The Evolution of Cultural Studies: From Emergence to Contemporary Approaches

Cultural studies is not a discipline in the traditional sense – it doesn’t have a single founding text, a unified method, or a clearly bounded subject matter. What it does have is a rich, contentious history rooted in a specific moment of social upheaval, a handful of deeply committed thinkers, and an enduring question: what does culture do to people, and what can people do with culture? Understanding where cultural studies came from helps explain why it remains one of the most intellectually alive and politically engaged fields in the humanities today.

The social and intellectual climate that made cultural studies possible 🔗

Cultural studies did not emerge in a vacuum. It was a direct response to the social, economic, and cultural transformations of post-World War II Britain. Older students were entering universities, rigid class structures were beginning to break down, and multiculturalism was growing in ways that existing academic disciplines – literature, sociology, history – were ill-equipped to address. At the same time, mass media, advertising, and consumer culture were reshaping everyday life at an unprecedented pace. The traditional tools of literary criticism, which focused on canonical “high” art and texts, seemed inadequate to make sense of this new cultural landscape. A new kind of inquiry was needed – one that could take popular culture, working-class experience, and media seriously as objects of analysis.

The intellectual groundwork for this shift was laid, in part, by thinkers associated with the British New Left. Scholars like Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, and E.P. Thompson shared a commitment to critiquing modern culture while valorizing working-class traditions and forms of resistance. Their work did not merely describe culture – it argued that culture was a site of struggle, where power, class, and identity were contested and reproduced.

Richard Hoggart and the founding of the CCCS 🔗

The institutional birth of cultural studies is most closely associated with Richard Hoggart. A critical moment in the establishment of cultural studies as a field came when Hoggart used the term in 1964 in founding the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham – the world’s first institutional home of the discipline. Hoggart, who served as the Centre’s first director, was known for his landmark 1957 book The Uses of Literacy, which examined how working-class people in England interacted with mass media and how that interaction was reshaping their values, attitudes, and relationships with other classes.

In his inaugural 1963 address, Hoggart challenged the narrowness of how English literature was being taught and outlined a new approach he provisionally called “Literature and Contemporary Cultural Studies” – something with common ground with existing approaches but not identical to any of them. This was a direct challenge to the dominant academic culture of the time, which treated high literature as the only legitimate object of serious study. Hoggart wanted to bring everyday cultural life – popular press, magazines, music, working-class leisure – into the university’s analytical frame.

Raymond Williams and the theoretical foundations 🔗

If Hoggart gave cultural studies its institutional home, Raymond Williams gave it much of its theoretical architecture. Williams was a leading figure of the New Left – an author, academic, cultural theorist, and literary critic whose working-class Welsh background profoundly shaped his intellectual outlook. His most influential early works, Culture and Society (1958) and The Long Revolution (1961), served to map out much of what is now taken as the basic subject area of cultural studies and shaped the understanding of culture that informs those studies.

Williams’ central argument was deceptively simple but enormously consequential: culture is not the exclusive preserve of an educated elite. Williams rejected the narrow conception of culture as “art” in favour of a broader view of culture as “a whole way of life” – a more sociological or anthropological understanding. This meant that television, advertising, sport, and the habits of daily life were as worthy of serious analysis as Shakespeare or Keats.

Key concepts Williams contributed 🔗

Williams developed several concepts that remain central to cultural analysis today. He identified a “structure of feeling” – the area where official consciousness of an era interacts with the lived experience of actually inhabiting that era. He also developed the triadic model of cultural formations: residual (pre-existing traditions that still carry influence), dominant (the central, mainstream cultural norms of a given moment), and emergent (new cultural forms and practices that challenge the dominant). This framework offered scholars a dynamic, historical way to understand cultural change rather than treating culture as a static given. Williams conceptualized culture not as a static or elitist construct but as a dynamic, lived process embedded in the everyday practices and social relations of a community.

The Birmingham Centre: building a discipline 🔗

After Hoggart departed in 1968, the Centre was led by Stuart Hall from 1969 to 1979 – and it was during this period that cultural studies truly came into its own as a globally recognized intellectual movement. Hall brought a rigorous engagement with European social theory into the Centre’s work. Drawing on feminism, structuralism, Marxism – especially the work of Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci – sociology, critical race theory, and post-structuralism, the CCCS pioneered a variety of approaches to studying culture. These included ideological analysis, studies of working-class subcultures, the role of media audiences, feminist cultural research, and the place of race in social and cultural processes.

The Centre’s approach was explicitly interdisciplinary and politically committed. From the beginning, the Birmingham project was oriented toward the crucial political problems of its age – the spotlight on class and ideology derived from an acute sense of the oppressive and systemic effects of class in British society. Research produced there was not merely academic; it sought to understand how culture functioned as a mechanism of power and, potentially, of resistance. Landmark publications like Resistance through Rituals (1975) and Policing the Crisis (1978) became touchstones for how scholars could analyze popular culture in relation to race, class, and state power.

The politics of culture and hegemony 🔗

One of the defining theoretical frameworks the Centre adopted was Gramsci’s concept of hegemony – the idea that dominant groups in society maintain their power not simply through force but through culture, by shaping values, norms, and common sense in ways that make existing power structures seem natural or inevitable. Williams and Hall both drew on Gramsci’s concept of hegemony to argue that the ruling class uses culture to enforce its values – but also that culture can be a site of resistance where subordinate groups challenge dominant ideas. This made cultural studies inherently political: to study culture was to study power.

Expansion beyond Britain: going global 🔗

Cultural studies did not remain confined to Birmingham or even to Britain. A thriving cultural studies scene emerged in Australia from the late 1970s, when several key practitioners emigrated there from the UK after Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister – bringing British cultural studies with them. In the United States, the field expanded considerably from the 1980s onwards as British cultural studies engaged with feminism, poststructuralism, and race, spreading into communication studies, education, sociology, and literature departments. Cultural Studies, the flagship journal of the field, moved to the US when founding editor John Fiske brought it from Australia in 1987.

As the field spread, it also diversified – adapting to different national histories, political contexts, and intellectual traditions. The questions asked in the US were not always the same as those asked in Britain, Australia, or South Asia. This global diffusion was not a simple export of a fixed methodology; it was a process of translation, adaptation, and reinvention.

Cultural studies in India: a distinct trajectory 🔗

India’s engagement with cultural studies has been shaped by its specific historical experience of colonialism, caste, communalism, and postcolonial statehood – giving it a character quite different from its British origins. The most influential strand of Indian cultural studies is associated with the Subaltern Studies Collective, founded in the early 1980s under the leadership of historian Ranajit Guha. The terms “subaltern” and “subaltern studies” entered the vocabulary of postcolonial studies through scholars who explored the political-actor role of common people who constitute the mass population, rather than re-exploring the roles of social and economic elites in the history of India.

The Subaltern Studies Group adopted an anti-essentialist approach – a history “from below” – focused more on what happens among the masses at the base levels of society than among the elite. This was a direct challenge to both colonial historiography, which had centered British perspectives, and nationalist historiography, which tended to celebrate elite Indian leaders while marginalizing peasants, women, Dalits, and other subordinated groups. The term “subaltern” itself was borrowed from the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, but was adapted to address the particular structures of domination – caste, colonial rule, gender – that defined South Asian experience.

Gayatri Spivak and the question of voice 🔗

The Indian strand of cultural studies gained international prominence partly through the work of scholar Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, whose essay Can the Subaltern Speak? became one of the most debated texts in postcolonial and cultural theory. Spivak raised a fundamental challenge: even as subaltern studies scholars tried to recover marginalized voices, the very act of academic representation could inadvertently reproduce the structures of dominance they sought to critique. This question about who speaks, on whose behalf, and through what frameworks remains central to postcolonial cultural studies today.

The development of cultural studies in India also intersected with debates about caste discrimination, religious pluralism, and the politics of language – concerns that British cultural studies, rooted in a society structured primarily around class, did not directly address. Subaltern Studies, which began as a trend in history writing in the 1980s against colonial, nationalist, and Marxist historiography, eventually became a general term for a field of study closely associated with postcolonial and cultural studies, extending its reach far beyond South Asia.

The closure of the CCCS and its enduring legacy 🔗

In the late 1990s, restructuring at the University of Birmingham led to the elimination of CCCS and the creation of a new Department of Cultural Studies and Sociology in 1999. In 2002, the university’s senior administration announced the disestablishment of this department, provoking substantial international outcry. The closure was a blow to the institutional home of the discipline – but it did not slow cultural studies down. By then, the field had taken root in universities across the world and had generated enough intellectual momentum to sustain itself independently of any single institution.

Today, cultural studies continues to evolve – engaging with digital culture, globalization, climate change, and new forms of inequality. Its founding insight remains as relevant as ever: that culture is not a passive reflection of society but an active site where meanings are made, power is exercised, and resistance becomes possible. The legacy of the Birmingham School continues through its archived materials at the Cadbury Research Library and the ongoing scholarly work of its alumni and former faculty, many of whom have shaped cultural studies programs across the globe.

What do you think? Has the shift of cultural studies from a British, class-focused tradition to a global, multi-issue discipline strengthened its analytical power – or made it harder to define what cultural studies actually is? And given how differently cultural studies has developed in places like India compared to its origins in Birmingham, is it still useful to speak of a single field, or are we really dealing with several distinct intellectual traditions that share a name?

References

1. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/ethnic-and-cultural-studies/birmingham-school-centre-contemporary-cultural
2. https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/CSST99.htm
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
4. https://cjc.utppublishing.com/doi/10.22230/cjc.1993v18n1a717
5. https://raymondwilliams.co.uk/about-raymond-williams/
6. https://literariness.org/2017/06/14/key-theories-of-raymond-williams/
7. https://davidbuckingham.net/2019/11/22/raymond-williams-on-culture-and-education-1-culture-and-society-1780-1950/
8. https://doi.org/10.53032/tcl.2025.10.2.29
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Contemporary_Cultural_Studies
10. https://mediatheory.net/raymond-williams/
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaltern_(postcolonialism)
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaltern_Studies
13. https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2020/02/17/subaltern-studies/
14. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/engp16/chapter/minority-subaltern-studies/