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:
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?
Comments
Post a Comment