Experience Culture and Class_Willis

8/6/2019 Experience Culture and Class_Willis

1/20

Orders of Experience: The Differences of Working Class Cultural FormsAuthor(s): Paul Willis and Philip CorriganSource: Social Text, No. 7 (Spring - Summer, 1983), pp. 85-103Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466456 .

Accessed: 30/05/2011 22:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466456?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466456?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/20

Ordersof Experience: he Differencesof WorkingClass CulturalFormsPAULWILLISAND PHILIPCORRIGAN

INTRODUCTIONLet usbegin by "makingstrange"a "source"whichhas beenclaimedalmost otallybythearguments boutculturewhich we areexaminingandcriticizinghere.LouisAlthusser,writing nthe theoreticalournalof thePCF,LaPensee, in 1961,drewattentiono how "an

extraordinaryivisionof labor edtoMarxdiscoveringherealityof FrancewhileEngelsdidthesameforEngland.Onceagainwe mustusethe wordretreat not'supersession'),hat s,the retreatrommyth o reality,whenwe aredealingwiththeactualexperiencewhichtoreoff the veils of illusionbehind which MarxandEngelshad beenlivingas a resultof theirbeginnings . . it shouldbe understoodhatthesediscoveriesareinseparableromMarx'stotalpersonalexperience,whichwas itself inseparableromthe Germanhistorywhich hedirectly lived" (For Marx, Chapter2, emphasesAlthusser).This may be thoughtanawkward apse in early Althusser.But he writes in 1975 abouthow "Marxcontinuallyinsistedon thefact that t was thecapitalistorganization f productionwhich orciblvtaughtthe workingclass the lessonof class struggle . . aboveall in imposingon thema terriblediscipline of labor and daily life, all of which the workers SUFFERNLYTOTURN IT BACKINCOMMON ACTIONS AGAINST THEIR MASTERS." "Is iteasytobeaMarxist nphilosophy?" hisemphases,our capitals).We wish to examinecertainqualitiesandresourcesof workingclass cultural ormstopuncture,deflate indeedto turnback- thepersistentmythof workingclass passivity,subordination,ncorporation, ndignorance.It seems to us thatthe fundamental assivityof the workingclass is proclaimed n anumberof recenttheoreticaldevelopments.We areparticularlyoncernedherewiththosethatcenteraround"discourseanalysis" of variouskinds.The fundamentalnsightof these

PAULWILLIS s ResearchFellow attheCentre orContemporary ulturalStudies,Universityof Birmingham,~England;uthor f Learning oLabourandProfaneCulture,he is currentlyworkingon shopfloorculture.PHILIPCORRIGANs Lecturer, nstitute f Education,Universityof London,England,andauthor f StateFormationandMoralRegulationand Cultureand Control;currentlyhe is workingon culturalproduction.'Werealize thatthis is a verydiverse area. The mostcoherentanddevelopedpositionwe areaddressing ouldbe termedas "Semiotics Mark11" thatareaarisingfromtheextension andcritiqueof Barthes ElementsofSemiologyand Mythologies) n relation o psychoanalyticheoriesof the subjectas developedin, for instance,Languageand Materialism(R. Coward & J. Ellis, Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1978) issues of the recentlypublished deologyandConsciousnessandvariouseditionsof Screen,especially, 15(2), 1974;16(2) 1975;17(3)1976,plussuch workas thatby ColinMacCabe:"Thediscursiveandtheideological nfilm," Screen 19(4) 1978and"On Discourse,"EconomyandSociety9(3) 1979. Muchof this work hasgrownoutof someof Althusser'soriginaldiscussion of ideology(See PaulHirst, "Althusserand theTheoryof Ideology",EconomyandSociety5(A) 1976,reprintednhis OnIdeology, [RKP, 1979])andviaa critiqueof his "Last Instance"determinationaspositedthe "necessary non-correspondence" f ideologicalforms to the economic (see Marx'sCapital and













85555


3/20

Willis andCorriganillis andCorriganillis andCorriganillis andCorriganis thatparticular discourses"producemeaningpurely nternally."Discourses"referonlytothemselvesandnottoan external eferent.Theyproducemeaning hroughhedifferencesof theirconstitutive ymbolsandtherulesof combination f symbolswithout eference o anoutsideobject.No discourse s superior o anyother,norcan anyone discourseguarantee"truth"or "reality"(exceptitsown) to anygreater xtentthananyother"discourse."Inparticularhe "subject"and its "position"aresecuredwithinthe "discourse"and notbyreference o anoutside,transcendant,Cartesian"I." "Subjectivity" n general,then, is afunctionof the structure f discourserather han a reflectionof someoutside,autonomousand humanistically"guaranteed"experience. Where this "experience" is that of theproletariator instance,and wherethis "experience"is taken to embodyaspectsof thehistoricalmissionof theworking lass, then,the"expressive"powerof discoursesbasedofthis "experience" degenerates nto a simple "historicist" or "culturalist"view of the"essence"of theproletariatmanating hrough uccessive,transparentevelsof thetotality.DiscourseTheorytells us that we musthave a non-classreductivenotion of the relativeautonomyof "discourses"whichdo notsimply expressthe interests f classes, butwhich,apparently, tructurehe form of its "experience"to begin with.There s much that s valuablehere- particularlyn termsof a clearrecognition f thespecificityof the modes and textures n which social life is struggled: he givennessandobstinancywith which class relationsare lived. Certainlywe mustacceptthatthe relationbetween the classes could never be the abstractone of pure essences relating through

CapitalismToday,andrecenteditionsof thenew ournalM/F). Wealso includeunder urgeneral erm"discoursetheory"thoseelements of Foucault'sandLaclau'sworkwhichcharacterize subjectposition"as a functiononlyof the closed internal orms and relationshipsof discursivestructures.Our undamentalustification ordefininga relativelyunifiedparadigm "discourse heory" fromavariedfield is thatall thepositionsworkthrougha passivediscursivepositioningof "thesubject"within "discourses"which areapparentlyelf-definingand haveno relation o socialandmaterial ormsbeyond hemselves.The mainweightof ourarguments thrownagainst he implications f thisfor "dominated"andparticularlyworkingclass"subjectpositions"-actually rarely dentifiedoranalyzed n "DiscourseTheory,"There s, therefore,adegreeof asymmetryn ourargumentince we arecountering nattackon the"meanings"and"knowledge"of workingclass culturewhichhasactuallyarrived nly by implication.Thegeneral ormof thetendency s, however,quiteclearand tmaywellbe that t is on theterrain f working lass "experience"that he claims "DiscourseTheory"are best exposed.Of course the "positioning"of subjectsin "discourses" posits the passivityof the dominantas well as thedominated whichis in someways equallya problem.But,especiallyforthe Screenpositions,as theSpeaking"I" is associated with real psychic "I" so both seem to be associated with the "I" in ideology. And sincebourgeois deology is dominant n society, the dominant"I" of the discourseis also established n bourgeoisideologicaldominance andso the interestsof thebourgeoisie heapparentlyotallysecuredeven if at thepriceof a passive formationof subjectivity.Actually, thoughit would be denied, for all the talk of theautonomyof"discourses,"this is ironically o fall intothe crudest ormof a "reflection" theoryof ideologymechanisticallyreproducing he categories of "the base"' i.e., an automaticcorrespondencebetween social relationsandsignifying systems. At any rate,since workingclass subjectsareapparently othpassiveandwhollydominatedideologically n their"positioning"in "discourses"of whateverkind,andsince it is of the utmost mportanceoproperly ecognizethescope forworkingclass autonomyand action t is morepressing ochallenge he notionofpassivitywithrespect o workingclass "subjects."Some of the formalpointswe shall bedevelopingholdtoo, ofcourse,for a moreactive andcreativeconstitutionof bourgeoissubjects.Mostfundamentally othgroups,andtheirformation houldanywaybe thoughtof as in an active relationshipwith each other.For hedevelopingcritiqueof various"discourse heory"positions,see StuartHall,"Some ProblemswiththeIdeology/SubjectCouplet,"IdeologyandConsciousness 3);D. Hobsonet. al. (eds.), Language,Media,Cultureand Society(Hutchinson1980). P. Willeman, "SubjectivityUnderSeige," Screen 19(1), Spring1978.

is thatparticular discourses"producemeaningpurely nternally."Discourses"referonlytothemselvesandnottoan external eferent.Theyproducemeaning hroughhedifferencesof theirconstitutive ymbolsandtherulesof combination f symbolswithout eference o anoutsideobject.No discourse s superior o anyother,norcan anyone discourseguarantee"truth"or "reality"(exceptitsown) to anygreater xtentthananyother"discourse."Inparticularhe "subject"and its "position"aresecuredwithinthe "discourse"and notbyreference o anoutside,transcendant,Cartesian"I." "Subjectivity" n general,then, is afunctionof the structure f discourserather han a reflectionof someoutside,autonomousand humanistically"guaranteed"experience. Where this "experience" is that of theproletariator instance,and wherethis "experience"is taken to embodyaspectsof thehistoricalmissionof theworking lass, then,the"expressive"powerof discoursesbasedofthis "experience" degenerates nto a simple "historicist" or "culturalist"view of the"essence"of theproletariatmanating hrough uccessive,transparentevelsof thetotality.DiscourseTheorytells us that we musthave a non-classreductivenotion of the relativeautonomyof "discourses"whichdo notsimply expressthe interests f classes, butwhich,apparently, tructurehe form of its "experience"to begin with.There s much that s valuablehere- particularlyn termsof a clearrecognition f thespecificityof the modes and textures n which social life is struggled: he givennessandobstinancywith which class relationsare lived. Certainlywe mustacceptthatthe relationbetween the classes could never be the abstractone of pure essences relating through






86666


4/20

Ordersof Experiencerdersof Experiencerdersof Experiencerdersof Experiencetransparentlyxpressedinterestsand intentions.Ideologiesand cultures do not directlyrepresenthe interestsof classes. Injunctionswhichhold, too, for the bourgeoisieand its"experience."

However,all formsof discourseanalysis and muchother heoreticistworkof thelastten years- tendentiallyoverlookthatany symbolic systemis subject,if not to "experi-ence" with all its essentialinterests,certainly o a positionin a social relationship.Thesesystemsarealwaysin specificlocations,contexts,and structureshrough ndby which therelationshipsbetweensocial classes andother social groupsareembodied."Experience"shouldbe used not to indicatean essential interest imelesslyunembodiedbutto, even ifcrudely, name, make an appropriationf, some of the ways in which a relationship sconstitutedhrough"discourses,"symbolsandmaterial ormsfrom hepointof view of thehumanparticipants.Neither erm- "discourse"or "relationship" is actually hinkablealone. If it is idealistic o positAgencyas the disembodied xperienceof theworking lass,so it is idealisticto posit a discourseabstracted rom the historicand continuingsocialrelationshipswhichmakeit a socialproductandpartof social life - make t observableatall. Even the impenitenthumanismwhich sees in "expressions"the perfect ntentionsofclasses is preferableo thinking ithertermalone.We mustsee how relations,andparticu-larlyclassrelations,are,yes lived(andyoucansee thediscourse ever redmarkmarginingthetext- this "the immediatehumanist elapse")butwith a formalattentiono how this isformedandaccomplishedn the recalcitrancef symbolicformsandtheir nternal elation-shipsandtheirrelationshipo ideologicalstructuration. nd this"living" involves"under-standings,"forms of "subjectivity," and whatcertainlyparticipantsegardas "experi-ence." "Experience" s a major ouchstone or how social relationships-often actuallysubmerginghem- areappropriated,ndvery importantlys also the basis for choice andactionwhich(whilepartly llusory)actuallyproduces pecificmaterial utcomeswhichhelpto reproducehe class societyinmuchmorecomplexwayswithgreaterplaysof possibilitiesthanany ex post facto idealist theoreticalaccountcan contain.But "discourse" and "social relations"shouldnot be thought ogether n someuneasytheoreticalpaddock,or addedone to the other. We aredisputing hat ntellectual nterprisecan adequatelyabor n its own discursivevineyard o be "completed"one daymerelybyjoining up adjacentproperties.The connectionbetween these terms should be thought ndialectical ermsof articulatedombinationsnthedynamicof self-producedmaterialife ina capitalistmode. Producinghe "concrete"in thoughtmeanssucha combination.Lenin,afterall, argued hat"beingall reality,experience s not in needof Justification:t exists andtoexplain t meanssimply oformulatehe relations t involves"(PhilosophicalNotebooks).We shallbe as idealistasthe discourse everites f we merelyadd "beneath" he"discursivechain" a separate evel of social relationsand their"positions"or "interests."We mustshow how discoursesare used andhelp to formthe contexts, sites, and even contentsofactualsocialrelations.The "experience"of a socialrelationmustcertainlybe presentedntheconcrete"impure" ormsof itsexistenceaswell as in what t bearsof "classmeaning."Ifthe termsare obe separatedorclarity nthought heyshouldberecombinednthe formofrelationship/discourse/relationship/iscourse/relationship tc., rather han as an all timedualism SOCIALRELATION/DISCOURSE. Most important, the arcanecomplexity of "dis-course" should never be thoughtalone. Thoughthis risks an idealismfrom the otherdirection t is necessaryto stress what is usuallythe massive blind spot in the retinaofdiscursiveapproaches:he natureof the generalclass relation or the proletariat whatshouldactuallyalwaysform the "this-sidedness"of how analysisproceeds.

transparentlyxpressedinterestsand intentions.Ideologiesand cultures do not directlyrepresenthe interestsof classes. Injunctionswhichhold, too, for the bourgeoisieand its"experience."However,all formsof discourseanalysis and muchother heoreticistworkof thelastten years- tendentiallyoverlookthatany symbolic systemis subject,if not to "experi-ence" with all its essentialinterests,certainly o a positionin a social relationship.Thesesystemsarealwaysin specificlocations,contexts,and structureshrough ndby which therelationshipsbetweensocial classes andother social groupsareembodied."Experience"shouldbe used not to indicatean essential interest imelesslyunembodiedbutto, even ifcrudely, name, make an appropriationf, some of the ways in which a relationship sconstitutedhrough"discourses,"symbolsandmaterial ormsfrom hepointof view of thehumanparticipants.Neither erm- "discourse"or "relationship" is actually hinkablealone. If it is idealistic o positAgencyas the disembodied xperienceof theworking lass,so it is idealisticto posit a discourseabstracted rom the historicand continuingsocialrelationshipswhichmakeit a socialproductandpartof social life - make t observableatall. Even the impenitenthumanismwhich sees in "expressions"the perfect ntentionsofclasses is preferableo thinking ithertermalone.We mustsee how relations,andparticu-larlyclassrelations,are,yes lived(andyoucansee thediscourse ever redmarkmarginingthetext- this "the immediatehumanist elapse")butwith a formalattentiono how this isformedandaccomplishedn the recalcitrancef symbolicformsandtheir nternal elation-shipsandtheirrelationshipo ideologicalstructuration. nd this"living" involves"under-standings,"forms of "subjectivity," and whatcertainlyparticipantsegardas "experi-ence." "Experience" s a major ouchstone or how social relationships-often actuallysubmerginghem- areappropriated,ndvery importantlys also the basis for choice and

actionwhich(whilepartly llusory)actuallyproduces pecificmaterial utcomeswhichhelpto reproducehe class societyinmuchmorecomplexwayswithgreaterplaysof possibilitiesthanany ex post facto idealist theoreticalaccountcan contain.But "discourse" and "social relations"shouldnot be thought ogether n someuneasytheoreticalpaddock,or addedone to the other. We aredisputing hat ntellectual nterprisecan adequatelyabor n its own discursivevineyard o be "completed"one daymerelybyjoining up adjacentproperties.The connectionbetween these terms should be thought ndialectical ermsof articulatedombinationsnthedynamicof self-producedmaterialife ina capitalistmode. Producinghe "concrete"in thoughtmeanssucha combination.Lenin,afterall, argued hat"beingall reality,experience s not in needof Justification:t exists andtoexplain t meanssimply oformulatehe relations t involves"(PhilosophicalNotebooks).We shallbe as idealistasthe discourse everites f we merelyadd "beneath" he"discursivechain" a separate evel of social relationsand their"positions"or "interests."We mustshow how discoursesare used andhelp to formthe contexts, sites, and even contentsofactualsocialrelations.The "experience"of a socialrelationmustcertainlybe presentedntheconcrete"impure" ormsof itsexistenceaswell as in what t bearsof "classmeaning."Ifthe termsare obe separatedorclarity nthought heyshouldberecombinednthe formofrelationship/discourse/relationship/iscourse/relationship tc., rather han as an all timedualism SOCIALRELATION/DISCOURSE. Most important, the arcanecomplexity of "dis-course" should never be thoughtalone. Thoughthis risks an idealismfrom the otherdirection t is necessaryto stress what is usuallythe massive blind spot in the retinaofdiscursiveapproaches:he natureof the generalclass relation or the proletariat whatshouldactuallyalwaysform the "this-sidedness"of how analysisproceeds.





87777


5/20

Willis andCorriganillis andCorriganillis andCorriganillis andCorriganTheproleteriats notonly subject o the contradiction etweenCapitalandLaborbutisthe site of contradictions.They are simultaneouslyhe most subordinated nddominatedgroupswithin a mode of production ndsocial formation,as well as beingthe only solidagentsfor possible transformation.2his is to recognizethatalthoughsocial classes areconstitutedhrough ocialindividualswho areconcretelyanddiversely exed, raced, ocatedandgraded hroughsocio-moralclassifications,they remainclasses whose limits of vari-ation3and certainlycrucial internalparametersare formedby and within the existingdominantmodeof production capitalism.Certain f theideological ormsof capitalismnrelation othestructuralogicof thesystem fetishismof thecommodity, he "fairwage,"the wage form, freedom andequalityunder he law, representativeemocracy deeplystructure,for instance, the possibilities for workingclass culture and consciousness.Throughand withinthis, however, it must be recognized hat the workingclass containsresources hroughwhich the presentset of social arrangementsould be radically rans-

formedpreciselybecausetheysuffer mostcollectivelyandsystematicallyrom- are theobject of - those social arrangements.As we hope to show, we mean this as muchscientificallyas humanistically.This subordinationmakesthe workingclass mostopentothe determination f capitalist orms,and most likely to penetrate,resist, and overthrowthem. Both sides of these possibilitiesmust be kept in play4 n our specific analysisofconcrete"discourses"of culturalorms.Rather hanattendingotheformaldimensionsandrelationsof particular rticulations f symbolsin a "text," we mustaddresshow, withinasocialrelation,bothdominantdeological ormsandresources gainst hemarecarried, n apermanent truggleor conflict waged within even one symbolor throughwhole sets ofculturalexpressions.Becauseof the natureof theoverallcapitalist ocial relation or theproletariat,here salways, so to speak, a "knowledge" which is "to be discovered"and which it is mostinclined owards even where tmaynot becodedinanyvisiblepublicdiscourse,orwherebecauseof anti-mentalism nd institutionalalienation,such codings as do exist may berejected.This generalpoint does not contradictwhat shouldbe the special areaof thecontributionf discourseanalysis,butwhich scurrentlymobilizedby it as adenunciationfhumanismor historicism,that these possibilitiesare always inflectedthroughparticularexpressionsandsymbols,that heycannotbe prescribednadvanceandthat nanyconcreteexistencethey arepowerfullydeterminedby the internalnatureof thatconcretion.Alone,they maycarryno class meaning.Thereis no inevitability.No guarantee.

2Marx, orexample, speaksof humanbeings "in everyrespect,economically,morally,andintellectually tillstampedwith the birthmarksof theold society," that s, withcapitalismduring ocialistconstruction.K. Marx"Critique f theGothaProgramme;Peking:ForeignLanguagePress, 1972)p. 15. These themesarediscussed ntwo booksby Philip Corrigan,HarvieRamsay,DerekSayer:SocialistConstruction nd MarxistTheory NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress, 1978)ForMao(New Jersey;HumanitiesPress, 1979),whichexaminesthe wholeareaof culturalrelations n terms of socialist construction.3Thisdrawsupon the workof RaymondWilliams,e.g. Marxismand Literature OxfordUniversityPress,1977)PartII. It is, in fact, a generalemphasisof the Englishculturalmaterialists see RadicalHistoryReviewissues 18 and 19) includingnot only E.P. ThompsonbutequallyChristopherHill.4Thisorientates our argumentagainst "CapitalLogic" schools as well as against "DiscourseTheory."Capitalismwas proclaimedandsustainedon territory includingcultural ategoriesandpractices)whichpredateit. Argumentswhichposita "logic" of Capitalas totallydetermininggnore his,and- a pointMarxmadeoften- the deep illogicalityof capitalismas lived experiencedby millionsuponmillionsof people.

Theproleteriats notonly subject o the contradiction etweenCapitalandLaborbutisthe site of contradictions.They are simultaneouslyhe most subordinated nddominatedgroupswithin a mode of production ndsocial formation,as well as beingthe only solidagentsfor possible transformation.2his is to recognizethatalthoughsocial classes areconstitutedhrough ocialindividualswho areconcretelyanddiversely exed, raced, ocatedandgraded hroughsocio-moralclassifications,they remainclasses whose limits of vari-ation3and certainlycrucial internalparametersare formedby and within the existingdominantmodeof production capitalism.Certain f theideological ormsof capitalismnrelation othestructuralogicof thesystem fetishismof thecommodity, he "fairwage,"the wage form, freedom andequalityunder he law, representativeemocracy deeplystructure,for instance, the possibilities for workingclass culture and consciousness.Throughand withinthis, however, it must be recognized hat the workingclass containsresources hroughwhich the presentset of social arrangementsould be radically rans-formedpreciselybecausetheysuffer mostcollectivelyandsystematicallyrom- are theobject of - those social arrangements.As we hope to show, we mean this as muchscientificallyas humanistically.This subordinationmakesthe workingclass mostopentothe determination f capitalist orms,and most likely to penetrate,resist, and overthrowthem. Both sides of these possibilitiesmust be kept in play4 n our specific analysisofconcrete"discourses"of culturalorms.Rather hanattendingotheformaldimensionsandrelationsof particular rticulations f symbolsin a "text," we mustaddresshow, withinasocialrelation,bothdominantdeological ormsandresources gainst hemarecarried, n apermanent truggleor conflict waged within even one symbolor throughwhole sets ofculturalexpressions.Becauseof the natureof theoverallcapitalist ocial relation or theproletariat,here salways, so to speak, a "knowledge" which is "to be discovered"and which it is mostinclined owards even where tmaynot becodedinanyvisiblepublicdiscourse,orwherebecauseof anti-mentalism nd institutionalalienation,such codings as do exist may berejected.This generalpoint does not contradictwhat shouldbe the special areaof thecontributionf discourseanalysis,butwhich scurrentlymobilizedby it as adenunciationfhumanismor historicism,that these possibilitiesare always inflectedthroughparticularexpressionsandsymbols,that heycannotbe prescribednadvanceandthat nanyconcreteexistencethey arepowerfullydeterminedby the internalnatureof thatconcretion.Alone,they maycarryno class meaning.Thereis no inevitability.No guarantee.






88888


6/20

Ordersof Experiencerdersof Experiencerdersof Experiencerdersof ExperienceNone of this is to minimize he powerof dominant ormsof discourses commercial-izationandcommodification f culture, actoryandschooldiscipline,communicationormsof allkinds norto omit thesolidlymaterialmeansof domination.Rathert is toargue hatmateriality tself establishesthe potentialfor resistanceand that the very totalizationofparticular egemonicculturalormsproduce,contradictions s inmodemmeansof commu-nicationwhich areprecisely"media":they signifywhat is alreadyknownabout(in somemeasure) ndtheclosertheymoveto address"wherepeopleareat" theclosertheymove totheformsof classexperiencewhich"speak"in life butremain ilent in theculturalworldofTheObvious.5 t is exactlyin this areawhere hespecificityof discourseanalysiscould drawout the particularorms and natureof what is suppressedand in tension- rather hanyieldingeverything o a formalismwhichrepeats hebourgeoiscommandof "the public"andthe "separate."We want to indicategenerallyhow class relationsform a repertoireof submerged,

fractured,issured,contradictory, ndsemi-visibleresources romwhichsocial individualsespecially throughtheir collective life can simultaneouslyhold off the dominantsocialimageryandestablish,howeverpartially,waysthrougho a different ormof socialization.We want to argue for a notion of cultural forms as those structured elationshipsandsymbolicsystemsthroughwhich- dialectically ogetherunder heimpulsesof theproduc-tion of materialife - socialexperiencesareformed,felt, framed,sensed,expressed,andtransmitted.Theirparticularonfigurations reproduced hroughworkdoneon formsandnormsand oftenon the rawmaterials f dominationwithinthescopeof a particularelationwhich includes the possibilityof resistanceas well as the constraintsof The Obvious,natural,mythicworldof hegemony andthe combination f these in inversions,combina-tions, and limited(for the moment)transformations.We are interested,therefore, in forms of resistanceand culturaloppositionin theworkingclass notas an epiphenomenal,magined, "sociological," or subjectivistnotion,but as a wholemodalityof thecapitalist ystem even in theseverestmomentsof workingclass defeat.We aredealingwith one of the most basiccategoriesof the Marxist heoreticalsystemandmustaddress he seriousnessof formsof discourseanalysisnot out of rejection rcompetitionbut in order o comprehendhemateriality nd substanceof theways in whichresistance is not only "expressed" but also formed. Of course the substanceof thisresistance s nevera simplereflectionof asimplepureexpressivepurpose or thestrugglewould havelongsince been resolvedand therewouldbe noneedfora specificcontributionfrom intellectualworkers. But if "experience"is not sacredlycoded, alwayssomewhereelse ina perfectly ormeddiscourse,how is it formed nrelation otheformalism f existing"discourse" and the materialityof ideology?These are not academicquestionsbut feeddirectly ntothe specificityof how a submerged ndbroken and oftenfinallyreproduc-tive6- culturalpoliticscould be democraticallyurned nto a realpolitics.The restof thearticle s organizedntotwosections.The firstoperatesbroadly andsomemightsay dangerously) n theterrain f "discourses"to suggest ways in whicha concretecontextualization f theirpossibilities n realsituations ndrelationshipsansavethemfrom

5Seeour"CulturalFormsand ClassMediations,"inMedia,Culture nd Society, 1980,and references here.6See PaulWillis, "TheClass Significanceof SchoolCounter-culture,"n TheProcessof Schooling (London:Routledge, 1976),andLearning o Labour:HowWorkingClassKidsGetWorkingClass Jobs. (LexingtonBooks,1977).

None of this is to minimize he powerof dominant ormsof discourses commercial-izationandcommodification f culture, actoryandschooldiscipline,communicationormsof allkinds norto omit thesolidlymaterialmeansof domination.Rathert is toargue hatmateriality tself establishesthe potentialfor resistanceand that the very totalizationofparticular egemonicculturalormsproduce,contradictions s inmodemmeansof commu-nicationwhich areprecisely"media":they signifywhat is alreadyknownabout(in somemeasure) ndtheclosertheymoveto address"wherepeopleareat" theclosertheymove totheformsof classexperiencewhich"speak"in life butremain ilent in theculturalworldofTheObvious.5 t is exactlyin this areawhere hespecificityof discourseanalysiscould drawout the particularorms and natureof what is suppressedand in tension- rather hanyieldingeverything o a formalismwhichrepeats hebourgeoiscommandof "the public"andthe "separate."We want to indicategenerallyhow class relationsform a repertoireof submerged,fractured,issured,contradictory, ndsemi-visibleresources romwhichsocial individualsespecially throughtheir collective life can simultaneouslyhold off the dominantsocialimageryandestablish,howeverpartially,waysthrougho a different ormof socialization.We want to argue for a notion of cultural forms as those structured elationshipsandsymbolicsystemsthroughwhich- dialectically ogetherunder heimpulsesof theproduc-tion of materialife - socialexperiencesareformed,felt, framed,sensed,expressed,andtransmitted.Theirparticularonfigurations reproduced hroughworkdoneon formsandnormsand oftenon the rawmaterials f dominationwithinthescopeof a particularelationwhich includes the possibilityof resistanceas well as the constraintsof The Obvious,natural,mythicworldof hegemony andthe combination f these in inversions,combina-tions, and limited(for the moment)transformations.

We are interested,therefore, in forms of resistanceand culturaloppositionin theworkingclass notas an epiphenomenal,magined, "sociological," or subjectivistnotion,but as a wholemodalityof thecapitalist ystem even in theseverestmomentsof workingclass defeat.We aredealingwith one of the most basiccategoriesof the Marxist heoreticalsystemandmustaddress he seriousnessof formsof discourseanalysisnot out of rejection rcompetitionbut in order o comprehendhemateriality nd substanceof theways in whichresistance is not only "expressed" but also formed. Of course the substanceof thisresistance s nevera simplereflectionof asimplepureexpressivepurpose or thestrugglewould havelongsince been resolvedand therewouldbe noneedfora specificcontributionfrom intellectualworkers. But if "experience"is not sacredlycoded, alwayssomewhereelse ina perfectly ormeddiscourse,how is it formed nrelation otheformalism f existing"discourse" and the materialityof ideology?These are not academicquestionsbut feeddirectly ntothe specificityof how a submerged ndbroken and oftenfinallyreproduc-tive6- culturalpoliticscould be democraticallyurned nto a realpolitics.The restof thearticle s organizedntotwosections.The firstoperatesbroadly andsomemightsay dangerously) n theterrain f "discourses"to suggest ways in whicha concretecontextualization f theirpossibilities n realsituations ndrelationshipsansavethemfrom5Seeour"CulturalFormsand ClassMediations,"inMedia,Culture nd Society, 1980,and references here.6See PaulWillis, "TheClass Significanceof SchoolCounter-culture,"n TheProcessof Schooling (London:Routledge, 1976),andLearning o Labour:HowWorkingClassKidsGetWorkingClass Jobs. (LexingtonBooks,

1977).



1977).



1977).

89999


7/20

a one-wayformalistic oding providing nlypassive,"subjectpositions"forworking lassagents.We will be suggesting hata notionof culturalformsallowsa muchmoreadequateandhistorical onceptualizationf thepossibilitieshere,andthatalthough bstractedormalnotions of "discourse"may help analytically n detailingthe parts n thought,the morecombinatory otionof culturalormsis necessary ora realpoliticalorsocialanalysiswhichhasany engagementwith anoverallMarxian roject.Thesecondsectionmoveson fromourcategoryof cultural orms to a consideration f some importantormsof workingclassknowledgeandperspectivewhich are embeddedwithinthem.FROM"DISCOURSE"TO CULTURALFORM

Theview of working lassculturewe areworking owardss of the connected ormationof culturalformswithinwhichits relationalpositionwithin hesocial structures explored.Culturalorms arecomprisedof specific, complex,definiterelationsof symbolicsystemsembeddedn socialrelationships ndactivity.Suchsymbolicsystemscouldbe described s"discourses"buttheymustalwaysbe thoughtn variable ombinationnvariable oncretesituationswith respectto particularrelationships.Particular discourses" considered nisolationmaybe "structuredn dominance"withincapitalism.Butthrough pecific inter-sections, forms of reversal and combination, hey can generatean account,generateacontent,generate ormsof knowledge,whichcannotbeassimilated ack ntothe dominatedcontentsof any particular discourse"in its own right.At a minimum his constitutesaninvestigationof the real social possibilitiesfacing particular lass agents, and a limited,thoughdefinite,revelation f aspectsof thatreality n awaywhichmightnotbeopeninquitethose formsto straightforwardourgeoisknowledge.Workingclass culturalorms do notpossess knowledgewhich is locatedin any one particular eador heads. It is implicitinformsof life and concretepractices ombiningand"profanely"usingmany"discourses"no matter f- jumpedout and abstractedrom context- eachparticular discourse" is"structuredndominance."Whatwe mustaddto theperspective f theinternalogicof the"discourse" is some notion of how class struggle, throughagents who are not purely"spoken," can pushits way into the logic of thosediscoursesandreposition,creativelyexplore,newcontexts or them especially nrelation o each other.Inorder ounpackhenature f culturalforms, hen,we think tnecessaryo remainprovisionally n thegroundof"discourse," but only to show how "the parts" may be put together"in thought"toproducea fully constituted ulturalmaterialism f cultural orms.The firstpointwe wouldmakeconcernswhatseems to be anundialectical, nitary,andone-way use of "discourse" in power relationships.7 ven abstracting nd isolatingandseparately efininga single "discourse"(whichwe areopposed o) shouldnot obscure hepossibilityof such a thingbeingused"backwards"or "tangentially."We aresuggestingthat the internal orm of a particular iscoursecan be used in a reversedirection.Insomeways it canbe used to control he master.In Foucault hereseemsto be anassumptionhatparticular iscourseshave unchangeable bjects. Prisoners n Disciplineand Punish, orpatients n The Birthof theClinic, seemfor all time to be destined o remainas objectsoftheirrespective"discourses."There s not hereevena hintof a theoryof resistance,onlya






Theview of working lassculturewe areworking owardss of the connected ormationof culturalformswithinwhichits relationalpositionwithin hesocial structures explored.Culturalorms arecomprisedof specific, complex,definiterelationsof symbolicsystemsembeddedn socialrelationships ndactivity.Suchsymbolicsystemscouldbe described s"discourses"buttheymustalwaysbe thoughtn variable ombinationnvariable oncretesituationswith respectto particularrelationships.Particular discourses" considered nisolationmaybe "structuredn dominance"withincapitalism.Butthrough pecific inter-sections, forms of reversal and combination, hey can generatean account,generateacontent,generate ormsof knowledge,whichcannotbeassimilated ack ntothe dominatedcontentsof any particular discourse"in its own right.At a minimum his constitutesaninvestigationof the real social possibilitiesfacing particular lass agents, and a limited,thoughdefinite,revelation f aspectsof thatreality n awaywhichmightnotbeopeninquitethose formsto straightforwardourgeoisknowledge.Workingclass culturalorms do notpossess knowledgewhich is locatedin any one particular eador heads. It is implicitinformsof life and concretepractices ombiningand"profanely"usingmany"discourses"no matter f- jumpedout and abstractedrom context- eachparticular discourse" is"structuredndominance."Whatwe mustaddto theperspective f theinternalogicof the"discourse" is some notion of how class struggle, throughagents who are not purely"spoken," can pushits way into the logic of thosediscoursesandreposition,creativelyexplore,newcontexts or them especially nrelation o each other.Inorder ounpackhenature f culturalforms, hen,we think tnecessaryo

Documents

Experience Culture and Class_Willis