Skip to main content

Week 4 Thoughts

 My first question stems from the tension that seems to come out of most of these readings (especially "The New Left" and "The Great Moving Nowhere Show") between creating "revolutionary" socialist change and playing within the confines of the existing political structures and parties. I was especially struck by Hall's recounting of the New Left's relationship with the Labour Party, in which he writes that "inside the machine, CND withered and shriveled into a talisman, a fetish of party conference resolutions, plaything of the manoeuvres of the block vote, without touching ground in the political consciousness or activity of many actual people" (136). This seems to be quite the issue within the Democratic Party today, in which socialist agendas are utilized to garner votes and give a promise "for a better future" without actually enacting any change at all. I suppose my question here is how can revolutionary leftists work within and without of the existing structures in order to make sure that their goals are not fetishized within the dominant political party?

Something I have been grappling with from these readings (and previous ones) is the importance of the economic base in understanding both political and cultural issues. Hall writes about how the New Left had to push for the cultural dimension (superstructure) to be seen as a constitutive dimension of society, which he states "reflects part of the New Left's long-standing quarrel with the reductionism and economism of the base-superstructure metaphor" (127). While, as a cultural scholar, I absolutely agree with this sentiment, I can't help but wonder if we have done too good of a job moving away from the notion of the determining base. Especially looking at our current situation in COVID (government officials essentially declaring the pandemic over when it is far from such in order to get people back to work, CDC shortening quarantine times, etc.), I wonder if moving even just a notch back toward discussing the base as not the only determining factor, but as one that holds just as much importance as other, more cultural dimensions, would be helpful?

(I apologize for posting so late in the day!)

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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?
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more