A TELEVISION CRITIC ANSWERS HER CRITICS
To place cultural goods within the context of a political economy is not a new thing to do. But, it’s a rare thing to do and it’s an unpopular thing to do, particularly if this critique is perceived to edge out the currently popular and purely feminist sort. While a criticism which takes identity and resistance by different identity groups into account is, in my view, essential, it is also a bit toothless and mystified if it continues to ignore all backgrounds save for that of misogyny, rape culture or whatever we have agreed to call this (frankly undefinable) thing.
...
Another response collected here at
DR is, “Don’t you think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, Helen?” I may be misreading, but I believe the intention here is to “call out” the critic of political economy as one who is (a) insufficiently “
nuanced” and too brutally simple in her reckoning and (b) condescending to an audience who are, apparently, already entirely aware of the critical framework she has employed.
It is true that this critic lacks nuance. But, some of us prefer grand narratives and our return to this tedious old modernist tradition of wondering about the working misery of the people who produce and consume culture is, however, inelegant, conscious. It is not true that the critic believes you to be stupid. This critic is one that renews her faith daily in the fact of mass genius. This critic is an optimist and believes not only that you can walk, chew gum and fill all your intellectual pockets with bombs. This critic believes that she is not half as fit for this “nuanced” work as you.
