The Culture Totem

Article excerpt

"What We Talk about When We Talk about Culture" by Matthew Greenfield, in Raritan (Fall 1999), Rutgers Univ., 31 Mine St., New Brunswick, N.J. 08903.

For many in the tribe of literary critics, cultural studies is now the rage. The very word culture has taken on high totemic status, with "an almost magical power to confer authority and assuage anxiety," notes Greenfield, an English instructor at Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine. "Merely to pronounce the word expands the territory of literary criticism," at the same time warding off doubts about the field's basic worth. It lets English professors venture into far-flung areas to take up subjects such as the "intertextuality" of rock 'n' roll or the history of images of physical disability. Universities, academic disciplines, and even campus bookstores have been busily rearranging themselves to show proper obeisance. Meanwhile, contends Greenfield, culture's intellectual day may be passing.

The concept of culture invariably shifts the focus away from "the agency and intention of individuals and toward the mapping of larger structures," he notes. Borrowing the concept from anthropology, literary critics often employ a "simplified, distorted, or undertheorized version" of it, with the vagueness quite possibly only enhancing its "tremendous authority" in the field. Literary critics see culture as collective "games," as collective "performances," or, most commonly, as like a "text"-and therefore susceptible to literary interpretation.

But as critics shift their focus away from individual writers, toward "larger cultural systems," they run into difficulties, Greenfield says. One is how to explain historical change, in Marxist or other terms, when the cultural theories presume a "culture" with a coherent function or structure that is static or at least resistant to change. …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.