ABSTRACT

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

摘要

该论文讨论了期刊编辑组织的变化对当代学术界的影响。以文化研究和Continuum杂志为例，它考虑了从许多期刊起源的亲密“手工”模式转变为通过市场或准市场关系组织的更加客观的异化形式。对这种转变的一个普遍解释是，它是由大型商业出版商的利益驱动的，他们将编辑置于“学术资本主义”的要求之下。与此相反，该论文认为可以通过 AO Hirschman 的“退出”概念来理解手工模式的消亡。市场或准市场形式没有被强加，而是被选择作为对已经发生异化的情况的回应。这种视角使我们能够将“退出后”的编辑工作视为不受外部力量的被动驱动，而是涉及其自身的各种创造性选择。对于以下情况Continuum在这方面特别向 Brian Shoesmith 的编辑方向致敬。