1/26 Reflection

I realize this is supposed to be brief, so I am going to sum up the questions from my meandering thoughts below here: 

1. Is there really a divide between “ordinary” language and academic – or really, is no language enough to capture the difficulty of lived reality? And, if so, where does that leave the academy? How do we work through that in radical ways? 
2. I think grounding this question, as well as the readings from this week, materially could be a potential response.
3. Finally, going back to Butler’s piece, I keep thinking about this division between “ordinary” language and “intellectual.” I honestly really don’t understand Butler sometimes and if we, as academics, can’t, who can? And, regardless, if we cannot transmit our ideas, as Hall would say, what in God’s name is even the point??

If you want to see how I got to these questions, read on :-)

 

I wanted to reflect a bit on Butler’s piece; although a short one, I think there’s a lot to unpack as it relates to all the readings this week. I agree with Butler’s argument that language plays a large - and important - role in shaping and understanding social and political realities. In an effort to change such realities, I can agree “ordinary” language sometimes isn’t up to the task - indeed such language may, at times, be “thick” (Hall, Two Paradigms, p. 48). I think Hall would agree in saying that understanding, writing and explaining critical culture is difficult. I want to push this linguistic difficulty even further and wonder: is any language enough? When reflecting on #CommSoWhite #RhetoricSoWhite (specifically referring to arguments/articles by Darrel Wanzer-Serrano, Lisa Flores, Michael Lechuga, & Karma Chavez) I wonder if we need to create an entirely new language/academy. Chavez writes, “projects of inclusion don’t rupture oppressive structure; instead they uphold and reinforce these structure by showing how they can be kinder and gentler and better without actually changing much at all” (Beyond Inclusion, p. 166). Indeed, Lechuga echoes a similar point that the academic institution, even with “inclusion projects”, is a privileged source of knowledge production and will always be shaped by logics of settler colonialism (An anticolonial future). Hall does address some of these issues of inclusion and settlement, especially in Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies. Nevertheless, these readings make me think, as Butler argues, there is no way for already established institutions/systems/language to expose or change its own self. But, when I reflect on Notes on Deconstructing “the Popular”, can we even create a new institution/system/language that is truly outside of hegemony? How do we do so in a meaningful way that does not box us in fragmented pieces? How can we rebuild the academy, if possible? Giroux et al argue that disciplines are contingent on historical circumstance, and the U.S. academy has certainly been intertwined within capitalism, racism, classism, ableism, sexism, centralism (for lack of a better word). In “On Quitting”, Coin suggests the only way out of this is, literally, to get out - to quit. Where does that leave CCS? If we quit, as I think Giroux et al argue for at the end (doing such work outside the academic institution) how do we reach the same audience? How do we find students? Disseminate work?

I think it would also be beneficial to take on a materialist lens. Giroux et al argue a “movement away” and I think this notion of movement is important. Taking it a step further, grounding a material, embodied approach that is focused on a movement that Ono argues for: tension and activity that prevents the issues that come with solidifying and making permanent a field (The Future of Comm & CCS). In other words, making sure the resisting intellectual includes an embodied, materialist approach. Or, as Hall writes, it should, perhaps, be a “move on” rather than “movement away.” When we, as scholars, invest in our material selves and ground ourselves within our bodies, we can feel the weight of the academy on us; being in tune with our bodies and this tension allows for us to “move on” in healthy, radical ways. 

Some more meandering thoughts…while Butler has given me much to think about, I can’t help but wonder what would classify as “bad writing.” I have read Butler, multiple times, and also study gender and sex and yet…I admit I have no idea what is being said sometimes. I guess this is to say I agree with Butler’s argument on language, but disagree with the overall article. If we truly want to make a difference, we need to go beyond ordinary language but ALSO make it accessible. As Giroux et al say, I think Butler’s writing is at times “limited in [the] ability to communicate with [others] about common concerns” (p. 1). Or, as Hall would say, what in God’s name is even the point if we cannot transmit ideas? (p. 83/78)