I was very interested in the discussion around masculinity, especially when Hall contextualized its roots, arguing that masculinity served as the answer to emasculation during enslavement among formerly enslaved people. Hall also connected the idea of family as the only site of renewal to slavery, stating that the family unit was an act of resistance and the only structure for black people during slavery. How can we contend with both the resistance qualities of masculinity and the family unit and their deployment to alienate/separate/uphold patriarchy?
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...
Comments
Post a Comment