Abstract

The field of cultural studies is founded upon the belief that there are no essential limits separating theory from practice. Thus, it rejects out of hand a central principle of the West's premodern tradition of thought, which held that political theory must always be tempered by a practical awareness of human nature. The move away from this older belief in natural limits is largely carried out in the name of diversity, a sincere wish to promote openness and tolerance toward the various ends that humans may choose to pursue. Unfortunately, this ground-clearing exercise runs into certain contradictions when it is realized that absolute tolerance can provide no consistent argument against its opposite, extreme intolerance. A more subtle effect of this tolerance, however---and one that I will argue is in evidence in much cultural studies research today---is the inability to ground important political decisions. This inability leads to what Stuart Hall has called a "formalization" of the field: unwilling to commit to a particular practical vision, theory becomes locked within a self-referential sphere, or limits itself to "low risk" practical discussions. This trend towards political ineffectuality, I argue, can only be moderated by subjecting cultural studies' deepest assumptions concerning human nature to philosophical doubt. Following the argument of Leo Strauss, I propose that the most radical challenge to the mainstream of current thought is found in premodern writings. Thus, this thesis is at once a critique of the "present-mindedness" that I have witnessed in cultural studies and a limited defense of past thought.