Cultural Studies

‘Cultural studies: two paradigms’ is an article written by Stuart Hall in which the two

paradigms of cultural studies are explored critically. What follows is a response to this. The

two paradigms, namely the culturalist and the structuralist modes of thinking have emerged

at two different points of time in the realm of cultural studies. It throws light to the fact that

the way culture has been conceptualized has undergone tremendous changes in the discipline

of cultural studies. Both these paradigms, which mark a thorough departure from the

conventional ways of looking at culture, have contributed substantially to the growth and

development of cultural studies as an institutionalized discipline and as an analytical project.

The culturalist strand in the discipline of cultural studies emerged in the theoretical

formulations of Hoggart, Raymond Williams and Thompson with regard to the

understanding of culture. Hoggart’s ‘Uses of Literacy’, William’s ‘Culture and Society’ and

Thompson’s ‘Making of the English Working Class’ were the influential texts that were

instrumental in inaugurating a paradigm shift in the domain of cultural studies as opposed to

the conventional ways in which the term ‘culture’ has been conceptualized. According to

Hall, this significant break constitutes the dominant paradigm of cultural studies called

culturalism. The crux of the culturalist strand constitutes the ways in which Raymond

Williams and Thompson have conceptualized the term ‘culture’. Raymond Williams was the

first to introduce a democratic and socialist definition of culture. He conceptualized culture

1
as ‘ordinary’. He strongly argued that the mundane, everyday experiences of the general

social life were also part of culture. Here Williams breaks away with the elitist, bourgeoisie

idea of taste and culture which is endorsed by Mathew Arnold. The Arnoldian concept of

culture is that of an extraordinary realm of experience of thought and ideas. Here the

standards of taste, quality and grandeur are reinforced in order to mark off the unruly,

anarchic elements of civilization which acts as a threat to the higher sensibilities of culture.

Another focal point of Williams is on ‘social totality’. This aspect becomes

significant when he defines culture as a ‘whole way of life’. Here culture is not merely the

sum of all social practices. It is viewed as the totality of the inter-relationship of all social

practices. He also mentions the role of organizations and structures in determining the

relationship between various social practices and patterns. The culturalism of Williams

focuses on the ‘lived experiences’ of the people and strongly argues that social practices and

patterns have certain amount of essence to it. The concept of ‘social totality’ challenged the

Marxist principles of materialism and economic determinism. Classical Marxist believed that

the meanings of all communitarian practices were determined by the economy. The

contribution of Thompson to the culturalist strand is also remarkable. By defining culture ‘as

opposed ways of life’, he stressed on the key issues of struggle and confrontation that

happens in the realm of culture. Later, Raymond Williams, who constantly rethinks and

revises his arguments has acknowledged and analyzed the questions of hegemony that is

crucial to the understanding of culture. Therefore, culturalism views culture as ‘social

totality’ along with an equal emphasis on the questions of hegemony.

2
 The structuralist stand emerged to challenge the humanist assumptions within the

culturalist paradigm. The new paradigm appeared in the theoretical positions of Levi-Strauss

and Althusser. The srtucturalist arguments and interventions are largely centered on the

concept of ‘ideology’. According to Althusser, ideology is a ‘system of representations’.

These representations happen in and through language. Human consciousness comes into

being through language. There is no human consciousness uncorrupted by the mediations of

language. Thus reality is constructed through language. The contribution of Levi-Strauss to

the structuralist strand of cultural studies is also outstanding. He talks about the vital role of

structures in determining the larger meaning of social practices and patterns. Structuralism

locates groups in the larger structure and doesn’t reduce people into mere agents. Men are

not the product of a historical logic or specific social context but of larger social ‘structures’.

He strongly argues that there are certain categories and frameworks through which one

understands culture. There is nothing essential to a given culture and the meanings are

produced through categories and concepts.

The structuralist conception of experience as opposed to the humanist perceptions of

the culturalists is also significant. Structuralism views that ‘experience’ is produced in and

through categories, frameworks and classifications and is never real. On the other hand,

culturalism conceives experience as the ground. Their focus is on the ‘lived experiences’ of

the people and also believes that they are real and authentic. The advocates of structuralism

also acknowledge the ‘relative autonomy’ of social practices. However, these social practices

and patterns are part of the larger social structures. Hence, structuralism is of the view that

social practices have both specificity and generality.

3
Stuart Hall doesn’t subscribe either to the culturalist or the structuralist paradigm in absolute

terms. He is of the view that both these paradigms have certain weaknesses along with their

strengths. He identifies three major weaknesses of structuralism. Firstly, structuralism in its

over-emphasis on conditions and strategic silences on the necessity of conscious struggles

against dominant ideology has created a hurdle in conceptualizing revolutionary politics.

Secondly, according to culturalism, structuralism is ‘a process without subject’. There is no

single experience unmediated by conditionality of structures of language and culture.

Thirdly, it sidelines the fact that the cultural and ideological spheres are determined by the

economic base. Culturalism also has certain defects. The over-emphasis on consciousness

and experience has made the culturalist stand blind towards the inner mechanism of

experiencing the world. Culturalism also posits a (collective or individual) unified subject of

consciousness at the centre of the structure. This unified consciousness popularized by

culturalism has its own limitations. In short, Stuart Hall subscribes to a middle course

position with regard to the structuralist and culturalist paradigms in the discipline of cultural

studies.