AHR Forum The Kids Are All Right On the Turning of Cul - PDF document

AHRForumTheKidsAreAllRight:Onthe“Turning”ofCulturalHistory JAMESW.COOKTosituatethisintroduction,itwillbeusefultofocusbrieyonjustwhatcon-stitutedtheculturalturn.VictoriaE.BonnellandLynnHuntUNAFEWWEBSEARCHESFOR geography,Marxisttheorytotranslationstudies.Youwillalsoconrmtheimpactofthisconceptonourpatternsofhistoricaldiscourse.Sincetheearly2000s,ithasguredprominentlyinhundredsofhistoricalmonographs,articles,andreviews;twoAHApresidentialaddresses;atleastthreepreviousForums;andvariousforaintheHispanicAmericanHistoricalReview(1999),theJournalofAmericanHistoryCulturalandSocialHistory(2004),andSocialScienceHistoryDigabitdeeper,though,andadditionalwrinklesbegintoemerge.Oneinvolvesthelonglistofseminalculturalhistoriesinwhichtheconceptneverappeared:fromNatalieDavis’sSocietyandCultureinEarlyModernFrance(1975),LawrenceLevine’sBlackCultureandBlackConsciousness(1977),andCarloGinzburg’sTheCheeseandtheWorms(1982)toRobertDarnton’sTheGreatCatMassacre(1984),JonathanTheMemoryPalaceofMatteoRicci(1984),andJoanWallachScott’sandthePoliticsofHistoryNordidtheconceptachievemuchcurrencyany-whereinourdisciplinebeforetheendofthelastcentury—theverymoment,par-adoxically,whengrowingnumbersofcommentatorsbeganannouncingourtransi-tiontosomethingelse,somethingnowguredassubsequenttoor“beyond”theculturalturn.Whatisatissuehere,then,isnotaground-levelconcept,rstdevelopedintheprocessofculturalhistory,somuchasagenealogicalmastertrope,nowin-creasinglyusedtostandinforculturalhistory.Deningtheturninthiswaydoesnothingtodiminishitssignicance.Infact,thetrope’srecentarrivalhasbeenen-tangledwithatleasttwomajortrends.Aboveall,ithassignaledagrowingdesiretotracktheshiftingcontoursofculturalhistory—andsurveythelargerwhole.Ithasalsosuggestedawillingnesstostepbackandtakestock,tobeginabroadercon-versationaboutwhat“theturn”actuallyaccomplished.RegardlessofhowweanswerVictoriaE.BonnellandLynnHunt,eds.,BeyondtheCulturalTurn:NewDirectionsintheStudyofSocietyandCulture(Berkeley,Calif.,1999).BarbaraWeinstein,“DevelopingInequality,”AHAPresidentialAddress,AmericanHistoricalRe-113,no.1(February2008):1–18;GabrielleM.Spiegel,“TheTaskoftheHistorian,”AHAPres-identialAddress,AmericanHistoricalReview114,no.1(February2009):1–15;“Forum:GeoffACrookedLineAmericanHistoricalReview113,no.2(April2008):391–437;“Revisiting‘Gender:AUsefulCategoryofHistoricalAnalysis,’”AmericanHistoricalReview113,no.5(December2008):1344–1430;“Roundtable:HistoriansandBiography,”AmericanHistoricalRe-114,no.3(June2009):573–661;“Conversation:HistoriansandtheStudyofMaterialCul-AmericanHistoricalReview114,no.5(December2009):1355–1404;“Forum:TheStateinSouthAsianHistory,”AmericanHistoricalReview115,no.2(April2010):405–483;Mexico’sNewCul-turalHistory:¿UnaLuchaLibre?,SpecialIssue,HispanicAmericanHistoricalReview79,no.2(May1999);JournalofAmericanHistory90,no.2(September2003):576–611;CulturalandSocialHistory1,no.1(January2004):94–117,and1,no.2(May2004):201–224;SocialScienceHistory32,no.4(Winter2008):535–593.ImyselfinvokedtheconceptonmultipleoccasionsinJamesW.Cook,LawrenceB.Glickman,andMichaelO’Malley,eds.,TheCulturalTurninU.S.History:Past,PresentandFuture(Chicago,2008).NatalieZemonDavis,SocietyandCultureinEarlyModernFrance(Stanford,Calif.,1975);Law-renceW.Levine,BlackCultureandBlackConsciousness:Afro-AmericanFolkThoughtfromSlaveryto(NewYork,1977);CarloGinzburg,TheCheeseandtheWorms:TheCosmosofaSixteenth-CenturyMiller(Baltimore,1982);RobertDarnton,TheGreatCatMassacre:AndOtherEpisodesinFrenchCulturalHistory(NewYork,1984);JonathanD.Spence,TheMemoryPalaceofMatteoRicci(NewYork,1984);JoanWallachScott,GenderandthePoliticsofHistory(NewYork,1988).OnegoodwaytotrackthispatternisbyrunningaJSTORsearchfor“culturalturn”intheHistoricalReview.Interestingly,theveryrsthitsarefrom1999,thesameyearinwhichBonnellandHuntpublishedBeyondtheCulturalTurn.Threeyearslater,theeditorswerealreadyusingthephraseasanunexplainedtouchstone.See,forexample,theintroductionto“What’sbeyondtheCulturalAmericanHistoricalReview107,no.5(December2002):1475.TheKidsAreAllRight thesequestions,theveryactofposingthemhasmarkedanimportantepistemo-logicalshift.Sincethelate1930s,atleast,culturalhistorianshavepositionedthem-selvesasparadigm-busters:alwayschallengingconventionalassumptions,alwayspushingtowardsomethingnew.Therecenttalkofturns,bycontrast,hasdirectedattentionbackward,towardmorecomprehensiveconceptualinventories,newwavesofself-critiques.Oneusefulresponseistotrackthisburgeoningturntalk—itsdominantnarra-tives,assumptions,andinsights.Atthislatedate,however,itseemsimportanttodomorethansimplyrehearsetheprevailingnarrativesorllthemwithadditionalcon-tent.Indeed,whatweincreasinglylackisaclearandcriticalsenseofhowthistropehasshapedconventionalwisdom,andtowhatlargereffects.Foralltherecenteffortsatgenealogicalprecision,muchofthebestworkhasassumedametonymicequiv-alencebetweenthetropeitself(culturalturn)andthemulti-decadephenomenonitInrecentyears,thisliteraturehasbecomevoluminous.Inadditiontothecitationsinfn.4,seeespeciallyJoyceAppleby,LynnHunt,andMargaretJacob,TellingtheTruthaboutHistory(NewYork,1994);BonnellandHunt,BeyondtheCulturalTurn;RichardBiernacki,“MethodandMetaphoraftertheNewCulturalHistory,”ibid.,62–94;Biernacki,“LanguageandtheShiftfromSignstoPracticesinCulturalInquiry,”HistoryandTheory39,no.3(October2000):289–310;MiriRubin,“WhatIsCulturalHistoryNow?,”inDavidCannadine,ed.,WhatIsHistoryNow?(NewYork,2002),80–94;PeterBurke,WhatIsCulturalHistory?(London,2004);MiguelA.Cabrera,PostsocialHistory:AnIntroductionham,Md.,2004);DaleB.MartinandPatriciaCoxMiller,eds.,TheCulturalTurninLateAncientStudies:Gender,Asceticism,andHistoriography(Durham,N.C.,2005);WilliamH.Sewell,Jr.,LogicsofHistory:SocialTheoryandTransformation(Chicago,2005);GeoffEley,ACrookedLine:FromCulturalHistorytotheHistoryofSociety(AnnArbor,Mich.,2005);RobertM.Burns,ed.,Historiography:CriticalConceptsinHistoricalStudies,vol.4:(London,2006);DanielWickberg,“WhatIstheHistoryofSensi-bilities?OnCulturalHistories,OldandNew,”AmericanHistoricalReview112,no.3(June2007):661–684;KarenHalttunen,ed.,ACompaniontoAmericanCulturalHistory(Malden,Mass.,2008);DanielT.Rodgers,AgeofFracture(Cambridge,Mass.,2011). 1:GoogleLabs“Ngram”forthephrase“culturalturn,”1930to2008.ThelargerdatapoolencompassestextsinEnglishthatweredigitizedbyGooglethrough2011.JamesW.Cook isnowmeanttoreference(culturalhistory).Yetthisassumptionisshotthroughwithpotentialproblems.Oneisthatitoftenproducesamovingtarget:eachnewnarrativetracksasomewhatdifferentsetofconcepts.Anotheristheturn’spropensityforsemanticdodginess:sometimesstandinginforentirespectrumsofculturalap-proaches,atothermomentsreferencingoneparticularapproachwithinalargerAthirdbasicproblemisthetendencytocompressperiodization,suchthat“turning”becomessynonymouswithagenerationalriteofpassage—mosttyp-ically,fromthenewsocialhistoryofthe1970stothenewculturalhistoryoftheInthislattervein,especially,muchoftheworkhasproducedunmarkedformsofsynecdoche,simultaneouslycompressing,attening,andoccludingamuchlongerconceptualhistory.OntheU.S.sidealone,itcompressesatleastfourorvedis-tinctivemodes:fromDepression-eraadvocatesofa“culturalapproach”suchasCar-olineWareandMerleCurti;toColdWar–erachampionsofmythandsymbolhis-toriographylikeHenryNashSmith,LeoMarx,andJohnWilliamWard;tokeyinnovatorsofthe1960sand1970s,includingDavidBrionDavis,WarrenSusman,NeilHarris,HerbertGutman,AnnDouglas,LawrenceLevine,CarrollSmith-Rosenberg,andNathanHuggins;tomorerecentwavesofculturalists,forwhomthenewculturalhistoryofthe1980swasalreadyaconceptualartifact.Curiously,someofthemostprominentrecentcommentatorshaveignoredtheselongertrajectories,producingtheratheroddandmisleadingimpressionthatculturalhistorysimplyroseandfell—stopped—inthecourseofasinglegeneration.Insodoing,theyhavealsoconsolidatedanewdeclensionstory:ambitiousearlyThisdistinctionhastypicallyplayedoutasaseriesofsemanticslippagesbetween“turn”(thatis,ofasinglepractitioner,orwithinaparticularsubeld)and“turn”(encompassinganentiredis-cipline).Yettheseslippagescarryverydifferentmethodologicalassumptions.Byitsveryformulation,“aturn”pushesinthedirectionofmultiplicity,witheachpractitioner(orsubeld)“turning”inavarietyofways.“Theturn,”bycontrast,conjuresabroaderepistemicshift,aswellasamorenormativesetofassumptionsaboutwhattheshiftencompassed.MythinkinghereisindebtedtoMichaelWarner’sdis-cussionof“a”versus“the”publicinPublicsandCounterpublics(Cambridge,Mass.,2002),65–124.ThispatternisespeciallystrongintheworkscitedabovebyBonnell,Hunt,Eley,Sewell,andSpiegel—all“culturalturners”ofthelate1970sandearly1980swhobegantheircareersworkinginotherForafullerportraitofthisoccludedhistory,seeJamesW.CookandLawrenceB.Glickman,“TwelvePropositionsforaHistoryofU.S.CulturalHistory,”inCook,Glickman,andO’Malley,CulturalTurninU.S.History,3–57.SeealsoCarolineF.Ware,ed.,TheCulturalApproachtoHistoryYork,1940);HenryNashSmith,VirginLand:TheAmericanWestasSymbolandMyth(1950;repr.,Cambridge,Mass.,1970);JosephJ.KwiatandMaryC.Turpie,eds.,StudiesinAmericanCultureneapolis,1960);DavidBrionDavis,“SomeRecentDirectionsinAmericanCulturalHistory,”HistoricalReview73,no.3(February1968):696–707;LeoMarx,“AmericanStudies:ADefenseofanUnscienticMethod,”NewLiteraryHistory1,no.1(October1969):75–90;RobertF.Berkhofer,“ClioandtheCultureConcept:SomeImpressionsofaChangingRelationshipinAmericanHistoriography,”inLouisSchneiderandCharlesBonjean,eds.,TheIdeaofCultureintheSocialSciences1973),77–100;AlanTrachtenberg,“MythandSymbol,”MassachusettsReview25,no.4(Winter1984):667–673;MichaelDenning,“TheSpecialAmericanConditions,”AmericanQuarterly38,no.3(1986):356–380;EllenFitzpatrick,“CarolineF.WareandtheCulturalApproachtoHistory,”AmericanQuar-43,no.2(June1991):173–198;DonaldR.Kelley,“TheOldCulturalHistory,”HistoryoftheHuman9,no.3(1996):101–126;BarryShank,“TheContinuingEmbarrassmentofCulture:FromtheCultureConcepttoCulturalStudies,”AmericanStudies38,no.2(Summer1997):95–116;andLucyMaddox,ed.,LocatingAmericanStudies:TheEvolutionofaDiscipline(Baltimore,1999).See,forexample,Appleby,Hunt,andJacob,TellingtheTruthaboutHistory;BonnellandHunt,BeyondtheCulturalTurn;Sewell,LogicsofHistory;PeterMandler,“TheProblemwithCulturalHistory,”CulturalandSocialHistory1,no.1(2004):94–117.EleyandSpiegelhaveadoptedsimilarnarrativesofgenerationalsupersession,butwithfewerdeclensionistovertones.See,forexample,Eley,ACrookedTheKidsAreAllRight agendaslaterchastenedbydisappointments;mid-careerconversionexperiencessub-sequentlytemperedbydisillusionment.Butwhatactuallyhappenedtoallofthoselatter-dayculturalists,thosefourth-andfth-wavepractitionersforwhomthecock-ghts,carnivals,andcatmassacreswerepartoftheirbasichistoricaltraining?theveryleast,itseemsimportanttowritetheseyoungerscholarsintothefamilyromance.Intheprocess,however,wemaydiscoversomethingcrucial:namely,thatthemuch-debated“beyond”hasbeensteadilyunfoldingallaroundus.Oneturn’s“future”isanotherturn’s“now.”HENDIDWEBEGINTOSPEAKin“turns”?Interestingly,beforethe1980s,themorespecicgureofa“culturalturn”appearedpreciselynowhereinthevasthistoryarchivesofJSTOR.Andoverthenextdecade,itappearedonlytwice:rstina1982essaybyMartinMarty,andthenagainina1990essaybyAdelheidvonSalderninInternationalLaborandWorking-ClassHistoryThescarcityofthephraseisintriguing:twolonelyhitsinroughlyhalfamillionpages,andthisduringtheveryperiodoftendescribedas“theturn’s”conceptualapex.AnotherkeylessoninvolvestheparticularwaysinwhichMartyandvonSaldernformulatedtheirturns.Neitherauthor,thatistosay,usedthephraseasgenealogicalshorthand,tostandinforthehistoryofculturalhistory.Nordidtheyemployithistoriographically,toconjuretheshiftingmethodsofaparticulargroup.Atthispoint,rather,theturnsinquestionreferencedmuchbroadershiftsintwentieth-centuryreligiouspractices(Marty)andmasspolitics(vonSaldern).Inbothinstances,theauthors’usesofthephraseseemalmostaccidental—asiftheymightjustaseasilyhavesaid“culturalwatershed”or“culturaltransformation.”Extendthesearchanotheryearortwo,however,andthepatternsbegintochange.Theverynexthitfrom1991isanessayintheJournalofAmericanEthnicbyKathleenNeilsConzen,inwhichshedescribeslargenumbersof“immi-grationhistorians”makingthesame“culturalturn”soevident“inmanyotherareasofourdiscipline.”WithinJSTOR,atleast,thiswastherstpublishedreferencewithclearhistoriographicalovertones.Yetitpointedtoalongerprocess:aturnnowguredasfullyactive.Ina1993reviewessayforLabour/LeTravail,ElizabethBlack-marsimilarlyreferenceda“culturalturninsocialhistory”familiarenoughtobe ,200–203;andGabrielleM.Spiegel,“CommentonACrookedLineAmericanHistoricalReview113,no.2(2008):411–413.BonnellandHunt,“Introduction,”inBonnellandHunt,BeyondtheCulturalTurn,11;Sewell,LogicsofHistory,23.SeealsoWilliamH.Sewell,Jr.,“CrookedLines,”AmericanHistoricalReviewno.2(April2008):393–405,inwhichhelaments“theshapelessbazaar”(403)ofculturalhistoriesproducedintheturn’swake.Myuseofthesetermsismeanttoreferencesomeofthemostwidelyinuentialstudiesofthe1970sandearly1980s:CliffordGeertz,TheInterpretationofCultures(NewYork,1973);Davis,SocietyandCultureinEarlyModernFrance;Darnton,TheGreatCatMassacreMartinE.Marty,“ReligioninAmericasinceMid-Century,”111,no.1(1982):149–163,quotationfrom154;AdelheidvonSaldern,“TheHiddenHistoryofMassCulture,”InternationalLaborandWorking-ClassHistory37(Spring1990):32–40,quotationfrom32.KathleenNeilsConzen,“MainstreamsandSideChannels:TheLocalizationofImmigrantCul-JournalofAmericanEthnicHistory11,no.1(Fall1991):9.ThisessaywasarevisedversionofConzen’spresidentialaddressdeliveredattheApril1991meetingoftheImmigrationHistorySociety.JamesW.Cook contrastedwithpreviousmodesofNewLeftscholarship,chargedbyitscriticswithevadingpolitics,andnallydefendedbyBlackmarherselfasessentialforunder-standingthebroaderdimensionsofcapitalistpower.Oneyearlater,theBritishsociologistDavidChaneystretchedtheconceptfurther,describinga“culturalturn”irreducibletoanyparticulartopic,subeld,ordiscipline.Chaney’spoint,infact,wastocastthisturnasamajordevelopmentinlate-twentieth-centurysocialthought,oneinwhichscoresofnew“cultureconcepts”weresaidtoberisingandfalling,com-petingandcommingling.Thepointofrehearsingthislineageisnottosuggestsomelongerteleology,eachnewhitpushingeverclosertocommoncurrency.Rather,whatthehitsbegintoshowusistheinevitablymessyetymologicalprocessbywhichthetroperstenteredhis-toricaldiscourse.Inher1991essay,ConzenputtheterminquotationmarksandcitedtheintroductiontoLynnHunt’simportantcollectionTheNewCulturalHistory(1989).Atthisstage,though,Hunthadneveractuallyusedthephrase“culturalturn,”optinginsteadtoframeherstoryasaseriesoflocalizeddebateswithinBritishMarxism,theFrenchAnnalesgroup,andcertaincornersofU.S.intellectualandgenderhistory.TotheextentthatHuntevenspokeof“turns”or“turning”in1989,itwasalwaystoreferenceinnovationsguredasjustpriortohertarget:thenewculturalhistory.Thus,the“interestinlanguage”exhibitedbygrowingnumbersofMarxistsmarkedthemas“turning”tosomethingelse—somethingotherthanthedefault“materialism”ofanolder“Marxistagenda.”Butwhensuch“interest”grewintosomethinglarger,somethingclosertoacoreconcern,thesameconceptualex-emplarsresurfaced(transformed)asnewculturalhistorians.Earlyon,then,Huntconjuredmethodologicalritesofpassage:newroutesculturalhistoryratherthanametonymculturalhistory.Chaney,bycontrast,presentedhis1994titleTheCulturalTurnasaself-consciousplayonwords.Thisgure,heexplained,referencednopreexistingmastertrope,nowidelyemployedcatchphrase.Itsspecicintent,rather,wastopunonthesomewhatearliergureofa“linguisticturn,”hereexpandedtoincludeabroaderrangeofcultureconcepts(i.e.,nolongerconnedtowordsandtexts).When,exactly,thissecondturnemerged—orhowitmighthaveintersecteditslinguisticpredecessor—remainedun-resolvedinChaney’sadmittedly“provisional”framework.Inthebook’sopeningpages,hesimplynotedthat“itwouldnotbedifculttoputforwardathesisthatthe...recentfocusonculture”wasafurtherdevelopmentofearlierworkon“thenatureandformsoflanguage.”BetsyBlackmar,“BuildingtheHistoryofWorking-ClassAmerica,”Labour/LeTravail31(Spring1993):327.TheimpetusforBlackmar’sreviewwasthepublicationofWhoBuiltAmerica?WorkingPeopleandtheNation’sEconomy,Politics,Culture,andSociety(NewYork,1989,1992),alandmarktwo-volumecollectionwrittenundertheauspicesoftheAmericanSocialHistoryProject.Hermorespecicreferencetoa“culturalturninsocialhistory”(myemphasis)wasnotentirelyunprecedented.See,forexample,RaphaelSamuel’suseofthesamephrasein“ReadingtheSigns,II:Fact-GrubbersandMind-Readers,”HistoryWorkshopJournal33(Spring1992):220–251,quotationfrom226.DavidChaney,TheCulturalTurn:Scene-SettingEssaysonContemporaryCulturalHistory1994),2.LynnHunt,“Introduction:History,Culture,andText,”inHunt,ed.,TheNewCulturalHistory(Berkeley,Calif.,1989),1–22.Forthereferencesto“turns”and“turning,”see4,5,7.TheCulturalTurn,2.OnekeyreferencepointforChaneywasJohnE.Toews,“IntellectualHistoryaftertheLinguisticTurn:TheAutonomyofMeaningandtheIrreducibilityofExperience,”AmericanHistoricalReviewTheKidsAreAllRight Evenatthisjuncture,however,thereweregrowingindicationsofamorerigorousandexpansivestory.KeytitlesinthisregardwereGeoffEley’s“IsAlltheWorldaText?”(1990)andRaphaelSamuel’s“ReadingtheSigns”(1991)and“ReadingtheSigns,II”(1992),allofwhichsought,quiteexplicitly,topushbeyondthebriefcon-ceptuallineagesofHunt’svolume.ThepointhereisnotsimplythatEleyandSamuelexpandedHunt’sstorywithanumberofadditionalseedbeds(suchastheworkofAntonioGramsci),orthattheytrackedkeyinnovationsmoresystematicallyfromhigh-levelconceptstoground-levelpractices(suchastheshiftingeditorialpol-iciesatHistoryWorkshopJournalSocialHistory,andtheRadicalHistoryReviewNorisitthattheirinventoriesofdeningconceptsissuedfromamuchbroaderrangeofthinkers:RaymondWilliamsaswellasCliffordGeertz;PhilippeArie`saswellasMichelFoucault;EdwardSaidaswellasRogerChartier;CatherineHallaswellasJoanScott.Itisalso,morefundamentally,thatEleyandSamuelengagedtheconceptsthem-selveswithgreaterdepthandcomprehensiveness.Onthecentralquestionof“dis-course,”forinstance,EleydidnotsimplygesturetowardFoucault.Moreambi-tiously,hetrackedthetransatlanticreceptionofFoucault’swork,explicatedthe“dispersedanddecenteredconceptionofpower”thatmadethe“discursivemove”possible,andthenarguedforitsbroaderutilityasan“extraordinarilyfruitful”wayof“theorizingboththeinternalrulesandregularitiesofparticulareldsofknowl-edge(their‘regimesoftruth’)andthemoregeneralstructuresofideasandassump-tionsthatdelimitwhatcanandcannotbethoughtandsaid.”Afewpageslater,hereturnedtotheconcept,butthistimetoconsideritsbroadereffectsonhistoriog-raphy.AfterFoucault,Eleycautioned,bedrockcategoriessuchas“class,”“citizen-ship,”and“society”couldnolongerbe“assumed”orposited“objectively”—in“someunproblematicsocial-sciencesense.”Themorepressingissue,rather,washoweachofthesecategorieshademergedas“anobjectoftheory-knowledge”or“atargetofpolicy.”What,inotherwords,were“thehistoricallylocatedmethods,tech- no.4(October1987):879–907.Foramuchfullertreatmentoftheconcept’soriginsandshiftingcurrency,seeJudithSurkis’sessayinthisforum.GeoffEley,“IsAlltheWorldaText?FromSocialHistorytotheHistoryofSocietyTwoDecadesLater”(CSSTWorkingPaper#55,October1990);RaphaelSamuel,“ReadingtheSigns,”HistoryWork-shopJournal32(Autumn1991):88–109;Samuel,“ReadingtheSigns,II.”TheoriginalcontextforEley’sessaywastheWorkingPaperSeriessponsoredbythePrograminComparativeStudyofSocialTrans-formations(CSST)attheUniversityofMichigan.Theessaywasthenreprintedwithminorrevisionsinasubsequentconferencevolume:TerrenceJ.McDonald,ed.,TheHistoricTurnintheHumanSciences(AnnArbor,Mich.,1996),193–243.Samuel’sessaysrsttookshapeasaneditorialforHistoryWorkshop31(1991).Thisseemstohaveprovokedsubstantialdisagreementsamongtheeditors,however,whichledSamueltoreviseandexpandtheessayintothemuchlonger,two-partseries.Accordingtothenotesfor“ReadingtheSigns,II,”Samuelintendedtwoadditionalessaysinfutureissues.By1992,though,thelargerplanseemstohaveshifted.Asheexplainedin“ReadingtheSigns,II”:“Inordernottotrespassfurtheronreaders’patience,orHistoryWorkshopJournalspace,thethirdofthesearticles,whichisabouthistoryandpost-modernism,willbeplacedelsewhere”(246).AsfarasIamaware,thethirdandfourthpartsneverappeared,althoughsomeoftheseideascanbetrackedtoSamuel’ssub-sequenttwo-volumeTheatresofMemory(London,1994,1998).Despitetheprominentpositionofturn-proneMarxistsinHunt’s1989narrative,Gramsciwassurprisinglyabsent.Nordidshecitemanyofthecentralguresintwentieth-centuryMarxisttheorywhowerewidelydiscussedontheBritishside,suchasGeorgLukacsorValentinVoloshinov.Inotethesepatternsnottoarguefororagainstanyparticularcastofcharacters,buttopointoutsomeofthesurprisinggapsthatwerebuiltintotheturntalkfromtheverybeginning.JamesW.Cook niques,andpracticesthatallowedsuch...categor[ies]tobeconstructedintherstSamuel,too,hadquiteabittosayabout“discourse.”Butinhistelling,thege-nealogicalbranchesextendedevenfurther:rstbackwardtothestructurallinguistEmileBenveniste,whohaddevelopedtheconceptof“discourse”duringthe1930s;thenforwardabit,toFoucault’sBirthoftheClinic(1963),which“vastlyexpanded”Benveniste’sconceptbyapplyingit“toallthoseclassicatoryandnamingdevicesbywhichscienceandauthorityproduceorderoutofchaos”;thenlaterally,toex-tendedcomparisonswithmorphology,deconstruction,semiotics,andhermeneutics(eachofwhich,Samuelinsisted,camewithitsowndistinctivetheoriesabouthowsignsactuallywork);andthenlaterallyonceagain,toasecondroundofcomparisonswithMarx,Gramsci,andAlthusser(Foucault’s“discursiveformations”nowfunc-tioningas“baseandsuperstructure,theoryandpracticerolledintoone”).Evenhere,however,Samuelwasjustwarmingup.Withremarkableerudition(andovermorethansixtyprintedpages),hequicklyperformedsimilarmaneuversonFerdinandSaussureandsemiotics;onRolandBarthesandmythology;onJacquesDerridaanddeconstruction;onCliffordGeertzandsymbolicanthropology;onE.P.Thompsonandclass;onPierreNoraandsitesofmemory;onCarloGinzburgandmicrohis-tory—andonmany,manyothers.Inretrospect,though,muchofthefascinationoftheseessaysstemsnotsimplyfromtheirbreadth,depth,andclarity,butalsofromtheirlingeringopen-endedness.Inbothcases,tobesure,EleyandSamuelreferencedadizzyingassortmentofturns:someofthemlinguistic,someofthemhistoric,someofthemdeconstructiveorantireductionist,someofthemsituatedmorenarrowlywithinintellectual,social,orgenderhistory.“Importantthings,”Eleynoted,“wereclearlyatstake.”Attheendoftheday,however,bothEleyandSamuelchosetorepresentthese“things”withthecapaciousmetaphorsof“readings”and“signs,”“worlds”and“texts.”Andinthissense,atleast,theirtargetswerealwaysmuchlargerthanculturalhistoryitself—new,old,orotherwise.Morethanoriginstoriesforanyparticulareld,thesewereconceptualinventoriesthatspokeofturns(notturn),disciplines(notdiscipline),modes(notmode),unresolvedpossibilities(ratherthanconsolidatingagendas).Al-thoughclearlycommittedtotheworkofcriticalgenealogy,bothauthorsembracedmultitudesandconfessedtheprovisionalstatusoftheirstill-unfoldingstories.Nei-therauthor,signicantly,gavetheslightestindicationthatthestoriesthemselvesmightbecomingtoanend.CANWEEXPLAINtheverydifferentsortofstoryrstventuredintheCulturalTurn,astorynowthickwithovertonesofobsolescence,spectersofsu-persession?Why,inotherwords,thisdramaticrefashioningofthestoryitself:fromtheliveandbracingdebatesofEleyandSamueltothexedandnishedturnofEley,“IsAlltheWorldaText?,”inMcDonald,TheHistoricTurnintheHumanSciences,203–204,Samuel,“ReadingtheSigns”and“ReadingtheSigns,II.”Quotationsfrom“ReadingtheSigns,”101,106.Eley,“IsAlltheWorldaText?,”inMcDonald,TheHistoricTurnintheHumanSciences,198.TheKidsAreAllRight BonnellandHunt?Oneobviouscomplicationhereisthefrequentnarrativeover-laps.Inanopeningfootnote,BonnellandHuntpointedtoEleyastheirprincipalTheyalsomadeitclearthattheywereplowingmuchthesamebasicterrain.BackonceagainwereHaydenWhite’s,CliffordGeertz’sInterpretationofCultures,andMichelFoucault’sDisciplineandPunish;Frenchpost-structuralismandBritishculturalstudies;thoseturn-proneMarxistsandthefourth-generationAnnalistes.Muchthesamecanbesaidaboutthenarrativetrajectories.FollowingEleyandSamuel,BonnellandHuntbuilttheirstoryaroundthe“decliningpower”of“socialexplanation,”morespecicallythe“tried-and-truematerialistmetaphors”centraltomuchpostwarhistoriography.LikeEleyandSamuel,too,BonnellandHuntpre-sentedthe1980sasacriticaltippingpoint,thewatershedmomentinwhich“growingnumbers”ofhistorianscametorejecttheverynotionofcultureas“reective”or“epiphenomenal.”Fundamentalcategories(suchasclassorpoliticalafliation)nowcametobeunderstood“notasprecedingconsciousnessorcultureorlanguage,butasdependinguponthem.”Themostbasicformsofsociallife,theynoted,“onlycameintobeingthroughtheirexpressionsorrepresentations.”ButwhereasEleyandSamuelhadpresentedtheseideasaspartofarapidlyunfoldingstory—stillalivewith“possibilities”—BonnellandHuntnowrecastthemasaformofpriorpractice,asingularturnof“thelastdecades.”Intheprocess,theyalsoconsolidatedthelargernarrative:rst,bysqueezingitscomplexhistoryintoroughlyhalfadozenpages;second,bydistillingaheterodoxrangeofculturalap-proachesintoacoreproposition(namely,thatlanguageandculture“shape”thesocial,thatthereisnosocialbeing“outside”ofcultureandlanguage);third,byorganizingthestoryaroundarisingandfallingepisteme(“theculturalturn”);andnally,byarticulating“disappointment”withthemore“radical”manifestationsofthisturn.Inoneboldstroke,thatistosay,BonnellandHuntsimultaneouslytracedtheturn’soriginsandregrettedsomeofitsimpacts,assembledthefamilyromanceanddeclaredtheromanceover.Thereismoretobesaidaboutthisnarrativetemplate:afast-formingdeclensionstoryinwhichthe“culturalturn”arrivesjustintimetodeliveritsowneulogy.BonnellandHunt,“Introduction,”27n.4.ThisdespitethefactthatEleydidnotactuallyusethephrase“culturalturn”inhis1990essay.Ibid.,1–32,27n.4;HaydenWhite,Metahistory:TheHistoricalImaginationinNineteenth-Century(Baltimore,1973);Geertz,TheInterpretationofCultures;MichelFoucault,DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison(NewYork,1977).Ibid.,9.Ibid.,5.Ibid.,11.ThecontrastherewithHunt’searlierformulationswasparticularlystriking.Consider,forexample,theclosinglinesofher1989introductiontoTheNewCulturalHistory:“Forthemoment,asthisvolumeshows,theaccentinculturalhistoryisoncloseexamination—oftexts,ofpictures,andofactions—andonopen-mindednesstowhatthoseexaminationswillreveal,ratherthanonelaborationofnewmasternarrativesorsocialtheoriestoreplacethematerialistreductionismofMarxismandtheAnnalesschool...Historiansworkingintheculturalmodeshouldnotbediscouragedbytheoreticaldiversity,forwearejustenteringaremarkablenewphasewhentheotherhumansciences(includingespeciallyliterarystudiesbutalsoanthropologyandsociology)arediscoveringusanew...Somedaysoon,presumably,anotherE.H.Carrwillannouncethatthemoreculturalhistoricalstudiesbecomeandthemorehistoricalculturalstudiesbecome,thebetterforboth”(22).Hunt’srstpublishedreferenceto“theculturalturn”cameinherco-authoredbookwithJoyceApplebyandMargaretJacob,TellingtheTruthaboutHistory,221.ThespeciccontextwasapassageJamesW.Cook though,itisworthnotingtheexpandingturntalk.ConsiderJSTORonceagain.IntheyearsimmediatelyfollowingEley’sandSamuel’sessays,publicinvocationsoftheculturalturnremainedquiterare.In1993,therewasagrandtotalofoneexplicitreference.Andoverthenexthalf-decade,theaggregatecurveremainedrelativelyat,rangingfromnohitsin1994tosevenin1998.IntheyearsfollowingBonnellandHunt,bycontrast,thenumbersbegantospikequitenotably,climbingfromtwenty-fourreferencesin2000tofty-eightin2003.Thesereferences,moreover,begantoappearinamuchbroaderrangeofjournals,fromRenaissanceQuarterlyGeschichteundGesellschaft,theWilliamandMaryQuarterly,andtheJournalofMod-ernHistorytotheJournalofAfricanHistory,theCatholicHistoricalReview,thenalofMilitaryHistory,andHistoriaMexicanaItwasatthispoint,too,thatscoresofhistoriansbegantopoachBonnellandHunt’stitlegure,invokingculturalturnsinpoliticalhistoryanddiplomatichistory,urbanhistoryandenvironmentalhistory,ColdWarstudiesandhistoriesofcon-Tosomeextent,ofcourse,suchappropriationsservedtopopularizetheconcept,transformingapreviouslymarginalcatchphraseintoaubiquitoustouch-stone.Witheachpassingreference,however,theconcepttookonadditionalse-manticbaggage.Muchofthenewturntalk,infact,pushedinverydifferentdirec-tions:sometimesemphasizingthe“vastdispersion”ofculturalhistorysaidtobereshapingthelargerdiscipline;sometimescomplainingaboutthe“contemporary devotedtoconceptualretrenchments,withE.P.Thompsononceagainservingasbellwether.Inthiscase,though,thefocuswasnotonThompson’shaving“turnedaway”fromsocioeconomic“reductionism”duringtheearly1960s,butratheronthefactthathelater“drewbackfromthemoreextremepost-modernistpositionsassociatedwiththeculturalturn”(hereexempliedbyhis1978polemic,ThePovertyofTheory).Inveshortyears(1989–1994),thatistosay,Hunt’sbroaderframeworkfortalkingaboutculturalhistoryhadshiftedquitedramatically:frompubliccallsfortheoretical“diversity”toagrowingemphasisontheoreticalzerosums;fromaforward-lookingprocessofconceptual“discovery”toback-ward-lookingcritiquesofmethodological“extremism.”OnemajorsourceofthisgroundswellcanbetracedtothelargenumbersofreviewsofBonnellandHunt.In2002,forexample,theeditorsofthisjournalcommissionednotone,butthreereviewessays,byRonaldSuny,PatrickBrantlinger,andRichardHandler,foraspecialfeaturetitled“What’sbeyondtheCulturalTurn?,”AmericanHistoricalReview107,no.5(December2002):1475–1520.Itisimportanttobeclear,though,thatBonnellandHuntwerenotsolelyresponsibleforexpandingthetrope’scurrency.In1999,thetropealsosurfacedinatleastfourdifferentarticles:CraigClunas,“ModernityGlobalandLocal:ConsumptionandtheRiseoftheWest,”AmericanHistoricalReview104,no.5(December1999):1497–1511;ClaudioLomnitz,“BarbariansattheGate?AFewRemarksonthePoliticsofthe‘NewCulturalHistoryofMexico,’”HispanicAmericanHistoricalReview79,no.2(May1999):367–385;Chris-topherSellers,“Thoreau’sBody:TowardsanEmbodiedEnvironmentalHistory,”EnvironmentalHistory4,no.4(October1999):486–514;andShirleyWilton,“ClassStruggles:TeachingHistoryinthePost-modernAge,”HistoryTeacher33,no.1(November1999):25–32.OtherprominentinvocationscanbefoundinDavidF.Crew,“Who’sAfraidofCulturalStudies?Takinga‘CulturalTurn’inGermanHis-tory,”inScottDenham,IreneKacandes,andJonathanPetropoulos,eds.,AUser’sGuidetoGermanCulturalStudies(AnnArbor,Mich.,1997),45–61;ThomasBender,“Politics,Intellect,andtheAmericanUniversity,1945–1995,”126,no.1(Winter1997):1–38;andGeorgeSteinmetz,ed.,Culture:State-FormationaftertheCulturalTurn(Ithaca,N.Y.,1999).See,forexample,RonaldP.Formisano,“TheConceptofPoliticalCulture,”JournalofInterdis-ciplinaryHistory31,no.3(Winter2001):393–426;KarinaUrbach,“DiplomaticHistorysincetheCul-turalTurn,”HistoricalJournal46,no.4(December2003):991–997;JamesConnolly,“BringingtheCityBackIn:SpaceandPlaceintheUrbanHistoryoftheGildedAgeandProgressiveEra,”JournaloftheGildedAgeandProgressiveEra1,no.3(July2002):258–278;RichardWhite,“Afterword:EnvironmentalHistory:WatchingaHistoricalFieldMature,”PacicHistoricalReview70,no.1(February2001):103–111;RobertGrifth,“TheCulturalTurninColdWarStudies,”ReviewsinAmericanHistory29,no.1(March2001):150–157;andFrankMort,reviewofMatthewHilton,SmokinginBritishPopularCulture,1800–2000:PerfectPleasuresAmericanHistoricalReview108,no.1(February2003):262–263.TheKidsAreAllRight dominionofculturalhistory”overthisorthatsubeld;sometimesconcluding,byextension,thatculturalhistoryconstitutedamethodological“imperialism.”DrewGilpinFaustarguedinoneofthemoreeloquentvariationsonthislattertheme,“WhatIhavefoundsocompellingaboutculturalhistoryduringmythreedecadesintheprofessionisitsemphasisonhowhistoricalactorsconstruetheirexperience—howtheysee,dene,andrespondtotheirworld.Thusformethelensofcultureormeaninglterseveryotherdimensionofexperience,andculturalhis-torytakesonakindofnaturalhistoricalimperialism:Whateverelsemightbehap-pening—politics,economics,technologicalchange—happenstopeoplewhousetheirculturalassumptionsandpredispositionstointerpretit.”Ultimately,though,themostdramaticeffectofBonnellandHunt’svolumewastosparknewandcompetingmasternarrativesfromsomeofthediscipline’sleadingThesenarrativesdeservemorecarefulconsideration.Invirtuallyeverycase,theyhavegeneratedbroadandprominentreviewattention.Inmostcases,too,theyhavebeenfortiedbytheweightofpersonalexperience.WilliamSewell’sicsofHistory(2005),forexample,isequalpartscriticalgenealogyandintellectualautobiography,anoftenbrilliantexplicationofthesamemethodsthatSewellwascentrallyinvolvedindeveloping.Similarly,GabrielleSpiegel’seloquent2008AHApresidentialaddressprovidesanunusuallyrichsynthesisofthemultiplecurrentsofpoststructuralisminhistoricalpractice—asynthesisbolsteredbythefactthatSpiegelwasamongtheveryrsthistorianstodeploythesechallengingideasastheymigratedacrosstheAtlantic.Instructive,too,arethevaryingpointsofemphasisthathavesometimessetthesestoriesapart.Whereassomeauthorshaveruntheirturnsthroughliterarycriticism,Britishculturalstudies,oranthropology,othershavefocusedonkeydevelopmentsingendertheoryorsubalternstudies.WhereassomehavemarkedtheirdebtstoGeertz,Foucault,Williams,orDerrida,othershaveemphasizedtheepistemologicaloverlapsthatproducedcommonmodesofquestioning.Whereassomehavede-scribedtheirturnsassparkedbyagrowingcrisis(e.g.,withinthequantitativesocialhistoryofthe1960sand1970s),othershaveinsistedthatthecrisesthemselvesneedtobeunderstoodinrelationtomuchlarger“macrosocialforces”(e.g.,theglobalriseIamreferringheretobroaderpatternsofhistoriographicalusage.Forspecicexamplesandquotations,seetheremarksbyDavidHollingerandDrewGilpinFaustin“Interchange:ThePracticeofHistory,”JournalofAmericanHistory90,no.2(September2003):589–590,587,respectively;andFormisano,“TheConceptofPoliticalCulture,”394.Faust,in“Interchange:ThePracticeofHistory,”587.ImportantcontributionshereincludeMandler,“TheProblemwithCulturalHistory”;Sewell,icsofHistory;Eley,ACrookedLine;andSpiegel,“TheTaskoftheHistorian.”Thelargercycleextends,aswell,toanumberofpublishedreviewsandcommentariescommissionedinresponsetoBonnellandHunt,Mandler,Eley,andSewell.See,forexample,thereviewessaysbySuny,Brantlinger,andHandlerin“What’sbeyondtheCulturalTurn?”;theresponsestoMandler’sessaybyCarlaHesse,ColinJones,andCarolWattsinCulturalandSocialHistory(April2004);thereviewsofACrookedLinebySewell,Spiegel,andManuGoswamiintheAmericanHistoricalReview(April2008);andthereviewsofofHistorybyGeorgeSteinmetz,DylanRiley,andDavidPederseninSocialScienceHistoryLogicsofHistory,22–80.SeealsoSewell,“CrookedLines.”ItisworthnotingthatSewell’sgenerativeroleinthisprocesswasnotlimitedtohisownpublishedwritings.Assomeoftherecentgenealogiesnote,hewasalsoakeyparticipantinlandmarktheoreticalseminarsatPrinceton(withCliffordGeertz),Paris(withJoanScott),andAnnArbor(withGeoffEley).Spiegel,“TheTaskoftheHistorian.”SeealsoSpiegel,“CommentonACrookedLineJamesW.Cook ofneoliberalism).Andwhereassomehaveinectedtheirturnsastalesofretro-spectivedisappointment,othershaveemphasizedcollectiveaccomplishments,fu-turepossibilities.Notwoturns,then,havepushedinpreciselythesamedirections.Stepbackfromthelargercycle,however,andcertainechoesbecomeapparent.Moststriking,per-haps,aretherecurringdeploymentsoftimeframe(1960stothe1990s),setting(oneoranothercorneroftheEuropeaneld),narrativearc(riseandfall),andauthorialvoice(thegenerational“we”).Striking,too,istheconsiderableextenttowhichthenarrativeshavepivotedaroundmid-career“conversionexperiences”—initiallypur-suedwithgreat“prot,”butultimatelypassedthroughenroutetosomethingelse.Thepointofnotingthesepatternsisnottodisputetheircollectiveresonance.Forthosewho“madetheturn”inthisway,itwasclearlyaprofoundandpowerfulpro-cess.Thesheervolumeofnarrativeredundancy,moreover,suggeststheoutlinesofcollectivememories:agenealogicaltemplateinwhichlargenumbersofformerturn-ershaverecognized(atleastsomeof)theirowntrajectories.Wemightwonderhere,though,abouttheshapingpowerofstandpoint.Ifweweretoshiftthedisciplinarycontext,woulditbepossibletoaltertheplotlinesandtellaverydifferentsortofstory(e.g.,oneunalliedwithasinglegeneration)?How,inotherwords,hasthisretrospectivetemplate—thisgrowingtendencytospeakinanidiomofconversions,turns,andbeyonds—shapedourbroadersenseofculturalhistory:ofwhenitstarted,whoitincluded,whereithappened,andwhatitultimatelybecame?Arethereotherimportantturnslurkingbehindthegenerational“we”?ONSIDERWHATHAPPENSWHENweshiftthenarrativeframetotheeldofU.S.history.Atrstglance,thebroaderpatternsherearenoteasilydisentangledfromtheirEu-ropeancounterparts.Wecouldpoint,forexample,totheroughlycontempora-neousinterestsinsubalternthoughtandritualthatinformedbothNatalieDavis’sSocietyandCultureinModernFrance(1975)andLawrenceLevine’sBlackCultureandBlackConsciousness(1977).Ortheparalleleffortstounpackdominantcate-goriesofcollectiveidentityinJoanScott’sGenderandthePoliticsofHistoryandDavidRoediger’sTheWagesofWhiteness(1991).OrthesharedsensitivitytoshiftingmodesofurbanperceptionthatguidedJudithWalkowitz’sCityofDreadful(1992)andJohnKasson’sRudenessandCivility(1990).Orthegrowingem-phasisontransnationalcirculationthatbegantocrystallizeinPaulGilroy’sTheBlack(1993)andGeorgeLipsitz’sDangerousCrossroadsThespecicinnovationsdrivingtheseprojects,moreover,wereneverconnedTheterm“macrosocialforces”comesfromSewell,LogicsofHistory,22–80.Onthewhole,Bonnell,Hunt,Sewell,andMandlerhavefallenmoresquarelyintothedisap-pointmentcamp.EleyandSpiegel,bycontrast,haveemphasizedgreateraccomplishmentsandpossi-bilitiesinrecentscholarship.CookandGlickman,“TwelvePropositionsforaHistoryofU.S.CulturalHistory.”Thenextfewparagraphsbuilduponportionsofthatessay.SocietyandCultureinModernFrance;Levine,BlackCultureandBlackConsciousness;Scott,GenderandthePoliticsofHistory;DavidR.Roediger,TheWagesofWhiteness:RaceandtheMakingoftheAmericanWorkingClass(London,1991);JudithWalkowitz,CityofDreadfulDelight:NarrativesofSexualDangerinLate-VictorianLondon(Chicago,1992);JohnF.Kasson,RudenessandCivility:MannersinNineteenth-CenturyUrbanAmerica(NewYork,1990);PaulGilroy,TheBlackAtlantic:ModernityandTheKidsAreAllRight toasinglequadrant.AcaseinpointisGeertz’slandmarkessay“ThickDescription:TowardanInterpretiveTheoryofCulture”(1973),whichappearedindozensofsubsequentstudiesbyEuropeanistsandAmericanistsalike:fromSewell’sWorkandRevolutioninFrance(1980),Darnton’sTheGreatCatMassacre(1984),andHunt’sPolitics,Culture,andClassintheFrenchRevolution(1984)toRhysIsaac’sTheTrans-formationofVirginia(1982),RoyRosenzweig’sEightHoursforWhatWeWillandSusanDavis’sParadesandPowerButGeertzwashardlyexceptionalinthisregard.Indeed,onecouldeasilytracksimilarpatternsofcross-talkviaFou-caultondiscourse,Gramscionhegemony,SaidonOrientalism,TheodorAdornoonthecultureindustry,MikhailBakhtinoncarnival,WalterBenjaminontheBenedictAndersononimaginedcommunities,andJudithButlerongender-as-performance—allkeyconceptsthatregularlytraversedtheU.S.andEuropeanThisdoesnotmean,however,thattheturnsinquestionsimplymirroredoneanother.OntheEuropeanside,forinstance,therewasamuchearliersetofen-gagementswiththeculturaldimensionsof“empire,”apatternderivingatleastinpartfromthepathbreakingscholarshipofpostcolonialintellectualssuchasFrantzFanon,Le´opoldSenghor,Aime´Ce´saire,C.L.R.James,andStuartHall.OntheU.S.side,bycontrast,wecantraceamuchwiderrangeofresearcharound“market DoubleConsciousness(NewYork,1993);GeorgeLipsitz,DangerousCrossroads:PopularMusic,Post-modernism,andthePoeticsofPlace(London,1994).WilliamH.Sewell,Jr.,WorkandRevolutioninFrance:TheLanguageofLaborfromtheOldRegimeto1848(Cambridge,1980);Darnton,TheGreatCatMassacre;LynnHunt,Politics,Culture,andClassintheFrenchRevolution(Berkeley,Calif.,1984);RhysIsaac,TheTransformationofVirginia,1740–1790(ChapelHill,N.C.,1982);RoyRosenzweig,EightHoursforWhatWeWill:WorkersandLeisureinanIndustrialCity,1870–1920(Cambridge,1983);SusanG.Davis,ParadesandPower:StreetTheatreinNineteenth-CenturyPhiladelphia(Berkeley,Calif.,1986).Asearlyas1980,RonaldG.Waltersnotedthistrendin“SignsoftheTimes:CliffordGeertzandHistorians,”TheoryandSocialHistory47,no.3(Au-tumn1980):537–556.Fouryearslater,DanielJosephSingaljokinglydescribedGeertzascited“sooften...ithasbecomesomethingofaprofessionalembarrassment”;“BeyondConsensus:RichardHofstadterandAmericanHistoriography,”AmericanHistoricalReview89,no.4(October1984):998.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatculturalhistoriansabsorbedGeertzinpreciselythesameways.See,forexample,RogerChartier’sandRobertDarnton’sheateddebatesfromthesameperiod:Chartier,“Texts,Symbols,andFrenchness,”JournalofModernHistory57,no.4(December1985):682–695;Darnton,“TheSym-bolicElementinHistory,”JournalofModernHistory58,no.1(March1986):218–234.In1989,forexample,HuntdescribedtheresonanceofFoucault’sworkamongherfellowEu-ropeanistsas“undeniablytremendous”;TheNewCulturalHistory,9.Yetthepatternwashardlyre-strictedtoHunt’sowneld.Indeed,formuchofthenextdecade,FoucaultwasaregularpresenceinscoresofU.S.histories,includingMichaelO’Malley’sKeepingWatch:AHistoryofAmericanTimeYork,1990);EricLott’sLoveandTheft:BlackfaceMinstrelsyandtheAmericanWorkingClass(NewYork,1993);ElizabethLunbeck’sThePsychiatricPersuasion:Knowledge,Gender,andPowerinModernAmerica(Princeton,N.J.,1994);GailBederman’sManlinessandCivilization:ACulturalHistoryofGenderandRaceintheUnitedStates,1880–1917(Chicago,1995);GeorgeChauncey’sGayNewYork:Gender,UrbanCulture,andtheMakingoftheGayMaleWorld,1890–1940(NewYork,1994);MichaelMeranze’soratoriesofVirtue:Punishment,Revolution,andAuthorityinPhiladelphia,1760–1835(ChapelHill,N.C.,1996);andKathleenM.Brown’sGoodWives,NastyWenches,andAnxiousPatriarchs:Gender,Race,andPowerinColonialVirginia(ChapelHill,N.C.,1996).Forgeneralintroductionstothislong-runningbodyofwork,seeFrederickCooperandAnnLauraStoler,eds.,TensionsofEmpire:ColonialCulturesinaBourgeoisWorld(Berkeley,Calif.,1997),especially1–56;andCooper,ColonialisminQuestion:Theory,Knowledge,History(Berkeley,Calif.,2005),espe-cially33–55.AlsohelpfulisBillSchwarz’sinterviewwithStuartHall,“BreakingBreadwithHistory:C.L.R.JamesandTheBlackJacobinsHistoryWorkshopJournal46(1998):17–32.Formuchfullertreatmentsoftherecentworkonempire,seethecontributionstothisforumbyDurbaGhoshandGaryJamesW.Cook cultures”and“culturesofconsumption”—agenealogythatgoesbackatleastasfarasthepioneeringscholarshipofWarrenSusman,NeilHarris,JohnKasson,JacksonLears,KarenHalttunen,RichardFox,RolandMarchand,DanielHorowitz,KathyPeiss,Jean-ChristopheAgnew,MichaelDenning,andAnnFabian.Overtime,ofcourse,theseeld-specicstrengthshavetendedtocollapseandcross-pollinate.Butinsodoing,theyhavealsoreectedtheirlocalcontexts.Thus,muchofthefoun-dationalworkonU.S.empirehaspositioneditselfasanexplicitrejoinderto“Amer-icanexceptionalism.”AndmuchofthebestworkonEuropeanconsumerismhastendedtoclusteraroundstudiesof“Americanization”ortheEasternBloc—topicsthatsimplyarenotthinkableinthesamewaysontheU.S.side.Themoststrikingcontrasts,however,canbefoundintherespectiverolesplayedby“class”and“race”ineachcontext.IntheEuropeanturnnarratives,classhaslongoperatedasthecentralcategoryofanalysis.Inmostcases,EuropeanistaccountssingleouttheMarxisthistoriographyofEricHobsbawm,E.P.Thompson,Chris-topherHill,andRaymondWilliamsasfoundational.Theydrawintellectuallineagesfromthepoliticalrevoltsofthelate1960stotherenewedinterestin“historyfrombelow”duringthe1970s.Aboveall,theytracetheoriginsofanewculturalhistorytothepivotalmomentwhenmanysocialandlaborhistoriansbegantodoubtthedeterministicpowerofstructuresandconditions.OntheU.S.side,bycontrast,itissimplyimpossibletotellthisstoryapartfromHereagain,Levine’sBlackCultureandBlackConsciousnessisinstructive.WarrenSusman,CultureasHistory:TheTransformationofAmericanSocietyintheTwentiethCen-(NewYork,1984);NeilHarris,Humbug:TheArtofP.T.Barnum(Boston,1973);JohnF.Kasson,AmusingtheMillion:ConeyIslandattheTurnoftheCentury(NewYork,1978);T.J.JacksonLears,PlaceofGrace:AntimodernismandtheTransformationofAmericanCulture,1880–1920(NewYork,1981);KarenHalttunen,CondenceMenandPaintedWomen:AStudyofMiddle-ClassCultureinAmer-ica,1830–1870(NewHaven,Conn.,1982);RichardWightmanFoxandT.J.JacksonLears,TheCultureofConsumption:CriticalEssaysinAmericanHistory,1880–1980(NewYork,1983);RolandMarchand,AdvertisingtheAmericanDream:MakingWayforModernity,1920–1940(Berkeley,Calif.,1985);DanielTheMoralityofSpending:AttitudestowardtheConsumerSocietyinAmerica,1875–1940timore,1985);KathyPeiss,CheapAmusements:WorkingWomenandLeisureinTurn-of-the-CenturyNew(Philadelphia,1986);Jean-ChristopheAgnew,WorldsApart:TheMarketandtheTheaterinAnglo-AmericanThought,1550–1750(Cambridge,1986);MichaelDenning,MechanicAccents:DimeNovelsandWorking-ClassCultureinAmerica(London,1987);AnnFabian,CardSharps,DreamBooks,andBucketShops:Gamblingin19th-CenturyAmerica(Ithaca,N.Y.,1990).AmyKaplanandDonaldE.Pease,eds.,CulturesofUnitedStatesImperialism(Durham,N.C.,1993);PennyM.VonEschen,RaceagainstEmpire:BlackAmericansandAnticolonialism,1937–1957(Ithaca,N.Y.,1997);MaryA.Renda,TakingHaiti:MilitaryOccupationandtheCultureofU.S.Impe-rialism,1915–1940(ChapelHill,N.C.,2001);AmyKaplan,TheAnarchyofEmpireintheMakingofU.S.(Cambridge,Mass.,2002);PaulA.Kramer,TheBloodofGovernment:Race,Empire,theUnitedStates,andthePhilippines(ChapelHill,N.C.,2006).RichardKuisel,SeducingtheFrench:TheDilemmaofAmericanization(Berkeley,Calif.,1993);ReinholdWagnleitner,Coca-ColonizationandtheColdWar(ChapelHill,N.C.,1997);UtaG.Poiger,Jazz,Rock,andRebels:ColdWarPoliticsandAmericanCultureinaDividedGermany(Berkeley,Calif.,2000);HeideFehrenbachandUtaG.Poiger,eds.,Transactions,Transgressions,Transformations:Amer-icanCultureinWesternEuropeandJapan(NewYork,2000);DavidF.Crew,ed.,ConsumingGermanyintheColdWar(NewYork,2003);VictoriadeGrazia,IrresistibleEmpire:America’sAdvancethroughTwentieth-CenturyEurope(Cambridge,Mass.,2005);JonathanR.Zatlin,TheCurrencyofSocialism:MoneyandPoliticalCultureinEastGermany(NewYork,2007);KatherinePenceandPaulBetts,eds.,SocialistModern:EastGermanEverydayCultureandPolitics(AnnArbor,Mich.,2008).ThemajorexceptionhereisEley,whodevotesmorethantenpagesofACrookedLinetotheearlyworkonraceandempirebyStuartHall,PaulGilroy,RanajitGuha,andGayatriSpivak(138–148).Inpart,thisisbecauseEley’sistheonlyEuropeanistgenealogytoreckonwiththeBirminghamCenterforContemporaryCulturalStudiesandtheSubalternStudiesGroup.FormorerecentstudiesofraceTheKidsAreAllRight Initiatedduringthemid-1960s,asLevinehimselfwasactivelyinvolvedintheU.S.civilrightsmovement,BlackCultureandBlackConsciousnessespousedmanyofthesamebasicassumptionsastheworkoftheBritishMarxists.MuchlikeThompson’sTheMakingoftheEnglishWorkingClass,Levine’sepicstudyof“Afro-Americanfolkthought”wasa“historyfrombelow”thatsoughtnewwaysofconceptualizing“re-sistance.”LikeThompsonaswell,Levineguredcultureasarepertoireof“re-sources”—rituals,traditions,andcustomsthroughwhichanoppositionalpoliticspersevered.ForLevine,however,theseinnovationsemergedfromasomewhatdif-ferentsetofcommitments.AsWalterJohnsonhasnoted,thestrongrhetoricalem-phasison“self-determination”inBlackCultureandBlackConsciousnesshadobviousafnitieswiththecivilrightspoliticsofthelate1960s.Andthe“determinisms”againstwhichLevineframedhisargumentsgenerallycameintheformofpsycho-analytictheoriesofvictimization(e.g.,StanleyElkins’ssomewhatearlierdescriptionoftheantebellumslaveplantationasa“totalinstitution”).Wecanextendthislineofcomparisontothemorediscursivemodesofanalysisthatbegantoourishduringthe1980s.OntheEuropeanside,oneoftheearliesteffortsinthisregardwasGarethStedmanJones’sLanguagesofClass(1983),animportantbutcontroversialstudythatgeneratedenormousdiscussionamongtheBritishNewLeft.AlthoughJones’sworkwascitedwidelybyU.S.laborhistorians,itwouldbedifculttoargueforastrictparallelism—inpartbecausetheoftencon-tentiousdebatesaroundclassandcultureneverachievedthesamecentralityinU.S.Ifweshiftthefocustorace,however,thepatternslookverydifferent.OnlythreeyearsafterthepublicationofLanguagesofClass,MichaelOmiandHowardWinant’slandmarkstudyRacialFormationintheUnitedStates(1986)performedasimilardeconstructivemaneuverbydescribingrace(acategorythathadlongbeenunderstoodasself-evidentlytiedtophysiology)asanideologicalconstructtraceableacrossshiftingpatternsofdiscourse.Overthenextdecade,thisnewwayofthinking andempirebyEuropeanists,seeKathleenPaul,WhitewashingBritain:RaceandCitizenshipinthePostwar(Ithaca,N.Y.,1997);CatherineHall,CivilisingSubjects:MetropoleandColonyintheEnglishImag-ination,1830–1867(Chicago,2002);SonyaO.Rose,WhichPeople’sWar?NationalIdentityandCiti-zenshipinWartimeBritain,1939–1945(NewYork,2004);HeideFehrenbach,RaceafterHitler:BlackOccupationChildreninPostwarGermanyandAmerica(Princeton,N.J.,2005);GaryWilder,TheFrenchImperialNation-State:NegritudeandColonialHumanismbetweentheTwoWorldWars(Chicago,2005);ToddShepard,TheInventionofDecolonization:TheAlgerianWarandtheRemakingofFranceN.Y.,2006);RitaChin,TheGuestWorkerQuestioninPostwarGermany(NewYork,2007);RitaChin,HeideFehrenbach,GeoffEley,andAtinaGrossman,AftertheNaziRacialState:DifferenceandDe-mocracyinGermanyandEurope(AnnArbor,Mich.,2009).WalterJohnson,“OnAgency,”JournalofSocialHistory37,no.1(Autumn2003):113–124.StanleyM.Elkins,Slavery:AProbleminAmericanInstitutionalandIntellectualLife1959).Forhelpfulcontextonthesequestions,seeLawrenceW.Levine’sautobiographicalprefacetothe30thAnniversaryEditionofBlackCultureandBlackConsciousness:Afro-AmericanFolkThoughtfromSlaverytoFreedom(NewYork,2007).Itisimportanttobeclearhere,aswell,thatLevine’sworkwaspartofamuchbroaderwaveoflandmarkAfricanAmericanculturalhistoriesthatincludedstudiesbyJohnBlassingame,NathanHuggins,SterlingStuckey,AlbertRaboteau,DeborahGrayWhite,CharlesJoyner,andNellIrvinPainter(amongmanyothers).Thisrichbodyofwork,muchofitbyAfricanAmericanscholars,isyetanotherimportantsubeldoccludedbytherecentturntalk.GarethStedmanJones,LanguagesofClass:StudiesinEnglishWorkingClassHistory,1832–1982(Cambridge,1983);Eley,ACrookedLine,9.ForexamplesofAmericanistreactionstoJones’swork,seeMichaelH.FrischandDanielJ.Walkowitz,eds.,Working-ClassAmerica:EssaysonLabor,Community,andAmericanSocietyIll.,1983).JamesW.Cook aboutracequicklybecameasignofthetimes,extendingfromAlexanderSaxton’sTheRiseandFalloftheWhiteRepublic(1990),Toma´sAlmaguer’sRacialFaultLines(1994),andKathleenBrown’sGoodWives,NastyWenches,andAnxiousPatriarchs(1996)toNeilFoley’sTheWhiteScourge(1997),PhilipDeloria’sPlayingIndian(1997),andRobertLee’sTheseexamplesillustratesomeofthedangersofourturntalk,thevastexpansesofmajorscholarshipbehindthegenerational“we.”ButthedangersarehardlyuniquetotheU.S.eld.ShiftingtheframetoLatinAmericanhistory,forinstance,revealsaverydifferentconceptionof“thesocial”(heregroundedin“dependencytheory”),politics(focusedmoreexplicitlyonU.S.imperialism),andkeyworksinculturalhistory(almostnoneofwhichappearinthefootnotesoftheleadingEu-ropeanandU.S.creationstories).Shifttheframeagaintotheeldsoflateancientandmedievalhistory,andthedebateslookdifferentstill:thistime,pivotingaroundtheritual-centeredanalysesofinnovatorssuchasPeterBrown,CarolineWalkerBynum,andMiriRubin.Evenhere,though,wearestillseeingonlypartofthelargerpicture.ETUSSHIFTTHEFRAMEonelasttime,butnowtothesomewhatlaterwavesofcul-turaliststhatarrivedafterthe1980s.Thesecohortshaveoccupiedaratheroddgenealogicalposition.Againandagain,thespecicmomentoftheirtraininghasbeendescribedasthehistoriographicalapexoftheturn.Inmanycases,too,theyAlexanderSaxton,TheRiseandFalloftheWhiteRepublic:ClassPoliticsandMassCultureinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica(London,1990);Toma´sAlmaguer,RacialFaultLines:TheHistoricalOriginsofWhiteSupremacyinCalifornia(Berkeley,Calif.,1994);Brown,GoodWives,NastyWenches,andAnx-iousPatriarchs;NeilFoley,TheWhiteScourge:Mexicans,Blacks,andPoorWhitesinTexasCottonCulture(Berkeley,Calif.,1997);PhilipJ.Deloria,PlayingIndian(NewHaven,Conn.,1997);RobertG.Lee,Orientals:AsianAmericansinPopularCulture(Philadelphia,1999).See,forexample,thedebatesthatrunfromWilliamH.Beezley,CherylEnglishMartin,andWil-liamE.French,eds.,RitualsofRule,RitualsofResistance:PublicCelebrationsandPopularCulturein(Wilmington,Del.,1994);toFlorenciaE.Mallon,“ThePromiseandDilemmaofSubalternStudies:PerspectivesfromLatinAmericanHistory,”AmericanHistoricalReview99,no.5(December1994):1491–1515,andStephenH.Haber,“TheWorstofBothWorlds:TheNewCulturalHistoryofMexicanStudies/EstudiosMexicanos13,no.2(Summer1997):363–383;toGilbertM.Joseph,CatherineC.LeGrand,andRicardoD.Salvatore,eds.,CloseEncountersofEmpire:WritingtheCulturalHistoryofU.S.–LatinAmericanRelations(Durham,N.C.,1998);totheessaysbySusanDeans-Smith,GilbertM.Joseph,EricVanYoung,WilliamE.French,MaryKayVaughn,SusanMigdenSocolow,ClaudioLomnitz,andStephenH.HaberinMexico’sNewCulturalHistory:¿UnaLuchaLibre?,SpecialHispanicAmericanHistoricalReview79,no.2(1999).See,forexample,MartinandMiller,TheCulturalTurninLateAncientStudies;Rubin,“WhatIsCulturalHistoryNow?”KeytextshereincludePeterBrown,TheMakingofLateAntiquityMass.,1978);CarolineWalkerBynum,HolyFeastandHolyFast:TheReligiousSignicanceofFoodtoMedievalWomen(Berkeley,Calif.,1987);andMiriRubin,CorpusChristi:TheEucharistinLateMedieval(Cambridge,1991).Thiswouldincludemyowncohorts,rstduringmyyearsasanundergraduatemajorinEuropeanculturalhistoryatPrincetonUniversityfrom1984to1988,andthenasaUC-BerkeleyPh.D.studentinU.S.culturalhistoryfrom1990to1996.See,forexample,Appleby,Hunt,andJacob,TellingtheTruthaboutHistory,whichcitespublicationstatisticsasevidenceoftheculturalturn’sexpansion(219).In“TheNewEmpiricism,”CulturalandSocialHistory1,no.2(May2004):201–207,CarlaHessemakesasimilarpoint,arguingthatculturalhistorywastransformedduringthe1980sand1990sfrom“aminor(albeithighlyprized)sideshowintothemaineventinthebigtentofthehistoricalprofession”(204).InHesse’sversionofevents,however,thisclaimisnotattachedtoadeclensionistnarrative.TheKidsAreAllRight havefoundthemselvesdepictedasakindofmotor:thegraduate-studentground-swelldrivingtheturn’sexpansion.Sewell,forexample,describesthelate1980sasthewatershedmomentwhenculturalhistorybecamethediscipline’s“majorgrowtharea,”attracting“thebeststudentsinthemajorcentersofgraduatetraining.”Alongwithotherkeyindicators(suchasHunt’s1989volume),theseswellingranksofcul-turalistsmarkakindofapotheosisinSewell’snarrative,thepivotalmomentwhenculturalhistory“usurpeddenitivelythehegemonicpositionachievedbysocialhis-toryonlyadecadeearlier.”Forthemostpart,though,thesenarrativeshavehadlittleornothingtosayaboutwhatthe“students”actuallyproduced.Totheextentthattheyciteanyrecentschol-arship(thatis,beyondtheearly1990s),ithastypicallycomeinasinglebundledAndcomparatively,atleast,theretrospectivenarrativeshaveimaginedtheimmediatepastasstrangelyuneventful:alongandplacidepiloguetothe“brac-ingdebates”ofthe1980s.Thissequence,however,elicitsanumberoflingeringquestions.Oneinvolvesthelongerhistoryofthe“students.”Didtheirowntrajec-toriessimplyreplicatethoseoftheirteachers?Andifnot,whatdifferencediditmaketoenterthemixsometimethenewculturalhistory—initsepistemicandpro-fessionalwakes?Ifonecohort’sturnsfoundtheirexpressioninmid-careercon-versionexperiences,whataboutthoseforwhommanyoftheverysameideas,texts,anddebatesweremethodologicalstartingpoints,themoremundanestuffofrst-yeargraduatesyllabi?Thesequestionsrequiremorethanamereextensionofchronology.AsEleyhasobservedinoneofthefewacknowledgmentsofgenerationaldiversity,thosetrainedintheyearsfollowingthe“overheatedpolemics”ofthe1980shavebeen“markedlylessexcited”aboutrehashingtheolder“battles.”Andwithdistance,hesuggests,therehavebeennew“possibilities”forcreativethinking.Whereastherstwavesofturnersmayhavefelttheneedtomaintain“theprogrammaticadvocacyofoneau-thorizingformoftheoryagainstanother,”themorerecentcohortshavebeensome-LogicsofHistory,48.See,forexample,BonnellandHunt,BeyondtheCulturalTurn,32n.31,wheretheythankSaraMazafordrawingtheirattentiontotheimportanceofrecentworkonmaterialculturebyLeoraAus-lander,KenAlder,andJenniferJones.Forexceptionstothispattern,seeEley’sfrequentreferencesto“youngerhistorians”and“youngerpeople”inACrookedLine,158,201,202.Forothergenealogiesthatsimilarlytracktheshiftingboundariesofculturalhistorybeyondthemid-1990s,seePeterBurke,“Afterword:CulturalHistoryintheTwenty-FirstCentury,”inBurke,WhatIsCulturalHistory?,130–143;andJean-ChristopheAgnew,“Capitalism,Culture,andCatastrophe,”inCook,Glickman,andTheCulturalTurninU.S.History,383–416.Wemightwonderaswellaboutthe“macrosocialforces”thathavesometimesdriventhesuper-sessionnarratives.InSewell’sstory,especially,itispreciselytheinabilityofculturalturnerstorespondintellectually,methodologically,orpoliticallytotheshiftingtidesof“worldcapitalism”thathassealedtheeld’sobsolescence.Inhistelling,theturnemergesasastoryofexpiringparadigms,itspractitionersfatedtothinkinnational,Fordist,anddiscursivetermsatamomentwhenthelargerforcesofworldhistorywerepushingtoward“exibleaccumulation,”“globalcirculation,”andtheneedfor“amorerobustsenseofthesocial”(80).Thissequencemakessense,however,onlyifweaccepttwobasicprem-ises:rst,thattheturnitselfwasaboundedgenerationalexperiencethatbeganinthe1960s;andsecond,thatthosewhofollowedinitswakeweresomehownumbtothesocial,economic,political,andculturalchangesunfoldingallaroundthem.Indeed,bythislogic,the“students”ofSewell’sstoryfunctionasakindoflostgeneration:simultaneouslyraisedonanti-apartheidmovements,globalproxywars,NAFTA,IMFprotests,Google,andYouTube,yetstrangelyunabletodevelopamodeofhistoricalquestioningresonantwiththeir“macrosocial”environment.AsItrytodemonstratebelow,muchofthisargumentisbeliedbymajortrendsculturalhistoryoverthepasttwodecades.JamesW.Cook whatfreertocombineandrevise,tocreatetheirownsortsof“hybrids”acrosstheoldermethodological“antinomies.”Wecannotethesedistinctionswithoutdodgingtheaccompanyingcritiques.Inourcurrentpoliticalconjuncture,especially,itishardtoarguewithEley’ssuggestionthat“eventhemostfervent”culturalistswoulddowelltopaymoreattentiontothe“wideningextremesofsocialinequality.”NorwouldmostcurrentpractitionersdisagreewithSewell’scentralcontention:thattheexpanding“juggernautofworldcapitalism”requiressomethingmorethana“purely”discursivemodeofquestion-Methodologically,moreover,whowouldarguewithPeterMandler’srecentcallforcloserattentiontothemacro-level“throw”ofthetextsanddiscoursesweciteas“dominant”?OrSpiegel’swisesuggestionthatwerecasttheculturalitselfasamoreuideldof“semantics,”eachnew“repertoire”ofsignsregularlyremadeand“puttowork”byground-levelactors?Sofar,sogood.Butwhatoftherelatedeffortstoyokethesecriticalimpulsestotalesofsupersession,thecollectivequestforsomething“beyond”?Wemightwonderagain:beyondwhat,exactly?Beyondtheearlystrugglestoestablishlanguage,im-agery,andperceptionastheverystuffofhistoricalanalysis?Absolutely.Beyondtheolder“antinomies”thatpittedculturalagainstsocial,microagainstmacro,subjec-tivityagainststructure?Onecanonlyhope.Beyonda“radically”or“purely”dis-cursivemodeofquestioningnowsaidtodominate“currentpractice”?Well,maybenotsofast.Thisputatively“radical”formofculturalismhasbeenaccusedofmanycrimes.Itthreatensto“obliteratethesocial.”It“displace[s]ourgazefromthepoorandpowerless.”Itfosterstediousconversationsabout“howlittleweknowandhowlittlewecansay.”Sometimesitevensharesa“secretafnitywithanemergentlogicofcapitalistdevelopment.”Itisaspecter,moreover,thatissaidtohaveappearedinmanyguises.Onsomeoccasions,ithasconjuredmethodologicalexcess:aturnpur-suedtoofar.Butithasalsoreferencedabsence:anundertheorized“culturalstud-ACrookedLine,201.Spiegel,too,hasmadeanefforttodemonstratetheshiftingtheoreticalpositionsonthequestionofsemioticdeterminism.See,forexample,hercommentsonPierreBourdieuandAndreasReckwitzin“CommentonACrookedLine,”411–412.ACrookedLine,198.LogicsofHistory,52,62,80.Mandler,“TheProblemwithCulturalHistory,”96–97.Spiegel,“CommentonACrookedLine,”412.BonnellandHunt,BeyondtheCulturalTurn,11;Sewell,LogicsofHistory,52;Mandler,“TheProblemwithCulturalHistory,”94;Sewell,LogicsofHistory,62.Ina2003roundtableintheofAmericanHistory,DavidRoedigernoted(andarguedagainst)asimilarsetofdeclensionistrhetoricsontheU.S.side:“Attheleast,theperceptionofawholesalemovetowardculturalhistory,orevenculturalstudies,hasmatteredgreatlyinconditioninghowU.S.historiansseetheireldanditsproblems.Theeld’s‘turn’isactuallyvariouslydescribed,usuallybydetractors—towardtheliterary,towardthepostmodern,towardthe‘mantra’ofrace,gender,andclass,towardthelinguistic,towardthesubjective,aswellastowardthecultural.Oftenalamentisregisteredalsoforwhathasbeenlost:thepolitical,theeconomic,thesolid.Ihavemydoubtsastotheempiricalvalidityofsuchclaims...Totheextentthatpoliticaleconomysurvives...atall,itoftendoessoinworksthatarefullyalerttoculturalhistoryandtheory.”“Interchange:ThePracticeofHistory,”586.Thismetaphorofexcessisoftensetinoppositiontooneofmethodologicalemaciation:agurative“thinningofthesocial.”Forexamples,seeWilliamH.Sewell,Jr.,“WhateverHappenedtothe‘Social’inSocialHistory?,”inJoanW.ScottandDebraKeates,eds.,SchoolsofThought:Twenty-FiveYearsofInterpretiveSocialScience(Princeton,N.J.,2001),209–226.Hereagain,though,the“thinning”metaphorworksonlyifthestoryendsinthemid-1990s.TheKidsAreAllRight ies”;anempiricallythin“postmodernism.”Followthecitationsbackward,andthepicturebecomesstillmurkier.Inmanycases,theseclaimsarrivewithoutfootnotes.Inothers,theclaimantsciteeachother.Instillothers,wendgrabbagsoftitles,withlandmarkdiscursivestudiessuchasGailBederman’sManlinessandCivilization(1995)andAnnStoler’sRaceandtheEducationofDesire(1995)lumpedtogetherwithhybridsocioculturalhistoriessuchasGeorgeChauncey’sGayNewYork(1994)—morethanhalfofwhichexploresthesocial,political,andcommercialin-stitutionsthatshapedtheverytermsofsexualdiscourse.Eventhesesortsofar-guments,however,arebeliedbythelongercycle.IfwegobacktotheearliestgenealogiesbyHunt,Eley,andSamuel,wendamoremeasuredseriesofportraits.Ineachcase,thatistosay,theauthorswerequicktoemphasizethat“most”oftheearlyturners(themselvesincluded)hadstoppedwellshortofanunalloyed“signreading.”Pullthestoryforward,andwediscoverasimilarsetofcaveats.Spiegel,forexample,hasregularlyemphasizedthelimitedcurrencyof“semioticdeterminism”—bothinpriorpracticeandincurrenttrends.MuchthesamecanbesaidaboutCarlaHesse,whohasarguedforatleastthreebasictrajectoriesofculturalhistory:onecomposedof“neo-idealists”(suchasKeithBaker),whocontend“thatthereisnothing—ornothingknowable—abouthumanexperienceoutsideoflanguage”;asecond,“poststructuralist”camp(exempliedbyJoanScott),whichhaschallenged“theassumptionthatdiscursiveformationsaretheproductofself-conscious,rationalindividuals”;andathird,considerablylargergroup(includingHesseherself)whocontinuetobelievethat“thesocialandcultural[are]mutuallyconstitutive,”that“textandcontextneedtobeunderstoodonanequalfootingandnotasbackgroundandforeground.”Refreshinginthisschemaareitsglimmersofreciprocalbenets.Ratherthaninsistingonconceptualzerosums,Hessedescribestoughbut“productive”debate,anincreasingly“sophisticated”methodologicaldiscourse.Refreshing,too,isherac-knowledgmentofdissonance—thesimplefactthatturnerscoulddisagree.Atrstglance,thismayseementirelyobvious,especiallyinalorecyclesooftencharac-terizedbycombat.Forthemostpart,though,thiscombathasbeenguredasghtsbetweenturnersandtheirothers,insidersandoutsiders,truebelieversandtheun-converted.Andinthisrespect,theyhaveoftenfosteredsucceedingmonoliths:aSee,forexample,BonnellandHunt,“Introduction,”31n.30,whichcitesSewell;orSewell,ofHistory,79,wherehecitesBonnellandHunt.ManlinessandCivilization;AnnLauraStoler,RaceandtheEducationofDesire:Fou-cault’s“HistoryofSexuality”andtheColonialOrderofThings(Durham,N.C.,1995);Sewell,Logicsof,48n.28.IamthinkinghereofpartsIIandIIIofChauncey’sbrilliantstudy,wherehespendsmorethantwohundredpagesembeddingthediscursiveguresfrompartI(“fairy,”“trade,”“wolves,”etc.)inaseriesofdenselydetailedsocial,commercial,andpoliticalcontexts;GayNewYork,131–354.SeeSamuel’sdecidedlyambiguousconclusionto“ReadingtheSigns,II,”inwhichhedescribessemioticsas“awonderfultool,andasplendidprovocationtohistoricalreectionandresearch,”butthengoesontoinsistthat“thehistoricalrecordcannotbereadonlyasasystemofsigns,howeverusefulthatmightbe”(245).Insimilarfashion,Eleydescribedhisownpositionin1990asresolutely“inter-mediate”:atonce“accepting”of“thebasicusefulnessandinterestofpoststructuralisttheory,”butalsoawareofits“realcosts”;“IsAlltheWorldaText?,”inMcDonald,TheHistoricTurnintheHuman,214.Spiegel,“CommentonACrookedLine,”409.SeealsoSpiegel,“TheTaskoftheHistorian,”2–3,3fn.5;andhereditorialcommentsonJoanScott’s“EvidenceofExperience”inGabrielleM.Spiegel,PracticingHistory:NewDirectionsinHistoricalWritingaftertheLinguisticTurn(NewYork,2005),200.Hesse,“TheNewEmpiricism,”205,206.JamesW.Cook one-dimensionalsocialgivingwaytoanequallyattenedcultural,anewculturalhistorysupplantedbyavaguelydenedbeyond.WhatHessehelpsustosee,bycontrast,ismoreoftheground-leveldiversitythathasoftenmade“thecultural”suchastimulatingdisciplinarylocation—aturn,inshort,neverreducibletoasinglemeth-odologicaltrick.What,then,hasthisdissonanceproduced?OntheU.S.side,muchofthebestrecentworkhastendedtoclusterinpreciselythoseareasdescribedas“absent,”“impoverished,”or“neglected”bytheturntalk.Think,forexample,ofthegrowingattentiontocirculatorypatterns(or,ifyoulike,Mandler’s“throw”)developedbyGeorgeLipsitzonglobalhip-hop,NanEnstadonworkingwomen’sconsumption,KirstenSilvaGrueszonLatino/awriting,MarthaSandweissonwesternphotographs,BrentEdwardsonblackinternationalism,MeredithMcGillonserialction,PennyVonEschenonstate-sponsoredjazztours,DavidHenkinonthepostalsystem,ScottCasperonthecommercialbooktrade,andKonstantinDierksonAtlanticletterOrthelong-runningdebatesaroundappropriation,ideology,andcoun-terpublics(inanutshell,Spiegel’s“semantics”)pushedforwardbyMiriamHansenonsilentlm,RobinKelleyonAfricanAmericanyouthcultures,JohnKuoWeiTchenonAsianAmericanperformers,MichaelWarneronearlymodernperiodicals,JohnStaufferonradicalabolitionism,PhilipDeloriaonNativeAmericanlmdi-rectors,andJoannaBrooksonblackauthorship.Or,perhapsmoststrikingly,therecentwavesofturn-savvystudiesofslavery,labor,massproduction,consumerism,andglobalcapitaldevelopedbyKathyPeiss,AmyDruStanley,WalterJohnson,LendolCalder,SvenBeckert,JanetDavis,MichaelZakim,LizabethCohen,BarryDangerousCrossroads;NanEnstad,LadiesofLabor,GirlsofAdventure:WorkingWomen,PopularCulture,andLaborPoliticsattheTurnoftheTwentiethCentury(NewYork,1999);KirstenSilvaAmbassadorsofCulture:TheTransamericanOriginsofLatinoWriting(Princeton,N.J.,2002);MarthaA.Sandweiss,PrinttheLegend:PhotographyandtheAmericanWest(NewHaven,Conn.,2002);BrentHayesEdwards,ThePracticeofDiaspora:Literature,Translation,andtheRiseofBlackInterna-(Cambridge,Mass.,2003);MeredithL.McGill,AmericanLiteratureandtheCultureofRe-printing,1834–1853(Philadelphia,2003);PennyVonEschen,SatchmoBlowsUptheWorld:JazzAm-bassadorsPlaytheColdWar(Cambridge,Mass.,2004);DavidM.Henkin,ThePostalAge:TheEmergenceofModernCommunicationsinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica(Chicago,2007);ScottE.Casper,JeffreyD.Groves,StephenW.Nissenbaum,andMichaelWinship,eds.,TheIndustrialBook,1840–1880Hill,N.C.,2007);andKonstantinDierks,InMyPower:LetterWritingandCommunicationsinEarly(Philadelphia,2009).Mybriefinventoriesherearefarfromcomplete.Atbest,theyrepresenteetingsnapshotsofsubeldsinmotion.IwouldalsoemphasizethattheydonotencompassafullrangeofcurrentconcernsinU.S.culturalhistory.BecauseIamrespondingtospeciccritiqueswithintheturnnarratives,Ihavenecessarilyleftoutmajorareasofscholarshipthathaveguredlessprominentlyinthosenarratives—e.g.,thelargerbodyofexcellentworkonspace/place,empire,andborderlands(allofwhichsimilarlycomplicatesthesocial/culturaldivide).See,forexample,PekkaHa¨inenandSam-uelTruett,“OnBorderlands,”JournalofAmericanHistory98,no.2(September2011):338–361.Finally,itisworthnotingthatmanyofthetitlesinthisparagraphcouldbeslottedintomorethanoneoftheconceptualcategories.Lipsitz’sDangerousCrossroads,forexample,exempliesallthree.ForparallelattentiontopatternsofcirculationinrecentEuropeanculturalhistories,see,forexample,AdrianJohns,TheNatureoftheBook:PrintandKnowledgeintheMaking(Chicago,1998);andPascaleCasanova,WorldRepublicofLetters(Cambridge,Mass.,2004).MiriamHansen,BabelandBabylon:SpectatorshipinAmericanSilentFilm(Cambridge,Mass.,1994);RobinD.G.Kelley,RaceRebels:Culture,Politics,andtheBlackWorkingClass(NewYork,1994);JohnKuoWeiTchen,NewYorkbeforeChinatown:OrientalismandtheShapingofAmericanCulture,1776–1882(Baltimore,1999);MichaelWarner,PublicsandCounterpublics(Cambridge,2002);JohnTheBlackHeartsofMen:RadicalAbolitionistsandtheTransformationofRaceMass.,2002);PhilipJ.Deloria,IndiansinUnexpectedPlaces(Lawrence,Kans.,2004);andJoannaBrooks,“TheEarlyAmericanPublicSphereandtheEmergenceofaBlackPrintCounterpublic,”liamandMaryQuarterly62,no.1(January2005):67–92.TheKidsAreAllRight Shank,WalterFriedman,ScottSandage,CharlesMcGovern,SarahIgo,JaneKamensky,SarahStein,SethRockman,BethanyMoreton,StephenMihm,DavidSuisman,AlexisMcCrossen,LawrenceGlickman,SamuelZipp,BrianLuskey,andAndrewZimmerman(amongmany,manyothers).PerhapsthemostfamiliaroftheseexamplesisWalterJohnson’sSoulbySoul(1999),awidelyinuentialhistoryofantebellumslaverypublishedtheverysameyearasBonnellandHunt.Atrstglance,Johnson’scoresubject(thedomesticU.S.slavetrade),narrativearc(thetranspositionofhumanbeingsintochattel),andrep-ertoireofsources(includingprobateinventoriesandtaxrecords)suggestlittlethatcanbedescribedasstrictlyorobviouslycultural.Theslavesinhisstorydonotspintales,telljokes,orsingmorethanafewshortverses.Theonlyinstitutionthatre-ceivesmuchattentionistheslavemarketitself.Lookabitcloser,though,andtheboundariesbegintoblur.Acaseinpointisthelistof“double-entry”slavesalesthatopenshissecondchapter.Formuchofthetwentiethcentury,historiansmighthaveanalyzedtheselongcolumnsofnames,dates,andpricesthroughastrictlyquantitativelens—orbysomecriterionofeco-nomicnecessity.Historiographicaldebatemighthaveturnedonthebottom-linequestionoftheslavetrade’sprotability—whichinturnmighthavebeenusedtoconstructmuchlargerargumentsfororagainstthe“inevitability”oftheCivilWar.InJohnson’shands,bycontrast,thequantitativedatarevealmoresubtlepersonalKathyPeiss,HopeinaJar:TheMakingofAmerica’sBeautyCulture(NewYork,1998);AmyDruFromBondagetoContract:WageLabor,Marriage,andtheMarketintheAgeofSlaveEman-(NewYork,1998);WalterJohnson,SoulbySoul:LifeinsidetheAntebellumSlaveMarketbridge,Mass.,1999);LendolCalder,FinancingtheAmericanDream:ACulturalHistoryofConsumer(Princeton,N.J.,1999);SvenBeckert,TheMoniedMetropolis:NewYorkCityandtheConsolidationoftheAmericanBourgeoisie,1850–1896(NewYork,2001);JanetM.Davis,TheCircusAge:CultureandSocietyundertheAmericanBigTop(ChapelHill,N.C.,2002);MichaelZakim,Ready-MadeDemocracy:AHistoryofMen’sDressintheAmericanRepublic,1760–1860(Chicago,2003);LizabethCohen,ACon-sumers’Republic:ThePoliticsofMassConsumptioninPostwarAmerica(NewYork,2003);BarryShank,ATokenofMyAffection:GreetingCardsandAmericanBusinessCulture(NewYork,2004);WalterA.BirthofaSalesman(Cambridge,Mass.,2004);ScottA.Sandage,BornLosers:AHistoryofFailureinAmerica(Cambridge,Mass.,2005);CharlesF.McGovern,SoldAmerican:ConsumptionandCitizenship,1890–1945(ChapelHill,N.C.,2006);SarahE.Igo,TheAveragedAmerican:Surveys,Citizens,andtheMakingofaMassPublic(Cambridge,Mass.,2007);JaneKamensky,TheExchangeArtist:ATaleofHigh-FlyingSpeculationandAmerica’sFirstBankingCollapse(NewYork,2008);SarahAbrevayaStein,Plumes:OstrichFeathers,Jews,andaLostWorldofGlobalCommerce(NewHaven,Conn.,2008);SethScrapingBy:WageLabor,Slavery,andSurvivalinEarlyBaltimore(Baltimore,2009);BethanyToServeGodandWal-Mart:TheMakingofChristianFreeEnterprise(Cambridge,Mass.,2009);StephenMihm,ANationofCounterfeiters:Capitalists,ConMen,andtheMakingoftheUnitedStates(Cambridge,Mass.,2009);DavidSuisman,SellingSounds:TheCommercialRevolutioninAmericanMusic(Cambridge,Mass.,2009);AlexisMcCrossen,ed.,LandofNecessity:ConsumerCultureintheUnitedStates–MexicoBorderlands(Durham,N.C.,2009);LawrenceB.Glickman,BuyingPower:AHistoryofConsumerActivisminAmerica(Chicago,2009);SamuelZipp,ManhattanProjects:TheRiseandFallofUrbanRenewalinColdWarNewYork(NewYork,2010);BrianP.Luskey,OntheMake:ClerksandtheQuestforCapitalinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica(NewYork,2010);andAndrewZimmerman,inAfrica:BookerT.Washington,theGermanEmpire,andtheGlobalizationoftheNewSouthN.J.,2010).Thislonglistnecessarilyattensawiderangeofissues:productionandconsumption;slavery,industriallabor,classformation,andentrepreneurship;contracttheory,commodication,marketre-search,andurbanplanning;currencyspeculationandthecultureindustries.Itseemstome,however,thatmuchofthisrecentworkisboundtogetherbyacommonimpulse:tothinkacrosstheconceptualzerosums,tothinkcommerceandculture,marketsandmeanings,together.MyowneffortsinthisregardTheArtsofDeception:PlayingwithFraudintheAgeofBarnum(Cambridge,Mass.,2001)and“TheReturnoftheCultureIndustry,”inCook,Glickman,andO’Malley,TheCulturalTurninU.S.,291–317.JamesW.Cook motives.Inrecordingtheirday-to-daytransactions,slaveholderssimultaneously“makethemselves”andmaketheir“socialworlds.”Inwritingtorelativesabout“makingastart”intheslavemarket,they“translate”the“productiveandrepro-ductivelaboroftheir...slavesintoimagesoftheirownupwardprogress.”Andincomputingthe“necessity”ofindividualpurchases,theydomorethansimplyrespondtothestructuralpressuresofanincreasinglyfar-ungtrade.Moreaccurately,John-sonargues,slaveholders“objectied”these“desiresintonecessities,”thereby“giv-ingculturalmeaningtotheeconomyinpeopleuponwhichtheirlives(oratleasttheirlivelihoods)depended.”Johnsonmakesgoodhereononeofthecentralpromisesofthe1980s:namely,topushbeyond“topics,”toreimaginetheculturalitselfasamorecapaciouseldof“meaning-making.”Buthealsodoesquiteabitmorethanthis.Considerhiscentralgure,“thechattelprinciple.”FirstinvokedbyJ.W.C.Pennington(aformerMarylandslavewhobecameaprominentnorthernabolitionist),this“principle”op-eratesonmanydifferentlevelsinSoulbySoul.Ontheonehand,itisverymuchadiscursiveformationthatcrystallizedsomeofslavery’smosttroublingandessentialquestions.Howwasitpossibletotransposehumanbeingsintofungiblecommod-ities?Whatdiditmeantocreateanentirecategoryofpersonhoodthatcould“bedisruptedaseasilyasapricecouldbeset”?ThefactthatJohnsonbeginswithPen-nington’swordssignalsourentryintoaworldofideas,values,andperceptions—aworldinwhichmuchofthehistoricaldramawilloccurprecisely“between”thelistsofprices.Butnotideas,values,andperceptions.Indeed,atmanyothermoments,John-sondemonstrateswithdevastatingclaritythatPennington’s“principle”wasperhapstheultimatematerialcondition,avastsystemofstructuralconstraint.Drivinghislargerstoryarefar-ungchainsofcommodication:fromnon-elitedriverstowealthybuyersandsellers;fromthemodestcofesoftheUpperSouthtothelargeurbanclearinghousesfarther“downtheriver”;fromthethousandsofdailysalesthatdevastatedblacklivestothefurthertranspositionofthoselivesinwhitewills,gifts,andestatesales;fromtheproperty’sinitialformasa“personwithaprice”toitssubsequentfungibilityascollateralorstart-upcapital.Thishybridmodeofquestioningpointstoarelatedformofcapaciousness:namely,themultiplemeaningsof“market”thatpermeateSoulbySoul.Inmanyinstances,Johnsonusesthistermtodescribeamacro-levelsystem,historicallyvisiblethroughitsaggregatenumbers,cropcycles,legalconventions,anddistributionnet-works.Atothertimes,though,heemploysthesametermtoconjureamorenebuloussetofpressures,atonceconstitutiveof,andshapedby,thevalues,goals,andas-sumptionsofthosewhobuiltthelargersystem.Insodoing,hedrawsourattentiontoaseriesofhistoricalstructuresthatwerealwaysinextricablydoubled:institutionalaswellasideological;materialaswellassemiotic;economicaswellasdiscursive;SoulbySoul,83–86.See,forexample,Hunt’s1989“warnings”abouttheneedtomovebeyonda“culturalhistorydenedtopically”thatmight“degenerateintoanendlesssearchfornewculturalpracticestodescribe,whethercarnivals,catmassacres,orimpotencetrials”;TheNewCulturalHistory,9.“BetweenthePrices”isthetitleofJohnson’ssecondchapter.Seeespeciallychaps.2,3,4,and6ofSoulbySoul:“BetweenthePrices,”“MakingaWorldoutofSlaves,”“TurningPeopleintoProducts,”and“ActsofSale.”TheKidsAreAllRight macroaswellasmicro.Thebook’smostrivetingdramas,however,playoutinstillanothersortofmarket:thenotoriousNewOrleansclearinghousesthatservedasthenalentrepoˆt.Yetevenhere,amongthechains,pens,andauctionblocks,Johnsonpushesforgreaterhistoricalcomplexity,multiplewaysofseeing.Consider,forex-ample,oneofthebook’smostimportantconceptualpassages:Theslavetradedidnotbeginorendinthesameplacefortraders,buyers,andslaves.Forslaves,theslavetradewasoftenmuchmorethananancialexchangeboundedinspaceandtime.Aslavetrader’sshort-termspeculationmighthavebeenaslave’slifelongfear;aone-timeeconomicmiscalculationoratofpiqueonthepartofanownermightleadtoalife-changingsaleforaslave...Comparingthesourcesproducedbythoseondifferentsidesofthebargainmakesitclearthat“aslavesale”wasnotasinglethingwhichonecouldviewfromthreedifferentsidesandsumintoawhole...Rather,likeawebofunforeseenconnections,themorphologyofasaledependeduponthepointofdeparture.Timerandifferentlyde-pendinguponwhereyoustartedtheclock.FollowingBonnellandHunt,itmightbetemptingtodescribethisas“beyond”:thedecisivemethodologicaljunctureatwhichcommerceandculture,structureandmeaning,nallycollapse.Thereare,however,anumberofbasicproblemswithsuchareading.OneisthatJohnsondevelopedthismodeofquestioningduringtheearly1990s,attheverymoment(orsowehavebeentold)whenthenewculturalhistorywasfallingintoits“radicallydiscursive”rut.AnotheristhatJohnsonwasnevermakingthisupfromscratch.Indeed,ifwegobacktothe1995dissertationonwhichSoulbySoulwasbased,hiscitationspointtoamoreinterestingsetofmergers:keytheoreticaltextson“thesociallifeofthings”intermixedwithlegalhistoryarticles;landmarkworksonantebellumslaverybyEugeneGenovese,JohnBlassingame,JamesOakes,andBarbaraFieldssidebysidewithseminalstudiesofmarketculturesbyKarenHalttunen,JacksonLears,Jean-ChristopheAgnew,andJohnKasson.retrospect,atleast,itiseasiertotrackthecross-currents.Agnew,forexample,wasamongtherstU.S.historianstofeaturetheworkofKarlPolanyi(whoseseminalwritingson“embeddedness”reverberatethroughmuchofSoulbySoul).MuchthesamemightbesaidaboutHalttunen’susesofNorbertElias,GeorgSimmel,andErvingGoffman—allimportantearlytheoristsforopeningupthe“performative”dimensionsofclass.TheotherkeypointisthatJohnsonwasneverworkinginavacuum.Pushbeyondslavery,infact,andmanyofhiscentralmovesbegintolooklikebroaderground-Ibid.,14.WalterLivezeyJohnson,“MastersandSlavesintheMarket:SlaveryandtheNewOrleansTrade,1804–1864”(Ph.D.diss.,PrincetonUniversity,1995),1–12.Thetheoreticalworkonthe“sociallifeofthings”camefromanthropologistsMaryDouglas,ArjunAppadurai,andIgorKopytoff.SeeAppadurai,TheSocialLifeofThings:CommoditiesinCulturalPerspective(NewYork,1986).Therewere,ofcourse,additionalprecedentsforthesemoves—someexplicitlyfootnoted,othersmerelyechoed.Wemightthink,forexample,ofJoanScott’s1988essay“AStatisticalRepresentationofWork:LaStatistiquedel’industriea`Paris,18471848,”muchofwhichanticipatesJohnson’sagainst-the-grainreadingsofdouble-entryslavesales.OrLizabethCohen’sMakingaNewDeal:IndustrialWork-ersinChicago,1919–1939(NewYork,1990);JamesLivingston’sPragmatismandthePoliticalEconomyofCulturalRevolution,1850–1940(ChapelHill,N.C.,1994);andOhmann’sSellingCulture,allofwhichshareJohnson’sconcernfortrackingnewformsof“subjectivity”withinthestructuresofcapitalism.OrManlinessandCivilizationandBrown’sGoodWives,NastyWenches,andAnxiousPatriarchsbothofwhosenon-linearnarrativestructures(andcloseattentiontocompetingsubjectpositions)par-allelJohnson’s“thrice-toldtale”oftheantebellumslavemarket.JamesW.Cook swells,partofanalwaysunnishedculturalthathascontinuedtomigrateandstretch,adaptandprovoke.Thisstill-unfoldingprocesscanbeseenintheworkofStanley,Calder,Sandage,Kamensky,Rockman,Glickman,andMihm—allrecenthistoriansofcapitalismforwhomsignsandstructuresaredeeplyinterwoven,neverthestuffofconceptualzerosums.OrthegrowinginterestincirculatorysystemsthatcutsacrossLipsitz’srecords,Sandweiss’sphotographs,Edwards’snovels,VonEsch-en’sjazztours,andDierks’sletters.Ortheexplicitlyhybridapproachestocom-moditychainsthatrunthroughEnstad,Zakim,Shank,Stein,Moreton,andZim-merman.OrtheincreasinglymaterialiststudiesofrepresentationthatconnectMcGill’snewspapers,Casper’sbooks,Igo’sopinionpolls,Zipp’sblueprints,andmyownworkonblackcelebrityandthepoliticsofglobalpositioning.Shouldwereadtheserecentdevelopmentsasculturalhistory’sswansong?Itsreinvigoration?Thelatestphaseofitsimperialistplotting?Suchrhetoricsofsu-persessionultimatelyreinforcetheverysamesynecdochesIhavesoughttodisruptthroughoutthisessay.Soletusconcludeherenotwithcompetingfuturology(new“beyonds”forthesametiredturns),butrather,withaseriesofbroadersuggestionsforrethinkingthedebateitself.First,weshouldkeepinmindthelong-runningplasticityofculturalhistory,anotoriouslycapaciouscategorythathasentailedamobile,unnishedproject.Beforethenewculturalhistoryofthe1980s,thereweredozensofolderculturalsthatpushedinavarietyofcompetingdirections.Inamajorreviewessayfrom1968,self-identiedpractitionerDavidBrionDavissoughttofamiliarizehiswith“recentdirectionsinAmericanculturalhistory.”Butatpoint,DaviswassummingupthemythandsymbolscholarshipthathadrstemergedwiththeAmer-icanstudiesmovement.Pushbackanotherdecadeortwo,andonendsCarolineCulturalApproachtoHistory(1940),alandmarkeditedcollection(sponsoredbytheAHA)thatincludedsomeoftheera’smostinnovativehistorians.InWare’shands,however,this“approach”wassomethingdifferentyetagain:anexplicitly“bottomup”modeofhistoricizingbuiltupontheanthropologyofFranzBoas.Movingforward,then,wewoulddowelltostopthinkingintermsofsupersedingfashioncycles:asingularturnthatsimplyroseandfell,supplantedandfaded.Thisleadstoarelatedsuggestionaboutparameters:theneedtothinkmorecarefully—andcapaciously—aboutwhatculturalhistorynowis.Theimportanceofthisprojecthithomeformeinarecentqueryfromacolleague.“How,”thiscolleaguewantedtoknow,“isSoulbySoulculturalhistory?Ijustdon’tgetit.”WemightrespondherethatJohnsonspentmuchofthepasttwodecadesjointlyappointedinanAmericanstudiesprogram;orthatmanyleadinghistoriansofslaveryandcap-italismhaveexplicitlypraisedSoulbySoulforitsstrategicmixturesofcommerceandculture,structuralconstraintsandcompetingsubjectivities;orthatthissenseofJohnson’saccomplishmentwassharedbytheAmericanStudiesAssociation,whichSoulbySoulitsannualbookprizein2000.Johnson’scitations,moreover,haveoftenincludedscoresofleadingculturalists:StuartHall,JoanScott,MicheldeMycurrentbookprojectexplorestherstwavesofAfricanAmericanartists,intellectuals,andpoliticalactiviststostrategizetheircirculationinrelationtoglobalmarkets,1770–1930.Davis,“SomeRecentDirectionsinAmericanCulturalHistory”;Ware,TheCulturalApproachto;CookandGlickman,“TwelvePropositionsforaHistoryofU.S.CulturalHistory,”5–29.TheKidsAreAllRight Certeau,JudithButler,JamesC.Scott,DavidRoediger,RobinKelley,WernerSol-lors,KathleenBrown,JosephRoach.Attheendoftheday,though,thesepoint-by-pointresponsesmissthelargerproblem.Wouldn’tweculturalhistorytochangeovertime?Why,then,castitretrospectivelyasasingularbagoftricks:axedandnishedturnsomehowfrozenintheReaganera?Finally,wewoulddowelltoreconsiderthesemanticsofourturntalk:ourten-dencytospeakofculture.Keyinnovations,itisoftensaid,beganlocallybuttraveledwidely.Meaningsweremade.Signsproliferated.Categorieswerede-constructed.Intheprocess,wholeblocksofmajorsubelds—slavery,labor,capi-talism,empire,borderlands,diplomacy—recalibrated,transformed.Inmanyre-spects,itisanappealingfamilyportrait(anentiredisciplinesaidtohavesharpeneditsepistemicfoundations),butonealsopronetocertaindistortions.Mostobviously,itmissesthosewhowerealreadypracticingculturalhistorywellbeforethe1980s.Butitalsomissesthedimensionsofturningtoculture:theinevitableex-changeswithotherelds,themanifoldpushbacksfromotherquadrants.Wehaveheardrelativelylittle,inotherwords,aboutthemultidirectionalprocessbywhichculturalhistoryitself—intheveryactofturning—becamemorepluralisticinitsmethods;moreomnivorousinitssources;morepreciseaboutcausality;moreattentivetocompetingtheoriesofpower;moreopentonumbersandnetworks;moresensitivetolimitsonagency,resistance,andself-fashioning;morefocusedontheinterplaybetweenmeaningsandmarkets,representationalpracticesandpolicymak-ing;moreambitiousintrackingglobalsystemsofcapital.Someofthemostsophis-ticatedworkintheseareashascomefromlatter-dayculturaliststrainedsometimethenewculturalhistory.ButitishardtoseethisconceptualtrafcifweMuchthesamecouldbesaidaboutvirtuallyanyofthetitlesreferencedinthenalpagesofthisessay.ConsiderRockman’saward-winninglaborhistoryofearlyBaltimore,ScrapingBy.MuchlikebySoul,Rockman’sworkiswonderfullyalivetoboththestructuralanddiscursivedimensionsofhissubject.Aboveall,heshowsusantebellumcapitalism’s“systemicdependenceon...multiple,simul-taneous,andoverlappingformsofinequality”(10).Indeed,hislargerpointistodevelopaconceptionof“class”basedlessonshared“cultural”traditions(intheThompsonianmode)thanonconstrained“choices”andsharedformsof“subjugation.”Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatRockmanisantagonistictothemethodsandconcernsofculturalhistoryitself.Rather,hereturnsagainandagaintothe“rhe-toricaltools”deployedinpublicdebatesaboutthecity’spoliticaleconomy,theventriloquized“voices”usedbynewspapereditorstopromotecommercialdevelopment,the“implicitracialorethniccoding”runningthroughthejobsads,themultiple“perspectives”and“perceptions”ofdifferentcategoriesofworkers.ForJohnson’scitationpatterns,seeWalterJohnson,“Inconsistency,Contradiction,andCom-pleteConfusion:TheEverydayLifeoftheLawofSlavery,”LawandSocialInquiry22,no.2(Spring1997):405–433;andJohnson,“TheSlaveTrader,theWhiteSlave,andthePoliticsofRacialDeter-minationinthe1850s,”JournalofAmericanHistory87,no.1(June2000):13–38.ForcharacterizationsofJohnson’swork,seeAgnew,“Capitalism,Culture,andCatastrophe,”401–405;Rockman,,7,273n.15.Thisoft-neglectedgroupencompassedsomeofthemostsophisticatedhistoriansofthetwentiethcentury.AshortlistontheU.S.sidewouldincludeCarolineWare,ConstanceRourke,MerleCurti,HenryNashSmith,LeoMarx,JohnWilliamWard,DavidBrionDavis,AlanTrachtenberg,JohnCawelti,WilliamR.Taylor,WarrenSusman,NeilHarris,RobertToll,DanielRodgers,AnnDouglas,JohnKasson,NathanHuggins,LawrenceLevine,PaulBoyer,JohnBlassingame,andCarrollSmith-Rosen-berg—alltoculturebeforethe1980s.Theothermissinggrouphere,ofcourse,isthelargenumbersofskepticswhohaveneverhadmuchtodowithculturalhistory.FortellingrecentexamplesintheU.S.eld,seeBeckert,MoniedMetropolis;Zakim,;McGill,AmericanLiteratureandtheCultureofReprinting;Sandage,BornLosers;Igo,AveragedAmerican;Stein,;JessicaM.Lepler,“1837:AnatomyofaPanic”(Ph.D.diss.,BrandeisUniversity,2008);EricSlauter,TheStateasWorkofArt(Chicago,2009);Moreton,ToServeGodand;Zipp,ManhattanProjects;Zimmerman,AlabamainAfrica;ScottReynoldsNelson,ANationJamesW.Cook continuetospeakofone-waystreets:aturnthatneverlearned,convertedbutneverItmaybetoolatenowtohopeforahistoryofculturalhistorythatisentirelyfreeofturntalk.Butperhapswecanthinkourwayforwardbyrecastingthelargeren-terprise:as,notturn;asturn,notturned.Aturn,inshort,guredwithmuchthesamebasicdynamismweroutinelyascribetoourlargerdiscipline.Amorecom-pellingculturalturn:beyondthegenerationalwe. ofDeadbeats:AnUncommonHistoryofAmerica’sFinancialDisasters(NewYork,forthcoming).SeealsoJohnson,“OnAgency,”andBrooks,“TheEarlyAmericanPublicSphereandtheEmergenceofaBlackPrintCounterpublic,”aswellasthe“agenda”essaysbyJamesCook,NanEnstad,andPhillipDeloriainCook,Glickman,andO’Malley,TheCulturalTurninU.S.History,291–382. JamesW.CookteachesU.S.HistoryattheUniversityofMichigan.Hispub-licationsincludeTheArtsofDeception:PlayingwithFraudintheAgeofBarnum(HarvardUniversityPress,2001)andTheCulturalTurninU.S.History:Past,PresentandFuture,co-editedwithLawrenceB.GlickmanandMichaelO’Malley(UniversityofChicagoPress,2008).Hisrecentworkhasfocusedonthetrans-nationaldimensionsofAfricanAmericancultureandpolitics.Heiscurrentlywritingtwobooks:oneontheglobalcirculationofAfricanAmericanartists,intellectuals,andactivistsbetween1770and1930,tobepublishedbyW.W.Norton&Co.;theotheronthemanylivesofculturalhistory,tobepublishedbytheUniversityofChicagoPress.TheKidsAreAllRight