Skip to main content

The Harvard Letter

 There’s a lot to talk about in these readings (as always!), especially as related to questions of discipline, culture/meaning make, the political/what should be political, and the academy/school (and the self - I really liked the interview with Hall). Nevertheless, I want to talk about the Giroux piece and citational practices, as put in context with the Harvard letter. 


I think the Harvard letter speaks to a lot of Giroux’s argument and the ways in which educators can become agents of corporate power (343). It also stirred conversation about sexual/abuse within the academy, though many are highlighting the fact that this is *happening in almost every institution, whether among faculty and students or students and students or TAs and students, everyday.* The point is that sexual abuse is rampant and many in the academy *know* of known abusers, even if only through whispered networks. And, yet, nothing is done; but perhaps most importantly, these scholars are still scholars of high esteem. They are cited and referenced and kept in power. Specifically, a scholar referenced many time in cultural studies. Now, if Giroux knows this I have no idea, but I do. Where does that leave us within cultural studies? What do we do with their work and/or citing them? Or is the Harvard letter another ephemeral instance reminding survivors “how little it registers, how little we’ve been able to change anything or get anybody to do anything” (Hall, 1992, 83).

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?