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

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