Skip to main content

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?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Journals and Prose

My two questions from this week have emerged from the Judith Butler piece, A 'Bad Writer' Bites Back , both centered around the journal, Philosophy and Literature —which Butler describes as the self-proclaimed “arbiter of good prose.”  I agree with Butler’s staunch defense of questioning common sense and provoking “new ways of looking at a familiar world”, and was reminded of David Harvey’s quote in the introduction to his Companion to Marx’s Capital : “Real learning always entails a struggle to understand the unknown.”   Butler describes Philosophy and Literature as a “culturally conservative academic journal” which naturally led me down a longer-than-anticipated visit to the journal's website . I was greeted with a video presented by the Philosophy and Literature’s editor Garry L. Hagberg, who rails against the “jargon infested” work that litters the journal’s field, locating Philosophy and Literature in clear opposition to such bothersome clutter.  However, Hagberg...
Post a Comment
Read more

Articulation_by_Abby Escatel

 In "Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance," Stuart Hall is concerned with complicating Marxist theory's tendency to overgeneralize and universalize its claims that are specifically located within a European history of labor. Questions concerning slavery, coloniality, unfree/forced labor come to the fore and force Marxist theorists to grapple with the need to be specific in their contextualization and historicization of particular moments, ruptures and conjunctures. My questions are as follows:  1. How do we move forward with Marxism while taking into account the component of "unfreedom" when conceptualizing class, labor, and labor power? How does the "proletariat" fail to account for the lived realities of racialized bodies?  2. It seems as though Hall is also saying that race is not all encompassing and also shouldn't be overgeneralized/universalized. In short, labor and race are both always already at work. As a scholar who ce...
Post a Comment
Read more

Week 5

  What are the differences between Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual” and Hall’s “public pedagogy?”   On the topic of the diasporic intellectual, Kuan-Hsing Chen mentions that “Some of the diasporic intellectuals I know of have exercised their power, for better or worse, back home, but you have not. And some of them are trying to move back, in whatever way. So, in that sense, you are very peculiar” (503). Although Hall felt some reconnection with the Carribean through the Black diasporic population in Britain, he insists that cultural identity is not fixed but “comes out of very specific historical formations, out of very specific histories and cultural repertoires of enunciation, that it can constitute a ‘positionality’, which we call, provisionally, identity” (503). Individuals can negotiate, rearticulate, recontextualize their different identities, but how does this rearticulation work at an institutional-level?   Thelma
Post a Comment
Read more