Skip to main content

2/2 Reflection: Linking 'False Consciousness' and "The Matrix"

After finishing Stuart Hall’s re-reading of some of the more argued-over components of classical Marxist thought, I found myself encouraged to (re) re-read Hall’s intervention using one of my favorite movies “The Matrix.” I hope I am not totally off in this comparison, but it seems that false consciousness (experiencing the circuits of capitalist production exclusively through only a couple of the categories present) is kind of like the Matrix. The Matrix is a simulation of what life was like before; life is not like that anymore, but the Matrix is still real in that the real bodies of humans are plugged into a machine. Hall’s distinction between what is “true/false” and what is “partial/whole” really helped me understand the concept of false consciousness. However, I found myself wondering how one gains a more complete insight into the circuits of capitalist production. Hall says that theoretical discourse can help us see all the different relations (discourse would be like the red pill in “The Matrix”). But I wanted a more robust discussion on how/where/when this discourse can happen? What are the factors that facilitate this discourse?

My other question is about language and how language expresses ideas. Particularly, I’m thinking about what revisions and reinterpretations of old ideas mean for the way in which those ideas were expressed in the first place. In order to rescue some of the ideas that Hall thinks are worth rescuing from criticism, Hall tells us he is reading between the lines of what Marx has said; he is “implicitly” drawing meaning, particularly in regard to false consciousness and distortions. Considering this and other interpretations of Marxist thought, can we make a connection between obscure/difficult to understand/complex language and multiple interpretations of what it is the speaker/author is saying. In other words, when we don’t use simple language, are we risking obscuring our meaning and leaving it open to interpretation for others?

 

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

Week 6 Discussion Qs

 Hall brings up the concept of interpellation as applied to social formations. (p 335) How is interpellation related to articulation? How are the two different, if at all? Must the two be discussed together? I have more difficulty conceptualizing interpellation than I do articulation. If we are to take up Hall's warning not to study racism as a set of "historically specific racisms" (336) nor as something with a "universal structure" (337). What balance can we strike today between these two approaches in our current historical moment? Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has written that certain forms of modern racism have been impacted by the prevalent ideology of "colorblindness." Are we still in this moment or are new specificities arising?
Post a Comment
Read more

Corrine's Op Ed

       Although the Grammy’s “rebranded” their “urban” music award in 2020 after being taken to task by Tyler, the Creator for using the term to cover all black artists, regardless of their chosen genre, its lingering presence can still be felt in the new “Progressive R&B” award that has taken its place. Where Tyler, the Creator and other artists argued for more diverse genres that allow for broader categorizations for “people who look like [him],” the Grammy’s simply tucked one category into the other, reflecting how “urban” and R&B are both intrinsically linked and coded to the Grammy’s board as “black music.” This neat folding away of urban back into R&B seems to be unhelpful at best and reductive at worst, and has serious repercussions for us all, artist or otherwise: the pigeonholing of black art/ ists into essentialized categories allows for only a few forms of blackness to be legitimated through the Grammy system, but it also reflects the rigid bo...
Post a Comment
Read more