Bartolovich, 'Have Theory; Will Travel: Constructions of "Cultural Geography"', Postmodern Culture v6n1
URL = http://infomotions.com/serials/pmc/pmc-v6n1-bartolovich-have.txt
Archive PMC-LIST, file review-1.995.
Part 1/1, total size 36023 bytes:
------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------
Have Theory; Will Travel:
Constructions of
"Cultural Geography"
by
Crystal Bartolovich
Literary and Cultural Studies
Carnegie Mellon University
crystal+@andrew.cmu.edu
Postmodern Culture v.6 n.1 (September, 1995)
pmc@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Copyright (c) 1995 by Crystal Bartolovich, all rights
reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance
with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and
it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form,
provided that the editors are notified and no fee is
charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or
republication of this text on other terms, in any medium,
requires the consent of the author and the notification
of the publisher, Oxford University Press.
Review of:
Peter Jackson and Jan Penrose, eds. _Constructions of Race, Place,
and Nation_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1994.
*Traffic* %(trae-fik), sb%. . . . 1. The transportation
of merchandise for the purpose of trade; hence, trade
between distant or distinct communities.
-- OED
Cultural geographers are now experimenting with a range
of new ideas and approaches, their aversion to theory
now firmly overcome. These developments have drawn
extensively on contemporary cultural studies and on other
theoretical developments across the social sciences. But
the traffic has not been in one direction: there is now
at least the potential for repaying this debt by informing
cultural studies with some of the insights of social and
cultural geography.
-- Peter Jackson, Maps of Meaning
[1] I have chosen the above passage from Peter Jackson's _Maps
of Meaning_ (1989) as the starting place for a discussion
of his more recent book, _Constructions of Race, Place and
Nation_, a collection of essays he edited with Jan Penrose,
because its "trade" metaphor ("traffic"/"debt") calls
attention in an economical fashion to a troubling aspect of
both texts: a tendency to view "cultural studies" as a
sort of theory warehouse for traditional disciplines, and
to see "theory" as a stockpile of portable commodities
("ideas and approaches") ready to be transported anywhere
interchangeably. As Jackson and Penrose put it in their
introduction, geographers have become "increasingly
sensitive to debates in cultural studies" (19). In this
essay I will pursue the limits of this "sensitivity"
insofar as it can be traced in _Constructions_. The
academy -- from its perspective -- is comprised of
disciplines with well-defined, although semi-permeable,
borders. Indeed, the "trade" image argues -- linking the
previous book even more firmly to the concerns of the more
recent one -- that disciplinary boundaries function rather
like those of nation-states (before they were unsettled by
transnational capital). Minimally, it assumes that
controlled and accountable transactions (import and export)
are negotiated among distinct scholarly domains. The very
desire to set the balance of payments aright between
"geography" and "cultural studies," however, is already to
undermine cultural studies understood as a
postdisciplinary, critical practice.
[2] Since I will be criticising _Constructions_ largely on the
grounds of its investments in "geography" as a discipline
-- investments that I think render a "sensitvity" to
"cultural studies" impossible -- I want to make my own
institutional position and interests as explicit as I can
from the start: I teach in a literary and cultural studies
program at Carnegie Mellon University. In spite of the
profound difficulties of doing so, we are committed to
attempting to resist disciplinary structures, not only to
make a "place" for ourselves, but also because the current
organization of the university renders it problematic to
cultural studies politically, intellectually, and
practically. Attempts at transdisciplinarity threaten
power bases of departments, which jealously guard their
faculty lines, resources, and boundaries for reasons that
often have more to do with self-reproduction than
intellectual conviction -- as most department members will
readily acknowledge. Crises induced by university funding
cuts have intensified these border fortifications. In a
terrain of entrenched disciplines, it is very difficult
indeed to pursue the kind of postdisciplinary practice
toward which cultural studies has been moving. Given these
conditions, the common gesture of traditional disciplines
looking to cultural theory to revitalise themselves without
in any way questioning their own disciplinary integrity can
be seen as destructive to cultural studies. I address this
state of affairs in the following pages.
[3] A more sympathetic reader might object to my critique of
_Constructions_ on the grounds that it is a "specialist"
book whose primary agenda is not, after all, positioning
itself in relation to cultural studies. In any case (the
defender of the book might add), its heart is in the right
place; at a time of right-wing backlash against the left in
the academy, and traditionalist backlash against "theory"
and "cultural studies," a book such as _Constructions_,
which attempts to bring the highly charged issue of racism
to the attention of a generally conservative discipline, is
surely not an enemy.^1^ The book -- after all -- deals
with a very important topic. Without disputing these
points, I am still left with the conviction that the
collective effect of dozens of books like _Constructions_
is to keep in place the disciplinary structure of the
university that cultural studies is attempting to break
down. If the transdisciplinary tendency of cultural
studies were simply an incidental preference for the new
and an anarchic preoccupation with smashing up the old,
then ,Constructions_ would be quite right to refuse to
join in. However, since cultural studies has been
suspicious of inherited disciplines insofar as they have
been participants in the very sorts of oppressions that
_Constructions_ attempts to bring to the attention of
geographers, perhaps it might have taken more notice.
Anthropology (Fabian), History (de Certeau), English
(Viswanathan), 'Oriental' Studies (Said) -- even Geography
(Blaut) -- have all come under question as disciplines in
recent years for the ways in which they have helped to
"construct" and maintain racism, (neo)colonialism,
exploitation, and many other not so very admirable
realities. Attention to the role of "geography" in the
processes of racism _Constructions_ describes would not
only make it a stronger book; it would render it more
politically useful since it is, after all, published by two
university presses (Minnesota acquired the U.S. rights from
University College London Press) and directed largely to an
academic audience.
[4] The disciplinary investments of _Constructions_ are
explicit. Most of the essays were earlier given as talks
at the 1992 Annual Meetings of the Association of American
Geographers, and assume a geographer as reader. As the
editors explain in the preface: "Besides the application
of social construction theory to particular empirical
materials, the following chapters are also united in their
adoption of a geographical perspective" (v). They add:
"we hope the volume will help clarify some of the highly
charged issues that revolve around notions of 'race' and
'nation' as well as contributing to the development of a
more rigorous social construction approach within
geography" (vi). The marketing categories ("Geography/
Sociology") printed on the back cover of the book confirm
that the University of Minnesota Press agreed with this
editorial self-assessment of audience.
[5] Instead of pursuing the racisms in which this very audience
can be implicated, however, _Constructions_ describes
racism as if it only existed in a world beyond geography
and the university.^2^ Even Alastair Bonnett's discussion
of "anti-racism and reflexivity" manages to evade any hint
that "social geography" might be complicit with the world
of secondary school teachers he discusses. Social
Geography is for him merely the medium in which racism can
be studied; it, apparently, can do so without
participating in that world. I cannot imagine a position
that could be further from that of the two prominent
cultural theorists, Gayatri Spivak and Paul Gilroy, Bonnett
includes in his bibliography. Whereas both of these
theorists have been relentlessly critical of disciplinary
neutrality, and scrupulous in interrogating their own
positions and interests, Bonnett simply brings their work
"home" to geography, domesticating it, as if this were not
a fraught andproblematic gesture. He disparages
"auto-critique" and "textual reflexivity" which he describes
as insufficiently attentive to "wider political and social
processes that structure and enable people's attitudes and
activities" (166). Yet he never pauses to wonder what
those processes might be in his own case as a researcher,
contenting himself with examining others without
considering where their struggles touch (or not) his own --
not as an "individual" but precisely as a subject situated
in "wider political and social processes that structure and
enable . . . [his] attitude's and activities" as a
geographer.
[6] Cultural Studies, on the other hand, is a critical practice
that few of its practitioners would feel comfortable taking
for granted in the way Bonnett's article takes "geography"
for granted. Iain Chambers has recently put it this way:
Cultural Studies "cannot rest content within an inherited
discipline, invariable paradigm, or fixed set of protocols.
It exists as an act of interrogation: a moment of doubt,
dispersal, and dissemination. It reveals an opening, not a
conclusion; it always marks the moment of departure, never
a homecoming. Criticism practised in this manner, in this
style, cannot pretend disciplinary recognition . . ."
(121-2). The contributors to _Constructions_ show little
evidence of such interrogation of themselves as geographers
-- or even the desire for it.
[7] The book is divided into four sections of two articles
each, with section titles that echo key texts and
problematics in cultural theory. And yet the book evades
discussion of the tensions that might confront the
articulation of such texts and problematics with
"geography." Its first section, "Constructing the Nation,"
offers an essay by Jan Penrose on "social constructions of
nation, people, and place" in Scotland and the U.K. and a
piece on "immigration and nation building" in Canada and
the U.K. A second section moves to a consideration of
"Constructions of Aboriginality" with two articles, one by
Kay Anderson and one by Jane Jacobs, focusing on Australia.
A third section takes up "Places of Resistance" with a
study of co-op housing in New York city by Helene Clark and
a discussion of struggles to acquire state funding for
Muslim schools in the U.K. by Claire Dwyer. The final
section, "Politics and Position," contains the essay --
briefly discussed above -- by Alastair Bonnett on how
self-consciously school teachers deal with questions of
race in U.K. classrooms, and a piece by Peter Jackson on
police/minority relations in Toronto.
[8] According to the editors, the "central argument" of all the
chapters concerns the "constructed nature of 'race,' place
and nation" (19). The book is, in fact, maddeningly
repetitive in making this point. Yet, while the volume is
adamant in its claim that "'race,' place and nation" are
constructs, none of the contributors seems to worry much
that "geography" is as well. As the editors note in their
closing remarks: "Ironically, for a collection of
geographical essays, we may have achieved greater
sophistication in our theorisation of 'race' and nation
than we have collectively achieved in theorising the
significance of place" (207). One effect of this
inattention to "place" -- especially the institutional
situation and investments of its contributors -- is that
"geography" has much the same status in this book as the
uncritical acceptance of "nation" which the book purports
to unsettle. As Michel de Certeau has reminded us
concerning history writing: "all historiographical
research is articulated over a socio-economic, political,
and cultural place of production" (58). He advocates the
making visible of this "place" as part of any
history-writing project so that usually unaccounted for
interests might more easily be exposed. This is not, I
would suggest, a merely academic matter. As Jane Jacobs,
in one of _Construction_'s more interesting pieces, notes
(without, alas, unsettling the editors' disciplinary
certitude): "Geography has long been seen as a discipline
complicit with imperial intent" (100). "New approaches"
will not in themselves expose, interrupt or resist this
"complicity."
[9] New approaches, however, are what we get in
_Constructions_, described in ways which the writers are
careful to announce are specific to the concerns and
methodologies of geography, which are opposed to
"textuality." In her "Constructing Geographies," for
example, Kay Anderson notes: "to conceptualise localities
as unidimensional byproducts of economic regimes would seem
to be as restricting as the approach growing out of some
branches of cultural studies that places/landscapes are
mere 'texts' to be 'read' for their cultural meaning" (85).
The antidote to the supposed semiotic excesses of "some
branches of cultural studies" is a "realist" approach that
Anderson associates with the work of geographers such as
Diane Massey and P. Bagguley, who investigate "spatial
ranges of the many causal elements that impinge on a local
area" (84; Anderson is quoting Bagguley here). Such an
approach, Anderson admits, has the limitation of a too
heavy emphasis on the economic, "as if the process of
place-making can be wholly captured by measuring
statistical changes over time in labor forces, gender
relations, market pressures and so on" (84). In any case,
the effect of Anderson's gesture (aside from further
disseminating a misunderstanding of textuality) is that
"cultural studies" is coded as excess so that cultural
geography, on the other hand, can become the science of the
sensible middle.^3^
[10] This "middleness" is perhaps best exemplified in Jackson's
own contribution to the volume, an essay on
"police-community relations" in Toronto which ends with the
following sentences, musing about the potential for "riots"
in that city: "The liberal conclusion would suggest that
recognising the need for change will help prevent any
further deterioration of police-community relations. The
more radical conclusion suggests that Blacks have every
right to protest, by what ever means necessary, while they
continue to be faced with differential policing and
institutionalised racism" (198). The narrow set of options
(for example, might not "whites" think that protest of some
kind is in order?), and the emphasis in the article on
police-"black" relations rather than "community" more
broadly understood, takes the pressure off the white reader
-- and the author as well. In Jackson's discussion,
"Blacks" are engaged in a (perhaps legitimate) battle with
"the police" that does not seem to implicate anyone
"outside" this nexus.
[11] At the beginning of his "conclusion" section, Jackson nods
in the direction of subject-positioning ("I would like to
reflect on my position as a White English academic
evaluating the problems of another society in situations of
heightened social tension"), but his reflections actually
have the effect of attenuating his stand on the issues he
raises. In the end, taking sides is difficult, he muses,
because all the folks he interviewed were nice to him
personally, and the leader of the major black
anti-police-violence organisation is suspect because he
beats his wife, and so on (no information on the "private"
lives of other interviewees, it should be noted, was
provided; one need not excuse violence against women to
note this discrepancy). Since the world is so complicated,
Jackson equivocally decides "it is possible to be both
optimistic and pessimistic about the future of
police-community relations in Toronto" (197).
[12] Indeed, in his zeal to be "balanced" and to let his
interviewees (ostensibly) speak for themselves and
(supposedly) not guide the reader's analysis of the
situation unduly, he allows troubling racist assumptions
into his article without any qualification. Here, for
example, is the Chair of the Police Services Board speaking
as recorded and represented by Jackson: "[People] have to
understand that there are some things that police officers
simply have to do. They do have to stop people at three in
the morning and ask them where they're going if they don't
seem to belong to the neighborhood. Those are
validpolicing exercises and the community has got to
understand that" (184). One might wonder how it is that
"neighborhood" and identity become intertwined (i.e. what
structures these relations) so that attributions of
"belonging" can be determined to be a "valid" police
activity. While he claims to be against "racism,"
apparently such questioning does not enter into Jackson's
understanding of how one might be anti-racist. By focusing
ultimately on the personalities of individuals he
interviews (and himself), rather than the conflicts between
groups, he manages to render a situation of explicit
systematic racism less clearcut. This tendency to focus on
"individuals" -- in several of the articles as well as in
editorial assumptions -- helps the editors and contributors
maintain a certain blindness to their institutional
position as "geographers" as well.
[13] The editors' concluding comments particularly emphasise
"individuality": "as individuals, we must locate ourselves
within the intersecting matrix of human identity and
difference in order to become aware of our potentially
common position" (202). This humanist appeal to a
universal belies the nod to the politics of difference that
surface from time to time in the volume. More importantly,
however, as de Certeau has suggested, the "place left blank
or hidden through an analysis which overvalue[s] the
relation of individual subjects to their object might be
called an institution of knowledge" (60). Institutional
critique is bypassed in the Jackson and Penrose volume
because the contributors are depicted as atomised
"individuals" without apparent structuration ("place") as a
group. By leaving this "place" uninvestigated,
_Constructions_ preserves a certain tidiness for
"geography" that contrasts markedly with what Angela
McRobbie has described as the [desirable] "messiness" of
cultural studies: "precisely because it is so embedded in
contemporary social and political processes, because, for
example, the recent changes in Europe affect how we think
about culture . . . cultural studies must continue to argue
against its incorporation into what is conventially
recognized as a 'subject area'" (722). Resisting
"incorporation," however, is difficult if cultural theory
is continuously appropriated by scholars who are in no way
troubled by the functioning of traditional disciplinary
boundaries.
[14] The academic situation of "cultural studies" as outre, as
the exotic foreign land from which geography can import
theoretical necessities and perhaps a few methodological
luxury goods, brings up the question of disciplinary
difference and relations with which I opened this essay.
One way in which the boundary issue often manifests itself
in cultural studies is in terms of "tensions." For
example, the historian Catherine Hall once commented in the
question period after a talk -- specifically when asked
about "textual approaches" to history -- "it [your
question] makes me think about what the tensions are for me
between doing history and being a feminist, which is the
productive political tension out of which my work comes.
And then the tensions between being a historian, being
trained as a historian, and then trying to learn new kinds
of methods through the development of cultural studies and
associated activities" (273). Hall's work, unlike
_Constructions_, constantly foregrounds the conflicts
attendant with operating in a traditional discipline while
working toward "cultural studies."
[15] Do folks in cultural studies need to read books like
_Constructions of Race, Place and Nation_? Janet Wolff has
made a strong case for a less dismissive approach to the
products of mainstream disciplinary research: "I . . .
want to argue strongly against exiling critical cultural
studies to its own separate enclave." She suggests that
interventions outside of cultural studies on issues of
concern to its practitioners are too quickly "written off
as traditional, mainstream, or conservative" when they
instead might be read for productive "contradictions" which
render their easy assimilation into the merely conservative
difficult: "I think we are now in an excellent position to
pursue the study of culture within disciplines and on the
margins of disciplines, as well as in the newly cleared
space of interdisciplinary studies" (716). The problem
with Wolff's perspective is that it helps keep intact
disciplinary boundaries which are themselves part of the
problem of forming cultural studies as a "critical
practice" in the academy today.
[16] Fortunately, there are other ways of envisioning the
"travels" of theory -- and the academy. Edward Said, for
example, in theorising the movements of theory, saw this
process as undermining the disciplinary closure that the
Jackson and Penrose volume takes for granted. "To prefer a
local, detailed analysis of how one theory travels from one
situation to another," Said writes, "is also to betray some
fundamental uncertainty about specifying or delimiting the
field to which any one theory or idea might belong" (227).
He has in mind literary studies in particular and muses:
"the invasion of literary discourse by the outre jargons of
semiotics, post-structuralism, and Lacanian psychoanalysis
has distended the literary critical universe almost beyond
recognition. In short, there seems nothing inherently
literary about the study of what have traditionally been
considered literary texts" (228). Surveying this terrain
with a sigh, Said concludes: "In the absence of an
enclosing domain called literature, with clear outer
boundaries, there is no longer an authorised or official
position for the literary critic" (230).
[17] With neither clear boundaries nor an absolute ground to
rely on, the theorist (and critic) must be highly flexible
and vigilant if he is not to fall prey to mere mechanistic
application of theories to situations for which they cannot
possibly be fully adequate. "A breakthrough can become a
trap," Said warns, "if it is used uncritically,
repetitively, limitlessly" (239). To combat against this
dilemma, he argues that all theory must be supplemented
with "critical consciousness," which he describes as the
"awareness of the difference between situations, awareness
too of the fact that no system or theory exhausts the
situation out of which it emerges or to which it is
transported . . . above all . . . critical consciousness
is awareness of the resistances to theory, reactions to it
elicited by those concrete experiences or interpretations
with which it is in conflict" (242). When we read
_Constructions_ with Said's warning in mind it quickly
becomes obvious that the book lacks such "critical
consciousness." Following a general practice of
"application" rather than interrogation, it fails to
consider what it might mean to move theory from something
it calls "cultural studies" and make it serve the interests
of something it calls "cultural geography."
[18] I will end with one of the more egregious examples of this
sanctioned ignorance at work. Throughout _Constructions_,
the signifier "race" is enclosed in scare-quotes.
According to an editors' note, "the word 'race' appears in
quotation marks to distance ourselves from those who regard
'race' as an unproblematic category. For a discussion of
thisstrategy, see Gates (1986)." However, when we turn to
"Gates (1986)," the introduction to the 1985 issue of
_Critical Inquiry_ devoted to "'Race,' Writing and
Difference," we do not find a "discussion of this
strategy." In fact, in the body of the text of this issue,
attention is relatively infrequently drawn to "race" in
this way -- certainly not as ubiquitously as in the Jackson
and Penrose book.^4^ What we find, rather, is a call for
the development of critical tools appropriate to specific
situations -- and an abandonment of the uncritical
application of methods and theories drawn from elsewhere:
"I once thought it our most important gesture to master the
canon of criticism, to imitate and apply it, but I now
believe that we must turn to the black tradition itself to
develop theories of criticism indigenous to our
literatures" (13).
[19] When Jackson, Penrose, and their contributors "imitate" and
"apply" what they mistakenly presume to be Gates's gesture,
they are forced into bizarre formulations, such as: "she
[Vron Ware] prefers to write of the *mutual constitution*
of 'race' and gender, rather than implying that any one
'dimension' has priority over the other. (A similar
argument could, of course, be made for the mutual
constitution of 'race' and nation, or of each of these
categories and particular places.)" (18). In sentences
like these, the scare quotes single "race" out, again and
again, giving it "priority" in the text, undermining Ware's
point in their presentation of it. This gesture is
certainly hierarchical and even oddly segregationist in its
implications. Are we really to think (following the logic
which the editors' themselves attribute to the scare quotes
as discussed above) that race is a more problematic
category than gender? Or, more to the point, that Ware
would claim that it was? Not only does the thoughtless,
knee-jerk universal typographical privileging of the
category of race in _Constructions_ fall far wide of
developing a site-specific set of strategies for theorising
race matters, it also weirdly distances the reader and
writer from dealing with race rigorously once the scare
quotes are relied on to do the work of "calling attention"
to the constructedness of the category.
[20] In _The Black Atlantic_, Paul Gilroy has recently moved
beyond simply observing the mutual imbrication of current
notions of "race" and "nation" and called for a critical
practice which resists the logic of the nation-state by
refusing to assume (as all the essays in Jackson and
Penrose assume) the "nation-state" as the logical or
necessary (albeit "constructed") unit of analysis, whether
alone or in "comparison" with other nation-states. For
Gilroy, such a reconstitution of space opens up the
possibility of seeing the production of identities
(specifically "black" identities in his book) as more
mobilely and complexly negotiated than the focus on
"national" units of analysis permits. The demand in _Black
Atlantic_ to imagine other spaces of analysis than those
that we inherit through the academic disciplines and "every
day" life have implications for how we might think the
university as well. The import/export logic of books like
_Constructions_ needs to be persistently critiqued if a
more worldly politics is to emerge in an institutional
space where, currently, disciplines defend their perceived
boundaries more often than they imagine other spaces, other
ways of seeing, other worlds.
NOTES:
^1^ On the homogeneity and conservatism of geography
(from a specifically feminist perspective), see Gillian
Rose's _Feminism and Geography_: "the white bourgeois
heterosexual masculinities which are attracted to geography
[as a discipline], shape it and are in turn constituted through
it" (11).
^2^ The false division between "the university" and "the
world" becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain as
universities are reorganized as corporations serving
transnational capital. Maseo Myoshi puts it this way: "We
know that the university is actually a corporation in style
and substance. It is integrated into transnational
corporatism, in which its specific role is being redefined.
We the faculty are participants in many facits of this
enterprise: the students we teach, the knowledge we
impart, the information we disseminate, the books we write,
the perspectives we open, the life-style we adopt, the
conferences we organize, the scholarly associations we
belong to -- all are enclosed in seamless corporatism"
(77). Along these lines, Gayatri Spivak also has observed
of intellectual production "there is interest, often
unperceived by us [theorists], in not allowing
transnational complicities to be percieved" (256). See
also her "Reading the World."
^3^ Textuality is so often misrepresented as the
reduction of the world to a book that Anderson's contention
is not surprising. It is, nonetheless, incorrect. Contrast
her view with Michael Ryan's: "'Text' names that interweaving
of inside and outside through the process of reference
which puts in question the philosophical desire to posit a
pure outside to space, history, and materiality -- as a
transcendental realm of ideality (meaning) -- or a pure
outside to differentiation and referential realtions as a
positivist materiality that would be of a completely
different order than the differential or realtional
structure of a language which refers to it (idealism turned
inside out), or a pure nature prior to all culture,
institution, technology, production, or artifice, by virtue
of which such things can be termed derivative degradations
rather than 'natural' necessities" (23).
^4^ A more accurate citation would have been Paul
Gilroy's _'There Ain't no Black in the Union Jack_', which
does enclose "race" in scare quotes throughout, a gesture which
Gilroy repeats in _Black Atlantic_. Houston Baker notes in
his introduction to the 1991 reprint of _Ain't_, however,
that "Gilroy and the black British cultural studies project
of which he is a member can lead us, I believe, to both a
more analytical and a more practical sense of race than the
quotation-marked provisionality and embarrassed silences
that have characterized our academic past."
WORKS CITED:
Blaut, J. M. _The Colonizer's Model of the World_. Guilford
Press, 1993.
Baker, Houston. "Forward" in _There Ain't No Black in the Union
Jack_. Paul Gilroy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991.
Certeau, Michel de. _The Writing of History_. Trans. Tom Conley.
New York: Columbia UP, 1988.
Chambers, Iain. _Migrancy, Culture, Identity_. London and New York:
Routledge, 1994.
Fabian, Johannes. _Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its
Object_. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.
Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., ed. "Editor's Introduction" in "Race,
Writing and Difference." (_Critical Inquiry_ 12, Autumn
1985). reprinted Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986.
Gilroy, Paul. _The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double
Consciousness_. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP,
1993.
-----. _There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack_. Chicago: U of
Chicago P, 1991. (first published in 1987).
Grossberg, Lawrence, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler, eds.
_Cultural Studies_. New York and London: Routledge, 1992.
Hall, Catherine. "Missionary Stories: Gender and Ethnicity in
England in the 1830s and 1840s." In Grossberg, Nelson,
and Treichler.
Hall, Stuart. "Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies."
In Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler.
Jackson, Peter. _Maps of Meaning: An Introduction to Cultural
Geography_. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
----- and Jan Penrose, eds. _Constructions of Race, Place and
Nation_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1994.
McRobbie, Angela. "Post-Marxism and Cultural Studies." In Grossberg,
Nelson, and Treichler.
Miyoshi, Maseo. "Sites of Resistance in the Global Economy."
_boundary 2_ 22.1 (Spring 1995): 61-84.
Rose, Gillian. _Feminism and Geography: the Limits of Geographical
Knowledge_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993.
Ryan, Michael. _Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical
Articulation_. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP,
1982.
Said, Edward. _Orientalism_. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
-----. "Traveling Theory." In _The World, the Text, and the
Critic_. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1983.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Scattered Speculations on the
Question of Cultural Studies." In _Outside in the
Teaching Machine_. New York and London: Routledge, 1993.
-----. "Reading the World." In _In Other Worlds_. New York and
London: Routledge, 1988.
Viswanathan, Gauri. _Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British
Rule in India_. New York: Columbia UP, 1989.
Wolff, Janet. "Excess and Inhibition: Interdisciplinarity in the
Study of Art." In Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler.
------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------