In Hall’s discussion within “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity,” he begins by returning to the idea of the ‘open horizon.’ Specifically, he advocates for taking theory, paradigms, and interpretive schemes and applying them to new historical conditions, racism in this case. According to Hall, Gramsci practices this type of ‘open’ theory within a broader context of marxism, directing it to new questions and conditions, providing an important method for future theorists. When Hall begins his discussion of racism, he discusses the interrelationship between class and race, saying that many analyses tend to ‘privilege’ either class or race when examining this interrelationship. During this section, I was picking up some major “intersectionality” vibes. Both of my questions relate to these vibes:
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