Sorry Brian is mistakenly called you Chris.

Thanks to Brian Moon for improving my understanding of the differences between Cultural Studies and Lit Crit. I now have a better empirical basis for my long held concerns about CS.

The point of LitCrit (at least as it was taught to me at Sydney Uni thirty years ago) is to help the reader to engage with literature on both an intellectual and emotional level. Contrary to Moon’s implication (ie “Criticism uses its belief in moral absolutes…”), one can do this without importing any particular political or moral agenda; all that is required is emotional and intellectual engagement with a text.

If I understand Moon correctly, this is distinct from CS, which is framed as a “science”, or something a little bit like a science. Moon presumably means by this that CS aims to interpose a degree of objectivity, of detachment, of emotional distance between the reader and the text, studying it as a cultural artefact which can give us information about the value systems prevalent in that culture. At that level, Shakespeare and bus tickets are indeed on a par.

Some questions. One: why would anyone want high school students to study great literature (as distinct from bus tickets) in such a way? Surely the whole point of reading great literature is because it engages both the mind and the heart? Isn’t it a bit like the difference between studying art vs studying paint chemistry?

Second question: why does Moon not mention the reputation CS has of importing a highly politicised left agenda into academic curricula? I am not making this up: read the recommended CS texts at Universities that teach it. If you don’t have the time or interest for that (and frankly, I wouldn’t blame you), check out the references mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies

Third question: in framing CS as a “science” or something like it, why does Moon not mention the fact that CS is widely regarded by real scientists as a bad joke? References:anything on the Sokal hoax, or “Intellectual Impostures” by Sokal and Bricmont.

Simon Templar - er, goodness, that is a lot of corn(?)

I think all you Latin enthusiasts should provide a decoder link for the rest of us, like this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A218882

What can I say in reply? Non sum pisces? Saxa reducto?

:-D

"Captain Oates: - quod erat demonstrandum ?"
Posted by Romany, Monday, 2 April 2007 8:16:30 PM

I do believe so, Romany.

BTW, it's "Oats", not "Oates" (I've never been to Antarctica).

Chainsmoker

The point is it is not the masses that define our culture and it's direction it is the odd few brilliant minds.

What are those jingles...TV adds?

I haven't watched commercial tv in years. Too busy reading the classics. Sort of proves my point though doesn't it? Thanks.

Certainly proves you're out-of-touch with contemporary Australian culture, and possibly one of those latte-sipping elites we keep hearing about who look down their noses at everybody and don't watch TV and are terrorist-loving threats to Western civilisation ;-)