This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
'Cultural studies' and the work of Pierre Bourdieu
Morag Shiach French Cultural Studies 1993 4: 213 DOI: 10.1177/095715589300401203 The online version of this article can be found at: http://frc.sagepub.com/content/4/12/213
Additional services and information for French Cultural Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://frc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://frc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://frc.sagepub.com/content/4/12/213.refs.html
Downloaded from frc.sagepub.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011
When Nicholas Garnham and Raymond Williams talk of Bourdieu as offering a possible ’mediation’ between the traditions of cultural analysis represented by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies and the film journal Screen. they seem to identify very precisely this ’difficulty’. that before the production of this special issue. if perhaps expressing an exaggerated optimism about its possible resolution (Garnham and Williams 1980). throughout its history.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1.213- ’Cultural studies’ and the work of Pierre Bourdieu MORAG SHIACH* a problem for of cultural studies in Britain.sagepub. London E1 4NS. further and higher education. Queen Mary and College. It has. largely because it seems to discipline operate along the fault line between textual analysis and sociological critique which has for so long disturbed the discipline’s self-constitution. Westfield Downloaded from frc. been defined not just in terms of the objects it studies but also in terms of a broader pedagogical and political project. Mile End Road. My argument will focus on the ways in which Bourdieu has theorized the possibilities of cultural resistance and of political pedagogies as well as on the ways in which his attempt to negotiate the pressures of determinism and agency have left his work marked by images of enclosure and entrapment. The aim of this article is to indicate the lines of development in Bourdieu’s work which seem to have rendered it so problematic for British cultural studies. University of London. Department of English. for instance. Pierre Bourdieu’s work has always presented something of the Cultural studies and radical pedagogies Cultural studies as a discipline exists within particular institutional sites: specifically those of secondary. 2011 . Its aims of address for correspondence: Dr Morag Shiach. The extent of the difficulty in assimilating Bourdieu’s work is perhaps signalled by his absence from so many texts which aim to define or develop the space of ’cultural studies’ in Britain: it is striking. no contributor to French Cultural Studies has drawn on the work of Pierre Bourdieu.
of course. In Les H6ritiers (1964) Bourdieu examines the failure of educational institutions to challenge the social inequalities which marked students on their entry into these institutions. Much of Bourdieu’s early work is. for example. with universities. and of undermining economistic understandings of the social formation are all to some extent congruent with the outlines of Bourdieu’s sociological investigations. and at least imagines ’the possibility of rationally transmitting aristocratic culture within institutional contexts which might not be reinforcing a social hierarchy’ (Robbins 1991: 53). 2011 . While Les Heritiers is marked by a sense of frustration at the failure of educational insitutions to deliver a practice of rational pedagogy or to develop something approaching a ’common culture’. voire insignifiants. What Bourdieu’s work seems to undermine. These mechanisms operate crucially in relation to cultural knowledges. It has to that extent sought to embody the possibility of a radical pedagogy. Indeed.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. however.sagepub. in Choses dites. Similarly. concerned with the viability of precisely such a project. that is to say whose source lies in the experience of a specific class formation. however. Over these three texts. (Bourdieu 1987: 30) in d’objets a way that seems to legitimize cultural studies’ insistence on the social and cultural significance of the apparently ephemeral or banal. his research in La Distinction offers a very precise analysis of the cultural and social mechanisms which have constructed the space of the ’aesthetic’ as one of privilege and of significant cultural capital. Thus. Bourdieu writes of the importance of disturbing analytic hierarchies. The argument is continued in La Reproduction (1970) and connected even more emphatically with discourses of cultural evaluation and taste in La Distinction (1979). of his intention to dissoudre les grandes questions en les posant a propos socialement mineurs. the potential of educational institutions to empower or to avoid simple reproduction of the status quo.214 challenging cultural hierarchies. La Distinction sees hierarchy and the reproduction of social inequalities as precisely the business of cultural Downloaded from frc. of extending the range of cultural artefacts subjected to analysis or critique. tending to discount or even despise those cultural knowledges which are derived simply from the educational curriculum and to favour those knowledges whose source is mysterious. he shows the mechanisms by which educational institutions tend to reinforce such inequalities. Cultural studies has never been simply another discipline addressing a discrete set of objects. is the desire of cultural studies to constitute itself as a site of resistance or transgression within institutions of education. Bourdieu becomes significantly less able to imagine an alternative to this practice of cultural and social reproduction. but has always sought to connect cultural analysis with the analysis of ideological structures and economic power.
increasingly of sense Having written with such force. against forms of essentialism and substantialism in social theory. which is so implicated in mechanisms of distinction. yet intellectuals who operate within the field of cultural production or analysis are absolutely implicated in such idealist aesthetic discourses. Such autonomy is illusory. far from seeing cultural analysis as a site of resistance or critique. the working class [seems] to be within the cultural limits imposed inevitably on and inexorably entrapped 63 and it. This is the dimension of Bourdieu’s work which has led some cultural theorists to condemn him as too sweeping or too mechanical in his social and cultural classifications: Indeed. Bourdieu’s work. We all seem to be playing the game of distinction.. and imaginable only within specific cultural fields and at particular historical moments.. It seems rather to offer a totalizing analysis of the function of all cultural discourses within educational institutions which can leave very little room for alternative pedagogies and grant very little power to attempts to modify the objects or methodologies of cultural analysis. In so far as he can imagine an alternative pedagogy. it seems to be limited to the context of philosophy. In La Distinction. even as we seek to develop theoretical or methodological challenges to dominant literary modes of analysis.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. but cannot offer any political strategy within the realm of the cultural. and equates cultural evaluation or critique with a kind of symbolic violence. then. taste is the expression of arbitrary taxonomies which are mapped onto class-specific knowledges. The rest of this article will be concerned to chart the implications of this refusal of the cultural as a space of possible transformation or critique and to consider the viability of Bourdieu’s search for ’un instrument de Downloaded from frc. 2011 .sagepub. and cultural evaluation is necessarily caught up in a mystifying assertion of its own autonomy. Bourdieu falls effortlessly into both when it comes to the aesthetic. (Frow 1987: 71) Bourdieu is certainly aware of the problem. it is not clear that this analysis can accommodate the desire of cultural studies to see itself as apart from such strategies of mystification and social stratification. has tended to show the way in which educational institutions collude in the reproduction of social inequalities and. in Bourdieu’s work we find that there is very little alternatives to the cultural hierarchies which are so possible efficiently communicated and reproduced within educational institutions: what we are left with instead is a sense of enclosure. where ‘1’analyse des structures mentales est un instrument de liberation’ (Bourdieu 1987: 27). Uncomfortably for cultural studies.215 evaluation. has seen it as absolutely central to the project of social reproduction.
Both. de l’&oelig. the first risking an over-politicization of popular culture and a consequent evacuation of considerations of form or value and the latter apparently over-formalizing the political so that questions of economic relations or institutions become invisible. Bourdieu thus tends increasingly to deny any substantive meaning to Downloaded from frc... c’est qu’elles ont de prendre pour objet. une universalisation du cas particulier et qu’elles constituent par la meme une experience particuliere. mais sans prendre acte de I’historicit6 de cette experience et de l’objet auquel elle s’applique. Si ces analyses en commun (Bourdieu 1992: 394). however. His contention is that there is nothing inherent in aesthetic judgements or in discourses of taste that constitutes their rationale. a different sort of looking or of feeling. Neither position is without its difficulties.216 liberation’ in his analysis of what he social inequality: sexual difference. it is necessary to consider the ways in which he condemns both political modernism and populism as simply strategies of distinction within the restricted field of intellectual or cultural production. 2011 . C’est dire qu’elles oporent. c’est-a-dire celle d’un homme cultive d’une certaine societe. rejecting aesthetic theories which aim to identify some transhistorical essence of the aesthetic experience: d’essence se rencontrent sur 1’essentiel. do offer a means by which ’the social criticism that has been the traditional province of the intellectual’ can be articulated within the project of cultural studies (Wilson 1988: 55). other than their participation in a logic of scarcity: taste is something most people can’t have.uvre d’art en norme transhistorique de toute perception artistique. situee et dat6e.sagepub. In order to understand the difficulty that Bourdieu’s work poses for the discipline of cultural studies. and thus constitute a form of cultural capital. sans le savoir. In Les Regles de 1’art (1992) he seeks to identify the historical development of notions of artistic autonomy more precisely. In La Distinction. 1’experience subjective de 1’ceuvre d’art qui est celle de leur auteur. between the search for ’the popular’ as a site of resistance and the identification of strategies of formal textual subversion as the locus of political struggle. He points to the social and historical specificity of notions of ’the aesthetic’ as a separate sphere and of the idea that aesthetic experience constitutes a completely separate realm of experience.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. sees as one of the founding forms of Populism or political modernism The tension within the discipline of cultural studies with which this article began can be characterized as a tension between populism and formalism. despite its apparent congruence. Bourdieu seeks to identify the mechanisms by which certain sorts of cultural discourses and knowledges become endowed with prestige.
which seems to offer no scope for considering the texts of modernist aesthetics as ambiguous or even as contradictory in their social and cultural significance. and to see them instead as simply the manifestation of the logic of a particular historically constituted cultural field. For Bourdieu. the emergence of the aesthetic as a separate sphere characterized by the pure gaze.. sa distance a 1’art populaire qui rend 1’art populaire intellectuellement acceptable. by self-reflexivity. For Bourdieu.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. who invokes Adorno to support her claim that modernist texts have the capacity to produce ’radical transformations’ within both social and psychic reality (Wilson 1988: 48). This conclusion clearly disturbs a critic such as Elizabeth Wilson. Numerous critics have expressed a similar unease about Bourdieu’s apparently totalizing account of the project of modernism.217 of taste or value.. au coeur meme de 1’art populaire. the complex series of cultural transformations associated with technologies of mechanical reproduction offer instead the opportunity to break down the distance associated with the art object as cult object.sagepub. It has no absolute claim to oppositional status or to essential truth. the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web’ (Benjamin 1973: 235). strategies of textual or formal experimentation within the realm of the aesthetic have no inherent claim to offer any form of resistance to the instrumentalism of capitalism. Indeed. sa distance au peuple. There is certainly a stark contrast between Bourdieu’s account of modernism as absolutely enclosed within the logic of a particular field of cultural production and the argument of Walter Benjamin in ’The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ which appears always to demonstrate the complexity and doubleness of the cultural impact of ’mass culture’ on the space of the aesthetic. as containing the Downloaded from frc. (Bourdieu 1979: 568) Yet. 2011 . or by autonomy. The idea that the aesthetic offers some escape from economic relations is misrecognition: instead it represents the articulation of economic relations and their connection with strategies of symbolic distinction. by distance from the prevailing values of industrial capitalism. modernist texts must always strive for distance and distinction: judgements La ’distanciation’ brechtienne pourrait 8tre 1’6cart par lequel 1’intellectuel affirme. plus profond6ment. for Benjamin. et. and to explore the resources of immediacy and proximity for the development of a politicized conception of the aesthetic: ’The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality. For Bourdieu. is simply part of a historical modification of commercial and class relations which took place in the mid-nineteenth century. the very claims of the aesthetic only make sense within very particular institutional sites or within a specific field. What seems to be impossible on Bourdieu’s account is an analysis that sees the space of modernist aesthetics as ambiguous.
com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. Bourdieu is equally critical of the capacity of ’high theory’ to deliver any sort of political critique. seeing it instead as simply another attempted monopoly of cultural capital. croyance dans la valeur du jeu et de son enjeu’ (Bourdieu 1992: 245).sagepub. what then can we make of the claims of populism? Is it possible to imagine ’the popular’ as a site of resistance? For Bourdieu it would seem that it might be possible to imagine it. which is to say to the rewards of discursive behaviour which corresponds precisely to the demands of a particular intellectual field. is that Bourdieu’s work has already predicted it. as a space where practical and economic or Such a textual Downloaded from frc.. One attempt to identify such complexity can be found in Peter Burger’s distinction between modernism and ’the avant-garde’. Even to pose questions about ’the politics of modernism’ is to participate in a self-confirming game within the intellectual field. while apparently endorsing much of Bourdieu’s account of the historical specificity of modernism as a social and cultural movement. Bourdieu does at times seem to ground his critique of the aesthetic in a particular reading of the popular.. Similarly. Theoretical accounts of the political potential of modernism are thus doubly disabled: they can never aspire to truth but only to legitimacy. Bourdieu has developed the concept of l’illusio: ’I’adh6sion fondamentale au jeu. where modernism represents something closer to art for art’s sake while the avant-garde embodies a substantial challenge to habits of perception and categories of thought and to the institution of art itself (Burger 1984). The difficulty with this critique. but rather leaves us asking ’whether Bourdieu’s system allows anything to escape it and thus potentially to resist it?’ (Wilson 1988: 55). au sens d’investissement dans le jeu qui arrache les agents a l’indiff6rence et les incline et les dispose a operer les distinctions pertinentes du point de vue de la logique du champ. If the analysis of textual subversion can offer no sure basis for a politicized cultural studies. (Bourdieu 1992: 316) totalizing analysis of the aesthetic leaves no room for exploiting cultural ambiguities as part of a politicized project of cultural analysis. reconnaissance du jeu et de l’utilite du jeu. This illusio serves to commit participants to the logic of a particular field and to its practices of distinction: chaque champ produit sa forme sp6cifique d’illusio. of course. but it is not at all clear that it is possible to theorize or mobilize it. 2011 . For both Burger and Williams culture has the capacity to manifest a critical function. still seeks to identify more precisely what is at stake in the texts and images of particular modernist artists (Williams 1989). whereas for Bourdieu such a critical function is only another move in the coded game of cultural and social distinction. To stress the compulsion and inevitability of such game playing. Raymond Williams.218 potential both for subversion and for simple reproduction.
we are disabled in the search for a politicized account of the space of ’cultural studies’. when it comes to an attempt to identify the political or theoretical meanings of ’the popular’. Instead of theorizing cultural analysis as a site of resistance to social and cultural hierarchies. It is perhaps in this aspiration to identify a cultural space which is not caught up in the logic of distinction that we can understand Derek Robbins’ judgement that Bourdieu operates with an unarticulated utopian interests vision (Robbins: 176). Debates about the politics of the popular only make est sense within such a restricted and restricting field: ’&dquo. but reflect rather the theorists’ place within the field of cultural production. in Un art moyen (1965) Bourdieu stresses the manner in which photography as one of the popular arts subordinates questions of artistic form to considerations of its socially regulated functions and meanings. 2011 . a ses pr6jug6s ou a ses fantasmes ses vertus mystificatrices. He points out the fluidity of the concept of ’the popular’ and its consequent appeal to a diverse range of social critics. arguing that it owes dans la production savante. then. Bourdieu tends rather to stress the ways in which it participates in mechanisms of distinction. However. (Bourdieu 98) It thus becomes impossible. The desire to fix. au fait que chacun dans un test projectif. The aim of theorists seems to be to catch the essence of the popular.sagepub. as opposed to the distance from economic necessity and practical imperatives which characterize the realm of the aesthetic. . en manipuler inconsciemment 1’extension pour 1’ajuster a ses int6r6ts. while Bourdieu stresses the need to see it as a contradictory and negotiated space. Bourdieu’s analyses have served to disturb the capacity of ’cultural studies’ to represent itself as the space of a political critique. Bourdieu is extremely sceptical. d’abord un des enjeux de lutte entre les intellectuels’ (Bourdieu 1987: 178). His analyses serve to specify the terms of our enclosure rather than to offer us any escape. claims for a politicized reading of popular culture have no essential truth.le populaire&dquo. Gender and power So far. to speak of the popular without being caught up in the realm of mythology.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1.. 1983: peut. for example. Thus. Here too. In order to see whether Bourdieu can imagine any analytic or practical Downloaded from frc. its involvement in the everyday. the popular is simply another manifestation of the struggle for distinction within the intellectual field. and to claim. Thus.219 determine cultural forms and where a realist project of representation is vindicated in terms of its accessibility. for Bourdieu.. Elsewhere. for Bourdieu. Bourdieu appears to valorize the practicality of popular culture. comme sociaux.
droite/gauche. use of space and access to artefacts all clearly marked by differential gender relations. devant/derri6re. He can imagine no challenge to this cultural and social hierarchy from within the space of the cultural. which carries the weight and the meaning of gendered power relations. de la conforme a leurs (Bourdieu 1990: 21) Downloaded from frc. Bourdieu describes Kabyle culture as rigidly divided in terms of gender. Bourdieu once more stresses the enormous complexity of the system which maintains relations of inequality. The habitus is marked on and by the body. Drawing on his anthropological research. Bourdieu demonstrates the ways in which all categories of thought are marked by the hierarchy of sexual difference: he l’opposition entre le masculin et le f6minin re~oit sa necessite objective et subjective de son insertion dans un systbme d’oppositions homologues. such a strategy is impossible for Bourdieu. he goes on to describe the ways in which gender relations. I want to turn finally to his analysis of what he describes as ’le paradigme (et souvent le modele et 1’enjeu) de toute domination: la domination masculine’ (Bourdieu 1990: 31). The habitus here carries the meaning of both a predisposition to particular modes of behaviour and perception as well as a habitual mode of thinking. As such. representation dominante.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. Bourdieu’s interest lies in the ways in which this system of oppression sustains and reproduces itself. 2011 . haut/bas. it can be understood neither in terms of pure coercion nor in terms of willing consent. His argument is that such forms of oppression gain a kind of naturalness or inevitability from the power of sedimented rituals which are expressed in the habitus of members of the culture. (Bourdieu 1990: 8) While Cixous sets out to theorize and to develop a mode of writing which might challenge the inevitability of such hierarchized oppositions.220 strategies that might indeed offer us the ’instrument de liberation’ to which aspires. where patterns of behaviour. It is rather the space in which members of a culture negotiate its rituals.sagepub. dessus/dessous. practices and meanings. Bourdieu sees gender relations as a key embodiment of the terms in which he seeks to theorize power. reminiscent of the work of Helene Cixous (Cixous 1975). et sournoisement si parfaitement victimes. The image Bourdieu chooses to capture the pervasive impact of gender inequalities is once more one of enclosure: les hommes sont aussi prisonniers. with participation in rituals. have negative effects on all members of a culture. pourtant int6r6ts. apparently immutable. use of time and categories of representation all serve to reinforce masculine power. division of labour. In a manner strikingly. but perhaps surprisingly. Instead. He describes Kabyle culture as one of ’phallonarcissism’. and in particular in the centrality of the symbolic domain.
he argues that: il est possible de tirer de la connaissance de la logique du fonctionnement des champs de production culturelle un programme realiste pour une action collective des intellectuels. The same kind of partiality emerges when Bourdieu considers what is at stake in women’s exclusion from power within a patriarchal culture: Les femmes ont le se privilege (tout n6gatifl de n’etre pas dupes des jeux ou disputent privileges. Bourdieu loses any chance of exploring the potential of excluded groups for resistance. is theorized through the concept of the ’habitus’. seeing To the Lighthouse as a classic study of the ways in which masculinity tends to alienate and to infantilize those who are condemned to live under its sway. and tend to reproduce them. Bourdieu’s reading focuses almost entirely on the character of Mr Ramsay. Instead. Indeed. 2011 . au moins directement. et de n’y 6tre pas prises. en premiere personne. He does. and he is critical of the failure of feminist research to address this issue. The ways in which symbolic and economic structures intersect is carefully laid out. (Bourdieu 1992: 461) J Downloaded from frc. In relation to this paradigmatic system of power relations. but it does so in a way that is curiously static. a possibility that Woolf herself was to theorize in Three Guineas. Bourdieu’s reading of To the Lighthouse is detailed and compelling. Bourdieu ends with a call to collective action: In action collective visant a organiser une lutte symbolique de mettre en question pratiquement tous les presupposes tacites capable de la vision phallonarcissique du monde peut determiner la rupture de 1’accord quasi imm6diat entre les structures incorporees et les structures seule une objectiv6es. at both thematic and symbolic levels. Once more. (Bourdieu 1990: 24) les seeing this exclusion as completely negative. But no challenge to this system seems possible within the space of the cultural: writing cannot set us free.221 The ways in which gender inequalities distort and disable all members of a particular cultural group are crucial for Bourdieu.com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. who surely carries most of the transformative potential of the text. (Bourdieu 1990: 30) The call is repeated in his conclusion to Les Regles de l’art. He has nothing to say about the character of Lily. where he speaks of the dangers of the erosion of the critical role of the intellectual. Bourdieu’s analysis offers little by way of resistance. then. The manner in which individual participants in a culture encounter such inequalities. but once more it tends to diminish the critical potential of the cultural. however. exempt Virginia Woolf from this critique.sagepub. he tends to treat the novel as a series of descriptions rather than as a text that might embody contradiction or offer a formal challenge to the categorical differences with which it begins.
me &mdash. Diacritics. septembre. ii. 2011 . ’Sorties’. Culture and Society. (1992). La Distinction: critique sociale du jugement (Paris: Minuit). aware of the historical constraints which shape their own discourses but committed to overcoming the division between autonomy and engagement and willing also to ’travailler collectivement a la defense de leurs int6r6ts propres’ (:472). The Work of Pierre Bourdieu (Milton Keynes: Open University Press). in C. 2-31. Actes de la recherche No. Bourdieu. i.&mdash. ’Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture’. La Reproduction: é. Les Rè.e (Paris: Union Gé. &mdash. ’The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’. xviii. Choses dites (Paris: Minuit).lé. (1979). en sciences sociales. it may be philosophy. (1965). Yet the site for such practical and symbolic struggle remains unclear: it may be sociology. Burger.gles de l’art: genè. edited by Hannah Arendt (London: Collins). John (1987). Peter (1984). Clearly. Cultural Studies. Media. &mdash. 98-105.ditions). La Jeune Né. Hé. Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1964). Derek (1991). that the political power of the intellectual and the cultural power of reason are both under threat from ’ces nouveaux maitres a penser sans pensee’ (:470). Theory of the Avant-Garde (Manchester: MUP).com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. but it seems unlikely that. 115-246. Downloaded from frc. Cixous. edited by Tony Pinkney (London: Verso).ments pour d’enseignement (Paris: Minuit) No. Nicholas and Raymond Williams (1980). Pierre. Un art moyen: essais sur les usages sociaux de la photographie (Paris: Minuit). (1983).ne (1975).té. Raymond (1989). Elizabeth (1988). ’Picasso and Pâ. Robbins. et al. (1987). Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales.222 analysis is specifically addressed to those who can imagine the cultural ’comme instrument de liberte supposant la liberte’ (:462). Williams. in Illuminations. 46. Walter (1973). (1990) ’La Domination masculine’. ’Accounting for tastes: some problems in Bourdieu’s sociology of culture’. Pierre (1970). a characterization that sits uneasily with the thrust of much of his own research.rale d’É. This Bourdieu believes that the stakes are now high.&mdash. ’Vous avez dit "populaire"?’.se et structure du champ litté.raire (Paris: Seuil). He asks for a collective and international movement of intellectuals.&mdash. &mdash. Cixous. Les Heritiers (Paris: Minuit) Bourdieu. 209-223.&mdash.ment and H. 59-73. 84. it could ever be ’cultural studies’. de Foie Gras: Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology of Culture’. Clé. (2).lè.&mdash. &mdash. 47-60. Garnham. une thé. Wilson.orie du systè. 219-253 Bourdieu. LITERATURE CITED Benjamin. Frow.né. The Politics of Modernism.sagepub. for Bourdieu.
223 Woolf. Virginia (1992a). To the Lighthouse (Oxford: OUP) A ). 2011 .com at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1. (1992 Room of One’s Own and Three Guineas (Oxford: OUP). Downloaded from frc.sagepub. b &mdash.&mdash.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.