本週六文化研究讀書會http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
在文藻至善樓十二樓1211室舉行,2-5點,可早到請大家踴躍參加或幫忙宣傳一下,
主題:Unpopular Education: Schooling and Social Democracy in England since 1944.
我們前半段有李錦旭老師導讀,接著討論,
如果對教育或英國戰後問題感興趣的朋友及同學,歡迎前來,
由台南出發者,我可載四個
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
2008-12-12
2008-12-11
12/27
各位好,
雖然台灣近來局勢益惡,加上年終大家事真的很多,但我們本月讀書會仍要如期舉行,12月27日,目前協調高師大台文所劉正元老師借討論室, http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
本讀書會閱讀Richard Johnson的經典已三個多月,他老人家也將和老伴於明年三四月間來台,拜成大台文所的幫忙,申請一切順利,實在很感謝。
他已在查詢機票,我則在幫他看房子。
他來台一個半月,除了負責台文系所相關的活動外,我想也會對南台灣當前的惡劣時局,提出個人的見解及觀察,
他訪台的形式,因此除公開於學校的正式行程外,其他則從現在起有賴有心者一同參與,我們必須與成大台文協調及組織,
希望大家有興趣者可以一同協作。
讀書會僅是個協作的開始,我會陸續整理每次的問答及簡報,加上日後會有翻譯的部份,希望讓江森與台灣讀者有很深刻的互動。更同時,讓"跨國的"的運動及經驗能相互得到分享。
祝 國泰 民安(今天聽到近來最夯的問候語)
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒
雖然台灣近來局勢益惡,加上年終大家事真的很多,但我們本月讀書會仍要如期舉行,12月27日,目前協調高師大台文所劉正元老師借討論室, http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
本讀書會閱讀Richard Johnson的經典已三個多月,他老人家也將和老伴於明年三四月間來台,拜成大台文所的幫忙,申請一切順利,實在很感謝。
他已在查詢機票,我則在幫他看房子。
他來台一個半月,除了負責台文系所相關的活動外,我想也會對南台灣當前的惡劣時局,提出個人的見解及觀察,
他訪台的形式,因此除公開於學校的正式行程外,其他則從現在起有賴有心者一同參與,我們必須與成大台文協調及組織,
希望大家有興趣者可以一同協作。
讀書會僅是個協作的開始,我會陸續整理每次的問答及簡報,加上日後會有翻譯的部份,希望讓江森與台灣讀者有很深刻的互動。更同時,讓"跨國的"的運動及經驗能相互得到分享。
祝 國泰 民安(今天聽到近來最夯的問候語)
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒
2008-12-04
江森的回應
各位,
轉寄的是江森的耐心回應,請參考。
另外,他有可能三月會先行來台,再去中國,四月初返台一個半月,所以三月我們可能先安排大家先見個面,如何?他期待和各位再深談每次的問題。
本週日北上聲援野草莓+樂生。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Workshop responses.Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:01:36 +0000
Dear Lee,
Here are some responses, for the moment.
1/ Reader. The piece was originally written for and published in a teachers magazine called Radical Education in 1976. I think part of the motive was to offer a way of thinking about education different from the academic model and also from the 'useful knowledge' model. This was a time of excitement among teachers about methods and curriculum. But later, more developed versions were also for social and educational historians and sociologists. The paper was given as a presentation at the History Workshop which was a gathering of historians held annually at Ruskin College Oxford, an adult education collage. The paper was taken up primarily by adult educators I think and did influence the revival of community education in the 1970s and 1980s. One of the things I would like to do in my main lecture in Tainan is to develop the idea of Really Useful Knowledge for today. Who would benefit from RUK (or its equivalents today) - all of us I guess, but adult learners especially.
2/Class and Time. Yes, there is a criticism of The Making of the English Working Class in the paper which I have brought out more in other versions - which I will bring with me.
I don't think that the movements with which EPT dealt were fully proletarian in their social basis (except perhaps on the land and some factory districts) - though there were some proletarians in this sense. Typically, like the French revolutionaries, these were skilled workers ('artisans') who had a bit of control over their tools and labour and time, but were now threatened by capitalist development. I agree with Barrington Moore that it is not necessarily proletarians who are the most radical groups - see the peasantry in China and the 'little people' in the European and American revolutions. Having a bit of control over your labour and time and perhaps land is of course crucial in the case of adult learning. Literacy rates actually declined in Britain in the factory districts in the classic period of the industrial revolution (1780s-1820s) . My more general argument is that control of time and labour is critical for a good society where everyone can benefit from education. In Britain today there is actually a reversal in this respect with very long hours of work and low wages for many. To go back to class- yes, EPT was right that the classes of industrial capitalism are developing, but they are 'in the making rather than made.
Other periods: Well, all historical periods are of interest, though I guess I was then most interested in periods of popular politics, or attempts at counter-hegemony or popular creativity.These also tend to be the periods when adult education of the 'Really Useful Knowledge" type are strong. I am interested in the conditions that make this possible, one of which is a degree of political excitement or hope for a better world. 1848- 1880s in Britain is a period where hegemonic processes are relatively successful and there is a consolidation of newer forms of class rule, though it is also an important one for the development of state education for working-class children especially after 1870.
3. Historians questions: Yes, I have taught the mid C19 in Britain - I used to teach a social history course with the dates 1815-1870 and a specialist course on social policy over the same period including education - too. At the CCCS we madeva special study of 1880s- 1945.
Yes, I am very interested in the different formal features of ways of learning, including the role of media. Sorry if there are errors! Yes, this you are right was a 'historian's' essay primarily (I had only just joined CCCS when I wrote it! and it was based on research I did in the early to mid 1970s while I was still in a Department of Social and Economic History).
4 The Danish questions are very interesting. One important aspect of education in Britain is that nation-building played a less important role in national education than almost anywhere else in the world, certainly less than in the rest of Europe. This helps to explain the weakness of state education in Britain, especially England - even today with marketisation etc. The concern with 'subjectivities' is a a later one of mine too. In the early 1970s I had not yet read Foucault or anyway related him to the education work. I suppose however people are 'made' as subjects in a wide range of processes and discourses, including labour of all kinds (domestic and waged). In a broad sense they all have an educational aspect - though not necessarily good for human development.
5. The dilemma. This is how they expressed it at the time- we want education, for ourselves and our children, but we don't like what the churches etc are offering us, which is only about training for labour and subordination. So, says a minority, let's provide it ourselves. But it becomes a double dilemma because providing it ourselves becomes more difficult with fuller proletarianisation.
6. Forms, informality, networks etc. Again the possibility of more informal learning - play for children, discovery methods, projects, Ph.Ds!! - depends on the social conditions especially the relation of time/income/labour. Also state of public policies of course and the quality and independence of media etc etc. Maybe there IS nostalgia in the essay, though it has to be read in the context of the resurgence of forms of really useful knowledge in the 1970s and early 1980s. There was something of a revolution in curriculum and teaching methods in UK in this period of which early Cultural Studies was a part. Reading and study groups - such as those at CCCS and/or in the Womens Movement - were an important part of this. Nostalgia - this can be a dismissive word. I don't think remembering should be opposed to making a better future. It is a part of it.
There has been some work by British historians on private and family forms of education in the past. Religion is very very important in this context, especially in British history the different forms of dissenting Christianity (not Anglican or Catholic) - Quakers, Unitarians, Baptists, Congregationalists etc. They valued the edcuation of women and were democratic (no ministers or chosen by the congregation).
7. Yes, intellectual in the Gramscian sense of organiser as well as thinker. I cannot really answer briefly all the important questions that follow about how we can think about really useful knowledge today. These should be at the centre of our dialogues about education I think when I come.
Of course some of you will realise I am strongly opposed to some of the main developments in education today - and in some ways 'really useful knowledge' is the name I still give to my own attempted practice in education and what I work for in the future, for everyone of course. Detailing what this means is something I will come ready to attempt in Taiwan!! Yes, I hope you are right that this 1970s work is still relevant to different choices for our institutions.
8.' Artisan' - perhaps today I would be less critical of this term. I see I use it above. But it remains true we need to understand exactly how far people have control of their time and labour and means of production and artisan indicates a very wide range of conditions here. Yes, this is related to old-style apprenticeship too which was very different from the modern forms of 'training'
My own city - Leicester - was in the early C20 a city of skilled workers and small masters in the boot and shoe and hosiery (socks!) and engineering trades. This was also a period when adult education flourished in the city. About 17% of adult workers were in some form of education, much of it non-vocational. My own organisation - the Workers Education Association (non-vocational adult ed. for workers)- had a flourishing branch (founded in 1908) and there were Adult Schools in many communities. I think that some independence in work (or retirement!) is an important condition for adult education, and that includes the worker having time enough to teach or model for the young apprentice worker or artist. I too believe real creativity is threatened today in very many ways.
There are later re-written or reframed versions of 'Really Useful Knowledge' which do address some of the questions above. I don't know if you will be able to get hold of them, but here are the references:
1988. '"Really Useful Knowledge" 179O-185O: Memories of Education in the 198Os' in Tom Lovett (ed.), Radical Approaches to Adult Education: A Reader, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 3 - 34.
1992 'Radical Traditions? Radical Education and The New Right' in Ali Rattansi and David Reeder (eds.), Radicalism in Education: Essays on the Politics, Theory and History of Educational Reform, Lawrence and Wishart. (Essays in Honour of Professor Brian Simon).
In application to Cultural Studies:
1997 ‘Teaching Without Guarantees: Cultural Studies, Pedagogy and Identity’ in D. Epstein and J. Canaan (eds), A Question of Discipline: Teaching Cultural Studies Westview Press .
For a slightly fuller account of the history of edcuation in the period of RUK and the argument about proletarianisation:
1976. 'Notes on the Schooling of the English Working Class' in Roger Dale, Geoff Esland and Madeleine McDonald (eds)., Schooling and Capitalism, Routledge and Kegan Paul/Open University Press, pp. 44 - 54.
Looking forward to talking. These are such good questions!
Richard
轉寄的是江森的耐心回應,請參考。
另外,他有可能三月會先行來台,再去中國,四月初返台一個半月,所以三月我們可能先安排大家先見個面,如何?他期待和各位再深談每次的問題。
本週日北上聲援野草莓+樂生。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Workshop responses.Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:01:36 +0000
Dear Lee,
Here are some responses, for the moment.
1/ Reader. The piece was originally written for and published in a teachers magazine called Radical Education in 1976. I think part of the motive was to offer a way of thinking about education different from the academic model and also from the 'useful knowledge' model. This was a time of excitement among teachers about methods and curriculum. But later, more developed versions were also for social and educational historians and sociologists. The paper was given as a presentation at the History Workshop which was a gathering of historians held annually at Ruskin College Oxford, an adult education collage. The paper was taken up primarily by adult educators I think and did influence the revival of community education in the 1970s and 1980s. One of the things I would like to do in my main lecture in Tainan is to develop the idea of Really Useful Knowledge for today. Who would benefit from RUK (or its equivalents today) - all of us I guess, but adult learners especially.
2/Class and Time. Yes, there is a criticism of The Making of the English Working Class in the paper which I have brought out more in other versions - which I will bring with me.
I don't think that the movements with which EPT dealt were fully proletarian in their social basis (except perhaps on the land and some factory districts) - though there were some proletarians in this sense. Typically, like the French revolutionaries, these were skilled workers ('artisans') who had a bit of control over their tools and labour and time, but were now threatened by capitalist development. I agree with Barrington Moore that it is not necessarily proletarians who are the most radical groups - see the peasantry in China and the 'little people' in the European and American revolutions. Having a bit of control over your labour and time and perhaps land is of course crucial in the case of adult learning. Literacy rates actually declined in Britain in the factory districts in the classic period of the industrial revolution (1780s-1820s) . My more general argument is that control of time and labour is critical for a good society where everyone can benefit from education. In Britain today there is actually a reversal in this respect with very long hours of work and low wages for many. To go back to class- yes, EPT was right that the classes of industrial capitalism are developing, but they are 'in the making rather than made.
Other periods: Well, all historical periods are of interest, though I guess I was then most interested in periods of popular politics, or attempts at counter-hegemony or popular creativity.These also tend to be the periods when adult education of the 'Really Useful Knowledge" type are strong. I am interested in the conditions that make this possible, one of which is a degree of political excitement or hope for a better world. 1848- 1880s in Britain is a period where hegemonic processes are relatively successful and there is a consolidation of newer forms of class rule, though it is also an important one for the development of state education for working-class children especially after 1870.
3. Historians questions: Yes, I have taught the mid C19 in Britain - I used to teach a social history course with the dates 1815-1870 and a specialist course on social policy over the same period including education - too. At the CCCS we madeva special study of 1880s- 1945.
Yes, I am very interested in the different formal features of ways of learning, including the role of media. Sorry if there are errors! Yes, this you are right was a 'historian's' essay primarily (I had only just joined CCCS when I wrote it! and it was based on research I did in the early to mid 1970s while I was still in a Department of Social and Economic History).
4 The Danish questions are very interesting. One important aspect of education in Britain is that nation-building played a less important role in national education than almost anywhere else in the world, certainly less than in the rest of Europe. This helps to explain the weakness of state education in Britain, especially England - even today with marketisation etc. The concern with 'subjectivities' is a a later one of mine too. In the early 1970s I had not yet read Foucault or anyway related him to the education work. I suppose however people are 'made' as subjects in a wide range of processes and discourses, including labour of all kinds (domestic and waged). In a broad sense they all have an educational aspect - though not necessarily good for human development.
5. The dilemma. This is how they expressed it at the time- we want education, for ourselves and our children, but we don't like what the churches etc are offering us, which is only about training for labour and subordination. So, says a minority, let's provide it ourselves. But it becomes a double dilemma because providing it ourselves becomes more difficult with fuller proletarianisation.
6. Forms, informality, networks etc. Again the possibility of more informal learning - play for children, discovery methods, projects, Ph.Ds!! - depends on the social conditions especially the relation of time/income/labour. Also state of public policies of course and the quality and independence of media etc etc. Maybe there IS nostalgia in the essay, though it has to be read in the context of the resurgence of forms of really useful knowledge in the 1970s and early 1980s. There was something of a revolution in curriculum and teaching methods in UK in this period of which early Cultural Studies was a part. Reading and study groups - such as those at CCCS and/or in the Womens Movement - were an important part of this. Nostalgia - this can be a dismissive word. I don't think remembering should be opposed to making a better future. It is a part of it.
There has been some work by British historians on private and family forms of education in the past. Religion is very very important in this context, especially in British history the different forms of dissenting Christianity (not Anglican or Catholic) - Quakers, Unitarians, Baptists, Congregationalists etc. They valued the edcuation of women and were democratic (no ministers or chosen by the congregation).
7. Yes, intellectual in the Gramscian sense of organiser as well as thinker. I cannot really answer briefly all the important questions that follow about how we can think about really useful knowledge today. These should be at the centre of our dialogues about education I think when I come.
Of course some of you will realise I am strongly opposed to some of the main developments in education today - and in some ways 'really useful knowledge' is the name I still give to my own attempted practice in education and what I work for in the future, for everyone of course. Detailing what this means is something I will come ready to attempt in Taiwan!! Yes, I hope you are right that this 1970s work is still relevant to different choices for our institutions.
8.' Artisan' - perhaps today I would be less critical of this term. I see I use it above. But it remains true we need to understand exactly how far people have control of their time and labour and means of production and artisan indicates a very wide range of conditions here. Yes, this is related to old-style apprenticeship too which was very different from the modern forms of 'training'
My own city - Leicester - was in the early C20 a city of skilled workers and small masters in the boot and shoe and hosiery (socks!) and engineering trades. This was also a period when adult education flourished in the city. About 17% of adult workers were in some form of education, much of it non-vocational. My own organisation - the Workers Education Association (non-vocational adult ed. for workers)- had a flourishing branch (founded in 1908) and there were Adult Schools in many communities. I think that some independence in work (or retirement!) is an important condition for adult education, and that includes the worker having time enough to teach or model for the young apprentice worker or artist. I too believe real creativity is threatened today in very many ways.
There are later re-written or reframed versions of 'Really Useful Knowledge' which do address some of the questions above. I don't know if you will be able to get hold of them, but here are the references:
1988. '"Really Useful Knowledge" 179O-185O: Memories of Education in the 198Os' in Tom Lovett (ed.), Radical Approaches to Adult Education: A Reader, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 3 - 34.
1992 'Radical Traditions? Radical Education and The New Right' in Ali Rattansi and David Reeder (eds.), Radicalism in Education: Essays on the Politics, Theory and History of Educational Reform, Lawrence and Wishart. (Essays in Honour of Professor Brian Simon).
In application to Cultural Studies:
1997 ‘Teaching Without Guarantees: Cultural Studies, Pedagogy and Identity’ in D. Epstein and J. Canaan (eds), A Question of Discipline: Teaching Cultural Studies Westview Press .
For a slightly fuller account of the history of edcuation in the period of RUK and the argument about proletarianisation:
1976. 'Notes on the Schooling of the English Working Class' in Roger Dale, Geoff Esland and Madeleine McDonald (eds)., Schooling and Capitalism, Routledge and Kegan Paul/Open University Press, pp. 44 - 54.
Looking forward to talking. These are such good questions!
Richard
2008-11-30
我整理出開會摘要,等江森回應
Dear Richard,
Again, we have finished the third round of reading group. The discussion was interesting. I also try to outline some key questions and comments for your reference.
- "Reader": The one who summarized the paper ("...Useful Knowledge") first posed a question: who is addressed by you to be influenced by the "useful knowledge"? Or should I put it in this way: given the useful knowledge, who should and will benefit from it in your mind? Or readers? This question has also been raised by a cultural anthropologist.
- "Class": As a sociologist he expressed that you have shown us how good a historian could be by teasing historical materials. He also mentioned that there are likely many contents concerning EP in the text. You seemed to have a puzzle about the part of "class" used by EP. You rarely used the term "class". Is it a challenge to EP? Did you try to imply that the class was not developed completely yet?
- "Time": Besides, he liked to know more about the timelines you set for the analysis, say, the periods (1790-1840s; 1890s-1920s,...). Why didn't you deal with issues occured during the period from 1840 and 1890? He wondered if you seeked to consider the revolution periods in the Europe and US in which the UK's popular education became an issue. Also, he wanted to know the development after 1848. He also found that in the conclusion you addressed the shift that the state provided education. So, working class faced a challenge as their subjectivity was in crisis becasue of the factory movements. You saw control/hegemony by examining the structure - factory's techniques of control, labour's reproduction, etc. You also criticized EP's making of working class before 1830s. You wanted to state that the period before that was radical education. Since factory movement, indepent artisans were destroyed and people became proletarians. These people became the basis of radical education. To some extent, you question the making of working class by EP.
----A historican argued that you might like to give attention to the most important periods of historical develoments from mid-19 century.The historian was also puzzled that there seemed to be many mistakes in terms of printing in this book. He saw this article as a historical articale. You seemed to look for alternative ways, says, forms (press), in response to the dilemma of the time.
----An art-based scholar referred to danish education after the invasion of germany in comparison to your focus on UK's industrialisation. She found that the public business school and peasants' education had gave rise to self-identity of the nation. She tried to refer a difference between UK's working class and Denmark's new subjectivities. So, the article's focus seemed not on the subjectivities of working class. In her knowledge, she wanted to know how you examine "people" before the examination of education. People were likely to live before to learn the knowledge. For example, denmark's people's expression and human wholeness will not be expensed by the learning of art. By contrast, the present human being learn first, and then live.
-"Radical dilemma": the sociologist also liked to know the implications of the dilemma? He was not sure why you addressed the dilemma. Is that ("the value acquisition of knowledge very highly" vs. "they were aware of the poverty of education resource to hand") really the dilemma?
-"Form": how was really useful knowledge to be got? We did think you bring useful reference for us to notice informality - how knowledge lies everywhere for those who observe and think, say, family. Especially I like the "networks" part.
----an education-based scholar proclaimed that your article is useful for us to examine the tradition regarding the link between education and daily life. But he tried to know that if there is a sense of nostagia in the text. He wondered whether there is any chance for us to persue for the past, say, family education, which is outside the existing education system.
- "intellectual": he wanted to know why you addressed "working class intellectual". Does it link to gramsci's term "intellectual"?
----the historian seeked to answer this by addressing commitment and backgrounds. He used the example Raymond Williams - who had a strong committment to the weak but he actually came from the less priviledged family. But he argued that some elites also fight for the weak as well. Besides, he thinks that Gramscian perspective is important as it shows the role of the popular, which is simple-minded. To some extent, your article is crucial for us to examine different choices to the existing educational institutions. But, the anthropologist argued that the article didnot detail how to put this useful knowledge into practice. For example, there is a gap between knowledge education and community. Or, the educational scholar mentioned teachers are overwhelmed by too many lectures so that they lack energies and time to reform the structure.
- "artisan": he was puzzled that why you addressed "artisan remain too loose for serious analystic use". A manager of university museum mentioned an example of local artists who face the decline of "master and apprentice". Today, how are new artists able to inherit their masters' talents and knowledge? The art-based scholar argued that creation and life in teacher-student seem rarely seen.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
Again, we have finished the third round of reading group. The discussion was interesting. I also try to outline some key questions and comments for your reference.
- "Reader": The one who summarized the paper ("...Useful Knowledge") first posed a question: who is addressed by you to be influenced by the "useful knowledge"? Or should I put it in this way: given the useful knowledge, who should and will benefit from it in your mind? Or readers? This question has also been raised by a cultural anthropologist.
- "Class": As a sociologist he expressed that you have shown us how good a historian could be by teasing historical materials. He also mentioned that there are likely many contents concerning EP in the text. You seemed to have a puzzle about the part of "class" used by EP. You rarely used the term "class". Is it a challenge to EP? Did you try to imply that the class was not developed completely yet?
- "Time": Besides, he liked to know more about the timelines you set for the analysis, say, the periods (1790-1840s; 1890s-1920s,...). Why didn't you deal with issues occured during the period from 1840 and 1890? He wondered if you seeked to consider the revolution periods in the Europe and US in which the UK's popular education became an issue. Also, he wanted to know the development after 1848. He also found that in the conclusion you addressed the shift that the state provided education. So, working class faced a challenge as their subjectivity was in crisis becasue of the factory movements. You saw control/hegemony by examining the structure - factory's techniques of control, labour's reproduction, etc. You also criticized EP's making of working class before 1830s. You wanted to state that the period before that was radical education. Since factory movement, indepent artisans were destroyed and people became proletarians. These people became the basis of radical education. To some extent, you question the making of working class by EP.
----A historican argued that you might like to give attention to the most important periods of historical develoments from mid-19 century.The historian was also puzzled that there seemed to be many mistakes in terms of printing in this book. He saw this article as a historical articale. You seemed to look for alternative ways, says, forms (press), in response to the dilemma of the time.
----An art-based scholar referred to danish education after the invasion of germany in comparison to your focus on UK's industrialisation. She found that the public business school and peasants' education had gave rise to self-identity of the nation. She tried to refer a difference between UK's working class and Denmark's new subjectivities. So, the article's focus seemed not on the subjectivities of working class. In her knowledge, she wanted to know how you examine "people" before the examination of education. People were likely to live before to learn the knowledge. For example, denmark's people's expression and human wholeness will not be expensed by the learning of art. By contrast, the present human being learn first, and then live.
-"Radical dilemma": the sociologist also liked to know the implications of the dilemma? He was not sure why you addressed the dilemma. Is that ("the value acquisition of knowledge very highly" vs. "they were aware of the poverty of education resource to hand") really the dilemma?
-"Form": how was really useful knowledge to be got? We did think you bring useful reference for us to notice informality - how knowledge lies everywhere for those who observe and think, say, family. Especially I like the "networks" part.
----an education-based scholar proclaimed that your article is useful for us to examine the tradition regarding the link between education and daily life. But he tried to know that if there is a sense of nostagia in the text. He wondered whether there is any chance for us to persue for the past, say, family education, which is outside the existing education system.
- "intellectual": he wanted to know why you addressed "working class intellectual". Does it link to gramsci's term "intellectual"?
----the historian seeked to answer this by addressing commitment and backgrounds. He used the example Raymond Williams - who had a strong committment to the weak but he actually came from the less priviledged family. But he argued that some elites also fight for the weak as well. Besides, he thinks that Gramscian perspective is important as it shows the role of the popular, which is simple-minded. To some extent, your article is crucial for us to examine different choices to the existing educational institutions. But, the anthropologist argued that the article didnot detail how to put this useful knowledge into practice. For example, there is a gap between knowledge education and community. Or, the educational scholar mentioned teachers are overwhelmed by too many lectures so that they lack energies and time to reform the structure.
- "artisan": he was puzzled that why you addressed "artisan remain too loose for serious analystic use". A manager of university museum mentioned an example of local artists who face the decline of "master and apprentice". Today, how are new artists able to inherit their masters' talents and knowledge? The art-based scholar argued that creation and life in teacher-student seem rarely seen.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
third
各位江森讀書會的朋友:
上週六我們已完成第三次的聚會,時間過得真快啊,感謝高師大劉正元所長出借場地、做海報及提供有力的意見,實在感動。近來也感到劉老師在南部很積極地串連及開放討論平台的努力,非常值得學習。 而也謝謝陳巨擘老師再一次地導讀,每次清楚的講解都讓我領略讀書的方法,
同時也多謝幾次積極參與的黟伴,希望大家下個月底,12月27日,再於高雄參與讀書會,由李錦旭老師開講,12/27(六) 1400-1700 Unpopular Education: Schooling and Social Democracy in England since 1944http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
我這兩天會將上週的問題整理,再問江森的回應,
而最重要的,是報告各位好消息,成大台文系王右君老師努力下,江森的訪學案已正式通過,老先生應該會如期於明年四月來台一個半月,我想我們這裡可以先試著規劃一些活動及討論(巨擘已有些不錯的計畫),並於近日協調成大台文來迎接江森。
此外,各位本月將看的文章附註,我也將找出來供各位參考。
上週六我們已完成第三次的聚會,時間過得真快啊,感謝高師大劉正元所長出借場地、做海報及提供有力的意見,實在感動。近來也感到劉老師在南部很積極地串連及開放討論平台的努力,非常值得學習。 而也謝謝陳巨擘老師再一次地導讀,每次清楚的講解都讓我領略讀書的方法,
同時也多謝幾次積極參與的黟伴,希望大家下個月底,12月27日,再於高雄參與讀書會,由李錦旭老師開講,12/27(六) 1400-1700 Unpopular Education: Schooling and Social Democracy in England since 1944http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
我這兩天會將上週的問題整理,再問江森的回應,
而最重要的,是報告各位好消息,成大台文系王右君老師努力下,江森的訪學案已正式通過,老先生應該會如期於明年四月來台一個半月,我想我們這裡可以先試著規劃一些活動及討論(巨擘已有些不錯的計畫),並於近日協調成大台文來迎接江森。
此外,各位本月將看的文章附註,我也將找出來供各位參考。
2008-11-10
野草莓運動官方網站
各場地連播現場：
台北：wenli@自由廣場
新竹：SHM@清華大學
台中：tcantiapl@市民廣場
嘉義：籌備中台南：tainandirect@成功大學
高雄：kaohsiung@中央公園
『野草莓學運』聯播網 http://go2.tw/1106
請幫忙推廣此網站，謝謝！請支持學生和平靜坐活動。請媒體勿將學生活動與政黨畫上等號！（媒體應保持誠信與中立的原則）
台北：wenli@自由廣場
新竹：SHM@清華大學
台中：tcantiapl@市民廣場
嘉義：籌備中台南：tainandirect@成功大學
高雄：kaohsiung@中央公園
『野草莓學運』聯播網 http://go2.tw/1106
請幫忙推廣此網站，謝謝！請支持學生和平靜坐活動。請媒體勿將學生活動與政黨畫上等號！（媒體應保持誠信與中立的原則）
2008-11-03
讀書會地點確定
大家好,
這個月11月22日,第三次江森經典讀書會,時間為二至五時。http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
導讀者巨擘老師已向高師大台灣文化及語言研究所劉正元所長借到會議室
位於高師大文學院2F 約可容納20-25人
高師大和平校區(文化中心旁 高市和平一路116號) 文學院2F (3217室）
文學院位於圖書館旁 高師大大門左側約50公尺處
應該不難找會議室內備有投影機 電腦 及麥克風等設備
大家可參考詳細地圖,如附件http://www.nknu.edu.tw/map/map4.htm。
上回有老師帶學生參加,效果不錯,大家可考慮。
同樣地,如有人要由台南出發,我可載四個。
宇軒
這個月11月22日,第三次江森經典讀書會,時間為二至五時。http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
導讀者巨擘老師已向高師大台灣文化及語言研究所劉正元所長借到會議室
位於高師大文學院2F 約可容納20-25人
高師大和平校區(文化中心旁 高市和平一路116號) 文學院2F (3217室）
文學院位於圖書館旁 高師大大門左側約50公尺處
應該不難找會議室內備有投影機 電腦 及麥克風等設備
大家可參考詳細地圖,如附件http://www.nknu.edu.tw/map/map4.htm。
上回有老師帶學生參加,效果不錯,大家可考慮。
同樣地,如有人要由台南出發,我可載四個。
宇軒
2008-10-30
Johnson's feedback
各位好,
針對幾位於上週六提出的問題,江森的回應如下,見轉寄信,
http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
抱歉,如我有誤讀及錯譯你們的問題,請包涵。我們十一月要閱讀的文章是"Really Useful Knowledge": Counter Education - The Early Working-Class Tradition (批判教育學)(文章請見第一頁是Preface的那份,可以全看,或只看如題的部份),將由巨擘導讀,開會地點再議。
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: reading group 10/25Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:18:55 +0000Dear Lee,
Many thanks for this. Again interesting questions are asked. I attempt outline replies now - much more later on my visit.
1. Yes, perhaps the sociologist is right to say most CS focuses either on the text or on everyday life - though often only on the text, including the texts of great theorists! The key linkages here are of course reading and production and their connections with everyday life, because these are the moments that mediate the textual form (abstracted for examination by the analyst) and the everyday life of both readers and producers. In many ways, as argued in The Practice of Cultural Studies reading -refiguration in Ricoeur - is the most important integrative moment. If we look at readers and reading in their social setting we can often get to how texts are used and made to signify, therefore their life in the world.. Well known older studies on these lines include the work of Ien Ang and Janice Radway but feminist research on media which approaches texts through readers is reviewed more generally in Charlotte Brunsdon's book on Soap Opera research..
2. 'Form'. this is stolen in part from Marx who talks all the time about 'social forms'. Maybe it is another way of talking abpout regularities or even structures (though I prefer forms/formations today because these are more dynamic categories which can express movement as in change of form ). Form also borrows from literary work and art criticism - especially from Barthes perhaps. This expresses the ways in which particular cultural forms - say narrative- exercise a particular kind of pressure on readers - e.g. the desire to know what happens next! Or the identification with characters etc. Other forms, e.g. visual images, work differently, according to their specific form. So text really influences reader - partly through form, partly of course through content. The analogy is with economic forms' e.g. the commodity form in economic analysis - though commodity is in fact often a link between economy and culture.
3. Yes, space is absent, so for that matter is time except in a limit sense of time around the circuit. The model is abstract. It is not a concrete description of how things in particular are! Only of SOME relations within the concrete.(Compare the discussion in The Best Marx about concrete and abstract) BUT you might be able to think space and time in relation to the model however, because the space of production is almost always - especially in commodified culture - removed spatially from the place of consumption or reading. On time, some people have suggested a spiral would be a better way to understand the circuit - but sometimes diagrammatic forms just have limits!! For me, some versions of the circuit are so complex, and try to be concrete, but they don't really aid our thinking.
Sources of the circuit:
Marx's circuit of capital and a reading of the Grundrisse is central to both Hall and me. I first read Stuart's account of the Grundrisse in a CCCS stencilled paper, and of course the encoding/decoding model. But I did my own reading of Marx in the early 1980s, and I have always differed from decoding and decoding in stressing - with Gramsci - the importance of everyday life and common sense as the ground for reception and production. This also corresponds to cultural studies older interest in ordering culture as it is lived by particular social groups. I tend to disagree with those who see all this in terms of discursive fields, or even texts and readings, because this is not materals enough for me, and it has limits politically, unless you address very concretely what is happening in the lives of ordinary people.
Much later i discovered Ricoeur and his hermeneutics, and was interested in the parallel - though there are also some major differences
Hope this helps. The sides and commentary are very good - and most useful.
I will reply to your query about two months, when I have talked to the household.
Good questions!
Richard
On 25 Oct 2008, at 16:24, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,
We had the 2nd reading group today (what is cultural studies anyway?). The meeting was very successful and there are more and more participants from different disciplines and walks of life. Some scholars can be organisers in the future. As usual, I summarize some following questions for your reference. We are planning that you may be can attend the last one in the early April next year.
1. The gap between the model and reality. - In terms of general knowledge, a sociologist takes the moment 2 (text) and 4 (lived culture) as the more common areas in relation to cultural studies. But, in practice, he has a puzzle of how to really make the two work together. (or even including the other moments)
2. The definition.- A media-based scholar has a question of the term "form", which seems to reemerge throughout the paper. What is the form anyway?
3. Subjectivity and space.- A educational scholar wants to know more about how the role of authors/readers can be foreground in the circuit. He is also interested in an issue of "space" related to the circuit, which seems to be absent from the paper.
Anyway, I attach a powerpoint file for your reference. I first pose three (might be bad) questions regarding this paper. I have a puzzle of sources of this circuit, which seems to come from different works (Marx, Hall, du Gay et al...).
Despite slow procedure of the university, we still plan for the future. In the community university's national assembly 2009, you will be invited to give a keynote speech. Time is already confirmed on 12 April 2009. We also organise some seminars regarding social movements, community education, environmental protection and antinuclear movement, and the like. As we need to negotiate with groups that are involved in these issues. Would you be possible to consider some of your articles related to these issues, especially community education? Do you have any specific works that are not too thick/dense to read? As the readers might be the general public or community workers. We want to translate these articles and edit that with the results of seminars.
Cheers,
Lee
針對幾位於上週六提出的問題,江森的回應如下,見轉寄信,
http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
抱歉,如我有誤讀及錯譯你們的問題,請包涵。我們十一月要閱讀的文章是"Really Useful Knowledge": Counter Education - The Early Working-Class Tradition (批判教育學)(文章請見第一頁是Preface的那份,可以全看,或只看如題的部份),將由巨擘導讀,開會地點再議。
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: reading group 10/25Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:18:55 +0000Dear Lee,
Many thanks for this. Again interesting questions are asked. I attempt outline replies now - much more later on my visit.
1. Yes, perhaps the sociologist is right to say most CS focuses either on the text or on everyday life - though often only on the text, including the texts of great theorists! The key linkages here are of course reading and production and their connections with everyday life, because these are the moments that mediate the textual form (abstracted for examination by the analyst) and the everyday life of both readers and producers. In many ways, as argued in The Practice of Cultural Studies reading -refiguration in Ricoeur - is the most important integrative moment. If we look at readers and reading in their social setting we can often get to how texts are used and made to signify, therefore their life in the world.. Well known older studies on these lines include the work of Ien Ang and Janice Radway but feminist research on media which approaches texts through readers is reviewed more generally in Charlotte Brunsdon's book on Soap Opera research..
2. 'Form'. this is stolen in part from Marx who talks all the time about 'social forms'. Maybe it is another way of talking abpout regularities or even structures (though I prefer forms/formations today because these are more dynamic categories which can express movement as in change of form ). Form also borrows from literary work and art criticism - especially from Barthes perhaps. This expresses the ways in which particular cultural forms - say narrative- exercise a particular kind of pressure on readers - e.g. the desire to know what happens next! Or the identification with characters etc. Other forms, e.g. visual images, work differently, according to their specific form. So text really influences reader - partly through form, partly of course through content. The analogy is with economic forms' e.g. the commodity form in economic analysis - though commodity is in fact often a link between economy and culture.
3. Yes, space is absent, so for that matter is time except in a limit sense of time around the circuit. The model is abstract. It is not a concrete description of how things in particular are! Only of SOME relations within the concrete.(Compare the discussion in The Best Marx about concrete and abstract) BUT you might be able to think space and time in relation to the model however, because the space of production is almost always - especially in commodified culture - removed spatially from the place of consumption or reading. On time, some people have suggested a spiral would be a better way to understand the circuit - but sometimes diagrammatic forms just have limits!! For me, some versions of the circuit are so complex, and try to be concrete, but they don't really aid our thinking.
Sources of the circuit:
Marx's circuit of capital and a reading of the Grundrisse is central to both Hall and me. I first read Stuart's account of the Grundrisse in a CCCS stencilled paper, and of course the encoding/decoding model. But I did my own reading of Marx in the early 1980s, and I have always differed from decoding and decoding in stressing - with Gramsci - the importance of everyday life and common sense as the ground for reception and production. This also corresponds to cultural studies older interest in ordering culture as it is lived by particular social groups. I tend to disagree with those who see all this in terms of discursive fields, or even texts and readings, because this is not materals enough for me, and it has limits politically, unless you address very concretely what is happening in the lives of ordinary people.
Much later i discovered Ricoeur and his hermeneutics, and was interested in the parallel - though there are also some major differences
Hope this helps. The sides and commentary are very good - and most useful.
I will reply to your query about two months, when I have talked to the household.
Good questions!
Richard
On 25 Oct 2008, at 16:24, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,
We had the 2nd reading group today (what is cultural studies anyway?). The meeting was very successful and there are more and more participants from different disciplines and walks of life. Some scholars can be organisers in the future. As usual, I summarize some following questions for your reference. We are planning that you may be can attend the last one in the early April next year.
1. The gap between the model and reality. - In terms of general knowledge, a sociologist takes the moment 2 (text) and 4 (lived culture) as the more common areas in relation to cultural studies. But, in practice, he has a puzzle of how to really make the two work together. (or even including the other moments)
2. The definition.- A media-based scholar has a question of the term "form", which seems to reemerge throughout the paper. What is the form anyway?
3. Subjectivity and space.- A educational scholar wants to know more about how the role of authors/readers can be foreground in the circuit. He is also interested in an issue of "space" related to the circuit, which seems to be absent from the paper.
Anyway, I attach a powerpoint file for your reference. I first pose three (might be bad) questions regarding this paper. I have a puzzle of sources of this circuit, which seems to come from different works (Marx, Hall, du Gay et al...).
Despite slow procedure of the university, we still plan for the future. In the community university's national assembly 2009, you will be invited to give a keynote speech. Time is already confirmed on 12 April 2009. We also organise some seminars regarding social movements, community education, environmental protection and antinuclear movement, and the like. As we need to negotiate with groups that are involved in these issues. Would you be possible to consider some of your articles related to these issues, especially community education? Do you have any specific works that are not too thick/dense to read? As the readers might be the general public or community workers. We want to translate these articles and edit that with the results of seminars.
Cheers,
Lee
2008-10-26
1025之後
大家好,
謝謝昨天至文藻,第二次讀書會近乎三十人,有不少非學院的參與者提供有趣的問題及想法,
也多謝劉俊裕的導讀,讓我們一開始有不少問題意識地,幫助大家進入討論,
巨擘、世文、南生、右君、錦旭、力軒、揚騰等人的見解,增加我們許多思考的可能性。感謝。
由於本讀書是開放的,我喜歡,也希望日後大家多帶人來,不必客氣,請巨擘、懷宣及俊裕老師們,將我這封信轉寄給你們邀請來的朋友,http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/如可以,提供他們的聯絡信箱給我,加到讀書會的群組中,
如之前提到,我會陸續將導讀內容及討論問題放至部落格上,所以,麻煩導讀者可以整理好的內容寄給我,我將請助理再處理,
其次,日後每次的導讀者,如果希望增刪內容,或想到不同導讀的形式、時間或地點,可告知我來協調,...以導讀者為主,故,下次開會的地點及時間,原則上尊重巨擘老師的決定。
也請尚未來本讀書會的朋友,有空來聊聊。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
謝謝昨天至文藻,第二次讀書會近乎三十人,有不少非學院的參與者提供有趣的問題及想法,
也多謝劉俊裕的導讀,讓我們一開始有不少問題意識地,幫助大家進入討論,
巨擘、世文、南生、右君、錦旭、力軒、揚騰等人的見解,增加我們許多思考的可能性。感謝。
由於本讀書是開放的,我喜歡,也希望日後大家多帶人來,不必客氣,請巨擘、懷宣及俊裕老師們,將我這封信轉寄給你們邀請來的朋友,http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/如可以,提供他們的聯絡信箱給我,加到讀書會的群組中,
如之前提到,我會陸續將導讀內容及討論問題放至部落格上,所以,麻煩導讀者可以整理好的內容寄給我,我將請助理再處理,
其次,日後每次的導讀者,如果希望增刪內容,或想到不同導讀的形式、時間或地點,可告知我來協調,...以導讀者為主,故,下次開會的地點及時間,原則上尊重巨擘老師的決定。
也請尚未來本讀書會的朋友,有空來聊聊。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
2008-10-20
計畫分享
各位好,
以下是巨擘轉寄的信,提及有新朋友張世文的加入(非常歡迎!!!)
還有一些關於明年江森來訪的初步計畫。感謝有此具體的計畫,目前只待成大台文的申請程序,其他當然,我希望各位如有不同想法者,麻煩也都提供出來,本讀書會應該是得越開放越好,請有意加入組織活動者,不用客氣(欠工人啦!)。
有人問到我辦讀書會的策略是什麼?不妨暫時,將讀書會也視為一種政治的計畫,如這週文章中江森堅持的,也就是說要對不同的取向的好壞部份都要了解,不是只在文本的形式上打轉,而也得一直扣到面對的物質面。我想,巨擘提到的台灣現況,透過座談會或參訪的形式,將可回應到讀書會諸多(在歐陸脈絡)文本中的討論。我希望,我們讀書會至終能很貼近台灣的需要。
如果有人需要我由台南接送,請再告知。0930190709。當日請各位最好二點前就到,文藻週末有管制坐電梯,我會請助理於至善樓(最高那棟)電梯口等大家。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:13:01 +0800From: jupochen@gmail.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: 會前小感
宇軒，
這星期六有一位剛認識的朋友也會參加。他的名字是張世文，曾經拿公費到劍橋大學歷史系攻讀博士，指導教授是 Peter Burke，後來因為要養家，還沒有完成學位就回台灣，一直到現在。張世文的學識淵博，文筆甚佳，我想Johnson 選集的翻譯可以請他代勞。也許我們這個星期六可討論一下，這本書要如何進行。
我初步的想法是，明年四月我們會請他和幾個社運、社區教育、環保、反核的團體座談，你請Johnson選幾篇和這些取向較接近的文章，然後我們把他所選的文章以及座談會記錄集結成書。目前社區大學全國促進會的社大文庫有意願出版。另外，社區大學全國研討會請他做keynote speech的時間已確定是四月十二日，也可以先讓他心裡先有個譜，至於請他談些什麼，我們會再和他溝通。
張世文的 email是：boon45718@gmail.com ，我已傳給他這星期要討論的文章。
巨擘
以下是巨擘轉寄的信,提及有新朋友張世文的加入(非常歡迎!!!)
還有一些關於明年江森來訪的初步計畫。感謝有此具體的計畫,目前只待成大台文的申請程序,其他當然,我希望各位如有不同想法者,麻煩也都提供出來,本讀書會應該是得越開放越好,請有意加入組織活動者,不用客氣(欠工人啦!)。
有人問到我辦讀書會的策略是什麼?不妨暫時,將讀書會也視為一種政治的計畫,如這週文章中江森堅持的,也就是說要對不同的取向的好壞部份都要了解,不是只在文本的形式上打轉,而也得一直扣到面對的物質面。我想,巨擘提到的台灣現況,透過座談會或參訪的形式,將可回應到讀書會諸多(在歐陸脈絡)文本中的討論。我希望,我們讀書會至終能很貼近台灣的需要。
如果有人需要我由台南接送,請再告知。0930190709。當日請各位最好二點前就到,文藻週末有管制坐電梯,我會請助理於至善樓(最高那棟)電梯口等大家。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:13:01 +0800From: jupochen@gmail.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: 會前小感
宇軒，
這星期六有一位剛認識的朋友也會參加。他的名字是張世文，曾經拿公費到劍橋大學歷史系攻讀博士，指導教授是 Peter Burke，後來因為要養家，還沒有完成學位就回台灣，一直到現在。張世文的學識淵博，文筆甚佳，我想Johnson 選集的翻譯可以請他代勞。也許我們這個星期六可討論一下，這本書要如何進行。
我初步的想法是，明年四月我們會請他和幾個社運、社區教育、環保、反核的團體座談，你請Johnson選幾篇和這些取向較接近的文章，然後我們把他所選的文章以及座談會記錄集結成書。目前社區大學全國促進會的社大文庫有意願出版。另外，社區大學全國研討會請他做keynote speech的時間已確定是四月十二日，也可以先讓他心裡先有個譜，至於請他談些什麼，我們會再和他溝通。
張世文的 email是：boon45718@gmail.com ，我已傳給他這星期要討論的文章。
巨擘
2008-10-13
會前小感
大家好, 如我之前提到,本月二十五日將於文藻舉辦第二次研讀會,
今又邀請一位在地朋友,邱毓斌,希望他有空能來開講。http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/(大家可參考近日,右欄有幾位新加入者)
如他提到南部這款的集體聚會討論很需要,也必須本著更開放的態度,
確實,我想研讀會主體雖在文本,但或許因著文本之便,我們應對在地的脈絡,實際問題及社會關係有很深的理解,以形成更豐富的連結,
我以為,日後因著每次主題,能否再擴大參與者,未必非學院派的參與者不可,
尤其有談到教育、國際關係或霸權時,找些老師、外國駐台人員、社區工作者,未嘗不可?
我想跳脫或突破的是,每每於特定場域,就該怎麼做的形式,有無想過可以有不同的做法?
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
今又邀請一位在地朋友,邱毓斌,希望他有空能來開講。http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/(大家可參考近日,右欄有幾位新加入者)
如他提到南部這款的集體聚會討論很需要,也必須本著更開放的態度,
確實,我想研讀會主體雖在文本,但或許因著文本之便,我們應對在地的脈絡,實際問題及社會關係有很深的理解,以形成更豐富的連結,
我以為,日後因著每次主題,能否再擴大參與者,未必非學院派的參與者不可,
尤其有談到教育、國際關係或霸權時,找些老師、外國駐台人員、社區工作者,未嘗不可?
我想跳脫或突破的是,每每於特定場域,就該怎麼做的形式,有無想過可以有不同的做法?
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
2008-10-08
2008-10-01
feedback
各位好,
我和江森聊了我們的第一次讀書會,幾個問題給他,他又很有耐心的回答如下,雖然仍是抽出重點,但已夠豐富,希望稍解大家當日的困惑, 光是這些回應,我們可否進一步討論有無整理出來的可能?
此外,我想計畫,我們明年最後一場後,或許請他出席一次回顧會,做個總結及反思。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Chapters of the book on BlairismDate: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:19:44 +0100
Dear Lee
Thanks for these very interesting questions.It must have been difficult to read the chapter as a freestanding essay. It is from a book about History, Theory and Politics and really needs this larger context.
Replying fully would take a lot of time and perhaps should await my visit, but:
1. Please tell your sociologist that I'm grateful for the appreciative comment. A major reason for writing at the time was an argument about history and theory, in which the two practices were often opposed and the role of abstraction in history-writing was underestimated. Marxism was, in this late 70s/early 80s, debate often the point of reference. For example, many of those writing social history at the time were either ex-communists or influenced by the new left or (like me) influenced by historians like EP Thompson. So it made sense, in this context, to go back to Marx himself - who does have very rich methodological reflections. I wanted show how abstraction and detailed narrative or concrete studies were not opposed practices in Marx's own work, but worked together. Theory was also more than a research question or hypothesis. I have actually found this work useful ever since because it helped me understand about the key continuing issue of theory and the empirical, micro/macro etc. For example, I would criticise some macro-sociologists, certainly Giddens, for failing to bring concrete studies to their theories. His theories are no more than generalised descriptions often inapplicable to particular experiences, places and times. I think Marx would have called them 'thin abstractions'.
2. Please tell your phenomenologist that I am very interested in this comment. Since I wrote this piece, I have become very interested in the work of Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, especially Ricoeur and in the similarities and differences between these phenomenologists and the cultural circuit as I developed it from Stuart Hall; (and ultimately Marx's Grundrisse). A key point of connection is with Ricoeur's idea of mimesis 1,2 and 3 in Narrative and History. And his idea of refiguration. Really interesting questions are raised about structure and visibility which need time to discuss! In general I have a critical but also appreciative relation to structuralism - a bit like Ricoeur's in fact!
3.Your community worker is spot on about EPThompson and the longer debate in the New Left. Narrowly the piece was a reply to his big attack on Althusser - The Poverty of Theory. A lot of our work on history and theory had Edward Thompson as our main discussant. Unfortunately the discussion got very heated and hurtful and we felt he didn't listen to us, but I continue to relate to him in my work and my life in many ways. For example, I think that my current political involvements are, in part, saying to EPT, yes, my work is political (he said it wasn't!). The piece today has some political relevance I think. It could also be seen to be addressed - on the other side of the argument - against dogmatic or over-abstract theories, which pretend to be actual descriptions, whether coming from sociologists or Marxists or neo-liberal economists! It has to be said that Marx himself sometimes made this mistake - hence 'the Best Marx'
4 The piece is certainly materialist - and I still think of myself as a historical materialist and contemporary historian especially interested in culture. I am happy with Raymond Williams' 'cultural materialism'! But what does this mean???
5 Yes, relations between disciplines. We were trying to work out what a cultural studies approach and use of history writing might be, different from cultural history. I have written about this relation directly elsewhere and could give references if it would be useful. One approach was to studying history-writing itself as a cultural practice = the main concern of the book from which the chapter is taken.. Later in different groups we worked out the idea of Popular Memory as another way of looking at history. In general I would insist that it is not only the discipline of history that should work historically! (My own background is as a historian of course).
Hope this helps.
Did you get the documentation? Was it enough?
cheers
Richard
Dear Richard, We had a successful section of reading group on last Saturday.There will be one section every month before your visit in April 2009.In this first section, I found some interesting questions related to this paper (reading for the best Marx) that might be useful for your reference.I list two main questions as follows.
1. Why did you write this articule? Why do you think it is important to find a best version of Marx?
- As one sociologist was impressed by your use of a lot of example to support your argument, he was humbled by this detailed analysis and said that he can only follow your framework in understanding this articule. But he has no clue the reason why you write this articule.
- As the other art-based scholar argues that the circuit you address involves different moments. He draws on phenomenology and shows his suspicion of the articule based on the circuit, which seems to work within a "structure". But, he wants to know that how you deal with those areas which are both visible and invisible at the same time? (I am not sure if I translate in the correct way!)
2. How does the arguement or hypothesis of the articule emerge? What is the political goal of this articule?
- As one community worker posed these two questions, he was puzzled whether your argument has something to do with the conflict between you and EP Thompson. Is it related to the long-term argument within the new left circle? Did it relate to you earlier reflection within the history discipline?
- One education-based scholar posed a question about the materialist foundation in which the articule was written.
- One cultural studies scholar addressed the tension between disciplines, e.g., cultural studies and sociology, history and cultural studies. So, perhaps it also caused the argument over theory/history/politics relationships emerge?!
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
我和江森聊了我們的第一次讀書會,幾個問題給他,他又很有耐心的回答如下,雖然仍是抽出重點,但已夠豐富,希望稍解大家當日的困惑, 光是這些回應,我們可否進一步討論有無整理出來的可能?
此外,我想計畫,我們明年最後一場後,或許請他出席一次回顧會,做個總結及反思。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Chapters of the book on BlairismDate: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:19:44 +0100
Dear Lee
Thanks for these very interesting questions.It must have been difficult to read the chapter as a freestanding essay. It is from a book about History, Theory and Politics and really needs this larger context.
Replying fully would take a lot of time and perhaps should await my visit, but:
1. Please tell your sociologist that I'm grateful for the appreciative comment. A major reason for writing at the time was an argument about history and theory, in which the two practices were often opposed and the role of abstraction in history-writing was underestimated. Marxism was, in this late 70s/early 80s, debate often the point of reference. For example, many of those writing social history at the time were either ex-communists or influenced by the new left or (like me) influenced by historians like EP Thompson. So it made sense, in this context, to go back to Marx himself - who does have very rich methodological reflections. I wanted show how abstraction and detailed narrative or concrete studies were not opposed practices in Marx's own work, but worked together. Theory was also more than a research question or hypothesis. I have actually found this work useful ever since because it helped me understand about the key continuing issue of theory and the empirical, micro/macro etc. For example, I would criticise some macro-sociologists, certainly Giddens, for failing to bring concrete studies to their theories. His theories are no more than generalised descriptions often inapplicable to particular experiences, places and times. I think Marx would have called them 'thin abstractions'.
2. Please tell your phenomenologist that I am very interested in this comment. Since I wrote this piece, I have become very interested in the work of Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, especially Ricoeur and in the similarities and differences between these phenomenologists and the cultural circuit as I developed it from Stuart Hall; (and ultimately Marx's Grundrisse). A key point of connection is with Ricoeur's idea of mimesis 1,2 and 3 in Narrative and History. And his idea of refiguration. Really interesting questions are raised about structure and visibility which need time to discuss! In general I have a critical but also appreciative relation to structuralism - a bit like Ricoeur's in fact!
3.Your community worker is spot on about EPThompson and the longer debate in the New Left. Narrowly the piece was a reply to his big attack on Althusser - The Poverty of Theory. A lot of our work on history and theory had Edward Thompson as our main discussant. Unfortunately the discussion got very heated and hurtful and we felt he didn't listen to us, but I continue to relate to him in my work and my life in many ways. For example, I think that my current political involvements are, in part, saying to EPT, yes, my work is political (he said it wasn't!). The piece today has some political relevance I think. It could also be seen to be addressed - on the other side of the argument - against dogmatic or over-abstract theories, which pretend to be actual descriptions, whether coming from sociologists or Marxists or neo-liberal economists! It has to be said that Marx himself sometimes made this mistake - hence 'the Best Marx'
4 The piece is certainly materialist - and I still think of myself as a historical materialist and contemporary historian especially interested in culture. I am happy with Raymond Williams' 'cultural materialism'! But what does this mean???
5 Yes, relations between disciplines. We were trying to work out what a cultural studies approach and use of history writing might be, different from cultural history. I have written about this relation directly elsewhere and could give references if it would be useful. One approach was to studying history-writing itself as a cultural practice = the main concern of the book from which the chapter is taken.. Later in different groups we worked out the idea of Popular Memory as another way of looking at history. In general I would insist that it is not only the discipline of history that should work historically! (My own background is as a historian of course).
Hope this helps.
Did you get the documentation? Was it enough?
cheers
Richard
Dear Richard, We had a successful section of reading group on last Saturday.There will be one section every month before your visit in April 2009.In this first section, I found some interesting questions related to this paper (reading for the best Marx) that might be useful for your reference.I list two main questions as follows.
1. Why did you write this articule? Why do you think it is important to find a best version of Marx?
- As one sociologist was impressed by your use of a lot of example to support your argument, he was humbled by this detailed analysis and said that he can only follow your framework in understanding this articule. But he has no clue the reason why you write this articule.
- As the other art-based scholar argues that the circuit you address involves different moments. He draws on phenomenology and shows his suspicion of the articule based on the circuit, which seems to work within a "structure". But, he wants to know that how you deal with those areas which are both visible and invisible at the same time? (I am not sure if I translate in the correct way!)
2. How does the arguement or hypothesis of the articule emerge? What is the political goal of this articule?
- As one community worker posed these two questions, he was puzzled whether your argument has something to do with the conflict between you and EP Thompson. Is it related to the long-term argument within the new left circle? Did it relate to you earlier reflection within the history discipline?
- One education-based scholar posed a question about the materialist foundation in which the articule was written.
- One cultural studies scholar addressed the tension between disciplines, e.g., cultural studies and sociology, history and cultural studies. So, perhaps it also caused the argument over theory/history/politics relationships emerge?!
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
2008-09-27
927之後
各位好,
今天第一次讀書會應該算是個好的開始,謝謝大家都能來,並熱情參與討論,
感謝陳巨擘老師的導讀,清楚之外,也修補了我閱讀經驗的貧乏。相信大家多少有同感。
其次,今天未能與會者,期待你們也能於十月二十五日參加第二次讀書會。目前地點暫訂高雄,細節我再傳閱。
由於下次的文章是What is Cultural Studies Anyway。能否徵求或推薦有志者扮導讀者?可否於一週內向我報名。
導讀費用是一仟六百元,並補助車馬費。
今天的上半場,都有錄音,會請助理整理出來,下半部錄音有誤,可能會以筆記整理為主。
如有任何的需求,請告知。
也請有意於明年四月一同參與江森活動者,告知可能的想法,我們可提早計畫及組織。
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒
今天第一次讀書會應該算是個好的開始,謝謝大家都能來,並熱情參與討論,
感謝陳巨擘老師的導讀,清楚之外,也修補了我閱讀經驗的貧乏。相信大家多少有同感。
其次,今天未能與會者,期待你們也能於十月二十五日參加第二次讀書會。目前地點暫訂高雄,細節我再傳閱。
由於下次的文章是What is Cultural Studies Anyway。能否徵求或推薦有志者扮導讀者?可否於一週內向我報名。
導讀費用是一仟六百元,並補助車馬費。
今天的上半場,都有錄音,會請助理整理出來,下半部錄音有誤,可能會以筆記整理為主。
如有任何的需求,請告知。
也請有意於明年四月一同參與江森活動者,告知可能的想法,我們可提早計畫及組織。
Kind regards,
Yu-Hsuan Lee
宇軒
2008-09-13
927
各位好,
九二七當日如開車入成大醫學院停車場,請告知警衛本讀書會於餐廳舉行,應可停車。而時間再提醒一次,2:00至5:00,會後可於餐廳用餐。
而我今天放了一個小短片,是江森兩三年前與我們討論的過程,不論內容談什麼,主要說明他老人家總是精神,大老遠聽學生的問題,耐心地回答
由於檔大,且個人科技能力不好,只能放這剪下來的,品質問題見諒。
另外,也偷渡一下別的事件,寶順(鼎立)工會罷工,有待支持。http://www.coolloud.org.tw/
宇軒
九二七當日如開車入成大醫學院停車場,請告知警衛本讀書會於餐廳舉行,應可停車。而時間再提醒一次,2:00至5:00,會後可於餐廳用餐。
而我今天放了一個小短片,是江森兩三年前與我們討論的過程,不論內容談什麼,主要說明他老人家總是精神,大老遠聽學生的問題,耐心地回答
由於檔大,且個人科技能力不好,只能放這剪下來的,品質問題見諒。
另外,也偷渡一下別的事件,寶順(鼎立)工會罷工,有待支持。http://www.coolloud.org.tw/
宇軒
2008-09-08
炎炎秋日,來南部讀書
各位好,
927讀書會時間地點已確認,希望大家第一次都能與會,先認識、熱身一下。
由於本案已申請到國科會的經費,有些補助,如導讀者的講費及差旅、與會者的餐會及影印等,經告知,目前採實報實銷制,我不會經手錢,都將按領據或收據報帳(沒有特別費!)大概兩個月報帳一次,
第一次導讀者是陳巨擘老師,我們會提供單槍供其使用外,也跟他及其他日後可能導讀者說明,請你們要向學校請"公差假"即便是週六,也請向學校人事室請假條,我們才能向國科會請款。請註明差旅經費來源是國科會,經典研讀會。
宇軒
927讀書會時間地點已確認,希望大家第一次都能與會,先認識、熱身一下。
由於本案已申請到國科會的經費,有些補助,如導讀者的講費及差旅、與會者的餐會及影印等,經告知,目前採實報實銷制,我不會經手錢,都將按領據或收據報帳(沒有特別費!)大概兩個月報帳一次,
第一次導讀者是陳巨擘老師,我們會提供單槍供其使用外,也跟他及其他日後可能導讀者說明,請你們要向學校請"公差假"即便是週六,也請向學校人事室請假條,我們才能向國科會請款。請註明差旅經費來源是國科會,經典研讀會。
宇軒
2008-09-05
2008-09-01
letters between Richard and me, regarding his visit to Taiwan and our reading group
以下所列的書信體,幫助大家多認識江森,
我將近期和他通信的內容轉貼如下,其實也可由書信內容做分析,
我想接下來讀書會的對話,或許我們也應該整理出來,編成專書或專文?我希望用各種形式來辦江森的活動,大家如果系所也想共襄盛舉,協辦或出人出錢都歡迎!
宇軒
Re: Selections and alternative sources
寄件者： Richard Johnson (http://bl140w.blu140.mail.live.com/mail/ApplicationMain_13.1.0132.0805.aspx?culture=zh-TW&hash=271179879#)
寄件日期：
2008年7月12日 上午 11:18:29
收件者：
Lee Yu-Hsuan (blue95_7399@msn.com)
Dear Lee,
I have just got back from a week's holiday and am away tomorrow and Sunday at the CND Council in London. This is a rather formidable list of questions, of the sort one might expect for a permanent full-time post! However, I do very much appreciate your efforts, Lee and I am still keen to come, and will choose to see this information as part of the dialogue, so when I get back I will try and see if I can find the information and the documents you ask for.
warm wishes
Richard
On 7 Jul 2008, at 07:18, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,I just consulted a senior scholar who is in charge of the application with respect to your visit. He implies that I need to make your background more explicit for those examiners related to other areas, such as science. So, I perhaps need your good memory to recall your works overseas and their timelines.
For example, I list some questions for you to follow.
1. When did you teach in other countries and make visits to places in US and Europe for intellectual exchanges?
2. Why do you think the best examples as teaching 'Compact Courses' - a week or so long on national identity - in two German Universities - the Humbolt University in Berlin and the Cultural Studies Centre at Tubingen - both famous for this work?
3. What themes did you work with Stanley Aronowitz at the Graduate Centre at City University New York?
4. What is your role in the Erasmus cultural studies circle, a European wide network? Do you have engaged in any similar organisation?
5. What is the main contribution of you and your works during the CCCS life (I know it is a silly question, but I don't know how to make a judgment to be honest)?
6. Also, what is your role during the time at the NTU?
7. Would you be able to talk more about your roles in WEA and other public activities? (I know some are in the CV, but I need to know more about these organisations and your participation).
8. Would you be about to make a long list about any forums (education/social/...) you have been involved? And explain a bit for us?
All these questions are very important for me to revise an introduction of you that related to the funding and further works for mobilisation. As one organiser suggests, we may like to organise a reading group beforehand, and also organise a team to translate those articles and publish that in Chinese. Also, we would like to make the passage of your trip into a video documentary. Thus, there are a lot of issues to be prepared. As for certificates, I wonder if you have any contracts or a letter of appointment, which might be more important than the PhD certificate. Sorry about all these paper work and procedure. If possible, would you please provide these above by the end of July?
Thank you a lot.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: blue95_7399@msn.comTo: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comSubject: RE: Selections and alternative sourcesDate: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:15:14 +0800
Dear Richard, Nice to have your positive responses. I will try my best to organise some good people to arrange this event and make the agenda more explicit.As for information, if possible, please give me a formal list as you address as follows. At the moment, I put you in a position - chair forum professor - which seems to be kind of "eminent" (whatever) scholars. To be honest, I really have no idea of that title. But it needs evidence to legitimate. So, if there is no evidence, I would change this status into kind of visiting professor. You definitely had many experiences and memories. Would you be able to give me a list recently, including these experiences and memories in detail? I will like to try again and see if the bureaucracy can really see the difference. Anyway, I am looking forward to your coming indeed. And I really admire that you still work so hard to fight against the hegemony.
Once you prepare the certificates or PhD, please let me know. I will tell you how to send to Taiwan.
Sorry, I am not experienced in doing this, so some tedious things emerge at some points.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Selections and alternative sourcesDate: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:55:27 +0100
Dear Lee,
Thank you for kick-starting once more the discussion about my visit. there is something very interesting in the way you hit on things that really fit and correspond with my thinking. This last month I have been busy working on a paper about city education in Leicester, that amounts to some educational and political changes that focus on the reinvention of a school board - a directly elected single issue local authority for education, to meet the current democratic deficits and form a centre of resistance to central government and the global tendency to privatisation. Also of course I have been working against the current plan to expand the nuclear power industry here which has involved writing to MPs and framing policies for national and regional CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)
So you van see that your version of the visit fits very easily with my inclinations and perhaps my most recent expertise. Of course, I should need t o know in advance more about the issues in Taiwan.
I am happy with what you suggest. Especially about the resistance to the grand tour, and star like qualities. I am more than happy to remain in the South - which sounds fascinating - and have much more intensive discussions than is usually possible.
I would be happy to do a workshop series on the themes you describe or a series of one-offs with different groups. In fact I love all 4 your questions -they are so much part of my agenda. Perhaps i would rephrase your first a little. It is more a question of what aspects are really useful and how cultural studies can be made to work for local politics. I suppose this involves saying what 'it' is, but there are so many versions and I think my own is quite particular and perhaps it is in tension with dominant ones today, especially in the anglophone academy. This distance increases perhaps as I move away from academic practices and ethos. I don't mean move away from intellectual effort and truth-seeking of course - you know what i mean. So I suppose the first session or section would be a general (but also personal) orientation to this kind of knowledge and its usefulness. The format of a week- or longer-workshop sounds fine. And definitely the spirit of CCCS - not always so harmonious!!!
The info you ask for:
Visits -
I have not done an extended visit before, like a fellowship or something, but I have taught in other countries and of course made many shorter visits to places in US and Europe for intellectual exchanges. I don't know whether you want a systematic list of these. It is a very long list!! I might be able to abstract them from earlier cvs. But probably the best examples would be teaching 'Compact Courses' - a week or so long on national identity - in two German Universities - the Humbolt University in Berlin and the Cultural Studies Centre at Tubingen - both famous for this work. I also worked for a short while at Roskilde, an experimental university in Denmark, and I had a longish visit or two to work with Stanley Aronowitz at the Graduate Centre at City University New York. I have also spent some days at the European University at Fiesole, Italy examining students and giving talks. I was involved with the Erasmus cultural studies circle, a European wide network that involved visits to several European countries with groups of students. These are all from memory. Lee - if you want dates etc I will try and look them up.
No problem in principle in sending you passport copies or copies of certificates. I am not sure I can find all my certificates, but probably I could find my Cambridge Ph.D - which is my 'higher degree' Would that do?
I shall be away for a week from this Friday. But will reply to any reply of yours before I go. Sorry for occasional time-lags!
Excellent proposals Lee
Cheers
Richard
On 1 Jul 2008, at 03:17, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,
Recently, I talked with a senior scholar who is experienced and insightful in organising the events with respect to the inviting professor. We have exchanged some ideas in preparing your coming next year, which might be more productive than just some openly intellectual forums as suggested earlier.
First, we need you to stay basiclly in the southern part of Taiwan. That means you don't need to be like a celebrity traveling around Taiwan, receivng the greetings and PR every day. You might want to give some lectures in the universities, but the key task is a dialogue between your biography and this historical moment of TW.
Second, this arrangement is a serious consideration to reflect on the tensions between intellectual works and community works. By community I refer to a wider sense of locally embedded issues (agriculture, aborginal people, cultural policy, etc.), adult-education organisations, social movements, and institutionalised structures of political economy (e.g., local governments). Some advisers, those who dedicate their whole life to both intellectual and community works, are suggesting me to invite you to look at our local problems in the south. Once you and we can work together to examine some organisations and people's needs and problems, we may know how to let the questions lead our further discussions.
So, I, as a key facilitator, am not keen on making your visit as a star-like tour, but will let you and local org/people learn how to pose/answer some key questions as follows:
1. What is cultural studies anyway? (in the case of Taiwan, specifically for local communities)2. What can we learn from different visions and lessons between TW and UK, say, adult education, community work/education, social movements?
3. What are the blackholes of org/people in dedicating theirselves to local issues?
4. What are the strategies/tactics/ethos we should have?...............
If you are happy with this kind of arrangement, we will organise the event as early as possible as there are a lot of cases and resources worth mobilisation. As I am still apply for your funding from the university, I wonder if you might provide some photocopies of official certificates for reference, i.e., a graduation certificate, a passport photocopy. This procedure is needed for our government to examine the backgrounds of inviting scholars, including their labour rights, ID, etc. I am still thinking the way in which you can provide me these photocopies. Is the post available for you? Also, have you had been the inviting professor before? If yes, can you also give me specific information regarding this ? (I know it is a bit silly, but the university's staff is not in our realm. I am really upset over this requirement from the bureaucracy.) Anyway, my goal is clearer now. Your trip should be the practice of cultural studies for the local instead of a replication of a common tendency of intellectual studies/PR events from above.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: blue95_7399@msn.comTo: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comSubject: RE: Selections and alternative sourcesDate: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:24:41 +0800
Yes, Richard, I am thinking to get all those items of WPCS. And I actually have an idea and wonder whether it is doable. Shall we try to replay kind of WPCS' spirit in Taiwan during your fieldtrip? Is there any form you prefer to organize this one-month event? In addtion to some seminars concerning different topics, I think that an innovative way to have a workshop-like discussion might let people think back those days of CCCS. So, I wonder that a one-week or 5-day workshop might be a way in mobilising all scholars and students throughout Taiwan?
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Selections and alternative sources Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:18:08 +0100
Lee, the reference is not to the original WPCS but to a recently published selection from WPCS and Stencilled Papers which is in two volumes and has recently been published by Routledge. So, though expensive, it should be possible for your library to buy them. The original CCCS WPCS are rare items indeed - you are lucky to have any! I suggested this because i thought it would be easier! I do have all the original WPCS volumes and also the reprinted two vol selection.
However, several items have also been published elsewhere - thus:
1.What is Cultural Studies anyway? is reprinted in a number of different places e.g. in the US journal Social Text (n part) and in a reader edited by Ann Gray and David Morely (in full I think).
2.'Really Useful Knowledge' is also in the volume edited by myself, John Clarke and Chas Critcher, Working-Class Culture: Studies in History and Theory , one of the original Hutchinson volumes, about 1979 from memory. See my bibliog again. Can you get the Making Histories volume, again on the the original Hutchinson volumes? The p[iece on Marx is important to see the influence of Marxism on method as well as on my view of capital etc.
I am assuming people will also have access to The Practice of Cultural Studies where some of the arguments in What is CS Anyway? have been further developed, especially the circuit model and its relation to method. So you could use that chapter instead.
I've got the Chen, Asian Cultural Studies vol now - it looks very interesting.
Very best
Richard
On 4 Jun 2008, at 17:16, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard, Thanks. It is a pity that libraries in Taiwan do not have CCCS Selected Working Papers. I will check if the library can buy it. Do you have the copies of them? I had 1, 3, and 4.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Third legs and reading groupsDate: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:23:47 +0100
Dear Lee,
Here are my suggestions. Bearing in mind availability too. You should be able to find the full references in my cv bibliography.
No particular order.
1. 'What is Cultural Studies Anyway?' This has also recently been reprinted in the Routledge CCCS archive volumes Ann Gray et al., (eds) CCCS Selected Working Papers 2 Volumes Vol 1. London: Routledge 2007 (Useful if your library had these volumes for my visit).
2. 'Really Useful Knowledge' Radical Education and Working-Class Culture 1790-1848' This is also in Vol 1 of the Routledge collection.
3. 'Reading for the Best Marx: History-Writing and Historical Abstraction' in Making Histories
4. 'Post-Hegemony? I don't Think So' TCS Vol 24, No3.
5."Washington's Favourite' in Steinberg and Johnson, Blairism and the War of Persuasion.
Let me know if any of these are not available and I can suggest others.
Warm wishes
Richard
我將近期和他通信的內容轉貼如下,其實也可由書信內容做分析,
我想接下來讀書會的對話,或許我們也應該整理出來,編成專書或專文?我希望用各種形式來辦江森的活動,大家如果系所也想共襄盛舉,協辦或出人出錢都歡迎!
宇軒
Re: Selections and alternative sources
寄件者： Richard Johnson (http://bl140w.blu140.mail.live.com/mail/ApplicationMain_13.1.0132.0805.aspx?culture=zh-TW&hash=271179879#)
寄件日期：
2008年7月12日 上午 11:18:29
收件者：
Lee Yu-Hsuan (blue95_7399@msn.com)
Dear Lee,
I have just got back from a week's holiday and am away tomorrow and Sunday at the CND Council in London. This is a rather formidable list of questions, of the sort one might expect for a permanent full-time post! However, I do very much appreciate your efforts, Lee and I am still keen to come, and will choose to see this information as part of the dialogue, so when I get back I will try and see if I can find the information and the documents you ask for.
warm wishes
Richard
On 7 Jul 2008, at 07:18, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,I just consulted a senior scholar who is in charge of the application with respect to your visit. He implies that I need to make your background more explicit for those examiners related to other areas, such as science. So, I perhaps need your good memory to recall your works overseas and their timelines.
For example, I list some questions for you to follow.
1. When did you teach in other countries and make visits to places in US and Europe for intellectual exchanges?
2. Why do you think the best examples as teaching 'Compact Courses' - a week or so long on national identity - in two German Universities - the Humbolt University in Berlin and the Cultural Studies Centre at Tubingen - both famous for this work?
3. What themes did you work with Stanley Aronowitz at the Graduate Centre at City University New York?
4. What is your role in the Erasmus cultural studies circle, a European wide network? Do you have engaged in any similar organisation?
5. What is the main contribution of you and your works during the CCCS life (I know it is a silly question, but I don't know how to make a judgment to be honest)?
6. Also, what is your role during the time at the NTU?
7. Would you be able to talk more about your roles in WEA and other public activities? (I know some are in the CV, but I need to know more about these organisations and your participation).
8. Would you be about to make a long list about any forums (education/social/...) you have been involved? And explain a bit for us?
All these questions are very important for me to revise an introduction of you that related to the funding and further works for mobilisation. As one organiser suggests, we may like to organise a reading group beforehand, and also organise a team to translate those articles and publish that in Chinese. Also, we would like to make the passage of your trip into a video documentary. Thus, there are a lot of issues to be prepared. As for certificates, I wonder if you have any contracts or a letter of appointment, which might be more important than the PhD certificate. Sorry about all these paper work and procedure. If possible, would you please provide these above by the end of July?
Thank you a lot.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: blue95_7399@msn.comTo: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comSubject: RE: Selections and alternative sourcesDate: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:15:14 +0800
Dear Richard, Nice to have your positive responses. I will try my best to organise some good people to arrange this event and make the agenda more explicit.As for information, if possible, please give me a formal list as you address as follows. At the moment, I put you in a position - chair forum professor - which seems to be kind of "eminent" (whatever) scholars. To be honest, I really have no idea of that title. But it needs evidence to legitimate. So, if there is no evidence, I would change this status into kind of visiting professor. You definitely had many experiences and memories. Would you be able to give me a list recently, including these experiences and memories in detail? I will like to try again and see if the bureaucracy can really see the difference. Anyway, I am looking forward to your coming indeed. And I really admire that you still work so hard to fight against the hegemony.
Once you prepare the certificates or PhD, please let me know. I will tell you how to send to Taiwan.
Sorry, I am not experienced in doing this, so some tedious things emerge at some points.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Selections and alternative sourcesDate: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:55:27 +0100
Dear Lee,
Thank you for kick-starting once more the discussion about my visit. there is something very interesting in the way you hit on things that really fit and correspond with my thinking. This last month I have been busy working on a paper about city education in Leicester, that amounts to some educational and political changes that focus on the reinvention of a school board - a directly elected single issue local authority for education, to meet the current democratic deficits and form a centre of resistance to central government and the global tendency to privatisation. Also of course I have been working against the current plan to expand the nuclear power industry here which has involved writing to MPs and framing policies for national and regional CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)
So you van see that your version of the visit fits very easily with my inclinations and perhaps my most recent expertise. Of course, I should need t o know in advance more about the issues in Taiwan.
I am happy with what you suggest. Especially about the resistance to the grand tour, and star like qualities. I am more than happy to remain in the South - which sounds fascinating - and have much more intensive discussions than is usually possible.
I would be happy to do a workshop series on the themes you describe or a series of one-offs with different groups. In fact I love all 4 your questions -they are so much part of my agenda. Perhaps i would rephrase your first a little. It is more a question of what aspects are really useful and how cultural studies can be made to work for local politics. I suppose this involves saying what 'it' is, but there are so many versions and I think my own is quite particular and perhaps it is in tension with dominant ones today, especially in the anglophone academy. This distance increases perhaps as I move away from academic practices and ethos. I don't mean move away from intellectual effort and truth-seeking of course - you know what i mean. So I suppose the first session or section would be a general (but also personal) orientation to this kind of knowledge and its usefulness. The format of a week- or longer-workshop sounds fine. And definitely the spirit of CCCS - not always so harmonious!!!
The info you ask for:
Visits -
I have not done an extended visit before, like a fellowship or something, but I have taught in other countries and of course made many shorter visits to places in US and Europe for intellectual exchanges. I don't know whether you want a systematic list of these. It is a very long list!! I might be able to abstract them from earlier cvs. But probably the best examples would be teaching 'Compact Courses' - a week or so long on national identity - in two German Universities - the Humbolt University in Berlin and the Cultural Studies Centre at Tubingen - both famous for this work. I also worked for a short while at Roskilde, an experimental university in Denmark, and I had a longish visit or two to work with Stanley Aronowitz at the Graduate Centre at City University New York. I have also spent some days at the European University at Fiesole, Italy examining students and giving talks. I was involved with the Erasmus cultural studies circle, a European wide network that involved visits to several European countries with groups of students. These are all from memory. Lee - if you want dates etc I will try and look them up.
No problem in principle in sending you passport copies or copies of certificates. I am not sure I can find all my certificates, but probably I could find my Cambridge Ph.D - which is my 'higher degree' Would that do?
I shall be away for a week from this Friday. But will reply to any reply of yours before I go. Sorry for occasional time-lags!
Excellent proposals Lee
Cheers
Richard
On 1 Jul 2008, at 03:17, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,
Recently, I talked with a senior scholar who is experienced and insightful in organising the events with respect to the inviting professor. We have exchanged some ideas in preparing your coming next year, which might be more productive than just some openly intellectual forums as suggested earlier.
First, we need you to stay basiclly in the southern part of Taiwan. That means you don't need to be like a celebrity traveling around Taiwan, receivng the greetings and PR every day. You might want to give some lectures in the universities, but the key task is a dialogue between your biography and this historical moment of TW.
Second, this arrangement is a serious consideration to reflect on the tensions between intellectual works and community works. By community I refer to a wider sense of locally embedded issues (agriculture, aborginal people, cultural policy, etc.), adult-education organisations, social movements, and institutionalised structures of political economy (e.g., local governments). Some advisers, those who dedicate their whole life to both intellectual and community works, are suggesting me to invite you to look at our local problems in the south. Once you and we can work together to examine some organisations and people's needs and problems, we may know how to let the questions lead our further discussions.
So, I, as a key facilitator, am not keen on making your visit as a star-like tour, but will let you and local org/people learn how to pose/answer some key questions as follows:
1. What is cultural studies anyway? (in the case of Taiwan, specifically for local communities)2. What can we learn from different visions and lessons between TW and UK, say, adult education, community work/education, social movements?
3. What are the blackholes of org/people in dedicating theirselves to local issues?
4. What are the strategies/tactics/ethos we should have?...............
If you are happy with this kind of arrangement, we will organise the event as early as possible as there are a lot of cases and resources worth mobilisation. As I am still apply for your funding from the university, I wonder if you might provide some photocopies of official certificates for reference, i.e., a graduation certificate, a passport photocopy. This procedure is needed for our government to examine the backgrounds of inviting scholars, including their labour rights, ID, etc. I am still thinking the way in which you can provide me these photocopies. Is the post available for you? Also, have you had been the inviting professor before? If yes, can you also give me specific information regarding this ? (I know it is a bit silly, but the university's staff is not in our realm. I am really upset over this requirement from the bureaucracy.) Anyway, my goal is clearer now. Your trip should be the practice of cultural studies for the local instead of a replication of a common tendency of intellectual studies/PR events from above.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: blue95_7399@msn.comTo: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comSubject: RE: Selections and alternative sourcesDate: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:24:41 +0800
Yes, Richard, I am thinking to get all those items of WPCS. And I actually have an idea and wonder whether it is doable. Shall we try to replay kind of WPCS' spirit in Taiwan during your fieldtrip? Is there any form you prefer to organize this one-month event? In addtion to some seminars concerning different topics, I think that an innovative way to have a workshop-like discussion might let people think back those days of CCCS. So, I wonder that a one-week or 5-day workshop might be a way in mobilising all scholars and students throughout Taiwan?
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Selections and alternative sources Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:18:08 +0100
Lee, the reference is not to the original WPCS but to a recently published selection from WPCS and Stencilled Papers which is in two volumes and has recently been published by Routledge. So, though expensive, it should be possible for your library to buy them. The original CCCS WPCS are rare items indeed - you are lucky to have any! I suggested this because i thought it would be easier! I do have all the original WPCS volumes and also the reprinted two vol selection.
However, several items have also been published elsewhere - thus:
1.What is Cultural Studies anyway? is reprinted in a number of different places e.g. in the US journal Social Text (n part) and in a reader edited by Ann Gray and David Morely (in full I think).
2.'Really Useful Knowledge' is also in the volume edited by myself, John Clarke and Chas Critcher, Working-Class Culture: Studies in History and Theory , one of the original Hutchinson volumes, about 1979 from memory. See my bibliog again. Can you get the Making Histories volume, again on the the original Hutchinson volumes? The p[iece on Marx is important to see the influence of Marxism on method as well as on my view of capital etc.
I am assuming people will also have access to The Practice of Cultural Studies where some of the arguments in What is CS Anyway? have been further developed, especially the circuit model and its relation to method. So you could use that chapter instead.
I've got the Chen, Asian Cultural Studies vol now - it looks very interesting.
Very best
Richard
On 4 Jun 2008, at 17:16, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard, Thanks. It is a pity that libraries in Taiwan do not have CCCS Selected Working Papers. I will check if the library can buy it. Do you have the copies of them? I had 1, 3, and 4.
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee
From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Third legs and reading groupsDate: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:23:47 +0100
Dear Lee,
Here are my suggestions. Bearing in mind availability too. You should be able to find the full references in my cv bibliography.
No particular order.
1. 'What is Cultural Studies Anyway?' This has also recently been reprinted in the Routledge CCCS archive volumes Ann Gray et al., (eds) CCCS Selected Working Papers 2 Volumes Vol 1. London: Routledge 2007 (Useful if your library had these volumes for my visit).
2. 'Really Useful Knowledge' Radical Education and Working-Class Culture 1790-1848' This is also in Vol 1 of the Routledge collection.
3. 'Reading for the Best Marx: History-Writing and Historical Abstraction' in Making Histories
4. 'Post-Hegemony? I don't Think So' TCS Vol 24, No3.
5."Washington's Favourite' in Steinberg and Johnson, Blairism and the War of Persuasion.
Let me know if any of these are not available and I can suggest others.
Warm wishes
Richard
2008-08-29
已通過國科會研讀會申請
各位朋友,
第一次研讀會時間如同上回通知:9/27日下午2:00至5:00,地點暫訂成大醫學院四樓的餐廳包廂。(詳情再通知)
由於國科會已同意本申請案,但預算多少仍不確定,似乎有新政策?
我原則上會將第二次讀書會的資料以紙本印出,於第一次會後交給各位。
同時也很高興陸續有新的朋友的加入。
宇軒
第一次研讀會時間如同上回通知:9/27日下午2:00至5:00,地點暫訂成大醫學院四樓的餐廳包廂。(詳情再通知)
由於國科會已同意本申請案,但預算多少仍不確定,似乎有新政策?
我原則上會將第二次讀書會的資料以紙本印出,於第一次會後交給各位。
同時也很高興陸續有新的朋友的加入。
宇軒
Johnson vs. EP Thompson (a brief)
江森曾直言,一段不願回首的往事是他個人參與到文化研究及歷史的大討論。
江森曾是個很好的社會史學者,他反思並批判指出一些英國歷史研究的問題,例如地域主義、英國中心、文化主義等。江森進入文化研究後也反映歷史研究內部不同路數的衝突,特別指新的、不同的左派的史學家之間的爭論。
近期我閱讀江森於2001八月出版的專文「Historical Returns: Transdisciplinarity, Cultural Studies and History」(European Journal of Cultural Studies IV, 3:261-88),江森一開頭就問道：「為什麼文化研究需要歷史?」他提及學術生涯中最暗淡的時刻,是發生在1979年第十三場歷史工作坊,與E P Thompson(湯姆森)及霍爾所展開的一場公開交鋒,有嚴重的激辯。
另外早些時間,在Graeme Turner著、唐維敏中譯(1998；亞太出版)的《英國文化研究導論》一書中,江森指出：「從湯姆森的角度,定義當代文化研究中心在歷史研究與歷史書寫方面的研究興趣,尤其強調歷史研究對現勢分析的關聯性,但是文化研究對湯姆森個人,以及一般歷史學者的研究,仍舊多所保留」。基本上這場論爭的焦點就是在於江森及霍爾試圖融合文化主義及結構主義的立場(政治上的人道主義,理論上反人道主義), 且看Turner 的描述,「在結構主義的鼓勵之下,文化研究理論者對湯姆森(以及威廉士)集中個人經驗的作法,視為浪漫而回歸到人道主義的行為」。順著當時某些以結構主義方式進行的歷史研究,如口述史、民族誌歷史研究,一九七八年江森在歷史工作坊期刊登載,認為結構主義的概念可以對歷史學者帶來莫大助益,比如常民研究,他尤其指控湯姆森「重經驗,而不重理論」。結果是持續性的爭論,例如湯普森(社會主義的人道主義、文化主義立場)自己當年也寫下《理論的貧乏》 (The Poverty of Theory)對歐陸文化理論進行批判,指出馬克思結構主義如同史達林主義般地邪惡。經歷這場論戰,多少程度說明江森力圖於文化研究及歷史兩造間對話時曾受到的批判,例如當時「大批信件湧進,紛紛指控江森是歷史的文盲、阿圖舍派的走狗、空洞虛無的理論主義,或過度氾濫的反人道主義者…在文化研究內,江森曾經被視為一位歷史方面的佼佼者,但是顯而易見地,歷史學者至今仍將他視某異端份子」(Turner, 1998)。
雖然江森自認這段歷史及文化研究的決裂是其人生的黑暗時光,但他在這場江森平日不願多談的公開辯論一年後,他就接掌霍爾,成為CCCS主任。他的確透過爭論確立了文化研究有用的歷史觀,,如他定義,即歷史可以說「是」也「不是」伯明罕研究中心各種表現的重心,只有相對少數的出版刊物採取歷史的取向,而大寫的理論總是較歷史受到關注。研究中心放棄文本分析的工具,轉而聚焦於如何將日常生活的歷史當作核心,即了解主體性的歷史性建構。
江森曾是個很好的社會史學者,他反思並批判指出一些英國歷史研究的問題,例如地域主義、英國中心、文化主義等。江森進入文化研究後也反映歷史研究內部不同路數的衝突,特別指新的、不同的左派的史學家之間的爭論。
近期我閱讀江森於2001八月出版的專文「Historical Returns: Transdisciplinarity, Cultural Studies and History」(European Journal of Cultural Studies IV, 3:261-88),江森一開頭就問道：「為什麼文化研究需要歷史?」他提及學術生涯中最暗淡的時刻,是發生在1979年第十三場歷史工作坊,與E P Thompson(湯姆森)及霍爾所展開的一場公開交鋒,有嚴重的激辯。
另外早些時間,在Graeme Turner著、唐維敏中譯(1998；亞太出版)的《英國文化研究導論》一書中,江森指出：「從湯姆森的角度,定義當代文化研究中心在歷史研究與歷史書寫方面的研究興趣,尤其強調歷史研究對現勢分析的關聯性,但是文化研究對湯姆森個人,以及一般歷史學者的研究,仍舊多所保留」。基本上這場論爭的焦點就是在於江森及霍爾試圖融合文化主義及結構主義的立場(政治上的人道主義,理論上反人道主義), 且看Turner 的描述,「在結構主義的鼓勵之下,文化研究理論者對湯姆森(以及威廉士)集中個人經驗的作法,視為浪漫而回歸到人道主義的行為」。順著當時某些以結構主義方式進行的歷史研究,如口述史、民族誌歷史研究,一九七八年江森在歷史工作坊期刊登載,認為結構主義的概念可以對歷史學者帶來莫大助益,比如常民研究,他尤其指控湯姆森「重經驗,而不重理論」。結果是持續性的爭論,例如湯普森(社會主義的人道主義、文化主義立場)自己當年也寫下《理論的貧乏》 (The Poverty of Theory)對歐陸文化理論進行批判,指出馬克思結構主義如同史達林主義般地邪惡。經歷這場論戰,多少程度說明江森力圖於文化研究及歷史兩造間對話時曾受到的批判,例如當時「大批信件湧進,紛紛指控江森是歷史的文盲、阿圖舍派的走狗、空洞虛無的理論主義,或過度氾濫的反人道主義者…在文化研究內,江森曾經被視為一位歷史方面的佼佼者,但是顯而易見地,歷史學者至今仍將他視某異端份子」(Turner, 1998)。
雖然江森自認這段歷史及文化研究的決裂是其人生的黑暗時光,但他在這場江森平日不願多談的公開辯論一年後,他就接掌霍爾,成為CCCS主任。他的確透過爭論確立了文化研究有用的歷史觀,,如他定義,即歷史可以說「是」也「不是」伯明罕研究中心各種表現的重心,只有相對少數的出版刊物採取歷史的取向,而大寫的理論總是較歷史受到關注。研究中心放棄文本分析的工具,轉而聚焦於如何將日常生活的歷史當作核心,即了解主體性的歷史性建構。
2008-08-15
第一次讀書會通知 九月二十七日 成大文學院
各位好, 這封信是針對已加入(或希望您加入)本Richard Johnson讀書會的朋友, 請不時參考部落格的動態,也請於其上留言。http://richardjohnsonreadinggroup.blogspot.com/
我已向國科會申請經費,希望近日通過,也將請一助理協助,而我也將透過個人系上及台南成大或台南、高雄社大的資源,如開會空間及設備等,希望能使討論的條件舒服些, 而人員的參與,也在擴充中,如果老師們有研究生願意參加,請轉寄資料給他們,並連絡我 由於第一次讀書會的日期原為九月十三,但因開學期間各位事務繁忙,故延至九月二十七日舉行(地點暫訂成大,詳細再通知。),今天我以電子檔(Reading for the Best Marx: History-Writing and Historical Abstraction)傳本月的文章給各位,如果沒收到,請通知我。 感謝。
導讀人將邀請陳巨擘老師。
我已向國科會申請經費,希望近日通過,也將請一助理協助,而我也將透過個人系上及台南成大或台南、高雄社大的資源,如開會空間及設備等,希望能使討論的條件舒服些, 而人員的參與,也在擴充中,如果老師們有研究生願意參加,請轉寄資料給他們,並連絡我 由於第一次讀書會的日期原為九月十三,但因開學期間各位事務繁忙,故延至九月二十七日舉行(地點暫訂成大,詳細再通知。),今天我以電子檔(Reading for the Best Marx: History-Writing and Historical Abstraction)傳本月的文章給各位,如果沒收到,請通知我。 感謝。
導讀人將邀請陳巨擘老師。
2008-08-07
一個跨領域的文化研究:試評Richard Johnson到台灣講座之前景
訪學組織者：李宇軒（文藻國際事務系；blue95_7399@msn.com）
訪問學者姓名:Richard Johnson
學歷:
BA (History) Clare College, Cambridge 1963.
Ph.D. (History) Cambridge University, 1968.
學院經歷:
1966-74講師,社會史,伯明罕大學
1974-80 資深講師,當代文化研究中心,伯明罕大學
1980-87 主任,當代文化研究中心(於1987卸任),伯明罕大學
1987-93兼職資深講師,文化研究暨社會學系,伯明罕大學
1994 兼職高級講師,國際傳播及文化研究中心,諾丁漢川特大學人文學院
1996-2004 升等為文化研究的教授,諾丁漢川特大學人文學院
2004退休；兼職於諾丁漢川特大學人文學院,專事論文指導。
國際研討會、訪學及學術報告發表（1987- 2007）
Cultural Studies (American Modern Languages Association , New Orleans, USA, plenary session with Gayatri Spivak on Cultural Studies)
Cultural Studies (Graduate Centre, CUNY New York USA for consultation with Professor Stanley Aronwitz on cultural studies, following publication of ‘What is Cultural Studies Anyway?’ In US Journal Social Text 3 Day visit?
Cultural Studies (University of Texas, Austin USA, discussions with postgraduate students and faculty, 3 day visit?)
Popular Memory (Erasmus CS Network, Amsterdam),
Nationalism and National Identity (Erasmus CS Network, Tubingen, Germany)
National Heritage and Popular Memory (Amsterdam. Workshop with museum worker with Raphael Samuel and Barbara Henkes)
National Identity (Institute of Empirical Cultural Studies, University of Tubingen, Germany, ‘Compact course’ of one week to advanced students and faculty. Tubingen is a major centre for cultural studies in Germany responsible for renovating the German tradition of Volkskunde or Folklore Studies)
Education Policy (Oxford Brookes University),
Popular Memory and World War II (European University Institute, Fiesole, Near Florence Italy; two day visit with postgraduate seminars while also examining a PhD thesis there))
Teaching Cultural Studies (Berlin)
What is Europe? New Contexts for European Studies (Major International Conference, Warsaw- Plenary address at major European conference)
Sexualities and Nationalities (Department of European Ethnology, Hombolt Uni. Berlin, The Department is a major centre for cultural studies in Germany, One week ‘Compact Course’)
近期參與英國研討會、報告發表及訪學（1998-2008）
Teaching Cultural Studies (University of Sussex)
Schooling and Sexuality (U of Brighton; Open University; Humanities Association UK )
Family and Sexuality (Social History Society UK),
Cultural Studies as a Transdisciplinary Project 'Cultural Returns Conference' (St Hugh's College, Oxford).
Cultural Studies as a Transdisciplinary Project (Media and Cultural Studies Association Conference, Sheffield).
Frontier Masculinities: The Bush/Blair Partnership and anti-terrorist rhetoric (Women and Gender Studies Centre, Warwick University; TCS Seminar, Nottingham Trent University)
Blairism as Passive Revolution (Sociology and Women's Studies, post-grad conference, University of Lancaster)
Gramsci and Religion (Leicester Secular Society)
Politics , Media and the Question of Trust (De Montford University, Politics and Media Group)
（一）目的
本計畫規劃於2009年的春季，力邀英國文化研究領域重要的學者理查江森(Richard Johnson)。江森之於文化研究，至少有兩大重要的貢獻，可供台灣學界參考。一是文化研究系譜的描繪;二是文化研究教學的反思，包括在CCCS近二十年的教學經驗。特別希冀透過江森的來訪，協助學者反思台灣與英國文化研究的研究經驗之異同，並以他的豐富教學研究經驗，促進台灣文化研究各社群及學者的跨校、跨科際交流，例如組織政治大學、交通大學及東華等文化研究單位，共同擬定議程及論壇。以下簡述江森生平、著作及社會實踐。
（二）自／傳記
1939出生到1966之間的江森與大多數英國人的養成過程差不多，有青少年的愛情與煩惱，初高中時是媽媽眼中的好兒子，不是愛耍帥的小伙子，有異性戀的情人，對同性戀有罪的感覺，想做個波布米亞藝術家，關心新左派的動態、搖滾樂、讀Richard Hoggart的《The Use of Literacy》、CND (反核武運動)，1974年開始受到女性主義影響，推動女性運動。
江森從事學術工作前已觀察新左派運動，其歷史學、馬克思主義研究，以及受女性主義和對國際反核武社會運動的影響，反映了當時重要的社會結構及歷史性問題。江森後來接下霍爾於伯明罕文化研究中心的主任缺(Stuart Hall1979離開)，見證此研究中心八十年代被壓迫、收編，最終於1993年，宣告第一次退休(時五十六歲)。江森八十到九十年代學術生涯的轉折，雖然有些戲劇性，但由學術政治的角度來看，正反映某程度的英國文化研究的邊緣精神。當時研究中心面對新自由主義的萌興，文化研究（Cultural Study）則回歸傳統的主流分類中，江森面對這場學術政治的重新集權化、市場化的趨勢，「不只一次辭主任職」。
（三）出版、研究課題
江森在文化研究、教育、歷史及基進歷史學的出版作品咸保持一貫的水準。他總是在學科之間，以及尤其是知識議題與當時的實際的及政治議題的結合處尋求創新的交界點。他總是以有系統性、清楚的及根植於在地脈絡的方式進行寫作。例如他一直強調在自己教育的社會學及歷史作品中，嘗試與老師及政策擬定者對話。從許多可見的實踐，如受邀至外地發表報告及教學，在他作品涉及的不同領域中已得到國內外的重視。江森自己整理個人出版作品的類別，大致涵蓋六大類，充分展現跨領域的精神：
１． 教育政策、歷史及社會學
２．文化研究的理論與方法
３．國族主義、國家認同、國族差異
４． 文化研究教學
５．庶民記憶、歷史評論與衰悼文
６．當代政治與文化、當代歷史，包括國際關係與核子議題
目前的研究興趣則有:
1.文化研究的實作經驗(包括田野工作、歷史方法及論述分析);
2.民族主義及民族認同(有關族群、階級、性別及性，以及在全球、區域及本土尤其城市的脈絡);
3.國際關係，尤指文化面向，如針對恐怖的戰爭及反恐怖主義的論述;
4.核子議題及國際關係，如武器與核子權力。
5. 新自由主義的全球趨勢，以及國家教育制度的改革(如中小型、多數族群的城市的公共教育)。
就研究數量與類別言，江森七○年代的研究和他的博士研究有關，檢視早期的英國社國史及教育政策及管理。八○年代後著作速度驚人，至1993年第一次退休，計有二十七篇，主題涵蓋面向廣泛且深入，其作品更加明顯地呈現文化研究領域「貼近社會脈動、廣闊的跨領域」之特色。例如:教育與庶民政治、反專制主義、歷史書寫的政治、閱讀馬克思、庶民記憶、解除核武運動的媒體再現、以及最經典的文化研究導讀(1983; 1986; 1987)、教育的政治學、英國教育與貨幣主義、媒體生產與消費、休閒文化研究、文化研究與英國研究(國族主義、敘事與認同)、柴契爾主義與英國教育、記憶與認同、基進教育與新左派、日常生活與民族認同等都是江森的研究範疇及課題。由1994年至今，出版成果也是豐碩，有四十一篇之多，研究面向貼近時代的脈絡，包括教育、異性戀及恐同性戀症及學校、文化研究、解讀國家遺蹪、性教育、男子氣概、歐洲認同、監控異性戀、文化研究的教學及認同、文化研究及歷史，反恐修辭、青少年認同、社會主義、布萊爾主義、反後霸權、核武、社區等。值得一提的是，江森由教學及方法論的角度(2004)，說明文化研究實作時的經驗及特殊立場，即融合文化主義及結構主義的雙重典範。並又重讀葛蘭西文化霸權理論(2007)，批判社會理論中針對霸權的討論往後現代、新自由主義靠攏的趨勢。
(四)集體協作的日子：伯明罕文化研究中心（CCCS）
在英國文化研究領域中，伯明罕文化研究中心（CCCS）是英國文化研究的象徵，由Richard Hoggart創立於1964年，這個研究所針對當代文化與經濟之間的關係的各種議題提出許多十分有趣的理論及實證主題，例如年輕人次文化、意識型態理論、女性主義、文學文化、工作場所、傳媒研究、性別研究等。在成立約三十年的歷史中間，研究中心提出許多跨時代的議程及研究成果，成為全球學院中受到期待及推崇的研究中心。本中心一向以跨領域的研究取向見長，已有許多在台灣及國際學界耳熟能詳的代表性研究及學者，例如「霍爾」1968年成為該中心主任。中心有名的是提出文化研究的取向，並因為強調集體研究與寫作的方法，即中心的工作是組織個人研究與集體協作的整合，例如所有的研究生皆受到鼓勵透過他們個人的計畫在座談會中提出實質性的理論見解及政治爭論。此外在非正式的方面，中心內部有許多特殊團體形成，因為共同的興趣及協力出版刊物(Working Papers in Cultural Studies)，例如一些特刊如教育、媒體、傳播、種族等。這些刊物或所謂模板印刷的工作報告在公開後已廣為流傳，對全球學界的深遠影響是建立未來的研究議程（例如美國流行文化、後現代主義的研究），成為文化研究領域學者熟悉及應用於教學上的教材，例如集中於英國改制大學中新的文化研究、媒體研究、傳播研究課程，或是傳統的學科如歷史、社會學、教育及甚至英語系。如此跨領域、民主的集體協作團體使七○年代的伯明罕文化研究中心成為基進的研究重鎮，例如江森有許多與研究生的團體研究及書寫的經驗，他的許多作品實質上是協作而成的（可參見Ann Gray et al. (eds) CCCS Selected Working Papers 2 Vols London: Routledge 2007）。江森自己描述個人於伯明罕文化研究中心的貢獻－即幫助中心建立「伯明罕學派」（The Birmingham School)（以下是摘要自江森在申請諾丁漢川特大學的教授一職時的申請書）：
「我較廣的貢獻是作為一個研究者、作者、老師及研究組織者，為的是建立並發起當代文化研究新的跨領域計畫。．．．當我承接霍爾時，文化研究中心是一個文化研究創新及成長的重鎮，其任務是形成持續的參照點以說明文化研究的發展，例如伯明罕學派。．．．中心的研究生訓練已對我們自己的出版紀錄有所助益（難以生產單獨作者的專書），如此的協作也對知識運作的開創十分具有生產力。文化研究已對英國高等教育的系統及後來的新大學有重大的效應，現今此成果也見於世界的其他國家。
這個任務涉及到生產指標性的文本(例如 the CCCS journal and Hutchinson book series) ，同時重要的是教育的計畫，由中心孕育高等教育、進階教育、成人教育及學校的老師。因此我感覺個人主張的學術的卓越是深深受到我身為老師身份的影響外（包括協力研究的組織、新知識及課程發展的產生），以及我的作者及研究者身份，雖然這些是緊密相關的。
另一個發展文化研究的面向則是服務使新大學課程生效的機制－國家學術奬勵協會（Council For National Academic Awards (CNAA)。此機制已不復存在因為新大學可以授予學位。我則是其中委員會成員，負責參訪及檢視其他英國大學的文化研究及媒體研究課程。這成為正式的督導，更成為一個機制以引發在不同實驗學位間的對話。我們確有權力表示應該改革之處，或甚至結束學位，但我想我們未曾如此做。但我的確了解許多在其他地方的文化研究，並常與我教過課而之後於進修新學位的學生談話。在研究中心，我們做法一致，其就如我之後成為開放大學的庶民文化課程（霍爾於1980成立的文化研究中心）的外審人員。」
因此在伯明罕大學中，當代文化研究中心是個威脅，以及受到經費支出單位的質疑。江森於1974年於研究中心任職起到1987年卸任主任一職,，研究中心的規模非常小 – 從未多於三至四個教學及研究的老師，但總是有三十個以上的研究生以及日漸增多的大學授課。這最主要是起因於大學行政部門的敵意，其由少數單獨學科及保守的知識精神所宰制。研究中心則傾向於與校園中進步運動合作，在當時被視為是偏向學術與其他科層的學生及民主的運動。所以不受到行政部門的歡迎。
江森直接面對跨領域研究面臨的困境,即高教的重組及文化研究的建制化過程中,八○年代接繼霍爾的江森承先啟後，針對當時領域內風行的著作及論述，不斷進行內部批判，尤其他重新建立研究文化史的新研究觀點，樹立了跨領域、學科的模式，個人更在教育的議題上領導協作的團體，協力出版專書。在他成為中心主任時，花許多時間及功夫為研究中心進行有效辯護，反對那些行政部門企圖「重組」或破壞研究中心。但新的學系已面臨改組的壓力，使文化研究被吸納到更為正規的大學教學系統中。在1987大學必須同意一項擴張的計畫，可見中心與社會學系的合併 (是相當有邏輯的夥伴關係)。在當時江森決定不要擔任新的大系中主任，自主管退下後仍在系上待五年。這個決定大半是個人因素－想花多些時間和家人相處，跳脫惱人的工作。大學最終的確於2002年成功關掉文化研究及社會學系，雖然部份是反映經濟大環境中大學經費公共支出，普遍受到評鑑制度(Research Assessment Exercise， RAE)的壓迫(與台灣當前的情境相似)，不過這對大學而言實在是一大損失，因為這個系仍在世界享有盛名，有許多國際學生。其關閉僅凸顯荒謬的市場機制中的基進教育(因為研究中心向來是社科院最賺錢的單位)，仍然跳脫不了行政部門對此中心長期進行政治基進的教育的不滿。
江森社會史的背景，和早期英國戰後左翼的歷史研究、馬克思主義的歷史學及社會運動的研究息息相關，和左翼歷史學者推動的共黨、新左派運動、成人運動、和平與解除核武運動等社會主義脈絡有關。雖然他出身於社會史研究，但早在他任教開始，已經透過不斷的爭論，例如與當時的馬克思歷史研究學霸EP Thompson在歷史工作坊展開激烈的公開辯論。當江森進入伯明罕大學傳統的藝術學院教授社會史任教，伯明罕文化研究中心成立已三年，直到研究中心成立十年後，他受聘為研究中心文化史課程的資深講師。當時的中心主任是霍爾，伯明罕學派的理論立場已確立融合文化主義及結構馬克思主義的雙重典範。反觀江森則有一項知識上的特別貢獻，是他探討當代文化研究、歷史學科規範以及當代的取向之間的相互關係。有許多計畫是教授英國的社會及文化史，針對研究中心的碩士班課程及指導文化史的研究，更涉及書寫，包括教育的當代史、歷史學的當代史以及理論與工人階級文化的當代史。我們也投入與歷史學者的論辯，尤其是透過 Ruskin History Workshop Movement (這是一個針對社會主義及女性主義歷史學者的論壇)，特別關切歷史及記憶、歷史與理論。
歷史研究出身的江森，進入文化研究，比其他學者更殊異的特徵不在於他白人、劍橋的學習生涯。他沒有霍爾來自第三世界的學術精英在第一世界衝撞文化空間的張力。但江森和霍爾其實有某種的相似性，也就是對個人認同/身份的高度察知後，在學術及運動上展開的一種不安現狀的，不斷於邊緣作戰的霸權策略。他一直選擇做權力中心的移民者及陌生人。因為江森一直倡導的CCCS的「好的部份」，就是基於此身於邊緣的特徵。由於他對權力的抵抗，各種實踐中可以看到他拒向權威及保守的傳統靠攏，一直避免將CCCS理想化，因為他在伯明罕的文化研究經驗，對他而言，是一直困惑且矛盾的，例如研究中心知名的學者常令人感到高度野心及恐懼，論述及語言非常抽象艱澀。所以，江森思索著的，有伯明罕經驗，但加上一些不同的，以形成最好的文化研究版本。
（五）教育、講座、社會運動
江森教授學士班課程主要於伯明罕時期。至於碩士以上課程，1970-73於伯明罕藝術系教授歷史與理論。1974-1980 教授文化史，1980-1993 則教授文化理論及認同。在他任內，總計有超過兩百位碩、博士學生曾參與他的碩士課，許多學生後來於大學、學院、學校任教，常以創新的方式開設文化研究的新課程及計畫。總計他指導完成的碩士有10 人，而博士有54人，遍布的學校有: Adelaide (Australia), York, Warwick, Melbourne (Australia), Sheffield, Aston, MacQuarie (Australia) , Birkbeck College, University of London, Goldsmith College, University of London, Glasgow University, East London University, European University Institute (Florence, Italy)。在伯明罕及諾丁漢川特擔任二十五場以上口試官的經驗。他授課及對話的學生來自世界各地，例如台灣、巴西、加納、埃及、中國、葡萄牙、西班牙、馬來西亞等。值得一提的是他津津樂道的伯明罕教學經驗，和研究生之間進行的團體工作，師生集體研究及書寫成為中心日後許多協作成果，也被沿用到後來的新大學。此外他的社會實踐不曾因退休間斷，特別在社會運動、成人教育及城市論壇的領域中。
學院教育
在他的著作中，持續關注的焦點之一是教育問題，包括博士論文。在伯明罕研究中心期間，他總在探討教育如何在社會再生產中扮演一定的角色，從文化研究的觀點（Clarke, Critcher, and Johnson, 1979），江森明確地指出馬克思結構主義與文化主義之間存在概念與政治上的實質差異，在此基礎上，他認為必須彼此能夠藉由認識彼此之異同，尤其在思索工人階級文化的理論問題時。他所主張的「真正受用的知識」(really useful knowledge, 1979)，處理工人階級教育及投票權的議題，延續英國成人教育的基進傳統。他的立場是進步社會運動的弱勢及受壓迫者，成人教育者因此選了邊站，不是僅教一些有用的知識（merely useful knowledge）鞏固富有及優勢一方或維持現狀；而是積極地以教學、知識及教育使個人及團體了解險惡環境的肇因，由彼此經驗的反省中找出策略與理論，超克教育上的劣勢、解決社會上受排擠與歧視的情況，並挑戰經濟及政治上的不平等，受教者因此藉教育而學習自我解放、進而改善社會。
九十年代中，江森任教於所謂的「新大學」（Nottingham Trent University）,雖然受委派的工作是研究及出版,他自認扮演某種知識上的組織者及「打氣者」(enthuser)。他尤其試著與研究生緊密的工作,透過讀書會及討論團體、主導人文學院及基進社會科學的「研究訓練」。他常以個別的方式與許多研究生進行討論，比所指導的學生還多。在這研究訓練的領域有許多仍待改進，部份原因是相對少的同事有指導研究生的經驗。江森作為歷史學者又是文化研究的創新者，使他在學院知識發展中扮演中心角色，針對研究生的工作，他與學院的主管及各研究所的主任有密切的配合。江森總覺得自己是做苦工的人或是學生連絡的對象，主要角色在於促成學生的研究工作。
新大學即類似台灣學院改制的新大學，他有許多的研究，就是關係英國教育體系因著全球新自由主義而再結構的現象，學校由公有轉為私有的趨勢，以及強調數字量化的評鑑等（都和台灣的狀況若合符節）。有趣的變化是江森的頭銜改變，1994年已由資深講師轉換成高級講師(Reader)，並於1996年升等為「教授」。1995-97，他主持博士生的非正式工作坊，針對研究問題而討論，發現新大學的博士研究生常受忽略。1997-99，針對國際文化研究的碩士班，他設計、教授並完成文化理論及政策的課程。1997- 2004，江森與同事（Dr Parvati Raghuram）一起設計一個原創的方案供博士研究生採用，所設計及教授的博士研究實作課程（Research Practice Programme）分成三個模組（modules），供博士生著手研究用，，後來成為研究實作上的證書及學位。從許多角度而言，這方案是嘗試再生產伯明罕研究中心協作的研究生計畫，目的在於建立「研究生公共領域」或論壇使學生能交換訊息及研究的感受，也由有經驗的學生得到實際的研究過程。這個方案得以成功在於接收人文學院內的研究生，包括較基進的社會科學以及人文方面的主題。課程在於介紹社會科學及人文學科中，以質性研究為主的研究法及議題，之後被國家資助的藝術暨人文研究部（Arts and Humanities Research Board ，AHRB）評比為英國人文研究的典範。1998年，他成為英國國立的工作小組成員，專門針對研究人文研究生教育訓練，主要向國務院及國家資助的藝術暨人文研究部提出官方報告，影響研究所的教育訓練的國家政策。此工作會議的貢獻是特別強調以論文為導向的學習準備及支持，而非一般或工作相關的訓練。1999年，他所設計的博士研究的實作課程獲得認可，修課學生可被授與研究證書，至今估計已有一百位博士及哲學碩士。2002-2005 江森與系上其他學者協同教授一門碩士班課程－全球化、認同及科技（Globalization, Identity and Technology，GIT)。 雖然江森也嘗試在人文學院同事間建立較有協作的精神，部份是透過參與不同的方案，包括遺跡研究、國際文化研究、碩士課程（全球化、認同及科技）。即便在教學上的協作有見到成果，但難度較高的是鼓勵那些頂尖學者像研究者及作家般一同協作。江森堅信唯有合作才能促成良好根基的學術創新及某些真材實料的知識內容與社會實用性。在他任職的國際文化研究的研究中心原計畫發展成為一個創新出版的中心，卻只產出兩本著作，一本是江森合著的The Practice of Cultural Studies。這個研究中心之所以未成功，江森認為部份原因是英國學術生活變遷的壓力，部份則是新自由主義的轉變迫使學術朝個人主義及競爭的方向發展。(參見近作 2008 - on the neo-liberal university)。
訪學
江森在許多國家有授課經驗，並經常在歐美地區進行學術的交流活動。 在豐富的教學及訪學經驗中，就他記憶所及，最為頻繁的訪學是在七○年代末到八○年代初年間，身為研究中心一份子及主任銜命「傳播福音」，但也因此族繁不及備載。
他僅就八○年代末後一些訪學提供參考，例如他在八○年代初至意大利四間大學，因為是一篇最早於意大利出版的文章（What is Cultural Studies Anyway?）。其次範圍最廣的訪學是在美國，如、德洲奧斯汀、紐奧良，當時我們中心作品被當地視為某種「社會的」或「物質主義的」文化研究，是相對於某些人認為去政治的後結構取向。事實上這是別人接收他作品時面臨的解讀問題之一，因為江森從未界定個人的姿態為反後結構主義，並且他以為結構／後結構主義傳統的作品是很吸引人的 ，雖然事實上其受到主要的影響是「文化物質主義」。不過這些都構成了江森數次與當代傑出的社會學者Stanley Aronowitz在紐約City University研究中心及奧斯汀大學的文化研究學者進行合作、對話的內容。他更受邀去紐奧良現代語言協會年會（近1988-9年左右)與知名的後結構主義理論家Gayatri Spivak進行對話。
江森參與歐洲主要的文化研究網絡（Erasmus；a Renaissance polymath) 是一個政府資助的合作網絡，遍及歐盟國家，為的是使學生及學者團體參訪其他大學。其中針對文化研究者，中心即在伯明罕大學及Middlesex University。藉此網絡，他參訪過許多歐洲國家。最主要的例子是他曾於德國的訪學，因為伯明罕的作品，他於九○年代初受邀在兩間以「國家認同」研究聞名的大學(Humbolt University in Berlin and the Cultural Studies Centre at Tubingen)授課，進行講座。兩處都是德國文化研究的主要中心，他們機構本身也在庶民研究的傳統上受到肯定。短期教學很吸引人，每天有非常密集的工作，並與同學及教師有長時間的討論，江森認為德國行對他跨國教學的經驗有很大的啟發，不只是保持較緩慢及清楚的表達，因為接收者的母語不是英文。
他也待過丹麥的Roskilde實驗大學，進行短期授課。同時，他在歐陸意大利的大學指導學生。值得一提的是江森和Barbara Henkes of Groningen University and Amsterdam 有長期的協作關係，因為後者是社會歷史學者，也研究記憶及口述歷史。透過Barbara，江森認識在荷蘭的歷史學者及博物館工作者，他才得出版國家認同及記憶 (如法西斯主義)。
成人教育
例如，他是工人教育協會(WEA， The Workers Education Association)兼職的輔導員。WEA是英國最大的成人教育的義工提供及培訓單位，包括一般感興趣的課程及工會與特殊社區的課程。江森在WEA的角色可以追遡他長期以來對成人教育的興趣，例如他最早著作有關庶民教育的傳統(參見書目中的 “Really Useful Knowledge”，此作品已由不同的形式出版，是成人及進階教育重要的參考書目)。此外,他也曾擔任兩間成人教育學院的外審委員。一是Fircroft College,另一則是 Birmingham and Northern College, Barnsley當地的工人階級學生可獲得在高層次大學的入學機會，並有機會延續更一般的知識興趣連結到他們的工會活動或個人議程。又例如他在八○年代常在成人教育者的集會中談論文化研究。(的確文化研究中心最早研究文化的形式事實上是源自成人教育的老師– Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson and Richard Hoggart －他們皆曾是成人教育者，其最初的著作都是來自於與工人階級學生的對話。) 不過雖然江森總是教「成人」（尤其是研究生），並沒有在其他大學教授成人，而是直到退休後開始懷念起課堂的教學 (雖然仍指導學生論文) ，他才在Leicester為工人教育協會教了兩年，包括四堂有關二次戰後的當代史。
1. 我們的時光(英國1945年迄今的文化及政治,連結重大變遷與學生的記憶)
2. 新工黨的新意? (由歷史觀點看當代政治及文化)
3. 城市中的認同(城市中如非常多元文化的李斯特中的階級、族群、兩性、性別差異)
4. 展望未來(由不同觀點 – 政治、社會學、生態、科學及文學檢視世界的未來情境。例如我們有幾堂課討論烏托邦/幻滅之城、氣候變遷、全球貧窮、戰爭及核戰)
針對成人教育，他仍希望未來可教其他課程，可能有關教育政治及城市，嘗試理論化某些政治的實踐。
社會運動：和平、反戰工作
所以江森退休後仍活躍於公開的活動,這延續他學術生涯中一直致力連結個人及學生的工作到學術之外的世界面臨的重要議題。他過去曾於不同學術的工會中擔任相當積極的成員,深入參與所謂的「大學改革」。他也一直視教學為一個過程,對學術界及學術界之外的一般知識/權力的關係提出質問。他總是要求學生學習並自學對他們重要的主題,並非根據之前設定的學科規範或知識形式,雖然這也都牽涉到學科規範的工作。不過,身為一個忙碌的學者,他少有時間在學院外參與公共的政治生活,雖然他於七○、八○年代早期是工黨的黨員。
再者，他也涉及公共教育的政治及自八○年代初即成為解除核武運動的會員，成為此運動組織於Leicester的主席及會計，英國中部地區組委會成員，以及國家組織成員。解除核武是英國最大的和平運動，可追遡至五○年代，成為各地追求和平的象徵。江森協助擬定城市、國家及地區的策略，並參與組織遊行及示威活動、寫標語傳單、編輯與設計在地的新聞稿、在學院及學校進行和平的教育、為當地報紙及廣播撰寫專欄及演說。
解除核武運動充份反映江森長期參與和平及反戰工作的歷程：一是他退休及母親逝世後有較多時間參與公共活動，他自認是新手上路充滿熱情，進而有很強的使命感。同時，這個歷程也和美國九一一事件有關係，在阿富汗的戰爭及第二次伊拉克戰爭後，他再次強力參與政治，成為和平及反戰的活動策動者。這包括在英國中部工業區的兩中型城市– Nottingham and Leicester，除了是反戰運動，反對英美入侵伊拉克的活動（the Stop the War Campaign ),他成為解除核武運動的會員（the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)共同組織倫敦反戰大遊行，這成為他公開活動的主要領域。
目前解除核子武器有兩個主要目標：一是說服英國大眾及政府核武的現代化是和非擴散協定及解除核武的行動相衝突;其二是訴諸國際傳媒，使政府及人民同意Nuclear Weapons Convention會破壞國際上的核武,透過不同階段，由不同措施如解除恫嚇與定點的核武導彈。解除核武運動是很廣的運動，涉及成員有政治及宗教人士，但江森特別的興趣在於進行跨文化的對話及在李斯特不同族群社區間加強聯繫合作。不過為反對英國現在政府計畫增加仰賴核能發電，他特別負責寫作、研究及推行反對運動。
在地工作：社會、教育論壇
江森社會實踐的經驗可以讓國內有志於社會改革及教育改革的學人有豐富的參考的價值。最精華的部份是他強調在地的社會實踐，例如他深入參與居住地李斯特（Leicester）的社會論壇及教育論壇。
他是Leicester社會論壇的組委會成員，針對城市政治的議題，連結全球運動及全球新自由主義的其他策略。大體而言，李斯特社會論壇則和社會論壇運動有所雷同，尤其是歐洲社會論壇２００８年於瑞典召開，是世界社會論壇的分支之一。 但這個論壇不足以制衡新自由主義全球化的後果，其重要性是發展另類政策及策略處理全球正面臨的迫切問題。江森雖然對全球的觀點有興趣–尤其是核武／核能及全球私有化的議題－但他委身投入的是在地工作，特別是以城市作為政治單作為出發點。他表示如有機會經驗南台灣相似或相異的城市議題（與鄉村議題）將是非常棒的經驗。
江森身居教育論壇的會議召集人，發展教育的執照授權，致力於推動反對公共學校私有化的運動。一如他的觀察：「李斯特是非常多元的城市，在地出生的小孩許多操持的母語並非英語，這個城市已成為一個亞洲、非洲及東歐移民的中心，也是收容世界各地至英國避難的所在地。 當地已經有大量的白種人及非洲－加勒比海區域的工人階級，以及英國境內最窮的社區，失業率高、兼職率高、低薪受雇者多、單親家庭多。．．．城市的教育雖然較許多大城市好，但在若干社區及學校卻是非常不均等及貧乏。所以底層面臨重大的教育問題。更糟的是這個問題更因政府的政策而更加惡化，尤其是政府欲強推私立學校並使「家長選擇」成為常見的口號。如此的作法將帶來的威脅是使各地教育不夠全面，並增加教育的不平等。李斯特市府的教育主管現在受到嚴格的規則去改善教育不均等的情況或是朝向私有化進行。如同發生在其他英國的城市，這將可能涉及將教育策略交辦給私人公司。」
承上述的觀察，江森投入李斯特的教育論壇（社會論壇的次團體）。論壇關注的是另類教育政策的發展及履行。強調的是學校之間的合作、在地民主的重建，針對有需求地區及教育需要的孩童提出解決的方法。針對這些方向，論壇已詳細設立一個另類的教育計畫，尤其與在地的老師及教師工會合作。這個計畫已被當地主管採用，並得到倫敦官員的重視。(因為新工黨的教育政策逐漸被視不受用)。現在爭取的計畫是為了李斯特學校委員會（Leicester School Board）, 其將是由民主遴選的當地教育國會及政策擬定論壇，將補足英國地方政府不夠民主的問題，提供政治工具再現主要的教育旨趣，包括年輕人等。基本上，江森擔任教育論壇的主席及書記有數年之久，他是團體的主要研究員，例如檢視在英國及美國學校委員會的歷史。 他扮演的一個對教育的市場哲學及其他公共服務的批判者，但也深信公共服務的民主改革有其重要性。
訪問學者姓名:Richard Johnson
學歷:
BA (History) Clare College, Cambridge 1963.
Ph.D. (History) Cambridge University, 1968.
學院經歷:
1966-74講師,社會史,伯明罕大學
1974-80 資深講師,當代文化研究中心,伯明罕大學
1980-87 主任,當代文化研究中心(於1987卸任),伯明罕大學
1987-93兼職資深講師,文化研究暨社會學系,伯明罕大學
1994 兼職高級講師,國際傳播及文化研究中心,諾丁漢川特大學人文學院
1996-2004 升等為文化研究的教授,諾丁漢川特大學人文學院
2004退休；兼職於諾丁漢川特大學人文學院,專事論文指導。
國際研討會、訪學及學術報告發表（1987- 2007）
Cultural Studies (American Modern Languages Association , New Orleans, USA, plenary session with Gayatri Spivak on Cultural Studies)
Cultural Studies (Graduate Centre, CUNY New York USA for consultation with Professor Stanley Aronwitz on cultural studies, following publication of ‘What is Cultural Studies Anyway?’ In US Journal Social Text 3 Day visit?
Cultural Studies (University of Texas, Austin USA, discussions with postgraduate students and faculty, 3 day visit?)
Popular Memory (Erasmus CS Network, Amsterdam),
Nationalism and National Identity (Erasmus CS Network, Tubingen, Germany)
National Heritage and Popular Memory (Amsterdam. Workshop with museum worker with Raphael Samuel and Barbara Henkes)
National Identity (Institute of Empirical Cultural Studies, University of Tubingen, Germany, ‘Compact course’ of one week to advanced students and faculty. Tubingen is a major centre for cultural studies in Germany responsible for renovating the German tradition of Volkskunde or Folklore Studies)
Education Policy (Oxford Brookes University),
Popular Memory and World War II (European University Institute, Fiesole, Near Florence Italy; two day visit with postgraduate seminars while also examining a PhD thesis there))
Teaching Cultural Studies (Berlin)
What is Europe? New Contexts for European Studies (Major International Conference, Warsaw- Plenary address at major European conference)
Sexualities and Nationalities (Department of European Ethnology, Hombolt Uni. Berlin, The Department is a major centre for cultural studies in Germany, One week ‘Compact Course’)
近期參與英國研討會、報告發表及訪學（1998-2008）
Teaching Cultural Studies (University of Sussex)
Schooling and Sexuality (U of Brighton; Open University; Humanities Association UK )
Family and Sexuality (Social History Society UK),
Cultural Studies as a Transdisciplinary Project 'Cultural Returns Conference' (St Hugh's College, Oxford).
Cultural Studies as a Transdisciplinary Project (Media and Cultural Studies Association Conference, Sheffield).
Frontier Masculinities: The Bush/Blair Partnership and anti-terrorist rhetoric (Women and Gender Studies Centre, Warwick University; TCS Seminar, Nottingham Trent University)
Blairism as Passive Revolution (Sociology and Women's Studies, post-grad conference, University of Lancaster)
Gramsci and Religion (Leicester Secular Society)
Politics , Media and the Question of Trust (De Montford University, Politics and Media Group)
（一）目的
本計畫規劃於2009年的春季，力邀英國文化研究領域重要的學者理查江森(Richard Johnson)。江森之於文化研究，至少有兩大重要的貢獻，可供台灣學界參考。一是文化研究系譜的描繪;二是文化研究教學的反思，包括在CCCS近二十年的教學經驗。特別希冀透過江森的來訪，協助學者反思台灣與英國文化研究的研究經驗之異同，並以他的豐富教學研究經驗，促進台灣文化研究各社群及學者的跨校、跨科際交流，例如組織政治大學、交通大學及東華等文化研究單位，共同擬定議程及論壇。以下簡述江森生平、著作及社會實踐。
（二）自／傳記
1939出生到1966之間的江森與大多數英國人的養成過程差不多，有青少年的愛情與煩惱，初高中時是媽媽眼中的好兒子，不是愛耍帥的小伙子，有異性戀的情人，對同性戀有罪的感覺，想做個波布米亞藝術家，關心新左派的動態、搖滾樂、讀Richard Hoggart的《The Use of Literacy》、CND (反核武運動)，1974年開始受到女性主義影響，推動女性運動。
江森從事學術工作前已觀察新左派運動，其歷史學、馬克思主義研究，以及受女性主義和對國際反核武社會運動的影響，反映了當時重要的社會結構及歷史性問題。江森後來接下霍爾於伯明罕文化研究中心的主任缺(Stuart Hall1979離開)，見證此研究中心八十年代被壓迫、收編，最終於1993年，宣告第一次退休(時五十六歲)。江森八十到九十年代學術生涯的轉折，雖然有些戲劇性，但由學術政治的角度來看，正反映某程度的英國文化研究的邊緣精神。當時研究中心面對新自由主義的萌興，文化研究（Cultural Study）則回歸傳統的主流分類中，江森面對這場學術政治的重新集權化、市場化的趨勢，「不只一次辭主任職」。
（三）出版、研究課題
江森在文化研究、教育、歷史及基進歷史學的出版作品咸保持一貫的水準。他總是在學科之間，以及尤其是知識議題與當時的實際的及政治議題的結合處尋求創新的交界點。他總是以有系統性、清楚的及根植於在地脈絡的方式進行寫作。例如他一直強調在自己教育的社會學及歷史作品中，嘗試與老師及政策擬定者對話。從許多可見的實踐，如受邀至外地發表報告及教學，在他作品涉及的不同領域中已得到國內外的重視。江森自己整理個人出版作品的類別，大致涵蓋六大類，充分展現跨領域的精神：
１． 教育政策、歷史及社會學
２．文化研究的理論與方法
３．國族主義、國家認同、國族差異
４． 文化研究教學
５．庶民記憶、歷史評論與衰悼文
６．當代政治與文化、當代歷史，包括國際關係與核子議題
目前的研究興趣則有:
1.文化研究的實作經驗(包括田野工作、歷史方法及論述分析);
2.民族主義及民族認同(有關族群、階級、性別及性，以及在全球、區域及本土尤其城市的脈絡);
3.國際關係，尤指文化面向，如針對恐怖的戰爭及反恐怖主義的論述;
4.核子議題及國際關係，如武器與核子權力。
5. 新自由主義的全球趨勢，以及國家教育制度的改革(如中小型、多數族群的城市的公共教育)。
就研究數量與類別言，江森七○年代的研究和他的博士研究有關，檢視早期的英國社國史及教育政策及管理。八○年代後著作速度驚人，至1993年第一次退休，計有二十七篇，主題涵蓋面向廣泛且深入，其作品更加明顯地呈現文化研究領域「貼近社會脈動、廣闊的跨領域」之特色。例如:教育與庶民政治、反專制主義、歷史書寫的政治、閱讀馬克思、庶民記憶、解除核武運動的媒體再現、以及最經典的文化研究導讀(1983; 1986; 1987)、教育的政治學、英國教育與貨幣主義、媒體生產與消費、休閒文化研究、文化研究與英國研究(國族主義、敘事與認同)、柴契爾主義與英國教育、記憶與認同、基進教育與新左派、日常生活與民族認同等都是江森的研究範疇及課題。由1994年至今，出版成果也是豐碩，有四十一篇之多，研究面向貼近時代的脈絡，包括教育、異性戀及恐同性戀症及學校、文化研究、解讀國家遺蹪、性教育、男子氣概、歐洲認同、監控異性戀、文化研究的教學及認同、文化研究及歷史，反恐修辭、青少年認同、社會主義、布萊爾主義、反後霸權、核武、社區等。值得一提的是，江森由教學及方法論的角度(2004)，說明文化研究實作時的經驗及特殊立場，即融合文化主義及結構主義的雙重典範。並又重讀葛蘭西文化霸權理論(2007)，批判社會理論中針對霸權的討論往後現代、新自由主義靠攏的趨勢。
(四)集體協作的日子：伯明罕文化研究中心（CCCS）
在英國文化研究領域中，伯明罕文化研究中心（CCCS）是英國文化研究的象徵，由Richard Hoggart創立於1964年，這個研究所針對當代文化與經濟之間的關係的各種議題提出許多十分有趣的理論及實證主題，例如年輕人次文化、意識型態理論、女性主義、文學文化、工作場所、傳媒研究、性別研究等。在成立約三十年的歷史中間，研究中心提出許多跨時代的議程及研究成果，成為全球學院中受到期待及推崇的研究中心。本中心一向以跨領域的研究取向見長，已有許多在台灣及國際學界耳熟能詳的代表性研究及學者，例如「霍爾」1968年成為該中心主任。中心有名的是提出文化研究的取向，並因為強調集體研究與寫作的方法，即中心的工作是組織個人研究與集體協作的整合，例如所有的研究生皆受到鼓勵透過他們個人的計畫在座談會中提出實質性的理論見解及政治爭論。此外在非正式的方面，中心內部有許多特殊團體形成，因為共同的興趣及協力出版刊物(Working Papers in Cultural Studies)，例如一些特刊如教育、媒體、傳播、種族等。這些刊物或所謂模板印刷的工作報告在公開後已廣為流傳，對全球學界的深遠影響是建立未來的研究議程（例如美國流行文化、後現代主義的研究），成為文化研究領域學者熟悉及應用於教學上的教材，例如集中於英國改制大學中新的文化研究、媒體研究、傳播研究課程，或是傳統的學科如歷史、社會學、教育及甚至英語系。如此跨領域、民主的集體協作團體使七○年代的伯明罕文化研究中心成為基進的研究重鎮，例如江森有許多與研究生的團體研究及書寫的經驗，他的許多作品實質上是協作而成的（可參見Ann Gray et al. (eds) CCCS Selected Working Papers 2 Vols London: Routledge 2007）。江森自己描述個人於伯明罕文化研究中心的貢獻－即幫助中心建立「伯明罕學派」（The Birmingham School)（以下是摘要自江森在申請諾丁漢川特大學的教授一職時的申請書）：
「我較廣的貢獻是作為一個研究者、作者、老師及研究組織者，為的是建立並發起當代文化研究新的跨領域計畫。．．．當我承接霍爾時，文化研究中心是一個文化研究創新及成長的重鎮，其任務是形成持續的參照點以說明文化研究的發展，例如伯明罕學派。．．．中心的研究生訓練已對我們自己的出版紀錄有所助益（難以生產單獨作者的專書），如此的協作也對知識運作的開創十分具有生產力。文化研究已對英國高等教育的系統及後來的新大學有重大的效應，現今此成果也見於世界的其他國家。
這個任務涉及到生產指標性的文本(例如 the CCCS journal and Hutchinson book series) ，同時重要的是教育的計畫，由中心孕育高等教育、進階教育、成人教育及學校的老師。因此我感覺個人主張的學術的卓越是深深受到我身為老師身份的影響外（包括協力研究的組織、新知識及課程發展的產生），以及我的作者及研究者身份，雖然這些是緊密相關的。
另一個發展文化研究的面向則是服務使新大學課程生效的機制－國家學術奬勵協會（Council For National Academic Awards (CNAA)。此機制已不復存在因為新大學可以授予學位。我則是其中委員會成員，負責參訪及檢視其他英國大學的文化研究及媒體研究課程。這成為正式的督導，更成為一個機制以引發在不同實驗學位間的對話。我們確有權力表示應該改革之處，或甚至結束學位，但我想我們未曾如此做。但我的確了解許多在其他地方的文化研究，並常與我教過課而之後於進修新學位的學生談話。在研究中心，我們做法一致，其就如我之後成為開放大學的庶民文化課程（霍爾於1980成立的文化研究中心）的外審人員。」
因此在伯明罕大學中，當代文化研究中心是個威脅，以及受到經費支出單位的質疑。江森於1974年於研究中心任職起到1987年卸任主任一職,，研究中心的規模非常小 – 從未多於三至四個教學及研究的老師，但總是有三十個以上的研究生以及日漸增多的大學授課。這最主要是起因於大學行政部門的敵意，其由少數單獨學科及保守的知識精神所宰制。研究中心則傾向於與校園中進步運動合作，在當時被視為是偏向學術與其他科層的學生及民主的運動。所以不受到行政部門的歡迎。
江森直接面對跨領域研究面臨的困境,即高教的重組及文化研究的建制化過程中,八○年代接繼霍爾的江森承先啟後，針對當時領域內風行的著作及論述，不斷進行內部批判，尤其他重新建立研究文化史的新研究觀點，樹立了跨領域、學科的模式，個人更在教育的議題上領導協作的團體，協力出版專書。在他成為中心主任時，花許多時間及功夫為研究中心進行有效辯護，反對那些行政部門企圖「重組」或破壞研究中心。但新的學系已面臨改組的壓力，使文化研究被吸納到更為正規的大學教學系統中。在1987大學必須同意一項擴張的計畫，可見中心與社會學系的合併 (是相當有邏輯的夥伴關係)。在當時江森決定不要擔任新的大系中主任，自主管退下後仍在系上待五年。這個決定大半是個人因素－想花多些時間和家人相處，跳脫惱人的工作。大學最終的確於2002年成功關掉文化研究及社會學系，雖然部份是反映經濟大環境中大學經費公共支出，普遍受到評鑑制度(Research Assessment Exercise， RAE)的壓迫(與台灣當前的情境相似)，不過這對大學而言實在是一大損失，因為這個系仍在世界享有盛名，有許多國際學生。其關閉僅凸顯荒謬的市場機制中的基進教育(因為研究中心向來是社科院最賺錢的單位)，仍然跳脫不了行政部門對此中心長期進行政治基進的教育的不滿。
江森社會史的背景，和早期英國戰後左翼的歷史研究、馬克思主義的歷史學及社會運動的研究息息相關，和左翼歷史學者推動的共黨、新左派運動、成人運動、和平與解除核武運動等社會主義脈絡有關。雖然他出身於社會史研究，但早在他任教開始，已經透過不斷的爭論，例如與當時的馬克思歷史研究學霸EP Thompson在歷史工作坊展開激烈的公開辯論。當江森進入伯明罕大學傳統的藝術學院教授社會史任教，伯明罕文化研究中心成立已三年，直到研究中心成立十年後，他受聘為研究中心文化史課程的資深講師。當時的中心主任是霍爾，伯明罕學派的理論立場已確立融合文化主義及結構馬克思主義的雙重典範。反觀江森則有一項知識上的特別貢獻，是他探討當代文化研究、歷史學科規範以及當代的取向之間的相互關係。有許多計畫是教授英國的社會及文化史，針對研究中心的碩士班課程及指導文化史的研究，更涉及書寫，包括教育的當代史、歷史學的當代史以及理論與工人階級文化的當代史。我們也投入與歷史學者的論辯，尤其是透過 Ruskin History Workshop Movement (這是一個針對社會主義及女性主義歷史學者的論壇)，特別關切歷史及記憶、歷史與理論。
歷史研究出身的江森，進入文化研究，比其他學者更殊異的特徵不在於他白人、劍橋的學習生涯。他沒有霍爾來自第三世界的學術精英在第一世界衝撞文化空間的張力。但江森和霍爾其實有某種的相似性，也就是對個人認同/身份的高度察知後，在學術及運動上展開的一種不安現狀的，不斷於邊緣作戰的霸權策略。他一直選擇做權力中心的移民者及陌生人。因為江森一直倡導的CCCS的「好的部份」，就是基於此身於邊緣的特徵。由於他對權力的抵抗，各種實踐中可以看到他拒向權威及保守的傳統靠攏，一直避免將CCCS理想化，因為他在伯明罕的文化研究經驗，對他而言，是一直困惑且矛盾的，例如研究中心知名的學者常令人感到高度野心及恐懼，論述及語言非常抽象艱澀。所以，江森思索著的，有伯明罕經驗，但加上一些不同的，以形成最好的文化研究版本。
（五）教育、講座、社會運動
江森教授學士班課程主要於伯明罕時期。至於碩士以上課程，1970-73於伯明罕藝術系教授歷史與理論。1974-1980 教授文化史，1980-1993 則教授文化理論及認同。在他任內，總計有超過兩百位碩、博士學生曾參與他的碩士課，許多學生後來於大學、學院、學校任教，常以創新的方式開設文化研究的新課程及計畫。總計他指導完成的碩士有10 人，而博士有54人，遍布的學校有: Adelaide (Australia), York, Warwick, Melbourne (Australia), Sheffield, Aston, MacQuarie (Australia) , Birkbeck College, University of London, Goldsmith College, University of London, Glasgow University, East London University, European University Institute (Florence, Italy)。在伯明罕及諾丁漢川特擔任二十五場以上口試官的經驗。他授課及對話的學生來自世界各地，例如台灣、巴西、加納、埃及、中國、葡萄牙、西班牙、馬來西亞等。值得一提的是他津津樂道的伯明罕教學經驗，和研究生之間進行的團體工作，師生集體研究及書寫成為中心日後許多協作成果，也被沿用到後來的新大學。此外他的社會實踐不曾因退休間斷，特別在社會運動、成人教育及城市論壇的領域中。
學院教育
在他的著作中，持續關注的焦點之一是教育問題，包括博士論文。在伯明罕研究中心期間，他總在探討教育如何在社會再生產中扮演一定的角色，從文化研究的觀點（Clarke, Critcher, and Johnson, 1979），江森明確地指出馬克思結構主義與文化主義之間存在概念與政治上的實質差異，在此基礎上，他認為必須彼此能夠藉由認識彼此之異同，尤其在思索工人階級文化的理論問題時。他所主張的「真正受用的知識」(really useful knowledge, 1979)，處理工人階級教育及投票權的議題，延續英國成人教育的基進傳統。他的立場是進步社會運動的弱勢及受壓迫者，成人教育者因此選了邊站，不是僅教一些有用的知識（merely useful knowledge）鞏固富有及優勢一方或維持現狀；而是積極地以教學、知識及教育使個人及團體了解險惡環境的肇因，由彼此經驗的反省中找出策略與理論，超克教育上的劣勢、解決社會上受排擠與歧視的情況，並挑戰經濟及政治上的不平等，受教者因此藉教育而學習自我解放、進而改善社會。
九十年代中，江森任教於所謂的「新大學」（Nottingham Trent University）,雖然受委派的工作是研究及出版,他自認扮演某種知識上的組織者及「打氣者」(enthuser)。他尤其試著與研究生緊密的工作,透過讀書會及討論團體、主導人文學院及基進社會科學的「研究訓練」。他常以個別的方式與許多研究生進行討論，比所指導的學生還多。在這研究訓練的領域有許多仍待改進，部份原因是相對少的同事有指導研究生的經驗。江森作為歷史學者又是文化研究的創新者，使他在學院知識發展中扮演中心角色，針對研究生的工作，他與學院的主管及各研究所的主任有密切的配合。江森總覺得自己是做苦工的人或是學生連絡的對象，主要角色在於促成學生的研究工作。
新大學即類似台灣學院改制的新大學，他有許多的研究，就是關係英國教育體系因著全球新自由主義而再結構的現象，學校由公有轉為私有的趨勢，以及強調數字量化的評鑑等（都和台灣的狀況若合符節）。有趣的變化是江森的頭銜改變，1994年已由資深講師轉換成高級講師(Reader)，並於1996年升等為「教授」。1995-97，他主持博士生的非正式工作坊，針對研究問題而討論，發現新大學的博士研究生常受忽略。1997-99，針對國際文化研究的碩士班，他設計、教授並完成文化理論及政策的課程。1997- 2004，江森與同事（Dr Parvati Raghuram）一起設計一個原創的方案供博士研究生採用，所設計及教授的博士研究實作課程（Research Practice Programme）分成三個模組（modules），供博士生著手研究用，，後來成為研究實作上的證書及學位。從許多角度而言，這方案是嘗試再生產伯明罕研究中心協作的研究生計畫，目的在於建立「研究生公共領域」或論壇使學生能交換訊息及研究的感受，也由有經驗的學生得到實際的研究過程。這個方案得以成功在於接收人文學院內的研究生，包括較基進的社會科學以及人文方面的主題。課程在於介紹社會科學及人文學科中，以質性研究為主的研究法及議題，之後被國家資助的藝術暨人文研究部（Arts and Humanities Research Board ，AHRB）評比為英國人文研究的典範。1998年，他成為英國國立的工作小組成員，專門針對研究人文研究生教育訓練，主要向國務院及國家資助的藝術暨人文研究部提出官方報告，影響研究所的教育訓練的國家政策。此工作會議的貢獻是特別強調以論文為導向的學習準備及支持，而非一般或工作相關的訓練。1999年，他所設計的博士研究的實作課程獲得認可，修課學生可被授與研究證書，至今估計已有一百位博士及哲學碩士。2002-2005 江森與系上其他學者協同教授一門碩士班課程－全球化、認同及科技（Globalization, Identity and Technology，GIT)。 雖然江森也嘗試在人文學院同事間建立較有協作的精神，部份是透過參與不同的方案，包括遺跡研究、國際文化研究、碩士課程（全球化、認同及科技）。即便在教學上的協作有見到成果，但難度較高的是鼓勵那些頂尖學者像研究者及作家般一同協作。江森堅信唯有合作才能促成良好根基的學術創新及某些真材實料的知識內容與社會實用性。在他任職的國際文化研究的研究中心原計畫發展成為一個創新出版的中心，卻只產出兩本著作，一本是江森合著的The Practice of Cultural Studies。這個研究中心之所以未成功，江森認為部份原因是英國學術生活變遷的壓力，部份則是新自由主義的轉變迫使學術朝個人主義及競爭的方向發展。(參見近作 2008 - on the neo-liberal university)。
訪學
江森在許多國家有授課經驗，並經常在歐美地區進行學術的交流活動。 在豐富的教學及訪學經驗中，就他記憶所及，最為頻繁的訪學是在七○年代末到八○年代初年間，身為研究中心一份子及主任銜命「傳播福音」，但也因此族繁不及備載。
他僅就八○年代末後一些訪學提供參考，例如他在八○年代初至意大利四間大學，因為是一篇最早於意大利出版的文章（What is Cultural Studies Anyway?）。其次範圍最廣的訪學是在美國，如、德洲奧斯汀、紐奧良，當時我們中心作品被當地視為某種「社會的」或「物質主義的」文化研究，是相對於某些人認為去政治的後結構取向。事實上這是別人接收他作品時面臨的解讀問題之一，因為江森從未界定個人的姿態為反後結構主義，並且他以為結構／後結構主義傳統的作品是很吸引人的 ，雖然事實上其受到主要的影響是「文化物質主義」。不過這些都構成了江森數次與當代傑出的社會學者Stanley Aronowitz在紐約City University研究中心及奧斯汀大學的文化研究學者進行合作、對話的內容。他更受邀去紐奧良現代語言協會年會（近1988-9年左右)與知名的後結構主義理論家Gayatri Spivak進行對話。
江森參與歐洲主要的文化研究網絡（Erasmus；a Renaissance polymath) 是一個政府資助的合作網絡，遍及歐盟國家，為的是使學生及學者團體參訪其他大學。其中針對文化研究者，中心即在伯明罕大學及Middlesex University。藉此網絡，他參訪過許多歐洲國家。最主要的例子是他曾於德國的訪學，因為伯明罕的作品，他於九○年代初受邀在兩間以「國家認同」研究聞名的大學(Humbolt University in Berlin and the Cultural Studies Centre at Tubingen)授課，進行講座。兩處都是德國文化研究的主要中心，他們機構本身也在庶民研究的傳統上受到肯定。短期教學很吸引人，每天有非常密集的工作，並與同學及教師有長時間的討論，江森認為德國行對他跨國教學的經驗有很大的啟發，不只是保持較緩慢及清楚的表達，因為接收者的母語不是英文。
他也待過丹麥的Roskilde實驗大學，進行短期授課。同時，他在歐陸意大利的大學指導學生。值得一提的是江森和Barbara Henkes of Groningen University and Amsterdam 有長期的協作關係，因為後者是社會歷史學者，也研究記憶及口述歷史。透過Barbara，江森認識在荷蘭的歷史學者及博物館工作者，他才得出版國家認同及記憶 (如法西斯主義)。
成人教育
例如，他是工人教育協會(WEA， The Workers Education Association)兼職的輔導員。WEA是英國最大的成人教育的義工提供及培訓單位，包括一般感興趣的課程及工會與特殊社區的課程。江森在WEA的角色可以追遡他長期以來對成人教育的興趣，例如他最早著作有關庶民教育的傳統(參見書目中的 “Really Useful Knowledge”，此作品已由不同的形式出版，是成人及進階教育重要的參考書目)。此外,他也曾擔任兩間成人教育學院的外審委員。一是Fircroft College,另一則是 Birmingham and Northern College, Barnsley當地的工人階級學生可獲得在高層次大學的入學機會，並有機會延續更一般的知識興趣連結到他們的工會活動或個人議程。又例如他在八○年代常在成人教育者的集會中談論文化研究。(的確文化研究中心最早研究文化的形式事實上是源自成人教育的老師– Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson and Richard Hoggart －他們皆曾是成人教育者，其最初的著作都是來自於與工人階級學生的對話。) 不過雖然江森總是教「成人」（尤其是研究生），並沒有在其他大學教授成人，而是直到退休後開始懷念起課堂的教學 (雖然仍指導學生論文) ，他才在Leicester為工人教育協會教了兩年，包括四堂有關二次戰後的當代史。
1. 我們的時光(英國1945年迄今的文化及政治,連結重大變遷與學生的記憶)
2. 新工黨的新意? (由歷史觀點看當代政治及文化)
3. 城市中的認同(城市中如非常多元文化的李斯特中的階級、族群、兩性、性別差異)
4. 展望未來(由不同觀點 – 政治、社會學、生態、科學及文學檢視世界的未來情境。例如我們有幾堂課討論烏托邦/幻滅之城、氣候變遷、全球貧窮、戰爭及核戰)
針對成人教育，他仍希望未來可教其他課程，可能有關教育政治及城市，嘗試理論化某些政治的實踐。
社會運動：和平、反戰工作
所以江森退休後仍活躍於公開的活動,這延續他學術生涯中一直致力連結個人及學生的工作到學術之外的世界面臨的重要議題。他過去曾於不同學術的工會中擔任相當積極的成員,深入參與所謂的「大學改革」。他也一直視教學為一個過程,對學術界及學術界之外的一般知識/權力的關係提出質問。他總是要求學生學習並自學對他們重要的主題,並非根據之前設定的學科規範或知識形式,雖然這也都牽涉到學科規範的工作。不過,身為一個忙碌的學者,他少有時間在學院外參與公共的政治生活,雖然他於七○、八○年代早期是工黨的黨員。
再者，他也涉及公共教育的政治及自八○年代初即成為解除核武運動的會員，成為此運動組織於Leicester的主席及會計，英國中部地區組委會成員，以及國家組織成員。解除核武是英國最大的和平運動，可追遡至五○年代，成為各地追求和平的象徵。江森協助擬定城市、國家及地區的策略，並參與組織遊行及示威活動、寫標語傳單、編輯與設計在地的新聞稿、在學院及學校進行和平的教育、為當地報紙及廣播撰寫專欄及演說。
解除核武運動充份反映江森長期參與和平及反戰工作的歷程：一是他退休及母親逝世後有較多時間參與公共活動，他自認是新手上路充滿熱情，進而有很強的使命感。同時，這個歷程也和美國九一一事件有關係，在阿富汗的戰爭及第二次伊拉克戰爭後，他再次強力參與政治，成為和平及反戰的活動策動者。這包括在英國中部工業區的兩中型城市– Nottingham and Leicester，除了是反戰運動，反對英美入侵伊拉克的活動（the Stop the War Campaign ),他成為解除核武運動的會員（the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)共同組織倫敦反戰大遊行，這成為他公開活動的主要領域。
目前解除核子武器有兩個主要目標：一是說服英國大眾及政府核武的現代化是和非擴散協定及解除核武的行動相衝突;其二是訴諸國際傳媒，使政府及人民同意Nuclear Weapons Convention會破壞國際上的核武,透過不同階段，由不同措施如解除恫嚇與定點的核武導彈。解除核武運動是很廣的運動，涉及成員有政治及宗教人士，但江森特別的興趣在於進行跨文化的對話及在李斯特不同族群社區間加強聯繫合作。不過為反對英國現在政府計畫增加仰賴核能發電，他特別負責寫作、研究及推行反對運動。
在地工作：社會、教育論壇
江森社會實踐的經驗可以讓國內有志於社會改革及教育改革的學人有豐富的參考的價值。最精華的部份是他強調在地的社會實踐，例如他深入參與居住地李斯特（Leicester）的社會論壇及教育論壇。
他是Leicester社會論壇的組委會成員，針對城市政治的議題，連結全球運動及全球新自由主義的其他策略。大體而言，李斯特社會論壇則和社會論壇運動有所雷同，尤其是歐洲社會論壇２００８年於瑞典召開，是世界社會論壇的分支之一。 但這個論壇不足以制衡新自由主義全球化的後果，其重要性是發展另類政策及策略處理全球正面臨的迫切問題。江森雖然對全球的觀點有興趣–尤其是核武／核能及全球私有化的議題－但他委身投入的是在地工作，特別是以城市作為政治單作為出發點。他表示如有機會經驗南台灣相似或相異的城市議題（與鄉村議題）將是非常棒的經驗。
江森身居教育論壇的會議召集人，發展教育的執照授權，致力於推動反對公共學校私有化的運動。一如他的觀察：「李斯特是非常多元的城市，在地出生的小孩許多操持的母語並非英語，這個城市已成為一個亞洲、非洲及東歐移民的中心，也是收容世界各地至英國避難的所在地。 當地已經有大量的白種人及非洲－加勒比海區域的工人階級，以及英國境內最窮的社區，失業率高、兼職率高、低薪受雇者多、單親家庭多。．．．城市的教育雖然較許多大城市好，但在若干社區及學校卻是非常不均等及貧乏。所以底層面臨重大的教育問題。更糟的是這個問題更因政府的政策而更加惡化，尤其是政府欲強推私立學校並使「家長選擇」成為常見的口號。如此的作法將帶來的威脅是使各地教育不夠全面，並增加教育的不平等。李斯特市府的教育主管現在受到嚴格的規則去改善教育不均等的情況或是朝向私有化進行。如同發生在其他英國的城市，這將可能涉及將教育策略交辦給私人公司。」
承上述的觀察，江森投入李斯特的教育論壇（社會論壇的次團體）。論壇關注的是另類教育政策的發展及履行。強調的是學校之間的合作、在地民主的重建，針對有需求地區及教育需要的孩童提出解決的方法。針對這些方向，論壇已詳細設立一個另類的教育計畫，尤其與在地的老師及教師工會合作。這個計畫已被當地主管採用，並得到倫敦官員的重視。(因為新工黨的教育政策逐漸被視不受用)。現在爭取的計畫是為了李斯特學校委員會（Leicester School Board）, 其將是由民主遴選的當地教育國會及政策擬定論壇，將補足英國地方政府不夠民主的問題，提供政治工具再現主要的教育旨趣，包括年輕人等。基本上，江森擔任教育論壇的主席及書記有數年之久，他是團體的主要研究員，例如檢視在英國及美國學校委員會的歷史。 他扮演的一個對教育的市場哲學及其他公共服務的批判者，但也深信公共服務的民主改革有其重要性。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
