Grossberg VS. Garnham

Lawrence Grossberg criticizes Nicholas Garnham’s attempt to define and discuss cultural studies in his words.  Grossberg rips apart what he believes cultural studies really means and what it represents.  Grossberg states what Garnham tries to say about cultural studies and then each time, blows it out of the water with his facts and rebuttal.  Grossberg is tired of politic economists attacking what he believes and knows of cultural studies.

The first criticism that Garnham mentions is cultural studies celebrating merely popular culture and not understanding mature things such as; power, domination, and oppression in the contemporary world (626).  Garnham’s criticisms are often way off track and sometimes sound stupid because he does know entirely know what he is trying to say and does not have the respected sources.  For example he states that “cultural studies sees gender and race along with other potential markers of difference, as alternative structures of domination” to class.  Grossberg fights back explaining that any difference including race, gender, or class are articulated to and by other differences. 

            Garnham bases his interpretations of cultural studies by “sampling by convenience” (627).  He selectively presents and does not have a wide range of work to back up his arguments.  He believes that cultural studies focus too much on the aspect of consumption and not enough on the production of the work itself.  Grossberg highly disagrees with this argument and states that the consumption and leisure are, in the end, a part of the political economy.  Grossberg emphasizes that Garnham does not address the appropriate questions and simply throws out grey facts.  The most important question is, what is it that mobilizes opposition and Garnham does not ask this question 630).

            Grossberg discusses the real differences between political economy and cultural studies.  He states that cultural studies are opposed to capitalism, but that does not mean that it ever became involved in political economy as a model of cultural explanation (651).   He argues that neither cultural studies nor political economy is a meaningful political enterprise and open to change. 

            This article is not trying to say that cultural studies revolves around perfection, it admits that sometimes people are “duped” by what they see in the media and learn from certain studies.  It says that sometimes people are manipulated and often lied to. 

In conclusion, it is stated that cultural studies did not reject political economy; it simply denied versions of political economy as inadequate (635).  The article ends with the point that people shouldn’t try to return to some imaginary relationship that never existed and not to try to force reconcile.