HANDOUT ON CULTURAL STUDIES: JANICE RADWAY, CONSTANCE PENLEY, AND LAURA
KIPNIS
What's here
1. Let's begin with some stereotypes. What pops into your head when I say "romance novel"? What kinds of people do you think would tend to write, buy, and read those novels? To what extent does Radway's work confirm stereotypes about romance readers, and to what extent does it confound them?
2. Dot assures her friends that "Jan is just people" (552). Do you agree? Is "Jan" flattered by Dot's remark? How deeply does she analyze her reasons for pursuing this research? How deeply do you think she should analyze those reasons?
3. Radway tends to present herself as an outsider, a kind of ethnographer, which raises questions about objectivity and distance. If there are problems with distancing yourself from the people and things that you study, are there also problems with identifying yourself too closely with the objects of your study? From whom would you expect to get more reliable information about a group--an outsider, or a member of the group?
4. Is Radway's view of the romance readers totally positive? Or are there times when she is somewhat critical of them? And if she is critical, is her criticism well-founded?
5. All of these essays take up the question of feminism, so we'll need to keep that question in mind as we read. Radway suggests that the romance readers are motivated by an "apparently unconscious desire to realize some of the benefits of feminism within traditional institutions and relationships" (578). Do you agree? Why might the romance readers would that such desires remain unconscious? Why are they so reluctant to identify with feminism? And how should feminists respond to their reluctance? What are the options for feminism here, and what might be the outcomes of pursuing those options?
1. More stereotypes. What kinds of things are you likely to find in Hustler magazine, and what kinds of people are likely to read that magazine? Does Kipnis succeed in overturning some of those stereotypes associated with Hustler? Is that what she's trying to do? And if not, what is her aim?
2. What do you make of Kipnis's portrayal of Robin Morgan? Why is she being so snarky? Isn't she supposed to be a feminist? What does she seem to dislike about mainstream feminist accounts of pornography? Why is she so worried about the fact--if indeed it is a fact--that feminism has "no theory of how class plays itself out in nuances of representation" (374). And why does she think that feminism should try to develop a "more nuanced theory of misogyny" (388)? What does she think that such a theory might do for feminism? Will a theory of "how class plays itself out" in magazines like Hustler help to keep people like Larry Flynt from making fun of feminism? Or is that beside the point?
2a. Here's a related question: What, for Kipnis, is the value of "nuance"? It's obvious that she thinks of nuance as a good thing--why? Does "nuance" help feminism, cultural studies, both, or neither? What happens, according to Kipnis, if we try to get along without it?
3. Do you think that Kipnis is too generous in her treatment of Hustler? In describing the magazine as "transgressive," is she-- perhaps inadvertently--valorizing people like Larry Flynt? (By the way, did anyone see The People vs. Larry Flynt? How is he, and how is Hustler, portrayed in that movie?)
1. One more round of stereotypes, please. Star Trek fans: What are they like? Why are they so into it? What kinds of men watch the show and go to the conventions? And what kinds of women do so? Now, what does Penley do with these stereotypes?
2. Penley begins with a theoretical polemic, which includes a lot of terms that might be confusing. What does she seem to have in mind when she speaks of the following things: identification? subject formation? regression? object relations? and female subjectivity?
3. Feminist film theory obviously holds a lot of promise for Penley. Why? What can you infer about feminist film theory from Penley's use of it?
4. Penley says that she's not so much "analyzing" as "thinking along" with the fans (485). Do you think that she has something against "analyzing" things? Is "analyzing" a sort of dirty word for her--and if so, why?
5. Is Penley ever critical of the fans? How is her treatment of the fans different from Radway's treatment of Dot and the other romance readers? Penley acknowledges her debt to Radway, yet also seems eager to distance herself from Radway. Why? And how, finally, should we see the connections and the differences among Radway, Kipnis, and Penley? Do they have any common concerns--or any common methods? Where do they diverge, and why?