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

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?

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?