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

2/2 Discussion Questions

Althusser makes a point that ISAs operate as "unified" under the ruling ideology. To what extent are certain ISAs unified if they are "the site of class struggle" playing out, holding the potential for "ruptures" (to use Hall's phrase) with dominant ideologies? Here, I am thinking about the University of Iowa's COVID policies and how its rules are practiced and applied in many different ways throughout campus, as administrative burdens and scale make it difficult to oversee large numbers of employees. More generally, as junior scholars, grad students, and/or individuals doing cultural studies work, does it make more sense for us to do deep and nuanced readings of theorists such as Marx and Althusser in our work, or to cite others who have expanded these traditions over the years?
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