Politics, Prose, Pedagogy

Given the emphasis on "practices" related to pedagogy in these readings, I want to consider our conversation from several weeks ago about the often "difficult and demanding language" of academic prose and cultural criticism. 

In recounting his transition from BCCCS to Open University, Hall remarks that he did not see "why it [cultural studies] wouldn't 'live,' as a more popular pedagogy." (501). The imperative that cultural studies "live," that it be active and alive is reminiscent of Althusser's conception of ideology as actions inserted into practices within apparatuses — that ideology has a material basis. Giroux cites Hall on the role of intellectuals as it relates to these ideas: to "translate knowledge into the practice of culture" (348). Certainly there is some degree of "translating" that Hall believes necessary in a pedagogical project. But it seems we shouldn't mistake the work of translating for the appearance of simple, clear, and readable prose. In Giroux's presentation, Gitlin's prose is fabulously legible — it provides us with a ready-made set of politics ("class politics"), does not burden us with having to do much intellectual work regarding identity and class composition (i.e., substantive class analysis), reinforces already dominant ideologies and deceptive ideas about common sense (i.e., the separation between culture and politics and the economic), and proposes ready-to-implement solutions (organize working people based on their "economic interests" absent any sense of the conceptual frameworks through which people come to understand those interests. And also vote for Bill Clinton). The shortcomings of Gitlin's clearly expressed prose seem obvious enough. 

In many of our readings thus far, Stuart Hall has made passing remarks about his theoretical and intellectual movement from literature and an analysis of texts to a cultural studies that analyze texts within contexts. With that in mind, I am less interested in litigating to what extent Butler or any other cultural critics' writing is legible to a mass audience (there are criticisms, to be sure). I am more inclined toward questions about its uptake in educational settings. How is critical theory taken up in classrooms? How does it circulate? Among whom? How is it taught, and to whom? Under what conditions is it produced? To whose benefit? Detriment? What is its relationship to funding, academic prestige, or job security? What is the material basis for these ideologies?

The readings this week ask us to think about why we or anyone else would enter these educational institutions and what we should be doing while there. In short, they ask and attempt to answer, "what is the relationship between pedagogy and politics?" When reading for my seminars, I often wish that cultural criticism was less "jargony." However, it seems reasonable to ask why that is something I desire. I want to propose that when we ask for less jargony work, in these contexts, it often betrays a belief that there is a direct correlation between comprehension and action. This perspective, that understanding will lead to action is precisely the position Gitlin advocates — that if academics would stop wasting their time with cultural studies jargon and begin preaching "real politics" that the working class (presumably some idle yet already formed entity, perhaps not unlike how Hall describes the New Left’s conception of the Labour Party as a “prize to be won”) would recognize themselves and be interpellated, mobilizing for themselves as a class. In Hall's sense, this approach seems false, in that it is only half right. 

My questions for this week: What do this week's readings (Kiang in particular) suggest about the debates over / scrutiny of academic texts and their illegibility to a broader audience? To what extent does an emphasis on "practice" (perhaps in the classroom) and an awareness that these institutions are not "value-neutral" work to resolve contradictions embedded in schools and in higher ed?

-John Tappen