Week 8- Matt

 

Hall argues that Gramsci’s theories apply to race even though he never explicitly discusses race and seems to be “Eurocentric” (440). However, I feel as if many theoretical issues apply to race, and that usually we critique scholars for not explicitly discussing those connections. So when do theorists deserve “credit” (for lack of a better word) for being critical race scholars even when they do not seem themselves that way?

In “New Ethnicities,” Hall argues that as discussions of representation become more commonplace we must recognize texts “are not necessarily good because black people make them” (445). What is a better way to discuss the topic of representation than a good/bad representation dichotomy? Can we still say some representations are more favorable than others? Or should we try to deconstruct ethnic identities?