For a book named after a theoretical concept, Cold War Orientalism seems undertheorized. Don't get me wrong, Klein has read her theory--she acknowledges Edward W. Said a few times throughout this book--but she doesn't seem particularly interested in "doing" theory. I looked in the index and she brings up Said a whopping three times in her 300 page monograph. Before I get strung up by the rest of the class, I'm also not saying that this book is not smart, or under researched. It's amazing to see a study of such breadth and diversity in such a relatively short book: ranging from Pete Seeger, to Rogers and Hammerstein, to Henry Luce in this study is a testament to Klein's intellectual energy. All I am saying is that this book is a "studies" book much more than it is a theory book. Hell, this book is more of a history book than it is a theory book. And it some ways it is refreshing to read this as a kind of corrective to the High theory, pomo work on globalization such as Homi Bhahba and Spivak, but I can't shake the feeling that this book is not coming clean about the whole story. I am taken by her account of how the American culture industry warmed up the Cold War, but considering that her subject matter is first political--in the broadest and most specific senses-- and focused on the creation of subjectivities, I think she would benefit with a more thorough engagement with (and/or against) theory. The construction of her archive, on the other hand, is fascinating, and definitely my favorite part of the book. While I could care less about musicals,--though I do live on South Pacific Street, which in its own right reinforces her points about the centrality of the Orientialist imaginary in middle-brow American culture--the way she weaves her cultural texts together with Life articles and State Department memos paints culture as a holistic system which, ironically, testifies to theoretical rigor of her analysis, despite her lack of explicit engagement with the ur-texts of the genre. Klein writes from an English department as a generation weaned on theory. And even if we are quick to dismiss theory's contemporary relevance or legibility, I think forgetting our instiutional history would deprive us of razor sharp analyses like Klein's. Even if theory should no longer be our prime focus, if we stop reading it, we will be losing the ability to do excellent "studies" work.
Hi Dave:
ReplyDeleteYour point about the extent to which Klein's book "does" theory hits the target. My guess, frankly, is that the word "Orientalism" was placed in the title for purposes of marketing; it's amazing how powerful a buzzword can be in terms of "placing" a book and selling it.
Like Kathy said last week, we're moving away from the theory portion of our readings and toward the monograph (I think that's the word she used) portion. Klein's work has a similar chronology: it builds its argument upon fifty plus years of theorization about mass culture--even if it doesn't explicitly engage with that theory right in front of us. As a foundation Klein has the luxury of ASSUMING something that people like Adorno and Gramsci had to ARGUE: not only does mass culture sell products, it also sells ideas and ideologies. In the case of much of of the cultural objects that Klein discusses, mass culture sold the public on a dubious war: Korea.
Your point about her archive brings out what's really cool about Klein's argument: the extent to which she's able to make her cause by not only pointing to mass cultural objects like _The King and I_ , but also advertising for nonprofit charities, journalism, news coverage, etc.--in this way she seems to talk about an early form of what's today called synergy. Mass culture, she argues, put ideological positions regarding Asia on the discussion agenda. That's pretty cool. Now if only we could get mass culture to send messages about things besides economic and cultural imperialism, then we'd REALLY have something.