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

2/2 Discussion Questions

Althusser makes a point that ISAs operate as "unified" under the ruling ideology. To what extent are certain ISAs unified if they are "the site of class struggle" playing out, holding the potential for "ruptures" (to use Hall's phrase) with dominant ideologies? Here, I am thinking about the University of Iowa's COVID policies and how its rules are practiced and applied in many different ways throughout campus, as administrative burdens and scale make it difficult to oversee large numbers of employees. More generally, as junior scholars, grad students, and/or individuals doing cultural studies work, does it make more sense for us to do deep and nuanced readings of theorists such as Marx and Althusser in our work, or to cite others who have expanded these traditions over the years?
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