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