedantic accumulation of details and sharp transitions from the sublime to the everyday.

R. Hoggart as founder of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Studies

Herbert Richard Hoggart (b. 1918) - philologist, sociologist, cultural scientist, writer, public figure - is known as one of the founders of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Research and its first director. An orphan from the working-class neighborhoods of Leeds, thanks to his abilities, he, having received secondary education, entered the University of Leeds. During the Second World War, Hoggart served in the Royal Artillery, being discharged at the end of the war with the rank of captain. Since 1946, he taught English at small provincial universities in England. From 1962 to 1973 Hoggart was Professor of English at the University of Birmingham. In 1964, he founded the Center for Contemporary Cultural Research here, serving as its director until 1973. In 1971-1975. Hoggart served as Deputy Chairman-General of UNESCO from 1976-1984. taught at the University of London, then retired from official scientific life, nevertheless continuing to act as an author of books to this day. Hoggart penned 27 books. Among them: “Higher Education and Cultural Change: A Teacher's View”, 1966; “Modern Cultural Studies: An Approach to the Study of Literature and Society”, 1969, “Speaking Each Other: on Literature” 1970 , “An Idea and Its Servants: UNESCO from Within”; “An English Temper” (1982) - on the role of education, culture and mass communication in society; “The Future Broadcasting" (“The Future of Broadcasting”, 1982), “British Council and the Arts” (“British Council and the Arts”, 1986), “An Idea of Europe” (“An Idea of Europe”, 1987), “The Way We Are Now” We Live Now: Dilemmas in Contemporary Culture (Chatto and Win-dus, 1995), Politics in Contemporary English Society, 1997, First and last things: The Uses of Old Age” (“First and Last Things: The Uses of Old Age”, 1999), “Between Two Worlds: Essays, 1978-1999”, 2001), “Between Two Worlds: Politics, Anti-Politics, and the Unpolitical”, 2002), “Everyday Language and Everyday Life”, 2003), “Mass Media in a Mass Society: Myth and Reality”, 2004.

For many years, Hoggart took an active part in the cultural and social life of Britain. Along with teaching, he was a member of numerous organizations and committees, including the Arts Council of Great Britain (1976-1981); Chairman of the Advisory Council for Continuing and Adult Education (1977-1983), head of the Royal Shakespeare Theater (1962-1988). In 1960, he was the main witness for the defense in a high-profile trial at the Central Criminal Court regarding the claims of a number of public organizations against the publishing house Penguin Books Ltd, which published Lawrence’s “scandalous” novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Hoggart managed to prove that this long-banned novel was not only not “immoral,” but, on the contrary, even a “puritanical” work.

From the editor: One of the most important principles of intellectual self-determination of a cultural studies project ( Сultural Studies) became criticism disciplinary organization modern humanitarian knowledge and education. This article attempts to analyze the changes in reflection on disciplinarity caused by the intense expansion that occurred in the 1980s–1990s Cultural Studies into the academy space. This reflection, stemming from a critical assessment of the state of this field of knowledge, indicates attempts to redefine the place of cultural studies in the academic space and to find productive strategies for realizing the critical functions of this field.

It is no coincidence that the image of a comet appeared in the title of this text. In reflections about fate Cultural Studies, cultural studies, the temporal conjuncture is very strongly felt. First of all, we have before us a field of knowledge that is quite young compared to those humanities disciplines that we already habitually call “traditional.” During a very short period by historical standards, the 1980s–2000s Cultural Studies experienced a rise that had the character of an intellectual boom. However, the hopes associated with it for a fundamental renewal of humanities knowledge and university teaching quickly gave way to disappointment and a feeling of historical failure. Appeal to modernity, openness, as opposed to the rigidity and isolation of established disciplines, did not become the key to successful academic self-realization Cultural Studies. Their entry into the educational space was internally contradictory, being associated with criticism of the reproduction of knowledge in universities. All this provoked discussions, and in such quantities that perhaps no other field of knowledge provoked them. Their subject was both the validity of the criticism expressed and the position from which it could be made. A variety of aspects of the academic status of cultural studies were discussed: the compliance of the knowledge produced by researchers in this field with academic standards, the validity of their claims to define the scientific frontier, rootedness in the organizational system of higher education, etc. Taking into account the severity of these disputes, starting to characterize Cultural Studies, it is necessary to be especially attentive to the origin of certain assessments of this tradition, to clarify what idea of this phenomenon is behind this or that position, whether cultural studies are the object of positive or negative identification, in what context they are considered.

This also has specific significance for domestic science. Reception Cultural Studies until recently, it was not of a systematic nature in Russia, being, as Vitaly Kurennaya notes, partially dissolved (and I would say lost) “in the vague and fragmented concept of “postmodernism”.” Paradoxically, domestic cultural studies as a whole took very little part in broadcasting the achievements of the “cultural turn.” Perhaps, disciplines such as history and anthropology played a major role in this process. In a situation where there was a shortage of meaningful discussions about the tasks of cultural studies, the main subject of discussion was the ideological nature of the knowledge produced within this field. The research program of cultural studies was presented only within the framework of individual educational programs and isolated publications, and understanding of the specifics of this program has not really been undertaken until recently. A significant event in the process of its reception was a special issue of the Logos magazine, which published translations of key texts written by its founders - Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, Richard Johnson, as well as a thorough and at the same time provocative article by Vitaly Kurennoy, devoted to the characteristics of the British traditions of cultural studies.

Recognizing the legacy of this research program as relevant and modern in a number of respects, in assessing the current state of this field of knowledge, the author of the article is inclined to agree with experts who note its decline, emasculation and loss of the potential for critical reflection. The arguments in favor of this view certainly merit detailed discussion, which is beyond the scope of this article. For me, the question of interpretation of such criticism is rather important. It, in my opinion, may be, firstly, a symptom of negative self-identification in relation to cultural studies; secondly, a form of critical self-reflection of the representatives of this movement themselves. And if so, then perhaps the present and the future Cultural Studies, as well as the scientific creativity of individual researchers and communities identifying themselves with this direction, are not so hopeless. I would like to hope that the efforts to receive cultural studies, the manifestation of which was the aforementioned special issue of the journal “Logos”, will pave the way for a meaningful discussion of the works of not only the “classics”, but also the “contemporaries”, and will also help bridge the gap between Russian cultural studies and international community of cultural researchers, represented by a whole pool of research centers, journals, conferences, etc.

In this text I would like to turn to the analysis of discussions about academic self-identity Cultural Studies. An important place in these discussions, inspired by the need for cultural researchers to constantly rethink the foundations of their work and redefine the prospects of their existence, is the topic of attitudes towards the disciplinary organization of science and education. The object of my analysis will be mainly works of the 1990–2010s, which allow us to get an idea of how the understanding of disciplinary status is associated with changes in intellectual orientations and institutional position Cultural Studies, as well as with the transformation of the university environment and its social and cultural environment. Given the accusations of cultural studies in various intellectual vices - theoretical eclecticism, political bias, populism, etc., it seems important to me not only to demonstrate the internal heterogeneity of this community and the concern of its representatives with the problem of compliance of knowledge about culture with the tasks and standards of scientific analysis, but also to indicate on the contribution of these representatives to understanding the forms of organizing the production and transmission of knowledge in a modern university. The proposed study cannot claim to be complete either in terms of coverage of material, the array of which, taking into account the ongoing internationalization of cultural studies, is becoming difficult to see, nor in terms of detail in covering the history of the movement, the analysis of which today is moving from the area of current discussions to the historical and scientific plane. Having as my goal to identify the main strategies of self-description that have formed in the space of cultural studies, I am forced to neglect the analysis of the specifics of these strategies associated with certain local contexts and different periods of development of this field of knowledge.

Sketch of the history of the discipline

In the context of the issue of disciplinarity, I will be interested not so much in the intellectual origins and political contexts of the emergence of this movement, but in the transformation of the institutional framework and guidelines for the work of its participants, the main milestones of which I will try to record. The starting point in the history of cultural studies is known to have been the creation in 1965 of the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies, which also functioned as a postgraduate institution. The activities of the center have never been confined to the university. History researchers Cultural Studies have repeatedly emphasized the culturally and financially significant connection between the Birmingham center and the Penguin publishing house. The priority area of activity of the publishing house, with which the first director of the center, Richard Hoggart, worked closely since the 1950s, was the production of inexpensive editions of intellectual literature.

The Center for Cultural Studies existed at the Faculty of Literary Studies ( English Studies). In his inaugural address at the center's opening, Hoggart pointed to the need for literary studies as an academic discipline to "enter into a more active relationship with modernity." As Norma Shulman notes, the object of criticism of the English researcher was the elitism inherent in this field of knowledge, the separation of high culture and real life, history and the present, theory and practice. At the same time, Hoggart represented Cultural Studies and as an interdisciplinary project. Already in the 1960s, he wrote that, along with literary criticism and literary criticism, the space of this field of knowledge includes a historical and philosophical component, on the one hand, and a sociological one, on the other.

During the 1970s, during the tenure of director Stuart Hall, the development Cultural Studies as an interdisciplinary project entered a new stage. It was characterized by an intense dialogue with both traditional disciplines and new interdisciplinary phenomena such as structuralism or feminism. Richard Johnson noted that this expansion of the intellectual horizon significantly changed the configuration of knowledge about culture, the idea of cultural hierarchies, the interaction of the subject and object of knowledge, ways of positioning in relation to other disciplines, etc. . In the spirit of growing trends in the fragmentation of knowledge, the organization was also restructured research work in the center. Now it is concentrated within thematically oriented groups, such as the Women's Studies group, the Folk Memory Research group, etc.

The second half of the 1970s - the beginning of the 1980s became the time with which the growth of influence is associated Cultural Studies in the academic world. During this period, a community of researchers emerged, whose work shaped the appearance of this research tradition. A number of collective works are being published, with which the activities of the Center will be associated. The process of incorporation becomes more intense Cultural Studies into the university space. The specificity of this process was due to the fact that, as David Inglis notes, in Britain the corresponding branches were more often created in the former polytechnic universities and less often - in old universities, due to the fact that the position of sociology was strong there. Expansion Cultural Studies researchers also connect with other interdisciplinary institutions focused on the study of mass communications, such as the Center for Television Research at the University of Leeds, the Center for Mass Communication Research at the University of Leicester, the Media Studies Program at the University of Westminster, etc. . At the same time, the design Cultural Studies paved the way for the institutionalization of more specialized and diversely structured areas of cultural research (such as Media Studies, Cinema Studies, Memory Studies, Postcolonial Studies, Reception Studies etc.) .

During the same period, journals representing this field of research began to be published: Social Text(since 1976), Critical Inquiry(since 1974), Media, Culture and Society(since 1979) and finally Cultural Studies(since 1986). Since the 1980s, this corpus has been significantly expanded and, according to Toby Miller, is structured mainly around two types of publications - “directional journals” and “professional journals.” The first type is publications that focus on political projects and current agendas, proclaiming the idea of social interventions and claiming influence across disciplinary boundaries. The second is journals associated with disciplines and professional associations, participation in which determines the composition of the editorial board and the range of authors of the journal. These publications operate a mechanism of double-blind reviewing, evaluating materials according to the criteria of falsification and compliance with disciplinary standards. As Miller notes, some of the discipline's most influential publications (examples include Continuum.Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Cultural Studies, International Journal of Cultural Studies) represent intermediate cases associated with the transition from the first category to the second or the combination of the principles of selection of materials and organization of publications characteristic of the two categories.

The next stage of academic expansion Cultural Studies was the emergence of specialized bachelor's programs at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s. This process, coupled with changes in the ideological climate and communication situation, formed by the beginning of the 21st century a new consumer of the intellectual products of those teachers and researchers who worked in this field. If in the 1970s, as John Hartley notes, the audience was “predominantly adult men who have radical political views or are committed socialists, political activists or intellectuals,” then in the early 2000s the consumer of the intellectual products of cultural researchers is predominantly a man “younger, feminized, tolerant of different ethnic groups and multiculturally oriented, and in terms of its institutional affiliation related to students.”

Another important trend in space transformation Cultural Studies At this stage it began to internationalize. Its most significant component was the spread of cultural studies in the English-speaking world. According to Will Straw, it represented a turn within a number of humanities disciplines, but if in America the social sciences played a rather minor role in this turn, then in Australia, in a situation of more permeable boundaries between disciplines, sociology and cultural studies interacted much more closely and formed various combinations . And in Austria and Germany, as Roman Horak notes, Cultural Studies were not formed in the same way as they did in the English-speaking world. According to the researcher, an obstacle to establishing their academic status was their connection with the theories of the Frankfurt School. Because of this, the reception of the theories of the Birmingham School occurred mainly outside universities - within institutions associated with pedagogy and social work. In the university work environment of representatives Cultural Studies were mainly in demand by communities of researchers of youth movements and subcultures. The result of internationalization was the emergence of many local and national versions of cultural studies: French Cultural Studies, Spanish Cultural Studies, African Cultural Studies, Australian Cultural Studies etc. . Within the framework of these directions, not only the comprehension (and in some cases - crystallization) of local cultures is carried out, but also reflection on the models of interaction between culture and power, the public sphere, etc. put forward in British (and, more broadly, English-language) studies. .

The development of cultural studies in each local context was determined by the characteristics of the corresponding disciplinary configurations, the relationship between the activity of individual researchers, the academic trajectories available to them and the activities of diverse communities that differed quite greatly in their intellectual orientations, geographical location and institutional positions. A significant parameter in the internationalization of the discipline has been the controversy over its intellectual genealogy. As David Inglis shows, in America, where the tradition of textual analysis dominates, Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart are perceived as belonging to an exotic primitive stage of development Cultural Studies, while the truly relevant tradition is associated with the work of poststructuralists such as Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida.

The academic institutionalization of cultural studies, as noted above, has been controversial. Particularly indicative in this sense is the expansion Cultural Studies at American universities. On the one hand, according to some researchers, it is in America that cultural studies has fully developed as an academic discipline: the largest number of researchers who associate themselves with this field of knowledge are concentrated there, the majority of journals representing the discipline are published, and promotion in the American book market is the main criterion for the success of publications on this topic. On the other hand, precisely with the American development experience Cultural Studies To a greater extent, this is due to disappointment with the rosy prospects that were pictured for many participants in this movement at the turn of the 1980s–1990s. It is associated not only with the weakening of the critical component in the work of cultural researchers, but also with the low degree of penetration into the education system. Thus, in 2002, Paul McEwen characterized Cultural Studies as a “cryptodiscipline” (“hidden discipline”), poorly represented in the structure of universities, absent in university rankings and reference books published by various agencies. According to Michael Berube and Graham Turner, this situation continues to be relevant in the late 2000s and early 2010s: according to Turner, there are only about 20 master's programs in 2,000 American universities. Cultural Studies. In addition, according to Bérubé, cultural studies did not have any significant impact either on other disciplines or on the system of knowledge transmission, which did not become more democratic and efficient under their influence.

The fate of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Research itself was also very contradictory. Already in the late 1980s, he faced the threat of being absorbed by the faculty English literature. As a result of the mobilization of resources, it was transformed into a department of cultural studies and sociology, created on the site of the Faculty of Sociology. However, in 2002, the department was disbanded overnight, and the teachers were distributed among various departments and faculties of the university. Neither the development of the cultural studies project nor the spread of the idea of interdisciplinarity could prevent the destruction of this organizational “hotbed”.

Criticism of disciplinarity

Criticism of disciplinarity in the works of representatives Cultural Studies grew organically from the program of cultural analysis they formulated, aimed at developing a broader and more comprehensive understanding of culture and at critical analysis of the current situation. One of the successful definitions of this program can be considered the characteristic proposed by John Hartley:

“What was cultural studies? It was a philosophy of completeness. These were: studies devoted to the study of the growing diversity of human activity (during the period of increasing globalization, corporate expansion and technological mediation of this activity); an ensemble of concepts related to issues of power, meaning, identity and subjectivity in modern societies; a set of efforts aimed at identifying and rehabilitating marginalized, oppressed and marginalized regions, identities, practices and means of communication; a critical enterprise dedicated to disrupting, decentralizing, demystifying and deconstructing the common sense that supports dominant discourses; the practice of active engagement in intellectual politics - the production of differences within ideas, in relation to ideas, through ideas. It was also a publishing enterprise formed by cultural figures both in the academic field and in the printing industry. Cultural studies was what those who practiced and published it thought they were."

Several points seem important in this characteristic. First of all, it points to how the Marxist tradition of criticism of modern society has been transformed within the framework of cultural studies. The problems of globalization and corporatism became an important framework for the socio-critical analysis of culture in the 1990–2000s. Even more significant is the transformation of the Marxist critique of ideology into a program for the analysis of representation. One of the fundamental principles of the program Cultural Studies becomes a critique of the dominance of economics and politics over culture. The latter begins to be defined as a holistic way of life (“way of life”). In this universalizing logic, culture as a subject of study is deprived of its instrumental character. The autonomy of culture as an object of study, the assertion of the independent meaning of values and symbolic systems ultimately leads to a radical revision of the concept of ideology as “false consciousness.”

“Complex Marxism” and “cultural materialism”, the need for the development of which was proclaimed by the leaders Cultural Studies, claimed to overcome the reductionism inherent in the theories of Theodor Adorno, Louis Althusser and Walter Benjamin. The search for more complex explanatory models expressed the desire to form reflexive strategies for criticizing modern society. Another direction of this transformation was associated with the refining of research tools, realized through turning to structuralist theories, anthropology and history. Thus, the logic of developing a universalized concept of culture dictated going beyond the boundaries of established ways of defining the subject and methods of research and, therefore, the need to expand the disciplinary horizon. Perhaps the clearest expression of this interdisciplinary perspective of the project is found in R. Johnson's article “So What is Cultural Studies?” .

An important impetus for the formation of the concept of interdisciplinarity in the works of British cultural researchers was the criticism of the deficits of academic knowledge, which indicated the claim of this field of knowledge to become an alternative to already established disciplinary complexes. The main recipients of this criticism were, as noted above, literary criticism ( English Studies) and sociology. Raymond Williams described the cultural studies project as a kind of reaction to the professionalization of reflection on literature within literary studies as an academic discipline. He associated the approval and refinement of professional standards with the closure of the discipline on itself and its transformation into a mechanism for self-reproduction of a community of teachers and experts. The latter lose the ability to answer questions asked from outside the disciplinary framework by people for whom - to paraphrase his own formulation - the production of “culture” is not a way of life. The situation was similar with regard to sociology. As Gregor McLennan notes,

“It was Stuart Hall who proposed the classic formulation of the thesis that cultural studies needed to break with sociology, but in the Birmingham version of the 1970s, cultural studies tended to pose sociological questions in opposition to sociology as a discipline, rather than to deny the sociological imagination as such. In both Hall's influential reviews and the Birmingham Centre's publications, the typical pattern of argumentation was to criticize social scientists - be they theorists or specialists in the fields of race relations, education, working-class culture and so on. - due to the idealistic nature, static and private nature of the interpretations of the object of study they offer, which prevent the emergence of materialistic, dynamic and universalist interpretations. Dropout from official sociology (and official English Studies) was a condition for “falling” into complex Marxism.”

Developing a critique of disciplinarity, the founders Cultural Studies indicated their borderline position in relation to universities and their desire to rely on non-academic structures. John Hartley also points to this in the above description. Both Williams and Hall repeatedly emphasized, in particular, the involvement of representatives of the Birmingham Center in the practice of “adult education”. Hall wrote about the emancipatory significance of this context in terms of resistance to the intellectual coercion that underlies the academic reproduction of knowledge and encourages the acceptance of ready-made answers. According to Hall, the essence of interdisciplinarity is not limited to the simple cooperation of representatives of different specializations within the framework of a research project. “Serious interdisciplinary work involves the intellectual risk of telling sociologists that what they call sociology is not really sociology. We had to teach what we thought was sociology useful to cultural students, what we could not get from people who called themselves sociologists." For Williams, the loss of correspondence between the demands of life and specialized knowledge was a matter of concern in connection with the emerging process of internal differentiation of cultural studies. Cultural Studies, writes a British researcher, are often perceived as “a shapeless and bloated monster” ( vague and baggy monster). However, despite the fact that within the framework of the subdisciplines that arise in its place, there are much more favorable (in an intellectual, organizational and even technical sense) conditions for the production of knowledge, these subdisciplines, in principle, cannot take on the mission of communicating with modernity, which was originally the project was inspired Cultural Studies. Because of all this, Williams, Hall, Johnson, and others at the Birmingham center were wary of the disciplinarization and codification that was associated with the growing academic expansion of cultural studies.

Subsequently, criticism of disciplines acquired an increasingly generalized character and formed a certain set of topoi, which became an important element in the system of self-determination of representatives Cultural Studies. As David Inglis shows in his insightful article, “openness”, “agility”, “heterodoxity”, “interdisciplinarity”, “breadth of research arsenal” and political engagement have become characteristic positioning topoi Cultural Studies in relation to traditional academic disciplines, which were credited with insensitivity to modernity, political conservatism, dogmatic monolithicity, and an empiricist-positivist orientation. At the same time, the use of the concept of “practice”, as well as some other concepts, such as “discursive formation” (Stuart Hall) or “language game” (Chris Barker), was intended to emphasize the flexibility of research strategies and pragmatic orientations of cultural researchers.

The opposition to disciplinarity acquired an even more fundamental character in the process of assimilating the criticism of science and scientific institutions and communities, proclaimed “in the works of Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault, in the criticism of science and scientism of radical philosophers and radical scientists, in radical philosophy and sociology of education and feminist criticism.” One of the most radical manifestations of this position is Ellen Rooney's oft-quoted statement that cultural studies is “an anti-disciplinary practice characterized by a constant, ongoing rejection of disciplinary logic.” Criticizing disciplinarity as an expression of normativity in science, representatives of the movement raise questions about the connection between power and knowledge and the nature of the neutrality of science, considering the latter as a sphere of struggle for representation and an instrument for the formation of everyday ideas.

An important aspect in the critical analysis of disciplinarity was the topic of political self-determination of the intellectual. As researchers show, evolution Cultural Studies is associated with quite significant changes in ideas about the position of an intellectual and the nature of his engagement. We are talking not only about the increasing diversity of discriminated groups, but also about the very nature of normativity and its relationship with the diversity of existing cultural hierarchies, the relationship between high and mass culture. Taking part in the activities of the “new left,” the leaders of cultural studies more than once criticized not only their ideological principles, but also the very nature of their political activity. Related to this is the desire to dissociate itself from the field of practical politics, manifested in formulations that linked this project with policies implemented by “other means” (Stuart Hall), with policies that “have not yet been fully formed” (Richard Johnson).

At the same time, however, they never considered political engagement a sufficient condition for working in the field of cultural studies. Thus, despite the wary attitude towards the process of disciplinary Cultural Studies, many remained committed to the academic context . We find an explicit formulation in this regard in Johnson's article: “In fact, the problem remains much the same as always: how can academic participation and skills contribute to the acquisition of elements of useful knowledge?” .

Academic reaction

In the 1990s–2000s Cultural Studies moved from the outskirts of the academic world to the center of discussion of the situation in the modern university and its future fate. Their rapid growth in popularity and critique of cultural and academic hierarchies has generated an equally strong backlash in the humanitarian community. Cultural studies has very often been portrayed as a kind of "academic Alien" that threatens the very existence of the university. The movement was also billed for the costs that the struggle to establish a new model of interdisciplinary and at the same time engaged knowledge brought; The activities of its representatives are associated with the establishment of postmodern relativism and the destruction of traditional university values. An important impetus for criticism was the involvement of cultural researchers in the struggle against the cultural canon and the various cultural hierarchies underlying it, which unfolded in the university space (primarily in America) in the 1980s. The success of this struggle caused opposition in academic circles:

“Thus, the left won in the Academy: alternative programs and courses were introduced in most universities; But the right, having lost the required reading lists, succeeded in the bestseller lists - in particular, Alan Bloom's The Decline of American Thought enjoyed unprecedented popularity for academic literature and was indeed the best-selling book in America for several weeks. In public opinion, a caricatured stereotype of a radical professor has taken hold, who does not value morality, religion and classical literature, but thinks only about political correctness.”

As part of the fight against the postmodern threat to the university, Cultural Studies many harsh labels were attached such as “political-intellectual dump Western world"(Kenneth Minogue) and "Disneyland for the Feeble-Minded" (Chris Patten). The academic reputation of the movement was somewhat damaged by the sensational “Sokal case”: a scandalous publication appeared in the journal Social Text, on whose pages many representatives of the movement were published.

Academic expansion Cultural Studies was perceived as a threat by representatives of related disciplines. An example here is sociologists who questioned the scientific status of cultural studies due to the lack of a reliable theoretical basis and methods for analyzing social reality, the vagueness of the object of study, the lack of historical sensitivity and the presence of political bias. Harsh criticism of influence Cultural Studies on sociology was expressed by Brian Turner and Chris Rozek. In their opinion, this influence led to the fragmentation of the discipline and the emergence of a kind of “ornamental sociology”, which lacked the theory and methodology for a deep analysis of culture in its connection with social institutions. In the context of internationalization processes, the reasoning of the famous French sociologist Nathalie Ainich is indicative, who gladly states the lack of cultural studies in France and ironically describes the situation in America, where they are increasingly occupying the space that was previously occupied by sociology. At the same time, the sociology of culture that is emerging in the United States acts as a conductor of the so-called French theory, the sphere of expansion of which, through the mediation of the Americans, also becomes French sociology.

One of the fairly balanced examples of reflection on the place of cultural studies in the modern university is presented in Bill Readings’ book “A University in Ruins,” written in 1996. Appearance Cultural Studies he connects with the internal crisis the ideas of culture that define the mission of this institution. In his opinion, “...cultural studies arises when culture ceases to be an immanent principle of the organization of knowledge in the University, instead becoming one of many objects. Feminist, homosexual and lesbian, postcolonial studies come onto the scene when the abstract concept of “culture” ceases to adequately and exhaustively describe the subject, when the obvious emptiness and universality of the subject “state” allows us to see in it a repository of privileged markers of male gender, heterosexuality and whiteness.”

At the same time, Ridings points out the internal contradictions of cultural studies themselves. On the one hand, by rehabilitating everyday life and popular culture, appealing to the marginal and repressed, they position culture outside the university walls. This also correlates with the new structural role of the intellectual, who no longer acts as a bearer of a cultural norm, but as a herald of social groups and cultural communities discriminated against in the cultural space (and, therefore, in the academic space too). On the other hand, the desire of cultural researchers “to break beyond the boundaries of the academic world is structurally built into these boundaries themselves.” Accordingly, despite the objective nature of the transformation of the idea of culture underlying university education, the expectation of positive revolutionary changes as a result of academic institutionalization Cultural Studies does not, according to Ridings, have sufficient grounds. The Canadian researcher also criticizes the idea that this institutionalization will create conditions for interdisciplinary communication and become a source of renewal of intellectual life at the university. This idea was expressed by some representatives of this trend (Anthony Easthope, Carey Nelson, etc.) in the early 1990s.

Site identification Cultural Studies in the university context, outlined by Ridings, turned out to be quite organic for representatives of cultural studies. Concern about the prospect of their institutionalization in the 1980s grew into work to critically understand the results of this process in the 1990s and 2000s. We can point to two main contexts for this conceptualization. The first of these is related to questions about what impact the critical program of cultural studies had on the organization of science and education at the university, how it affected social functions and the role of intellectuals. The second is with the problems of assessing the nature and results of social and academic recognition of this field of knowledge and the prospects for their further development as a field of research, a set of scientific institutions and educational programs. The problem of disciplinarity is at the center of the search for a new model of self-identification in a new environment and taking into account the new status Cultural Studies. These searches are conducted, again, in two directions. On the one hand, the subject of discussion is the fate of the critical program formulated within the framework of this project, on the other hand, the possibilities of identifying new coordinates of intellectual self-determination and criteria for assessing the knowledge produced are being discussed.

The problem of maintaining identity

Contrary to the critics Cultural Studies, who view the spread of the latter as a symptom of the degradation of university science, representatives of the movement tend to rather state that their impact on the academic world was of a purely external, superficial nature. On the one hand, evidence of the failure of the movement’s academic self-affirmation is, in their opinion, that many researchers who identify themselves with Cultural Studies, however, work in departments representing more traditional university disciplines. On the other hand, back in 1991, Cary Nelson wrote that relating oneself to Cultural Studies becomes for literary scholars “nothing more than a way to repackage what we are already doing,” while losing the entire conflictual history of the movement’s self-determination and critical attitude not only to the academic world, but also to its own theoretical foundations.

At the same time, according to researchers, the disciplinarization that has taken place confirms fears about the loss of revolutionary potential and a return to those forms of organization and reproduction of knowledge from which their representatives sought to distance themselves. According to Graham Turner, one of the forms of routinization Cultural Studies the spread of the model of teaching the corresponding courses, which the researcher designates as CS 101. The framework of these courses is formed not so much by problems and key concepts as by the names of individual canonized theorists. This is where the negative side of openness comes to light. Cultural Studies, since the content of the course depends to a greater extent on the subjective preferences of the teacher, rather than being determined by the connection with the subjects that make up the core of the discipline. Such courses usually demonstrate a vicious didactic strategy, which is characterized by a refusal to engage the cultural capital of students and gravitates toward a lecture-based teaching model associated with explaining the content of esoteric texts of theorists. Thus, according to Turner, within Cultural Studies the teaching model that existed in English Studies 40 years ago and became a starting point for the first ones. The mechanisms of formation of the star system also become the object of critical analysis, and it is significant that this criticism also comes from the lips of the living classics of this direction themselves.

Another aspect of the internally contradictory situation in which cultural studies has found itself in recent years has been the rapid obsolescence of the ideas and concepts that constituted the innovative potential of the movement in the 1970s and 1980s. This concerns not only the anthropological concept of culture, which is currently shared by many humanities disciplines, but also the idea of interdisciplinarity. One of the factors that ensured the popularity Cultural Studies in the 1970s, it was that the educational institutions (like the “free universities”) on which the movement relied gave students, as Graham Turner notes, greater freedom to shape their own educational trajectory, the opportunity to engage with topics that had been pushed out of traditional disciplines , etc. . The situation in a modern university, where these opportunities are supported by the variability inherent in the organization of the educational process, sets the stage for Cultural Studies a completely new educational context. And it’s not just that the idea of interdisciplinarity has lost its novelty. Turner believes that the key to the breakthrough achieved by cultural studies in the 1970s and 1980s is that the educational institutions associated with the project were spaces of experiment aimed at mastering new subjects of study, such as popular culture or mass media. But at the same time, they attracted students who already had a certain disciplinary background - philological, historical, etc. It was the need to update the research arsenal that motivated these students that gave real substance to interdisciplinary research, while the inherently interdisciplinary nature of modern educational programs creates the danger of diluting this idea. Critical reflection on the idea of interdisciplinarity also unfolds in the plane of university management, where this idea can become the basis for the closure or merger of university departments in order to satisfy the requirements of economic profitability. Ted Strifes and Graham Turner call for a clear recognition today of responsibility for the romanticization of the idea of interdisciplinarity that was constitutive of the self-definition of cultural studies practitioners at the turn of the 1990s.

The next direction of reflection on the discrepancy between academic identity and the critical program is associated with the problem of internal differentiation outlined by Raymond Williams Cultural Studies and the emergence of new specialized areas of cultural research. The subject of discussion here is the changed context of the existence of the university and the position of the intellectual. The conceptual framework of this debate crystallized at the turn of the 1990s in the context of the debate on cultural populism. A particularly strong impetus for her was the appearance in 1992 of Jim McGuigan's book of the same name. The book's author defined cultural populism as the assumption among some cultural scholars that the symbolic constructs and practices underlying the experiences of ordinary people "have greater analytical and political significance than Culture with a capital C." The reference to “Culture” in McGuigan’s definition was not accidental: cultural populism was seen here as a strategy for the self-realization of intellectuals. However, the main object of criticism was not so much the sympathy for the culture of ordinary people in itself (in this sense, McGuigan himself was ready to classify himself as a cultural populist), but rather an uncritical perception, including the idealization of cultural consumption, the refusal to distinguish between mass and popular culture and the loss a materialist perspective associated with socio-economic analysis, the study of institutional power and public communications. These trends, according to the researcher, were found earlier in the works of Williams, Hall and other representatives Cultural Studies, however, the discussion about the progress of the institutionalization and professionalization of the project in America has given a more universal character to the debate about cultural populism. The textualization of culture as an object of study and the depoliticization of theoretical work that characterized American cultural studies became a target of criticism for those who argued for maintaining a movement identity that was associated with the British version of cultural studies. Indicative in this sense are the repeated critical invective of Stuart Hall towards the American Cultural Studies. Proclaiming a commitment to modernism as opposed to the conventional wisdom about the connection between cultural studies and postmodernism, Hall sought to dissociate himself from the uncritical reception of popular culture and pointed to the importance of the figure of the organic intellectual who inspired the members of the community grouped around the Birmingham Center.

In the new sociocultural and university context of the 2000s, Cultural Studies new “significant others” appear. We are talking about such new areas of humanities as new media studies ( New Media Studies), hybrid culture ( convergence culture) and creative industries ( creative industries). The development of these areas, which arose largely due to the spread of cultural studies, becomes a challenge for the latter. Carrying out active expansion into the academic space, these areas are beginning to displace both traditional specializations in the humanities and social sciences (for example, art history), and the actual specializations that traditionally existed in Cultural Studies. It is equally important that they trace their genealogy to cultural studies, while simultaneously claiming to be the new agenda setters in the study of modern culture.

The emergence of these areas is associated with the task of understanding new types of communication, which are characterized by greater equality, active involvement of participants and a lesser degree of commercialization. Thus, the ideological prerequisite for the study becomes a new model of cultural reproduction, an alternative to traditional ideas about the connection between capitalism, mass media and political order, which have traditionally been the starting point for representatives Cultural Studies. With the development of new media and hybrid forms of culture, as well as with the cultural industries emerging on this basis, hopes are pinned on the possibility of a genuine popular culture associated with grassroots activism and democratic participation, removing the opposition between producer and consumer.

Graham Turner finds in this ideology characteristic features of cultural populism: a sentimental attitude towards popular culture, a preference for what is fashionable at the expense of uncomfortable topics, and a rejection of the critical component. At the same time, reconciliation with the existing culture takes specific forms here. In new media studies, in his opinion, there is a transition from the characteristic Cultural Studies emphasis on a critical analysis of cultural policy within national states to the study of the global market as an environment for the existence of new economic and cultural forms. The approval of the latter as objects of research is associated with presumptions of economic and technological optimism (the idea of increasing public good and the possibility of new technologies in terms of solving social problems), which presumptions, according to Turner, have not yet been confirmed by empirical data. The success of the academic institutionalization of these new fields is associated with the market validity of the knowledge they offer, which is of particular relevance in connection with the reduction in public funding for universities in recent decades. At the same time, the very content of such programs is poorly connected with the works of representatives Cultural Studies and is focused not so much on the development of critical reflection on culture, but on the transmission of technical skills necessary for self-realization in new economic and media conditions. It is significant that by contrasting cultural studies with studies of new media, hybrid cultures and creative industries, Turner not only emphasizes the connection Cultural Studies with traditional disciplines, meaning their general orientation towards the development of theoretical reflection skills, but, moreover, it also speaks of their “disciplinary potential”, which new directions lack.

Turner's critique of new institutions and the research directions that underlie them is interesting not only because academic status is measured here by disciplinary potential. Continuing the tradition of reflection on cultural populism, she links the formation of certain cognitive and pedagogical strategies with changes in educational policy and in the sociocultural context of the university. It is also interesting that, being projected into new areas of research, positive guidelines Cultural Studies how an intellectual project turns into its opposite: the desire for relevance and openness to modern culture becomes the case New Media Studies and other new areas of pursuit of fashion, the theoretical foundations turn out to be unjustified, and the practical orientation is discredited as manufacturability. Authors positioning themselves on the other side of the divide identified by Turner proclaim a rejection of the normalizing function and declare that Cultural Studies must be flexible in relation to educational contexts and open to the needs of the audience. For example, Simon Dühring notes that students’ motivation for studying modern culture is very diverse. Accordingly, the task is to respond to these needs, and not to try to control them.

In general, recognizing that some of the slogans Cultural Studies Today, in a certain sense, implemented in modern university practice, representatives of this movement are to a very weak extent ready to be satisfied with the results of these transformations and identify themselves with them. According to Graham Turner, a positive consequence of the transformations that have taken place is that the university has become more open. However, unlike the old university, the idea of public good, important for the ideology of cultural studies, is much less important. In this neoliberal university context, even the distinctive Cultural Studies from traditional disciplines, openness, mobility and the ability to adapt to new realities do not guarantee the sustainability of their position.

New framework of self-determination

Along with understanding fate Cultural Studies in the new university context, we see in the texts of researchers efforts aimed both at understanding the coordinates in which this project was conceived, and at finding ways to remove internal conflicts that traditionally determined the identity of cultural researchers. The most important theme here is the question of their political engagement and the range of forms of critical intervention. Demonstrating continuity with respect to statements about the “academic engagement” of the founding fathers of this tradition, representatives Cultural Studies today they strive to more consistently maintain a distance from politics in the traditional sense. In connection with this, statements about the connection of the project also become the object of criticism Cultural Studies with the idea of a “different politics” - such, for example, as Stuart Hall’s thesis about the study of culture as the implementation of politics by other means. In the 1990s, a number of authoritative representatives Cultural Studies, such as Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, John Story, criticize attempts to emphasize the political engagement of knowledge about culture. According to Storey, recognizing the political implications Cultural Studies sets false guidelines for their self-description. He critiques the very term “institutionalization,” the use of which is based on the implicit assumption that cultural studies originally developed outside the academy and went from “heroic resistance” to incorporation. He considers the romanticization of political engagement unjustified, since he considers it an obstacle to normal academic functioning and building relationships with other disciplines. In contrast to such attitudes, Storey proposes to proceed from the fact that Cultural Studies are initially “a theoretical practice and a research and pedagogical project” and in this sense can quite naturally be recognized as a full-fledged discipline.

On the other hand, an attempt is made to redefine the horizon of political engagement in cultural studies and to demonstrate that the latter does not necessarily conflict with academic work. According to Ted Strifas, "anti-disciplinary" self-determination Cultural Studies due to the fact that the practice of critical writing acted as the main form of political self-realization of its representatives. At the same time, institutional building was relegated to the background. However, the latter has its own political implications associated with the influence of universities on the media and political environment, with the formation of an intellectually active layer and with the preparation of future cultural producers. Pointing to the need to transfer the activity of cultural researchers to this plane, Strifas stipulates that this kind of work should not be opportunistic in nature and be focused on achieving an immediate political effect. Related to this is also the recognition of the need to take into account the logic of the university and make one’s presence in it more defined. Paul McEwen notes that "manifestation" Cultural Studies in the university space, their transformation from a “crypto-discipline” into a full-fledged discipline is a condition for the implementation of the idea of openness of this field of knowledge. However, now this idea should be implemented not in a theoretical and methodological, but in an institutional way: we are talking, in particular, about inclusion in ratings and the development of resources that provide the public with information about education in this field, etc. .

Thus, the condition for representatives of cultural studies to develop a new intellectual identity is to overcome the rigid opposition between the idea of academic work as having a fundamentally routine nature, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the indispensable conditioning of the creative and critical nature of the activities of representatives Cultural Studies their direct political involvement. According to Ted Strifas, within this opposition, the self-determination of cultural researchers will inevitably be traumatic, since any institutionalization will be described as a failure and loss of the authenticity supposedly inherent in Cultural Studies as a critical intellectual project. However, for any unbiased observer, the gap between statements about political engagement is obvious Cultural Studies and the reality of their everyday existence, from the perspective of which these statements look declarative and ideological. The natural consequence of this logic is the normalization of disciplinarity and the refusal to consider disciplines solely as an instrument of power.

Current weak institutionalization Cultural Studies is considered as one of the costs of their theoretical and methodological uncertainty. Of course, this is not a matter of discarding all previous criticism, but of taking care, on the one hand, to develop immunity in relation to the routinizing mechanisms of disciplinarization, and, on the other, to use this new disciplinary identity to realize the fundamental task of cultural studies - critical analysis of modern culture, carried out in the name of realizing the public good. In this regard, the following is indicative: if earlier representatives Cultural Studies feared that cultural studies were turning exclusively into pedagogical practice, today they intend to reconsider the relationship between research and pedagogical components in favor of the latter. Ethical justification for the need to develop a long-term development program Cultural Studies As a university discipline, it has a responsibility to future generations of researchers.

An indicative symptom of the movement towards disciplinary self-identification, realized in the modern interdisciplinary field, can be considered the readiness to write cultural studies into the history of the humanities of the 20th century. We find examples in the works of Toby Miller, according to whom, Cultural Studies are going through the same growing pains and accusations that sociology did after the Second World War, literary criticism in the second half of the 19th century, and the natural sciences at the beginning of the 20th century. You can also point here to the work of John Stratton and Ian Eng, who compare the internationalization of cultural studies with the spread of sociology - with the only difference that, in contrast to sociology, which claimed the universality of the developed model, cultural researchers "on the ground" more often insist on the particularity of the knowledge they produce. An important component of the search for a new self-identification is the critical analysis of stereotypes that mediate conflictual relationships between representatives of various disciplines, carried out “above barriers”. We find an example of such an analysis in an article by David Inglis, who, describing the mutual prejudices of representatives of sociology and Cultural Studies, likens the conflict of these areas of knowledge to the battle of the twins Tweedledum and Tweedledum in the famous fairy tale by Lewis Carroll.

Another means is to historicize the perception of disciplinarity within the Cultural Studies. According to Simon Dühring, we can talk about two stages in the development of this concept. He associates the first of them with the works of Richard Hoggart, whose idea was that Cultural Studies were supposed to act as an intermediary in the interaction of literary criticism ( English Studies) and sociology. At this moment there was no talk of opposing disciplinarity in principle. The critique of disciplinarity acquired programmatic significance in the second stage, after 1968, during the leadership of Stuart Hall, who set a course for the political engagement of cultural studies, which he considered as a necessary condition for a fundamental analysis of the relationship between culture and society.

The theme of interdisciplinarity also prompts the question of the gap between ideological declarations and the actual practice of academic work. In this context, the subject of discussion is the ability of this field of knowledge to actually carry out interdisciplinary dialogue, organize platforms for communication between representatives of different disciplines, and use the theoretical potential of cultural studies to increase the effectiveness of this communication.

In this regard, the place of the idea of interdisciplinarity in the structure of identity is also redefined Cultural Studies. We find a rather refined interpretation of this plot in the book The Practice of Cultural Research by Richard Johnson, Deborah Chambers, Parvati Raghuram and Estella Ticknell. The starting point for this interpretation is a brief outline of the history of cultural studies in the context of its relations with other disciplines. Johnson and his colleagues identify four stages in this story. The first of them was related to the formation of the project. Having a starting point outside existing disciplines, this project was adisciplinary and even partly counterdisciplinary. The second stage was characterized by the mastery of approaches that existed in other disciplines, due to which this segment is associated with a multidisciplinary attitude and the search for interdisciplinary synthesis. The third stage, which is designated as transdisciplinary, the authors associate with the influence Cultural Studies for other disciplines. Finally, the fourth stage is the fate of cultural research in the situation of an accomplished cultural turn. The emergence of forms of cultural analysis in various disciplines finally breaks the monopoly Cultural Studies. Researchers working in this area are faced with the need to monitor existing approaches, assessing the degree to which they are innovative or trivial in the context of a variety of research practices. This situation, according to Johnson and his colleagues, is not a state of post-disciplinarity: the old mechanisms of organizing science and forms of self-identification exist today along with new ones. At the same time, it is important to understand that the identity of a cultural researcher today often turns out to be multiple and, accordingly, identification with Cultural Studies in most cases is not the only self-identification of a cultural researcher.

The instrumental understanding of (inter)disciplinarity, which is the presumption of this excursion, assumes, as a prospect for the development of cultural studies, the search for an effective combination of two equal strategies, one of which is associated with the idea of their openness to external influences, the other with self-determination (academic, disciplinary). This search is carried out in two planes. In one of them, the opposition of these strategies is revealed as a dilemma of relevance and professionalism: without abandoning the traditional openness to the current agenda and the principles of criticizing scientific disciplinarity (considering it from the point of view of limitations and regulatory functions), it is necessary to respect the values of professionalism and academic consistency. On another level, we are talking about the relationship between relying on the existing research tradition and searching for opportunities for disciplinary renewal. Thanks to this, disciplinary boundaries are removed from the regime of routine reproduction into the sphere of reflexive control.

Summing up our characteristics of the current state and development prospects Cultural Studies, Graham Turner notes that the evolution of this field of knowledge represents "a naturally occurring, unintentional longitudinal experiment" in the implementation of an interdisciplinary project. An important characteristic of this experiment is the desire of representatives of this field of knowledge to define it as an anti-discipline. The internally contradictory nature of the criticism of disciplinarity is revealed in the process of intensive disciplinarization of cultural studies, which took place in the context of the imposition of a number of temporary conjunctures: transformations of culture in general and university culture in particular, cognitive turns and changes in the mechanisms of knowledge reproduction in the field of humanities, academic expansion and internal differentiation of the this direction. Experiencing this situation as a crisis encourages cultural researchers to intensively search for their identity, to identify the possibilities of an adequate self-description, which would create conditions for bridging the gaps between ideological declarations and the practice of everyday work. The study of these searches makes it possible to observe the discursive mechanisms of constructing disciplinarity, the modes of its justification, which today are the focus of attention of sociologists of science dealing with this issue.

This search for identity could be analyzed by referring to the implicit categories "collapsed" in the definitions of the subject and in the characteristics of the methodology. However, in our case we were talking about explicit categories associated with the self-determination of cultural researchers in relation to disciplinarity as such. Their analysis reveals the categorical grid within which self-identification is carried out in the context of academic culture: institutions vs. texts, teaching vs. research, criticism vs. political engagement, openness vs. closedness, etc. It is also interesting how, in the search for self-identification, various conjunctures are coordinated - the evolution of the discipline, the development of the university, changes in social demand, the political situation, etc. As for the actual evolution of the perception of disciplinarity, despite all the diversity of starting points for its comprehension, researchers are more inclined to assess it positively. However, this positive assessment is not absolute. It can be considered as a result of the instrumentalization of those semantic formations that were key to self-description Cultural Studies in the 1980s. Thanks to this, it becomes possible not only to present one’s own history as internally heterogeneous, but also to work on deconstructing stereotypes that form a negative image of cultural studies in the eyes of the academic community and the general public. The constructivist orientations of cultural research in the patterns of reflection discussed above become a tool for verifying ideas about one’s own identity. Questions about the boundaries of this reflection, as well as the existence feedback between reflection and reaching new research frontiers, point to new possibilities that can be realized at the next stage of discussion of this topic.

Notes

1. In this scientific work used the results of the project “Formation of a disciplinary field in the humanities and social sciences", carried out within the framework of the Fundamental Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in 2012.

2. Kurennoy V. Research and political program of cultural studies // Logos. 2012. No. 1. P. 15.

3. For an analysis of the current state of this field of knowledge, see: Tolkachova A., Gurova O. Culturology and Cultural Studies in Curriculum of Russian Universities: Friends or Foes? (manuscript). I thank the authors for the opportunity to review the text before its publication.

4. The most significant experience in presenting this tradition, perhaps, can be considered the collection published under the editorship of V. Zverev: Mass culture: Modern Western Studies / V. Zverev (ed.). M.: Pragmatics of Culture, 2005, which, unfortunately, was released without the theoretical section originally planned for it. The most informative publication about Cultural Studies until recently there was an article: Usmanova A. Gender issues in the paradigm of “cultural studies” // Introduction to gender studies. Part 1: Tutorial. HCGI. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2001. pp. 427–464. For a description of the situation with the development of the heritage of cultural research, see also the article by V. Kurenny.

5. See note. 2.

6. See, for example, Kurennoy V. Research and Policy Program. pp. 69–71. It should be noted that the author focuses primarily on the characteristics of development Cultural Studies in the 1960s–1980s and leaves current state cultural studies beyond its focus.

7. Indicative in this sense is the example of Michael Berube, quoted by Kurenny, who concludes his bilious discussions about the state Cultural Studies an expression of hope that this tradition has a great future. Texts representing this kind of self-reflection are described today as examples of the “intellectual jeremiad.” The name of this genre goes back to the biblical story about the lamentation of the prophet Jeremiah over the destruction of Jerusalem. The report of T.D. was devoted to this genre. Venediktova at the round table “Knowledge of culture: the current situation in Russia”, held at the Higher School of Economics in 2008. See also: Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? L.: SAGE Publications, 2012. R. 22.

8. The existence of such a need is confirmed by an impressive corpus of texts. See eg. special issues of journals (Cultural Studies. 1998. No. 4. P. 1–594. Special Issue: The Institutionalization of Cultural Studies), numerous collections (see, for example: Cultural Studies / L. Grossberg, C. Nelson. P. Treichler (eds.). N.Y.; L.: Routledge, 1992; Relocating Cultural Studies: New Directions in Theory and Research / V. Blundell, I. Taylor (eds.). L.: Routledge, 1993; A Question of Discipline: Pedagogy , Power, and the Teaching of Cultural Studies / J. E. Canaan, D. Epstein (eds.). Boulder e.a.: Westview Press, 1997; New Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory / G. Hall, C. Birchall (eds.). Edinburgh , Edinburgh University Press, 2006; The Renewal of Cultural Studies / P. Smith (ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011, etc.), as well as monographs by prominent representatives of Cultural Studies ( Grossberg L. Cultural Studies in the Future Tense. Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2010; Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies?). The latter book turned out to be particularly useful while working on this text. For a discussion of Grossberg's book, see Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 2011. Vol. 8. Issue 3. P. 307–329: FORUM: On Cultural Studies in the Future Tense by Lawrence Grossberg.

9. See the special issue of the journal “Cultural Studies” on the history of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Studies: Cultural Studies. 2013. Vol. 27.No. 5. P. 663–900. Special Issue: Contributions to a History of CCCS.

10. On the history of British cultural studies, including that part of it that preceded the creation of the Birmingham Centre, see, for example: Turner G. British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. L.: Routledge, 2002. R. 65–68. For an analysis in Russian of this intellectual tradition and the political context of its formation, see: Kurennoy V. Research and Policy Program. pp. 17–34.

11. See about this: Hartley J. Short History of Cultural Studies. L.: SAGE Publications Inc. (US), 2003. P. 23–26; Carnie H.J.. Talking to the Center: Different Voices in the Intellectual History of the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) // Gateway: An Academic History Journal on the Web. Spring 2002. URL: http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive21.html(date of access: 03/16/2014).

12. See: Schulman N. Conditions of Their Own Making: An Intellectual History of the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham // Canadian Journal of Communication. 1993. Vol. 18.No. 1. URL: http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/717/623(date of access: 03/16/2014).

13. See: Hoggart R. Speaking to Each Other: Essays by Richard Hoggart. Vol. II. About Literature. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1970. R. 255. Cited. By: Carnie H.J.. Talking to the Center.

14. Johnson R. So what is cultural studies? // Logos. 2012. No. 1. P. 128. At the same time, as researchers note, the center’s students have become fewer literary scholars and more representatives of social sciences.

15. Here we can mention such representatives of this school as D. Hebdige, P. Willis, A. McRobbie and others.

16. We are talking about books such as Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in PostWar Britain / S. Hall, T. Jefferson (eds.). L.: Hutchinson, 1976; Hall S., Critcher C., Jefferson T., Clarke J., Roberts B.. Policing the Crisis: “Mugging,” the State and Law and Order. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1978; Women Take Issue: Aspects of Women’s Subordination / Women’s Studies Group, Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies. L.: Hutchinson, 1978; Unpopular Education: Schooling and Social Democracy in England since 1944 / S. Baron (ed.). L.; Hutchinson, 1981; The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain. Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies. L.: Hutchinson, 1982, etc.

17. Inglis D. The Warring Twins: Sociology, Cultural Studies, Alterity and Sameness // History of the Human Sciences. Vol. 20/2. Los Angeles; L.; New Delhi; Singapore: SAGE Publications, 2007. P. 101.

18. See: Schulman N. Conditions of their Own Making. For more information, see: Turner G. British Cultural Studies. P. 65–68.

19. See about this: Williams R. The Future of Cultural Studies // Williams R. Politics of Modernism. L.: Verso, 2007. P. 151–162.

20. Miller T. What It Is and What It Isn’t: Introducing… Cultural Studies // A Companion to Cultural Studies / T. Miller (ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, pp. 8–9.

21. See: Hartley J. Short History of Cultural Studies. P. 150.

22. Straw W. Shifting Boundaries, Lines of Descent: Cultural Studies and Institutional Realignments in Canada // Relocating Cultural Studies: New Directions in Theory and Research / V. Blundell, I. Taylor (eds.). L.: Routledge, 1993. P. 86–87.

23. Horak R. Cultural Studies in Germany (and Austria) and Why There Is No Such Thing // European Journal of Cultural Studies. 1999. Vol. 2.No. 1. P. 109–115. About the reasons for absence Cultural Studies in France see: Chalard-Fillaudeau A. From Cultural Studies to Études culturelles, Études de la Culture, and Sciences de la Culture in France // Cultural Studies. 2009. Vol. 23.No. 5–6. P. 831–854.

24. It is significant that the term Cultural Studies sometimes used as a synonym for regional studies ( Area Studies).

25. See about this, for example, in the review Preston P. Internationalizing Cultural Studies // Media, Culture & Society. 2006. Vol. 28.No. 6. P. 941–945. Wed. “Both Palestinian culture and Palestinian cultural studies are attempts to overcome historical amnesia and create a more just future. Therefore, Palestinian cultural studies are therefore countercultural studies.” ( Tawil— Souri H. Where Is the Political in Cultural Studies? In Palestine // International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2012. Vol. 16.No. 1. P. 16).

26. Wed. Straw W. Shifting Boundaries, Lines of Descent. P. 88.

27. Inglis D. The Warring Twins. P. 108.

28. Beginning of expansion Cultural Studies in America is usually associated with the “Cultural Studies Now and in the Future” conference, which took place in 1990 in Urbana-Champaign. See this in the context of the debate on the internationalization of cultural studies: Stratton J., Ang I. On the Impossibility of Global Cultural Studies: ‘British’ Cultural Studies in an ‘International’ Frame // Stuart Hall. Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies / D. Morley; K.-H. Chen (eds.). L.; N.Y.: Routledge, 1996, pp. 363–365.

29. McEwan P. Cultural Studies as a Hidden Discipline // International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2002. Vol. 5 (4). R. 427–437.

30. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 23. See also Bérubé M.// Chronicle Review (Chronicle of Higher Education), September 14, 2009: B6-7. URL: http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-the-Matter-With/48334/ (accessed 03/16/2014). For a similar statement in relation to Spain, see: D'arcy C.C.-G. A Room of One's Own? // Cultural Studies. 2009. Vol. 23.No. 5–6. P. 855–872. In Britain, Australia, Canada and Taiwan, the situation looks significantly better: for example, in Britain, according to his information, there are 17 bachelor’s and 14 master’s programs in 140 universities. Cultural Studies. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 23. For the situation in Australia, see also: Bennett T. Cultural Studies: A Reluctant Discipline // Cultural Studies. 1998. Vol. 12.No. 4. P. 528–545.

31. Bérubé M. What's the Matter with Cultural Studies?

32. Turner G. British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. 3rd edition. L.: Routledge, 2002. P. 65.

33. For more information about this, see: Webster F. Cultural Studies and Sociology at, and after, the Closure of the Birmingham School // Cultural Studies. 2004. No. 6 (18). P. 847–862.

34. Hartley J. Short History of Cultural Studies. P. 10.

35. See about this: Turner G. British Cultural Studies. P. 166–195.

36. I am here diverging from considering the question of what significance, from the point of view of ideological problems, the different directions of development within cultural studies had. See about this: Hall C. Cultural studies: two paradigms // Logos. 2012. No. 1. P. 157–183.

37. Johnson R. So what is cultural studies? pp. 80–35. The concept stated in the article is presented in more detail in the book: Johnson R., Chambers D., Raghuram P., Tincknell E.. The Practice of Cultural Studies. L.: SAGE Publications, 2004.

38. Williams R. The Future of Cultural Studies. P. 153. Philological disciplines are the main object of criticism of disciplinarization and professionalism also for R. Johnson. Cm.: Johnson R. So what is cultural studies? pp. 109–110.

39. McLennan G. Sociology and Cultural. Studies: Rhetoric of Disciplinary Identity // History of the Human Sciences. 1998. No. 3. P. 4. This situation sometimes led to characteristic misunderstandings. Thus, Terri Lovell recalled going to study sociology at Leeds as an undergrad, inspired by her experience of reading Hoggart and Williams, and discovering that “these two authors were mentioned in the first year course to point out what sociology is not.” " Quote By: Johnson R. Historical Returns: Transdisciplinarity, Cultural Studies, and History // European Journal of Cultural Studies. August 2001. Vol. 4.No. 3. P. 272.

40. Hall S. The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities // October 1990. Vol. 53. P. 16. Hall connects interdisciplinarity with the position of an intellectual, characterized by personal involvement in the problems of modern society.

41. Williams R. The Future of Cultural Studies. P. 158. Wed. about it: During S. Is Cultural Studies a discipline? And Does It Make Any Political Difference? // Cultural Politics. 2006. Vol. 2. Issue 3. P. 265–280.

42. In this sense, the above statements of Hall and Williams can be seen as attempts to capture the original context of the formation of this criticism, as opposed to its abstraction.

43. Inglis D. The Warring Twins. P. 99–122. Following Paul Willis, Inglis, following Paul Willis, associates the positive connotations that openness and mobility of cultural research acquire here with the affirmation of sociocultural diversity inherent in the left-liberal imagination. Wed. in this regard also the radical formulation of John Hartley quoted above: “Cultural studies was what those who practiced and published it thought they were.”

44. Hall S. Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies // L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, P. Treichler (eds.). Cultural Studies. P. 277–294.

45. Barker C. Making Sense of Cultural Studies: Central Problems and Critical Debates. L.: Sage, 2002. P. 2–4.

46. Johnson R.

47. Rooney E. Discipline and Vanish: Feminism, the Resistance to Theory, and the Politics of Cultural Studies // Differences. 1990. No. 2. P. 21; Wed Also: Giroux H., Shumway D., Smith P., Sosnoski J. The Need for Cultural Studies: Resisting Intellectuals and Oppositional Public Spheres // Dalhousie Review. 1984. No. 64. P. 472–486.

48. See about this: Said E.W. Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith lectures. N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1994.

49. See: Hall S. The Emergence of Cultural Studies. P. 12; Johnson R. So what is cultural studies? pp. 86–87. The recognition that the center's activities were never associated with the implementation of a specific political program is also captured in Stuart Hall's oft-quoted formulation, which describes its participants as “organic intellectuals without any organic attachment.” Cm.: Hall S. Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies. P. 266.

50. For more information on the relationship between political affiliations and academic trajectories of Birmingham Center participants, see: Hartley J. Short History of Cultural Studies. P. 149–156; Kurennoy V. Research and Policy Program. pp. 25–34.

51. Johnson R. So what is cultural studies? P. 84.

52. A parodic depiction of this expansion can also be found in the modern university novel. Wed, for example: Hines D. Lecturer's story. M., 2001.

53. About criticism Cultural Studies see also: Kurennoy V. Research and Policy Program. pp. 35–40, 68–71.

54. Gronas M. Dissensus. The War for the Canon in the American Academy of the 80–90s // New Literary Review. 2001. No. 51. P. 6–17. URL: http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2001/51/gronas.html(date of access: 03/16/2014). It is significant that the author of one of the most famous books devoted to the problems of the cultural canon, John Guillory, describes the changes that occurred in the structure of the university as a result of the “canon wars” as a symptom of social changes based on the desire of a growing class of managers to free themselves from the pressure of cultural capital bourgeoisie.

55. See about this: Miller T. What It Is and What It Isn’t. P. 10. Wed. also the titles of the following publications: Windschuttle K. The Poverty of Cultural Studies // Journalism Studies. 2000. Vol. 1.No. 1. P. 145–159; McQuillan M. Why Cultural Studies Is the End of Thinking // Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2013. Vol. 45. Issue 6. P. 693–704.

56. This story was related to the controversial publication in the magazine in 1996 of an article by physicist Alan Sokal, the text of which was an imitation of postmodernist discourse and was intended to expose the decline in standards of intellectual rigor that occurs under the influence of postmodernism: Sokal A.D. Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity // Social Text. Vol. 46/47 (spring/summer 1996). P. 217–252.

57. For a selection of critical responses, see: Inglis D. The Warring Twins. P. 111–114.

58. Ibid. P. 112.

59. Ainish gives an example of a case when in a bookstore, when asked about books on sociology, she was pointed to a shelf with works on Cultural Studies. The opposite situation, when such a traditional sphere of interest of cultural studies as the functioning of mass media is defined as sociological, is described by M. Berube: Bérubé M. What's the Matter with Cultural Studies?

60. Heinich N. What Does “Sociology of Culture” Mean? Notes on a Few Trans-Cultural Misunderstandings // Cultural Sociology. 2010. Vol. 4. P. 257–265. This situation prompts the author of the article to define his professional identity not as a sociologist of culture, but as a sociologist of art.

61. Readings B. The university is in ruins. M.: Publishing house. House of the State University Higher School of Economics, 2010. P. 142, 146. Ridings states the fundamental affiliation Cultural Studies to the academic field, distinguishing them in this respect from engaged feminist and multiculturalist studies.

62. See for example: Bauman Z. Legislators and interpreters: Culture as an ideology of intellectuals // Untouched reserve. 2003. No. 1 (27). pp. 5–22.

63. Readings B. The university is in ruins. P. 147.

64. This is evidenced, among other things, by the relevance of Ridings’s ideas in discussions about the place of cultural studies at the university. See, for example: Striphas T. The Long March: Cultural Studies and Its Institutionalization // Cultural Studies. 1998. Vol. 12.No. 4. P. 462–464; Rutherford J. Cultural Studies in the Corporate University // Cultural Studies. 2005. Vol. 19.No. 3. P. 297–317.

65. Quote. By: Bérubé M. Engaging the Aesthetic // The Aesthetics of Cultural Studies / M. Bérubé (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. P. 1.

66. On the pedagogical concept of Cultural Studies, see: Sefton-Green J. Cultural Studies and Education // Cultural Studies. 2011. Vol. 25.No. 1. P. 55–70.

67. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? P. 79–81. This kind of didactic strategies discredit both the theory, which loses its critical functions and becomes a mechanism of self-reproduction, and the idea of subjectivity, which here turns out to be connected with the predilections of the teacher and is realized through his dominance in the educational process. Turner considers the likely consequence of this approach to be the production of elitist knowledge about culture and the loss of a practical horizon. In the above statement, it is noteworthy that the researcher uses the concepts of “core” and “discipline” to characterize cultural studies.

68. The latter is exemplified, in particular, by Hall's critique of the construction of Birmingham orthodoxy. See: On Postmodernism and Articulation. An Interview with Stuart Hall // Stuart Hall. Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. R. 149; Moran J. Cultural Studies and Academic Stardom // International Journal of Cultural Studies. 1998. Vol. 1 (April). P. 67–82.

69. The Practice of Cultural Studies. R. 19–20. At the same time, as the authors note, representatives of traditional disciplines tend to deny the influence Cultural Studies.

70. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 42–43.

71. Turner G. R. 45.

72. Striphas T. The Long March. P. 461–462. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 41–42.

73. McGuigan J. Cultural Populism. L.: Routledge, 1992. P. 4.

74. This was an important stimulus for the construction of a British genealogy of cultural studies. For an analysis of this plot, see the article: Stratton J., Ang I. On the Impossibility of a Global Cultural Studies. P. 360–392.

75. Michael Berube quotes a sarcastic comment from Stuart Hall, who said in an interview: “I can’t bear to read another cultural studies analysis of Madonna or The Sopranos.” Bérubé M. What's the Matter with Cultural Studies?

76. Ibid. P. 103.

77. Bérubé M. P. 104.

78. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 116–117.

79. During S. Is Cultural Studies a Discipline? P. 275.

80. Storey J. There's no Success Like Failure: Cultural Studies; Political Romance or Discipline? // Journal of Communication Inquiry. 1997. Vol. 21.No. 2. P. 98–109.

81. Ibid. P. 106.

82. Striphas T. The Long March. P. 455–459.

83. McEwan P. Cultural Studies as a Hidden Discipline. P. 427–437.

84. Striphas T. The Long March. P. 453, 465.

85. Ibid.

86. See, for example: Turner G.“It Works for Me”: British Cultural Studies, Australian Cultural Studies // What Is Cultural Studies? A Reader / J. Storey (ed.). L.: Edward Arnold, 1996. P. 322. Cited. By: Storey J. There's no Success Like Failure. P. 101–102.

87. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 71–73.

88. Ibid. R. 65–66.

89. Podcast: Toby Miller on Cultural Studies by Social Science Bites (Published: December 3, 2012) [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2012/12/tobymiller-on-cultural-Studies/(date of access: 03/17/2014).

90. Stratton J., Ang I. On the Impossibility of a Global Cultural Studies. P. 363–365.

91. Analysis of the reasons for mutual rejection and the possibilities of dialogue between Cultural Studies and history see: Pickering M. Engaging with History // Research Methods in Cultural Studies. Edinburgh University Press, 2008, pp. 193–213; Rodman G. Cultural Studies and History // The SAGE Handbook of Historical Theory / N. Partner, S. Foot (eds.). L.: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2013. P. 342–354.

92. During S. Is Cultural Studies a Discipline? P. 272–273.

93. Striphas T. The Long March. P. 466. A specific example of such a project, the Cultural Research Network, organized in Australia in 2005, is described by Turner in his book: Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? P. 167–178.

94. Johnson R., Chambers D., Raghuram P., Tincknell E. The Practice of Cultural Studies. P. 19–20.

95. At the same time, the authors stipulate that cultural studies, of course, were not the only transdisciplinary area that inspired the cultural turn.

96. Graham Turner moves in a similar direction, pointing out three possibilities for identification Cultural Studies- as a discipline, as a set of theories and methods, and as a project. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? P. 156–161.

97. Johnson R., Chambers D., Raghuram P., Tincknell E. The Practice of Cultural Studies. P. 22–24.

98. Turner G. What's Become of Cultural Studies? R. 57.

99. An example here would be the works of Tony Becher and Paul Trawler, Michel Lamont. For more information, see: Dmitriev A.N., Zaporozhets O.N. The disciplinary principle, the academic market and the challenges of the “knowledge society” // Formation of the disciplinary field in the human sciences / Ed. ed. THEM. Savelyeva, A.N. Dmitrieva. M.: Publishing house. House of National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2014.

Health

1 0 0

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter.