Skip to main content

Thoughts on Thoughts

 On page 125, Slack writes: “While working with a still- recognizable model of transmission, Hall’s encoding/decoding challenges the simple assertion of intrinsic identity by insisting that the components of the process (sender, receiver, message, meaning, etc.) are themselves articulations, without essential meanings or identities. This move compels a rethinking of the process of communication not as correspond but as articulation.” Which I, and I think a lot of comm scholars, would agree. This plays an important role in understanding communication but, importantly and especially, in emphasizing the many directions of power and/or influence that can exist within that articulated moment. In a word, an awareness of connection both to an individual and systems. I suppose my question is: shouldn’t more people have this knowledge? How do we share this beyond the academy? Why is Communication in undergrad always focused on public speaking/public relations/marketing etc rather than such consequential theorizing? 

In line with this, I want to discuss more the postmodernist take on the collapse/implosion of all meaning. It’s an argument I have been thinking about a lot and I think Hall adds more nuance to it. He argues that representation/meaning is not at an end, but rather the process of encoding has multiplied to create a plurality of codes. So, meaning does exist but, then I wonder, doesn’t it simultaneously not exist? What if we identify a different meaning than what should be read? I know this is pretty standard “communication does not equal the transmission model and often we read different meanings than what someone wanted to share” argument. Grossberg, too, points to the multiple/intersecting/assemblage ways of language (and reality). I am not arguing meanings should not be multiplied (indeed they are), but I guess I am wondering how this argument works under systems of power. In particular, I’m thinking about the ways multiple meanings exist but, often, it is hegemonic understanding that is written upon them. What does realities mean when only one reality is believed?  How do we get out of this trap? (If it is a real trap, or only one I made up in my mind).


Finally, last Q I have! On page 143 of the interview Hall shares: “This is a cultural transformation. It is not something totally new. It is not something which has a straight, unbroken line of continuity from the past. It is a transformation through a reorganization of the elements of a cultural practice, elements which do not in themselves have any necessary political connotations…” I am wondering the implications of this statement on current activist movements that are fighting/advocating for a new system/order: do we need to transform rather than build anew? When does transform just become reform, and how do we mark the difference? 

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Week 5

  What are the differences between Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual” and Hall’s “public pedagogy?”   On the topic of the diasporic intellectual, Kuan-Hsing Chen mentions that “Some of the diasporic intellectuals I know of have exercised their power, for better or worse, back home, but you have not. And some of them are trying to move back, in whatever way. So, in that sense, you are very peculiar” (503). Although Hall felt some reconnection with the Carribean through the Black diasporic population in Britain, he insists that cultural identity is not fixed but “comes out of very specific historical formations, out of very specific histories and cultural repertoires of enunciation, that it can constitute a ‘positionality’, which we call, provisionally, identity” (503). Individuals can negotiate, rearticulate, recontextualize their different identities, but how does this rearticulation work at an institutional-level?   Thelma
Post a Comment
Read more