Published by Crackers Books,
20 September 2024
https://crackersbooks.com/papercrunch
Research Paper Crunch\\
Putting Culture in its Place? A Critical Engagement with Cultural Political Economy” by Juan Ignacio Staricco
Staricco, J. I. (2016). Putting culture in its place? A critical engagement with cultural political economy. New Political Economy, 21(4), 422-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2016.1195345
The paper “Putting Culture in its Place? A Critical Engagement with Cultural Political Economy” by Juan Ignacio Staricco critically examines the Cultural Political Economy (CPE) approach developed by Ngai-Ling Sum and Bob Jessop. The author focuses on evaluating how well CPE succeeds in integrating the cultural turn into Critical Political Economy (C*PE). Staricco argues that while the incorporation of cultural dimensions into political economy is necessary, CPE’s ontological turn toward culture risks falling into ‘culturalism,’ which undermines the materialist foundations of critical political economy.
Staricco begins by framing CPE within the broader Regulation Approach (RA), a theoretical framework that emphasizes the ways in which capitalism, despite its inherent contradictions, can achieve temporary periods of stability. He then reconstructs the main elements of CPE, highlighting its attempt to deepen C*PE by emphasizing semiotic (meaning-making) processes alongside material conditions. However, Staricco critiques CPE’s overemphasis on semiosis, arguing that it risks reducing material social relations to mere cultural constructs, which he sees as a problematic drift toward post-structuralism.
To substantiate his critique, Staricco examines how CPE has been applied to the analysis of the North Atlantic Financial Crisis (NAFC). He finds that the focus of CPE is disproportionately on the subjective and semiotic interpretations of the crisis, rather than on the objective material conditions that caused it. This, he argues, limits CPE’s critical edge and its ability to provide a comprehensive analysis of capitalist crises.
The paper concludes by suggesting that the Amsterdam School of Transnational Historical Materialism, with its emphasis on class formation and hegemonic projects, offers a more balanced approach to integrating culture into political economy without succumbing to the risks of culturalism. Staricco advocates for a return to the materialist roots of C*PE, proposing that culture be treated as one dimension of capitalist social formations rather than as an ontological foundation.
Overall, the paper is a well-argued critique of CPE, providing a nuanced analysis of the tension between cultural and materialist approaches in political economy. Staricco’s engagement with the theoretical underpinnings of CPE, particularly his focus on the risk of culturalism, contributes to ongoing debates about the role of culture in the study of political economy. His recommendation to explore alternative frameworks like the Amsterdam School is a valuable addition to the discourse on how to advance critical political economy in a more balanced and comprehensive way.
