26 January 2022 Reflection.

I'm stuck on certain aspects of the Butler piece, and not necessarily because of Butler's own opinions; I'm particularly drawn to their citation of Adorno's position that "nothing radical could come of common sense." I like the idea, especially the fact that anything that could truly constitute "common sense" could be interpreted as maintenance of the status quo. However, I immediately think of philosophical and political movements based on the unity of the working classes. Toward the end of World War II, then-US Vice-President Henry Agard Wallace gave a particularly compelling speech in which he declared that, in order for society to progress and reach its potential and for all humanity to achieve a lasting peace, the era after WWII needed to be the "Century of the Common Man," in which peaceful intellectual and economic competition would enable the free people of the world to create a better society. Wallace insisted that WWII was, in fact, a "people's revolution." I've always maintained that the vast majority of philosophical, literary, and political concepts can be explained in such a way that a sixth-grader can understand them; while I think the Philosophy and Literature approach of lampooning anyone to the left of Reagan as a highfalutin' elitist is both silly and reductive, I do think there is an element of gatekeeping to much of academia that I often end up accused of being "anti-intellectual" for pointing out.
While I found all of the readings informative and interesting, that particular aspect of the Butler piece stood out to me.
I suppose I should ask some questions:
1) Is it truly necessary for "the most trenchant social criticisms" to "often [be] expressed through difficult and demanding language?"
2) What is the primary benefit to viewing Hall's statements on feminism within the context of the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies through the anecdotal lens of someone who was there and participating? What, if any, would be the drawbacks?