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

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