Stuart hall in “Who Needs Identity” states that identification is “a process of articulation, a suturing, an over-determination not a subsumption. There is always ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ -- an over determination or a lack, but never a proper fit, a totality.” In this understanding of identification, Hall determined that in the process of identifying, a person is differencing in a form that does not completely fit the whole of one’s personhood, but because of the over determination of identification, it serves as an all-encompassing whole that could identify a person as a group of people. In relation to the indication of identification, how does identification control power structures of hegemonic cultures in the complicated relationship of empowering and depowering individuals who are unified?
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