An Exploratory Note to (Re)Articulate Cultural Studies with Political Economy
Abstract
This work is an exploratory note for the (re)articulation of cultural studies and political economy. Initially, this paper selectively explores critical studies within the Korean academia that have synthesized ‘cultural studies’ and ‘political economy’. Through this, this paper delves into key issues that have been discussed and considers what should be discussed in the future. In the subsequent chapter, guided by Park’s (2011) assertion that the conflict between cultural studies and political economy primarily stems from differing interpretations of the relationship and determination between the base and superstructure, it revisits the old question of the relationship. Consequently, it reexamines the theoretical trajectory developed through responses of critical scholars, such as Étienne Balibar and Bob Jessop, who have endeavored to retheorize the relationship between ‘base and superstructure’. Through this, it aspires to ignite intensified debates and discussions for the revival of cultural materialism.
Conference presentation: 16th Cultural Studies Camp, Siheung, South Korea, 16 August 2018.
Download: LINK (Written in Korean)
Into the text
“This work was motivated by a desire to rethink how to analyze the cultural aspects of contemporary Korean society considering ‘material’ elements and processes, without resorting to naive economic or class determinism. What perspectives should we adopt to move beyond merely emphasizing ethics as a solution to recently emerging cultural-political problems around gender or refugee issues, or falling into the mere critique of anti-intellectualism? How should we approach the task of exploring why the given social front lines of antagonism were drawn in the context of the existing material power? In my view, to address these questions, it is crucial to explore the re-articulation of ‘cultural studies’ and ‘political economy,’ both of which were established with an emphasis on ‘culture’ and ‘(political) economy’ respectively.” p.2
“These two theorists [Balibar and Jessop], despite developing the ‘superstructure’-‘base’ relationship in entirely different ways, share a common emphasis on material processes. However, comparing them is not easy because they use similar yet different terms. But if their theoretical lenses overlap, many questions can pour out. For example, how can the mediating process between ‘the real’ and ‘the imaginary’ proposed by Balibar be connected with the mediating process between the ‘semiotic mechanism’ and the ‘extra-semiotic mechanism’ proposed by Jessop? How do their perspectives on the relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘conjuncture’ that both emphasize differ? How can ‘contradiction’ be specifically analyzed by them?” p.11
“Furthermore, the two theories can explore the possibility of mutual complementarity. As mentioned earlier, compared to Jessop, Balibar lacks sophisticated concepts that capture concrete and contextual reality. However, by developing the theory of ideology, Balibar not only refined the theory of subjectification forms that Jessop relatively does not pay much attention to and revived the fetishism of commodities, a core issue of Marxism, but also inscribed major political philosophical issues such as ‘intellectual difference’ and ‘sexual difference’ into the theory. Therefore, it is still a remaining task to explore whether these two theories, which derived from the same question of ‘superstructure-base’ and branched out differently, share a possible epistemology and ontology, if possible, how specifically, and what insights they can provide to cultural studies.” p.11
Dongwook Song 