The cultural theorist Jon Stratton is a key inspiration in this account of the original British Glam Rock phenomenon and a sample of its global scions since the 1970s. Subsequent to Stratton's (1986) call for further critical work on this popular music formation, Stuart Hall (1992), in an unconnected piece, speculated on what the future of Cultural Studies, Stratton's disciplinary home, might look like. Hall's concern, analogous in some ways to Pierre Bourdieu's in the context of the contemporaneous French intellectual field, was predicated on a suspicion of what he read, particularly in terms of the North American interpretation of Cultural Studies, as a troubling shift towards theoreticism, the uncoupling of theory from practice in the pursuit of the institutionalisation of (sub)fields of scholarly enquiry, to adopt Bourdieu's spatial metaphor. Hall's plea was to embrace the ‘danger’ of the paradoxes arising from securing status (publish! career!), thus risking institutionally determined compromise, and maintaining a marginality that afforded greater autonomy – especially in terms of political agency beyond the academy – but necessarily meant forgoing a meaningful resource base, essential for agitating for social change. Popular Music Studies, in one of its intellectual trajectories a disciplinary subfield of Cultural Studies, is now well established and the authors of the 19 essays that form this collection can be forgiven the temptation to see in writing about Glam a way of securing its place within the legitimated subfield, with its attendant experts and gatekeepers, ripe for future revisiting. It also affords the opportunity to retreat into scholasticism, an unreflexive writing-for-writing's-sake disposition in which one doesn't move beyond reproducing one's own habitus, or second-nature worldview. The challenge the editors presumably set themselves at the moment of the book's genesis, then, was what usefully might be said about Glam and its subsequent mutations, 45 years after its original British discursive formation. Further, at least I would argue, how might such insights honour Hall's insistence that what makes popular culture, and by extension popular music, worth critiquing is the exposing of complex power relations played out in concrete settings: recognising the distinction between ‘understanding the politics of intellectual work and substituting intellectual work for politics’ (p. 286), as he put it.? In Chapman and Johnson's introductory remarks, the case is indeed made for Glam's importance: the vitality of its historical variants, understood in context, meant something profound to those performing and consuming it (p. 2; my emphasis). The editors approach this challenge by framing Glam historically and geographically, with the book divided into three parts: ‘Britain from the Early 1970s’; ‘Europe and North America’; and ‘Global Perspectives’.

中文翻译：

---

全球魅力和流行音乐：从 1970 年代到 2000 年代的风格和奇观。由伊恩查普曼和亨利约翰逊编辑。伦敦：劳特利奇，2016 年。300 页。ISBN 978-1-138-82176-7

文化理论家乔恩·斯特拉顿 (Jon Stratton) 是这本关于英国最初的华丽摇滚现象及其自 1970 年代以来全球接穗样本的主要灵感来源。继斯特拉顿 (1986) 呼吁对这种流行音乐形成进行进一步批判性工作之后，斯图尔特·霍尔 (Stuart Hall) (1992) 在一篇无关紧要的文章中推测了文化研究的未来，斯特拉顿的学科之家，可能会是什么样子。霍尔的担忧在某些方面类似于皮埃尔·布迪厄在同时代的法国知识领域的背景下的担忧，其前提是对他所阅读的内容的怀疑，特别是在北美对文化研究的解释方面，作为向理论主义的令人不安的转变，在追求学术研究（子）领域的制度化过程中，将理论与实践脱钩，采用布迪厄 s 空间隐喻。霍尔的请求是接受由获得地位（发表！职业！）引起的悖论的“危险”，从而冒着制度决定妥协的风险，并保持边缘性，提供更大的自主权——尤其是在学院之外的政治代理方面——但必然意味着放弃有意义的资源基础，这对于推动社会变革至关重要。流行音乐研究作为文化研究的学科子领域之一，在其知识轨迹之一中现已成熟，构成该系列的 19 篇论文的作者可以原谅在写作中看到关于 Glam 的诱惑，这是一种确保其在其中的地位的方式。合法的子领域及其随之而来的专家和看门人，未来重新审视的时机已经成熟。它还提供了退居经院主义的机会，一种不反省的为写作而写作的性格，在这种性格中，人们不会超越复制自己的习惯或第二天性世界观。那么，编辑们可能在这本书创始之际给自己设定的挑战是关于 Glam 及其随后的突变，在其最初的英国话语形成 45 年后，可能会说些什么有用的话。此外，至少我会争辩说，这样的见解如何尊重霍尔的坚持，即是什么让流行文化，进而推而广之的流行音乐，值得批评的是暴露在具体环境中上演的复杂权力关系：承认“理解政治”和“理解政治”之间的区别。用智力工作代替政治工作”（第 286 页），正如他所说。？在查普曼和约翰逊的介绍性评论中，Glam 的重要性确实是这样的：它的历史变体的生命力，在上下文中理解，对那些表演和消费它的人来说意义重大（第 2 页；我的重点）。编辑们通过从历史和地理角度构建魅力来应对这一挑战，这本书分为三个部分：“1970 年代早期的英国”；'欧洲和北美'；和“全球视角”。