Editing After Exit – Alienation and Counter–Alienation in the Cultures of Cultural Studies Journals

ABSTRACT

The paper addresses the implications for the contemporary academy of changes in the organization of journal editorship. Taking the example of cultural studies and the journal Continuum, it considers the shift from the intimate ‘artisanal’ mode in which many journals have had their origins to more impersonal alienated forms, organized through market or quasi-market relations. A common interpretation of this shift is that it has been driven by the interests of large commercial publishers, who have subordinated editing to the requirements of ‘academic capitalism’. In contrast to this, the paper suggests that the demise of the artisanal mode might be understood through A.O. Hirschman’s concept of ‘exit’. Market or quasi-market forms have not been imposed but rather chosen as a response to a situation in which alienation has already occurred. The perspective allows us to see editorial work ‘after exit’ not as passively driven by external forces, but as involving its own kinds of creative choices. For the case of Continuum, particular tribute is paid in this context to the editorial direction of Brian Shoesmith.

KEYWORDS:

• Journal editing
• Cultural Studies
• Brian Shoesmith
• Tom O’Regan
• A.O. Hirschman

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mark Gibson

Mark Gibson is Associate Dean, Media at RMIT University. He has research interests in the history of media and cultural studies and the relation between culture and economy. He is currently completing a co-authored book, Fringe to Famous, on hybridization between fringe and mainstream cultural production in Australia since the 1970s. He was editor of Continuum from 2002-2015.