In academia, sustaining existing fields of study is not new because scholars constantly produce new knowledge that challenges or supports theoretical and conceptual arguments. However, developing a new field from existing ones with the proponents, scholars, aiming to partially or completely separate from the foundational principles of the sister field has attracted several intellectual debates. Some of these debates, such as the recent one among cultural studies and political economy scholars, have established the extent to which antagonistic discourse could be discerned during the debates, revealing the compatibility or incompatibility of scholars to coexist within the same theoretical and conceptual paradigms because of the claimed existential differences.

In this article, I use the intellectual debate between Nicholas Garnham and Grossberg as well as his colleague (Carey) to illustrate how cultural studies cannot completely dissociate itself from political economy. The debate started with the publication of Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce by Nicholas Garnham (1995a), followed by Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is anybody else bored with this debate? written by Grossberg and published in 1995 as well. In the same year, Nicholas Garnham replied to Grossberg and Carey by defending some of his previous views and countering the views of Grossberg and Carey using different referential strategies (Richardson, 2007). Garnham frequently uses the positive self-presentation referential strategy of ‘our’ to depict the superiority of political economy over cultural studies, while some of the acclaimed weaknesses of cultural studies are used as part of the negative other-presentation referential strategy for substantiating his argument that cultural studies cannot be successful without being connected with political economy.

From the first paper to the third paper, the scholars create the impression that their fields of study are better with the intention of determining an appropriate intellectual hierarchy between them (van Laar, 2010). They specifically exchange information by making claims about certain theoretical bases, conceptual frameworks, stating facts and so forth, towards identifying their main and sub-arguments (Fairclough, 2003) without jettisoning “a more or less explicit or implicit ‘protagonist-antagonist’ organization” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 83). In the words of Laclau & Mouffe (1985), this movement leads them to simultaneously work towards establishing logics of difference and equivalence by using inclusionary and exclusionary approaches. At one point in their debate, the scholars identify the existing differential status of both fields, while at another point, the commonalities between the fields are established.

To really establish the antagonist discourses, in my view, the scholars deploy a polarisation approach. For instance, reductionism is frequently contrasted with economism, production with consumption, and dominant culture with popular culture, while they did not fail to disarticulate false consciousness with different meanings as they did for other elements that support their arguments. Political economy accepts the false consciousness that only the intellectuals have access to the truth, while the field of cultural studies rejects it, which Garnham considers absurd. Apart from this, another main point of disagreement is the structure of power and dominance. Garnham believes that political economy focuses on class-based issues while cultural studies tend to give gender and ethnicity equal standing despite the fact that they predate the capitalist mode of production and are largely influenced by class differences. Economic dominance is the foundation of racial and patriarchal dominance. In this case, Garnham believes that Grossberg and other cultural studies scholars cannot continue to claim that addressing framing or representational issues is sufficient for solving economic dominance. Garnham notes that structural economic problems that lead to disadvantageous representations need to be addressed.

Grossberg (1995) begins his argument by considering Garnham’s criticism as emanating from a misunderstanding of the relationship between cultural studies and political economy. This indicates that Grossberg sees the two within the context of a symbiotic relationship towards the generation of collective benefits to society. Grossberg argues that cultural studies did not reject political economy in the manner in which political economists have been presenting it to their colleagues. Despite this, Grossberg believes that cultural studies in some situations pay much attention to culture while rarely considering the larger economic contexts. However, Grossberg sees Garnham’s criticism as an attempt to reduce cultural studies from its complex nature to a black-and-white nature in an attempt to render the field irrelevant in the larger field of mass communication. Grossberg also draws attention to Garnham’s “critique by absence,” which refers to criticising a position for what it does not do or say. However, this is also out of place given the substantial research that has been done in the field of cultural studies on cultural production, reproduction, and institutions as opposed to just consumption.

Replying to Grossberg, Garnham rejects the claim credited to him that the relation between production and consumption is either simple or stable. “All production and consumption are that of commodities, although I would claim that such production and consumption are increasingly dominant—even in the cultural field narrowly defined—and that they take place in different sites which are articulated in specific ways” (p. 96). Grossberg continues to ponder what, if any, distinction exists between popular culture and dominant culture. Grossberg considers the distinction between popular culture and dominant culture in the context of capitalism. He argues that cultural studies are engaged with people’s experiences and the way to resist subordination, which is essential for overcoming power structures created by political economy and cultural studies.