Kei Urano Essays - Anthropology, Humanities, Culture, Ethnography

Kei Urano 9/16/99 Critical Essay #1 During the first four weeks of our class, we have been reading and discussing numerous essays on the study of culture. Each theorist we have read has questions and problems about the study of culture. They have suggested us solutions to the problems as well. I have decided to closely analyze the essays from Richard Johnson, James Clifford, and Clifford Geertz. In his essay, What is Cultural Studies Anyway? Richard Johnson goes into detail describing critique. Critique involves stealing away the more useful elements and rejecting the rest.(pg. 575). By comparison, Johnson defines cultural studies as a process of finding useful knowledge about different analysis of culture. Johnson explains how anglicizing of old Marxism is a good example of critique in cultural studies. By explaining how old Marxism has a significant role in forming cultural studies, Johnson implies how history of economics has a major role in forming culture. Johnson believes that there are three main premises where old Marxism has influenced cultural study. The first is that social relations influence culture. I agree with Johnson. Different class, sex, race, and age create different relationships. The second premise is that each individual and social group has different limits of power defining different needs. For example, homeless people have different needs than the r ich. This is an example of money being defined as power. The third premise is that culture is influenced by social struggles and differences. I don't know any culture where every individual is truly equal. There is always a struggle for power. Critique in cultural studies raises several questions for Johnson. If we have progressed by critique, are there not dangers that codifications will involve systematic closure? If the momentum is to strive for really useful knowledge, will academic codification help this? Is not the priority to become more 'popular' rather than more academic? ...In any case, students, now have lectures, courses and examinations in the study of culture. In these circumstances, how can they occupy a critical tradition critically?(pg. 577). These questions have been puzzling me as well. I don't see how cultural studies can be more 'popular' rather than more academic. 'Popular' means majority. Johnson questions the reason for classes cultural studies. Does this mean that we need to study individually? If so, how could it become more 'popular'? I believe that Johnson's questions makes the readers go in circles. Another thing that puzzles me is that Johnson believes that old Marxism has a significant role in cultural studies. Marxism explains how the working group will overthrow the class system and establish a Communist society. Yet, Johnson believes that the three premises discussed earlier influence culture. Is he saying that he is against cultural studies? If this is so, I don't see why he is a cultural theorist. James Clifford wrote On Collecting Art and Culture. Clifford starts by explaining about universality and non-universality of collecting. Some sort of 'gathering' around the self and the group - the assemblage of a material 'world,' the marking-off of a subjective domain that is now 'other' - is probably universal. (no pg.#). This explains how human nature embodies hierarchies of value. But the notion that this gathering involves the accumulation of possessions, the idea that identity is a kind of wealth...is surely not universal. (no pg.3). This non-universal way of collecting has been around in the Western culture for a long time. Clifford then goes on to explain the different concepts of collecting and fetishizing. Clifford describes fetishism as a collection kept more in secrecy. It is hard to say if a fetish has more value than a collection. I believe that fetish has a much more personal value than a regular collection. A regular collection is put out into display because the obj ect has value to others as well. A fetish is valuable to the individual. The difference between collecting and fetishizing brings out the question of how different objects are distinguished. Clifford distinguishes objects in the diagram call the semiotic square. Clifford explains how the value of an object proceeds from bottom to top and left to right. I have several problems with Clifford's diagram. First, with this diagram, Clifford has limited culture with just art. By reading different