Skip to main content

(darryl) axe to fall

This is the first time in a while that I've gotten to read Stuart Hall's thoughts and not feel as if I was being bludgeoned.

I think this was the perfect text for this time in the course, a moment to absorb the thoughts of two people literally conversing and not just via articles.

My question for the week deals with hooks and their recounting of their particularly vicious critique of Oprah Winfrey. She said something that was perceived as rather aggressive and violent. Subsequently:

Is there a place for incisive, aggressive language in cultural critique? In the era of the demonization of so-called "cancel culture," are we truly seeing an age in which questions or critique must be carefully couched--needless or otherwise?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Corrine Contemplates the Funk

 I will keep my intro brief, as I think I will mainly just be echoing my classmates, but what a delicious book! I have really be enjoying reading two great minds converse through "the mundane to the profound" (2). Gilroy mentions in his introduction that "readers...are invited to appreciate the tone and timbre of these interlocked voices in the same spirit with which the participants listened carefully to each other" (x). I was reminded of this early in the reading, through hooks and Hall's mediations on conversation as pedagogy, especially Hall's comments on page 7: "It is as much about rhythm as anything else. If you are living the rest of your life at a certain intensified rhythm, it just doesn't fit the rhythm of conversation. You can't hurry." This seems to be compounded for academic readers by their reflections on how being "paid to talk" or teach in the academy changes the status of talking or teaching. My question then rev...
Post a Comment
Read more