Skip to main content

Biden’s Great Moving Nowhere Show

In The Great Moving Nowhere Show, a text I thoroughly appreciated, Stuart Hall (10) writes: "It needs to be clearly said that a project to transform and modernise society in a radical direction, which does not disturb any existing interests and has no enemies, is not a serious political enterprise." 

This reminded me of Joe Biden’s pledge to wealthy donors that “nothing will fundamentally change '' when he became president. While he has shattered numerous campaign promises, this is one of the few that remains unbroken. 

My first question relates to this critique of insipid status-quo supporting centrism and asks: 

If dominant political parties such as The Democratic Party (U.S.) and Labour (U.K.) are beholden to corporate interests and actively oppose “fundamental change”, where is the energy of left wing activists best harnessed instead? (Rank-and-file labor unions and tenants unions, alongside abolitionist and mutual aid groups, spring to mind)

“The Great Moving Nowhere Show” is an apt description of the Biden administration, which has chosen to respond to devastating crises (COVID, cost of living increases, unaffordable rent, exploitative private healthcare) with typical Democratic apathy: “unfortunate 'facts of life' which folks must simply put up with,” to quote Hall (11). 

”Can’t the states fix COVID?” cry the party leadership, blaming groundhog day-esque legislative failures on the month’s flavor of rotating villain. “Just you wait till we primary Machin!” “We need to vote HARDER against Sinema in 2024!” 

As the government chooses to sacrifice lives “on the altar of jobs and growth” (Hall, 12) by coercing people back to working in person during a catastrophic pandemic, my second question asks: 

If, like now, institutions such as the federal government and UI’s Board of Regents want to pretend the pandemic is over, how can we organize ourselves to keep our own communities safe?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

Pedagogy vs. the indulgence of regressive politics (a. darryl moton)

I deeply hate to focus on merely one aspect of the incredibly rich texts we read for this week, but I stopped clearly on this paragraph from the Giroux: These are hard times for educators and advocates of democratic schooling. Beseiged by the growing forces of vocationalism and the neoconservative cultural warriors, prospective and existing classroom teachers are caught in an ideological crossfire regarding the civic and political responsibilities they assume as engaged critics and cultural theorists. Asked to define themselves either through the language of the marketplace or through a discourse of liberal objectivity and neutrality that abstracts the political from the realm of the cultural and sopcial, educators are increasingly being pressured to become either servants of corporate power or disengaged specialists wedded to the imperatives of a resurgent and debasing academic professionalism.(343) Having taught in high schools in the early-to-mid-2000s, I witnessed firsthand both...

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?