Addendum: obsolescence

Posted on | May 2, 2009 | 7 Comments

Is it possible to describe the “Cultural studies and obsolescence” thread as heartening and heartbreaking? Well, I just wanted to thank those of you who shared your experiences for breaking the silence and politesse that surrounds these issues (and Michael, that’s why no one talks about the quality of conferences. It goes against good manners, and the economy of gratitude that has to exist to recognise people make big sacrifices to put a conference on in the first place).

It strikes me that there has been a tipping point, really, in the way that some of us are able to overlook the contradictions affecting cultural studies in its current academic formations. Dogpossum’s comment captures this in the most wrenching way. I acknowledge that there has always been navel gazing in this discipline, but there haven’t necessarily been quite so many ex-students wondering what they did with the past few years of their life. As a recession confronts us, there are serious questions at stake here. Obviously it’s my hope that the State of the Industry conference can provide a way forward, by highlighting the ideas, the passion, and the disappointments of recent graduates looking for academic careers. It is one effort to address and work to improve this complex situation.

In the meantime, I’ve been wondering whether anyone else is grateful for the conversation that took place last week, and whether there might be other ways of developing it. For instance, I have been asked to consider submitting a version of the thread in article form for the forthcoming issue of M/C on “obsolescence”. Some of you may remember something similar happened a few years ago, when Cultural Studies Review published an edited piece based on an feisty exchange on the CSAA-forum.

I am hesitant about this, because although I half wanted to motivate myself to write something for that issue by posting here, I didn’t have any sense that this thread would take off quite the way that it did. It is actually your energy that has made me think that it could be worthwhile making more of this. But, I am also conscious that publishing in a journal may go against the very politics being expressed in a number of the contributions–I would like to talk more about this if possible. I can appreciate that this idea might be completely inappropriate, because what I also treasured most about the thread was that it showed me this was a space you considered to be “safer” than others in sharing what you have. So, I will be contacting some of you directly about your thoughts and your willingness to be cited, but of course let me know what you think here, too. We need to decide in the next week.

But also, thanks for making me feel like I could open something up again on this blog, at a time when I’m spinning quite a lot between the things that usually motivate me, and the causes I’m usually invested in. Moving state and starting a new job has had some delayed impacts, I think. So it’s especially nice to know that a lot of you are still with me wherever I am.

Category: Web(log) Stuff

Comments

7 Responses to “Addendum: obsolescence”

  1. ap
    May 2nd, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

    it’d make a great zine! to be distributed at the state of the industry conference & glen’s pub conference.

  2. Michael Dieter
    May 3rd, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

    Of course, there are ways of speaking about quality of a conference or event without hurting people’s feelings. Constructive feedback, or even criticism, does not have to be delivered with negativity and hostility. And I hope that I didn’t give the impression of either in my comment on this blog (although there might have been some general frustration creeping in to my fairly manifesto-style rant).

    This kind of issue with the organisation of events reminds me of the familiar problem at conferences where no feedback is offered to a presenter, except behind their backs. At an institutional level, this is a dynamic that should be countered by developing available spaces for appropriate critical reflection on methods, frameworks and more specific problems, especially if these perceived shortcomings are eventually directed at the reputation of an association, or even an entire discipline. Whether or not a blog is the best platform for registering these sentiments is a fairly open question, however, I imagine that the State of the Industry conference will be important for pursuing these discussions in a more formal setting.

    I should also add that I have made many useful contacts through the CSAA conferences and have enjoyed attending. There are many positive outcomes from this annual gathering, but I can’t help but feel that it could be doing so much more.

    Look forward to tracking how this conversation pans out Mel, either at home cooked theory, M/C or elsewhere.

    Best,

    - Michael.

  3. LB
    May 4th, 2009 @ 7:04 am

    Obsolete, to fall into disuse, to become outdated. If the market goes awry does that mean that the problems of cs are now outdated or even more timely? If experimental postdisciplinary work gets sacrificed to economic tightening does that mean that we were wrong or that we should have foreseen x or y? Is experimentality or disciplinary innovation a luxury, or only appropriate in periods of expansion? Isn’t it a time for fighting about the terms of utility, pragmatism, pedagogy, rhetoric, or productivity? The question of figuring out what world we’re training people for is crucial, but it doesn’t follow now as ever that the adjustment should go only in one direction.
    Roar.
    If you’re going to adapt the post, it would be interesting to hear you ruminate on belatedness or time out of joint in relation to how intellectual labor looks re the job market/world in economic crisis.
    In solidarity, of course. LB

  4. melgregg
    May 5th, 2009 @ 9:50 am

    Thanks for all this feedback. And Michael, I think all of your comments have been offered in a productive spirit – sorry if I didn’t make that clear in the rush.

    So, I don’t think I’ll rush this for the M/C deadline– on the one hand, I’m working through some of these issues in my book, so that can be the place where I do “my” ruminations.

    But I really like Anna’s inspired idea/ provocation that those of us who are interested should go to Newcastle to talk more. It’s such a great festival, and it’s held in between now and the state of the industry conference, which is the other place I’d like to revisit this debate… I just need to check the dates are okay for a couple of other things… but who would be in for this? And Anna, should we talk to you or someone else about it?

  5. melgregg
    May 5th, 2009 @ 9:53 am

    PS. It looks like submissions might be closed if we don’t get some help! Time to draw on my TINA contacts :-)

  6. ap
    May 7th, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

    i’ve put out some feelers, am hoping not to have to cite all my years of vollying at tina to get a hearing :) i am prepared to if required. beats quantifying myself against era criteria…

  7. glen
    May 11th, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

    hey something I forgot to write in response to this post was regarding the concept of obsolescence.

    In my teaching I have used Vance Packard’s work, an extract from the Waste Makers, on planned obsolescence. He identifies three types of planned obsolescence. I add to Packard’s list the obsolescence of affect, ie those shockingly frustrating or numbingly liquidating situations when constellations of affect are no longer useful or valorised. The rhythm of the spectacle is such that bodies are no longer mobilised (at least not until next season).

    Much of the subcultural poaching that goes on, which had previously been discussed in terms of semiotic appropriation, etc., I reckon is better understood in terms of the emergence of affective consistencies organised around the resuscitation of that which has been rendered obsolete through the mobilisation of bodies (affect) and the discursive concrescence of value. Thrift store fashions are a classic of this. Fashions that were once anti-fashion aesthetic compositions born of material necessity (re)cycle again and again.

    So my point is, do you think this is part of a (re)cycle? I know I am getting very Battlestar right now (Everything that will happen, will happen again), but they were just getting Deleuzian. Is this some sort of staging ground from something to come?

    Anyway,

Leave a Reply