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

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...

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?

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...