Cultural Studies, as an identifiable entity, has been seen to emerge and crystallize in the latter years of structuralist thought, and has further developed in the post-structuralist era, concomitantly with deconstructionist theory, contemporary semiology and the downfall of postmodernism. While Derrida, Barthes and Levi-Strauss were developing their theoretical paradigms of cultural and literary criticism, with far-reaching implications into the areas of anthropology, sociology and economics, it would be appropriate to argue that "cultural studies" began to assume embryonic shape under doctrines which may have pre-existed the aforementioned theorists. Critics and observers of social and literary developments discerned, as structuralism weakened, the birth of an even broader phenomenon. This peculiar admixture of literary criticism, socio-economic research and cultural anthropology blended the tenets of Marxism and subjectivity-theory, and began, according to Johnson, to define the visible parameters of what he has proclaimed "cultural studies," in the generic sense.
Cultural studies, spanning all means of dissemination, embodies elements of Derrida, Barthes and Levi-Strauss, but encompasses all forms and processes associated with creative expression, .i.e mass media, cinema, literature, photo-journalism, and polemical dialogue.
Against this intellectual backdrop, it will prove enlightening to explore what Richard Johnson considers the field of "cultural studies," with particular reference to Marxist thought and to subjectivity-theory, two underpinning components, in his estimation, of this "movement."
The Third Manuscript of Karl Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts turns essentially on the notion of "subjectivity" in relation to property and capital, but also in relation to the cultural process which underlies the then extant socio-economic model which he attacks with some degree of eloquence. Marx's first sentence reflects his concern with the subjective nature of ownership in spite of associated labor expended:
Nonetheless, Johnson states that Marxism had often been criticized for failing to recognize the importance of subjective, fluid boundaries in the establishment of mass culture. Because Marx speaks, at times, of the need for objectivity in defense of his ideology, it had been erroneously assumed that he ruled out the essential nature of what is being termed "subjectivity theory" in the design of his philosophy. Johnson, who supports the Marxist paradigm, suggests that critics of Marx can strive to locate viable substitutes for "subjectivity" in cultural process, and can do so, albeit unsatisfactorily, in the area of psychoanalysis. Johnson does not seem to acknowledge that Marx refers to subjectivity a number of times in his manuscripts, notably in Pre-Capitalist Formations, when he juxtaposes these two antipodal concepts in speaking of the relationship of the individual to labor and property:
"The individual...finds and makes his own,
the objective body of his subjectivity."
It can be argued, of course, that Marx, in these excerpts, is not foreshadowing the dawn of subjectivity theory, as such. And, indeed, he is not. However, Marx does posit the elementary notion of the antithetical relationship between objective social matrices and the subjective, free-form systems which reflect cultural and economic reality more closely.
Although he does not comment directly on Marx's (primitive) use of the term "subjectivity", Johnson latches onto Roland Barthe's idea, expressed in the century following Marx', that subjectivity is essential in the analysis of mass cultural process. This concept leads to the usefulness of a nation's being able to grasp the significance of accepting subjectivity, as long as it does not lead to entropic decline or chaos. The risk in an all-encompassing embrace of subjectivity by a society is that all structure and form will be lost, leading to confused values and social drift.
There is some evidence suggesting that, in seeming, on the surface, to prefer objectivity in his social model, Marx may have foreseen the dangers of excessive subjectivity in cultural process. Johnson, from his perspective in the latter part of this century, and in the wake of structuralism and post-structuralism, is left wondering where cultural process will now head, and suggests that it may be in the direction of renewed subjectivity, an area which has only been amorphously defined within the framework of nascent subjectivity theory.
In view of the relatively fluid state of subjectivity theory within the context of Cultural Studies, at this juncture, it would seem premature to speculate on the impact which the inclusion of a post-structuralist, anti-formalistic concept such as subjectivity might have on both form and process. Marxism is a liberal enough system, however, to embody such a concept and still adhere to its basic premises of communal property and equitable labor practices. Mass cultures around the world have survived principles which permit subjectivity and have allowed less than objective guidelines or regulations to dominate their social and structural priorities with some degree of success.
Whether cultural studies, however, should be centered exclusively on Marxism and Subjectivity Theory (perhaps not quite yet deserving of capitalization) is open to debate. The sheer breadth of the term, although Johnson seems willing to "rein in" the dimensions of this field, would seem to argue strenuously against the exclusive ideologies of Marx and Subjectivity dominating research and analysis currently underway.
If Cultural Studies, as a recognizable entity, is to endure as an academic "school of thought", or as a socio-literary movement, such as Derrida's Deconstruction or de Saussure's Theory of Linguistics, then, surely, it must not reject Marx, nor Subjectivity; but it must also expand its horizons to include many of the theorists whose contributions to the fields of semiology, anthropology and mass psychology might further enrich all aspects of Cultural Studies.
In this sense, it would appear to the informed observer that Richard Johnson's perspectives, while insightful, might prove overly restrictive and self-constraining. In fact, Johnson points this out when he refers, for example, to Lacanian mirroring of women in the form of images, and hints, indeed indicates, that Cultural Studies needs to encompass research and analysis on a more expansive basis than has been accomplished to date.