Toward an Urban Cultural Studies pp 19-41 | Cite as
Why Urban Cultural Studies? Why Henri Lefebvre?
Abstract
From the outset it is necessary to point out that any definition of “urban cultural studies” is likely to be as polemical as those of its two constituent parts—“cultural studies” and “urban studies.” The meanings and significance of these terms themselves have been and continue to be hotly and widely debated within and across a number of increasingly interdisciplinary fields. And yet, taking a moment to sketch out the nature of the debates—even if briefly and in general terms—is necessary if we are to understand the current need for an urban cultural studies method, a method that might bridge both humanities and social science scholarship on the culture(s) of cities. The starting point for Toward an Urban Cultural Studies is, thus, to formulate a provisional definition of urban cultural studies. This requires, first, identifying a generalized, but also representative and relevant, thesis of cultural studies method and, second, subsequently applying this thesis to interdisciplinary research on the city in broad terms.
Keywords
Cultural Study Urban Study Taxi Driver Popular Music Digital HumanityPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.On base-superstructure, see Williams , Marxism and Literature (1977, 75). The literature on this subject dating from the 1970s is extremely vast—the following deserve mention (but are clearly neither exhaustive nor representative): Sharon Zukin’s observation in her classic salvo The Cultures of Cities that “As I continued to think about cities, I began to think of their economies as based increasingly on symbolic production” (1995, ix); David Harvey’s work on the relationship of culture to intercity competition (Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference [1996]); and the essays in State/Culture (ed. George Steinmetz, 1999), particularly the introduction and the essay by Bob Jessop, where the author highlights “the discursive (or sociocultural) construction of political economic realities” (1999, 380). Lefebvre (2005) himself, of course—as will be discussed—goes beyond the base-superstructure model generally equated with traditional Marxism.Google Scholar