;:

Katz, E. (1987). Communication researd. since Lazarsfdd. hblic Opinion Quarterly, 51 (Suppl.),
S25-S45.
Kuhn, A. (1982). Women's pictures: Feminism and cinema. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kurtz, L. R. (I 984). EvaluaJing Chicago sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moi, T. (I 985). Sexual/textual poli.tics: Feminist literary theory. London: Methuen.
Nicholson, L. (1986). Gender and history. New York: Columbia Uni\'ersity Press.
Pateman, C. (1983). Feminist critiques of the public/private dichotomy. InS. Benn & G. Gaus (Eds.),
hblic and private in social life. London: Croom Helm.
Pateman, C., & Gross, E. (Eds.). (1987). Feminist challenges: Social and political theory. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.-
Rakow, L. F. (1986a). Feminist approaches to popular culture: Ghing patriarch) its due. Communica-
tion, 9,19-42.
Rakow, L. F. (1986b). Rethinking gender research in communication. journal of
36( 4), 11-26.
Scott, J. (I 986 ). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. American Hist(J{ical Review, 91,
1053-1073.
Showalter, E. (Ed.). (I 985). new feminist criticism. New York: Pantheon.
Smith, M. Yodelis. (1982). Research retrospective: Feminism and the media. Communication Research,
9, 145-160.
Spender, D. (Ed.). (I 98 I). Men's studies modified: The impact a] feminism on the academic disciplines.
Oxford: Pergamon P<tss ..
Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems, 32,
301-316.
Steeves, H. L. (I 987). Feminist theories and media studies. Cn'tical Studies in Mass Communication, 4,
95-135.
Strathem, M. (1987). An awkward relationship: The case of feminism and anthropology. Signs, 12,
376-392.
Swingewood, A. (I 984). A short history of sociological thought. New York: St. Martin's Press.
G.; .SW-;U->
\'lR'i.
Feminist Cultural Studies
CATHY SCHWICHTENBERG
British cultural studies, which began at
the Centre for Contemporary Studies at the
Ms. Schwichtenberg is Assistant Professor of
Communication, University of flfassachusells
fll Amherst.
University of Birmingham, England in the
1960s, has been adopted and insti:utiona!-
ized in American communication depan-
ments in the I 980s. It can be defined loosely
as an interdisciplinary convergence of
approaches used to examine how social
NOTICE
This material may be protected by
Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. code)
!groups on basis of class,
!ra<'<', or and power
!relations through various cultural practices.
'It is and perhaps post-Marxist,
in its perspective. Central to its focus are
issues of culture, ideology, hegemony, and
subjectivity 1983; Hall, 1980;
Johnson, 1986).
the term itself has gained
in American universities where, as
Schudson (1987) points out, it is
now legitimate to studr popular culture.
while British cultural studies has
found a comfortable (liberal-pluralist) home
here, man) commentators have expressed the
fear that such hospitality and accommoda-
tion may resuh in political devaluation
(Hardt, 1986; Meehan, 1986). Such fears
may be warranted (Carey, 1986; Hall,
1986).
But, while cultural studies may be faced
with an institutional hegemony of "paradigm
absorption," feminist studies within commu-
nication has had to cope with the opposite
problem: "paradigm exclusion" or marginal-
ization (Treichler & Wartella, 1986).
.il.hhough, as Lana Rakow (1986) points out,
"gender" has been operationalized as a cate-
gory incorporated into communication re-
search, "feminism" (particularly feminist
theory) has been, historically, either ex-
cluded or relegated to the margins of the
discipline.
I
Institutionally speaking, once feminist
studies is labeled as a "sp.ecial interest," it
runs the risk of being marginalized in rela-
tion to the dominant discourses of the field.
Within its own preserve in departments,
special journal issues, and organizational
subgroups, feminist studies can thereby
become canonized as the "received knowl-
edge" of a small corner of the discipline.
Forced to battle over the marginal
resour<'<'s provided by institutions for "spe-
cially" areas, feminist studies can potentially
reproduce the authoritarianism and hierar-
chies of the "malestream" (Kramarae, 1988,
p. ix) it initially sought to critique. Toril Moi
(1983, p. 4) addresses this problem in rela-
tion to feminist literary criticism: "Anglo-
American feminist critics have waged war
against the canonization of
male bourgeois as basis for the
selection of the literary canon. But they
not the very notion of such a
canon."
In communication such a canon is
being by feminist cultural studies.
Indeed, feminist communication scholarship
with a cultural studies emphasis has become
increasingly self-renexive about the incipient
dangers of its own canonization and has
worked productively with feminist scholars
across disciplines to male-
defined "canon." For instance, Kathlun
Newman (1988) provides an insightful
response to the recent audience debate in this
journal. not onlr addresses the
historical contributions made by feminist
communication scholars (Tania ModJeski
and Janice Radwar) but to the
central problem of theoretical closure-a
problem illustrated by the male paradigm
competition oer audience "differences."
Rather than locating" 'closures' within com-
munication studies," Newman (p. 244)
argues that there is the need to identify
"'openings' into interdisciplinary debates."
One of these "interdisciplinary openings"
can be characterized by the recent importa-
tion of theories and methods from British
feminist cultural studies, which emerged
from within the interdisciplinary context of
the center at Birmingham and began as the
Women's Studies Group (1978). Similar to
the American feminist interest groups in
communication, the \Vomen's Studies Group
was formed in response to the center's oer-
sight of feminist concerns, specifically related
to girls'/women's culture. Numerous studies
of male youth culture and male working class
culture had examined male confrontational
fonns and styles of rebellion in opposition to
authority (Hebdige, 1979; Willis, 1977;
1979). Howevt"r, much of this subcultural
work had rendered patriarchy imisible by
privileging male styles of rebellion, which
often took misogynistic forms to function at
the expense of girls/women (1\!cRobbie,
1980). Thus, the center's failure to address
adequately the significance of girls'/wom-
en's cultural fonns and means of expression
,.
''.
led to the organization of the Women's Stud-
ies Group and the subsequent growth of
British feminist cultural studies.
Similar to its "parent" area, British femi-
nist cultural studies is concerned with the
enabling and constraining aspects of popular

particular!)' how certain

emlnine" forms (such as fashion, soap
operas, teen magazines, and dance) are used
by girls in
cu tui'iiTiifentuy. CUltural studies' linking of
subJN1t\'ll)', tdeology, and culture is of cen-
tral concern for feminisms that transgress
national boundaries in the productive
1
exchange of theories and methodologies.
'This kind of exchange resists and
challenges easy co-optation by the American
"marketplace of paradigms," which has
begun to devalue the political currc:nq of
British cultural studies. Indeed, French fem-
inist Luce lrigaray (1980, p. I 10) suggests
an alternative form of trade when she asks,
"But what if the 'goods' [women] refused to
go to market? What if they maintained
among themselves 'another' kind of trade?:.J_
consider this "other" kind of trade bet ween
\
Bnush
ies as the greatest

...'!l!!J.cl
studies.
+-urawn from the ever-growing domain of
feminist cultural studies, my sampling is, by
n.xcssity, limited; thus, in what folbws, I
identify the productive collusion between
British and American feminist cultural stud-
ies as represented by Angela 1\fcRobbie's
"Dance and Social Fantasy" (1984) and
Janice Radway's "Identifying Ideological
Seams: Mass Culture, Analrtical Method,
and Political Practice" (1986)
1
These two
articles, which share much in common, dem-
onstrate how cultural studies can be resistive
when played out in a feminist key. Indeed,
both articles foreground the interdisciplinary
rapprochement between British and Ameri-
can f cmi
core the tssue of female subjccti\'ity: an issue
that opens onto 1 c quesilon of female sex-
uality and its possible alternative forms of
-E<pressiorC Specifically; McRi:ibblc's-aiid
Radway's work highlights how self-reAexive
criticism, interdisciplinary engagement; and
provocative female fantasies can have mate-
rial consequences for theorizing gender.
In their respective readings of female cul-
ture, drawn from the interdisciplinary realm
of ethnographr and textual analysis, both
l\lcRobbie and Racl"ay focus on women's
leisure activities: for 1\fcRobbie, it is dance as
a form of female pleasure and sexual expres-
sion; for Rad"ay, it is reading as an activity
that symbolically speaks to women's daily
lives. Both writers explore the enabling and
constraining aspects of these activities in
relation to women's social experience. For
instance, while l\fcRobbie (pp. 136-142)
stresses the sexual exhilaration and potential
fantasy constructions imoked b)' dance, she
also acknowledges patriarchal objectification
of the female body, t)pically aligned with
capitalism to sell products. Radway (pp.
I 12- I 13), too, notes that women's romance
reading functions as a pleasurable escape
into fantasy, dhorced from daily household
chores and familial demands; however, she
also recognizes the reconstitution of patriar-
chal ideology in the structure of the romance
itself, which reinforces the system that, in
reading, women seek to escape.
Thus, 1\fcRobbic and Radway weave a
nuanced and dialectical argument for the
radical potential of women's cultural prac-
tices that, on an experiential level, resist 'J
patriarchal ascriptions by ha,ing particular
meanings for the women involved. In other
words, as Radway (p. 97) suggests, warne 9"
can usc cultural forms to ana!l_zc their O\<o"n i
Sttuatton. '. Vhtlc women pe .. iL.9 L
"bear ":lthin the social order, 1
Within their owri sub .:;t. '-"
rosa system of meaning exchange, women .
express their anger, discontent, and sarcasm .::\ ::J
in relation to their positioning within Ol
patriarchy, as well as their pleasures, fanta- - 3
sics, and desires which redefine the range of
1

possible meanings ascribed to their cultural,,;.;
activities. "'
Although Radway and McRobbic might
argue about the distinctions between textual
analysis and rcacling or dancing as social
processes (i.e., McRobbie's relations are
more' loose and interdiscursive, while
:Radway tends to emphasize interpretation
and privilege ethnography), both representa-
tives of the American and British feminist
positions practice a reflexive form of cultural
criticism. Both women self-critical about
their previous work (Radway on Reading
lhe Romance !1984] and McRobbie on
"Jackie" j1981]) and both intersperse pro-
vocative questions throughout their essays,
engaging the reader in a suggestive quest for
answers..
But this is not all. While McRobbie and
Radway rework their previous studies as an
interventionary critical practice, their in-
sights open onto an as yet uncharted territo-
ry-what Freud called "the dark continent
of femininity." They contribute to the project
of theorizing gender by highlighting the sig-
of female subjectivity and its mate-
rial corollary, female sexuality. Indeed, their
reflections have pointed me in a direction,
precarious at best, that is threatening and
thus not subject to easy appropriation, for the
course they chart leads to alternative sites for
theorizing female sexual expression.
F.:minist cultural studies, as well as many
other areas devoted to feminist research, is
indebted. to the interdisciplinary purview of
feminist theory. This "fluid field," as Paula
Treichler" (1986, p. 60) notes, has yielded a
"dizzying array of themes, projects, and posi-
tions from across the disciplines." One such
project, high on the agenda for feminist
theory, continues to b.: "female subjectivity."
Inde.:d, theorizing how women internalize
those r.:presentational structur.:s that go,ern
th.:ir material conditions has been central for
f.:minist scholars in American social psychol-
ogy (Chodorow, 1978; Dinnerstein, 1977)
and for feminist scholars in film (Dean.:,
1982; Mulvey, 1977), philosophy (lrigaray,
1985), and literary criticism (Gallop, 1982;
Mill.:r, 1986) who r.:read Freudian psycho-
analysis with a Europ<:an inflection, deriving
from Jacques Lacan.
feminist cultural studi.:s examines,
in particular, cultural/media representations
of "f.:mininity" that may inform a female
unconscious, feminist film th.:ory has, histor-
ically, contributed to this investigation. From
about the mid-1,970s on, feminist film theo-
rists began considering "sexual difference"
as a key term in theorizing a notion of "the
feminine" as inscribed in language through
the process of enculturation (i.e., a child's
psycho-sexual development). Since differ-
ence originates through oppositional rela-
tions within language, "sexual difference"
became crucial in locating the psychoanalyt-
ic/linguistic means by which "woman" was
defined as man's "other." The combination
of Lacanian psychoanalysis and semiotics,
when applied to film narratives, not only
enabled feminist film scholars to map out
how and why wiiman had been constructed
as scxuallr subordinate but also carried with
it the promise of radical signifying practices
based on "woman's otherness," her feminini-
ty. While in the 1970s these developments
established a foundation for theorizing dif-
ferences in female spect;uorship and female
subjectivity, the 1980s have witnessed how
the edifice of "sexual difference" has created
an impasse: woman is either subordinated or
essentialized as man's other.
Indeed, sexual difference has been used as
a yardstick to measure, primarily, white,
heterosexual, middle-class differences and
has .:ffectively excluded class, race, and sex-
ual preference-all crucial differences
among and between women, which often
cross over in multiple configurations. More-
over, in terms of female subjectivity, sexual
difference rules out what Teresa de Lauretis
(1986, p. 14) describes as "woman's hetero-
geneous subjectivity and multiple identity as
differences within women" (italics addedj. In
this regard, de Lauretis notes a shift in th.:
feminist understanding of subjecthity from
the earlier male-female couplet of sexual
difference to female subjectivity as a site of
differences, as conflictual as they are comple-
mentary.
Alternativ.: sites for femal.: subjectivity, as
witnessed in McRobbie's work on dance and
Radway 's work on romance reading, are
crucial to British and American feminist
cultural studies, which emphasize the poly-
semic, resistiv.: elements informing femal.:
cultural practices. Female subjectivity, as a
site of diffcrenc<:s, suggests alternative
I'
...
-.: - ' '. . .. piaces for the multiple con- be a woman too. Thus Me Robbie's sensual
,_.,..._.- figurations of female sexuality-that evoke dancer, who might be dancing with herself or
the material possibilities inherent in imag- with other women, links arms with Rad-
. ined constructions. One such alternative site way's woman reader, whose interpretive
is the female body (McRobbie, 1984); reading of the romance yields the desire for a
another is women's fantasy constructions nurturant, masculine hero (a truly provoca-
(Radway, 1986). While the pleasures of the tive fantasy).
bod) and the fantasy constructions of the Radway (1984, p. 98) argues that even
mind may start from different places, they though women's texts (i.e., melodramas,
arrive at a similar destination for addressing soap operas, romances) promote patriarchal
the inadequacies of heterosexual construe ideology at a manifest level, women readers
tions of female sexuality. Thus, if we extra- can read against the grain to recover the
polate from McRobbie's and Radway's feminine subtext that speaks to their situa-
alternative sites, we can tease out the provoc-. tion. One significant element drawn from
ative strands of their arguments, which when this feminine subtext was Radway's discov-
read together not only pose a challenge to ery that "the women [in her research J search
heterosexual assumptions but, more impor- for books that feature a spectacular!) mascu-
tantly, entertain the multiple possibilities for line hero who is yet nurturing, tender and
female sexual expression that. open onto kind" (p. 113). Here Radway interprets her
alternative sites for differences. findings in light of Chodorow's psychological
McRobbie. (1984, p. 139), for example, account of the engendering process (1978)
reflects on some of the difficulties involved in which takes place within the nuclear family,
"looking at women from the point of view of where women, as little girls, receive nurtu-
a woman." \Vhile in dance, women's bodies ranee and care from their primary care giv-
are to some extent displayed for men, many ers, their mothers. Thus, the particular
women derive pleasure from either watching women readers in Radway's study read the
this display or actively participating in it as a romance in a way that speaks to their situa-
form of sexual expression. Such pleasures lion. Their desire for a masculine, nurturant
cannot simply be explained away by a pejo-- hero (a female man) foregrounds the failure
rative "false consciousness" argument. of patriarchy (and capitalism) to provide
Women do make meaning, and in multiple such care in the "asymmetrical engendering"
ways that theory has been slow to discover. of the sexes (p. 113). While \\'omen are
Although (p. 145) makes no engendered to become man's primary care
claim to represent gay or lesbian fantasy takers, men ha,e been engendered in a way
scenarios in relation to dance, she does sug- that prevents reciprocity of those nurturing
gest alternative possibilities when she notes, qualities most valued by women.
"how difficult it is to ascertain what female While Radwar's findings may certainly
sexuality is" (p. 138). This nebulous eroti- suggest the need for alternative pallerns of
cism which eludes the definitional parame- engendering within the family or increased
ters of sexual difference also resists the goals male sensitization, ther also suggest hetero--
and drives of heterosexuality that might sk sexuality as a problematic configuration for
to pin it down. Woman's sensual/sexual meeting women's needs. As Freud (1933/
expression communicated through dance 1961, p. 134) aptly put it, "One gets the
opens onto a myriad of possibilities ranging impression that a man's love and a woman's
from autoeroticism to the intimacy of female are a phase apart psychologically." Thus,
friendships to lesbian invitations and all like dance, which entertains multipk pnssi-
points in between. The female body as con- bilities for female sexual expression,
duit for a nebulous eroticism that is self- romance reading expands the range of rela-
inscribed embraces woman's multiple identi- tiona! possibilities for women, where their
ties as others within the self and, in so doing, emotional or sexual investments might be
reaches outward toward an other, who may better reciprocated.
rrom of which consti-
subjectivity,
from of and
romance to and
that can As Radway
(1986, p. 117) notes, "a
must ways to construct
and must also how such
to and
conflict within social relations" [italics
By on the of
configurations (which cannot
fully sensual,
and must begin at
of and Radway's
in to those within
and among that point to
forms of
ships
for British cul-
tural in
political within
alliances, and radical of
cultural which
within and of f. This is, as Stuart
Hall (1986) hallmark of an
cultural that
to maintaining a critical

NOTES
'My sri =ion of (1980; 1984) and Radway (1984; 1986) to rrprrsonttwo moments in
development of British and American cultural was not arbitrary. In many respects, both
women the territory for the "audience it was a and major
contributions to ongoing in this arra as witnrssed by citations and confrrrntt
discusslons. thdr to optimism:' rvrn in light of their discussions of
the political core of thdr arguments, grounded in a feminine specificity and a
feminist praxis that men should not necessarily emulate but learn from.
REFERENCES
Carey, ].'(1983). origins of radical on cultural studies in Unitrd Statrs.Joumal of
Communication, 33(3), 311-313.
Chodorow, N. (1978). Th r<production ofmoth.ring. of California Press.
de Lauretis, T. (1986). studies: Issues, and contexts. InT. de Laurctis
{Ed.), Fminist studi<S/critica/ studi.s (pp. 1-19). Bloomington: Indiana Press.
D. (1977). 171 mi!TTTlaid a_nd th Minotaur. York: Harper/Colophon.
Doane, M. A. (1982). Film and the spectator. Scrun, 23(3/4),
74-87.
S. (1961). In J. (Ed.), 171 standard dition ofth cumplt prychological
works (Vol. 22, pp. 112-135). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1933)
Gallop, ]. (1982). Th do.ught<r's uduction: F<minism and prychoanalysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Press.
Grossberg, L. {1983). Cultural studies and rrvisrd. In M.S. (Ed.), Communication in
tran ..;rion: Issues and dbat<S in current r<uarch (pp. 39-70). York: Praegcr.
Hall, S. (1980). Cultural studies and problcmatics and In S. Hall,
D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), mdia, languag (pp. 15-47). London:
HutchinsoiL
Hall, S. {1986). On postmodemism and articulation: An interview with Stuart Hall. journal of
Communication Inquiry, 70(2), 45-60.
..... :..
..
;
REVIEW AND CRITICISM JUNE 1989
Hardt, H. (1986). British cultural studies and the return of the "critical" in American mass
communication research: Accommodation or radical change? journal of Communication Inquiry,
70(2), 117-124. .
Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. London: Methuen.
Irigaray, L (1980). When the goods get together. In E. Marks & I. de Couni.-ron (Eds.), New French
feminisms: An anthology (pp. 107-110}. Amherst: Uni>ersity of Massachusetts Press.
Irigaray, L (1985). Speculum of the other woman (G. C. Gill, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Johnson, R. (1986). What is cultural studies anrway? Social Text, 16, 38-80.
Kramarae, C. (1988). Prcfae<. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women's voices: Keeping in
touch (pp. ix-xi). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McRobbie, A. (1980). Sculing accounts with subcultures: A feminist critique. Screen Education, 34,
37-49.
McRobbie, A. (1981). Just like a Jackie story. In A. McRobbic & T. McCabe (Eds.), Feminism for
girls (pp. 113- I 28). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McRobbie, A. (1984). Dance and social fantasy. In A. McRobbic & M. Naa (Eds.), Cend.r and
generation (pp. 130-161). London: Macmillan.
Meehan, E. (1986). Between political cconom)' and cultural studies: Towards a refinement of American
critical communication r<scarch. journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(3), 86-94.
Miller, N.K. (1986). Changing the subject: Authorship, writing and the reader. InT. de Lauretis (Ed.),
Feminist studies/critical studies (pp. I 02-120). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Moi, T. (1983). Sexual/textual politics. In F. Barker, P. Hulme, M.Iverscn, & D. Loklcy (Eds.), The
politics of theory (pp. 1-14). Colchester: University of Essex.
Mulvey, L. (1977). Visual pleasure and narrati>e cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6-18.
Newman, K. (1988). Critical response: On openings and closings. Critical Studies in !If ass Communica-
tion, 5, 243-245.
Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill:
Universit)' of Nonh Carolina Press.
Radway, J. (1986). Identifying ideological scams: Mass culture, analytical method, and political
practia:. Communication, 9, 93-123.
Rakow, L. F. ( 1986). Rethinking gender research in communication. journal of Communication, 36(4),
11-26.
Schudson, M. (1987). The new validation of popular culture: Sense and sentiment alit)' in academia.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication,4, 51-68.
Treichler, P. A. (1986). Teaching feminist theory. In C. Nelson (Ed.), Theory in the classroom (pp.
57 -128). Urbana: Unhersity of Illinois Press.
Treichler, P. A., & \Vanella, E. (1986). Intenentions: Feminist theory and communication studies.
Commllnication,9, 1-JS.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. London: Saxon House.
Willis, P. (1979). Shop Roar culture, masculinity, and the wage form. In J. Clarke, C:. Critcher, &
R. Johnson (Eds.), Worlring class rulture: Studies in history and theory (pp. 185-198). New York: St.
Martin's Preso.
Women's Studies Group (Eds.). (1978). Women taAe issue: Aspects of women's subordination. London:
Hutchinson.