Skip to main content

What is this 'Super' in the Super Bowl halftime show

Reading Stuart Hall's excellent "What is this ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture," I couldn't help but reflect back on this year's Super Bowl halftime show—low hanging fruit, certainly, but one I have no qualms about devouring. 

This year, of course, was the first time hip-hop had taken center stage at the Super Bowl halftime show; I am deeply sad that Stuart Hall wasn't here to witness it, as his towering intellect would no doubt have enriched the often sensationalized discourse that circulated online before, during, and after the performance. 

Utilizing Hall's dynamic theoretical framework, one could compellingly argue that the halftime show signified hip-hop's incorporation into "the circuits of power of capital" (469) with the "control over narratives and representations pass[ing] into the hands of the established cultural bureaucracies" (470); in this case, allowing the NFL to censor anti-police lyrics in an attempt to sanitize the music and appease white conservative football fans. With this in mind, I ask: 

Do you agree with Dr. Cornel West's (who Hall cites throughout the article) post-show assessment that: 

[The show was] a missed opportunity for truth-telling about Brian Flores' challenge to the NFL's plantation system. Aside from brother Eminem kneeling, the political silence of our artists was sad!

My second considers Hall's concern on page 473 about "the very masculine identities that are oppressive to women, that claim visibility for their hardness only at the expense of the vulnerability of black women and the feminization of gay black men." 

Do you have concerns about the NFL's decision to "pedestal"—as documentary filmmaker Byron Hurt observed—Black musical artists such as Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg despite their "deeply problematic lyrics about girls, women and the queer community" (Hurt) and accusations of violence against women? 

Glenn H 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Journals and Prose

My two questions from this week have emerged from the Judith Butler piece, A 'Bad Writer' Bites Back , both centered around the journal, Philosophy and Literature —which Butler describes as the self-proclaimed “arbiter of good prose.”  I agree with Butler’s staunch defense of questioning common sense and provoking “new ways of looking at a familiar world”, and was reminded of David Harvey’s quote in the introduction to his Companion to Marx’s Capital : “Real learning always entails a struggle to understand the unknown.”   Butler describes Philosophy and Literature as a “culturally conservative academic journal” which naturally led me down a longer-than-anticipated visit to the journal's website . I was greeted with a video presented by the Philosophy and Literature’s editor Garry L. Hagberg, who rails against the “jargon infested” work that litters the journal’s field, locating Philosophy and Literature in clear opposition to such bothersome clutter.  However, Hagberg...
Post a Comment
Read more

Articulation_by_Abby Escatel

 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Week 5

  What are the differences between Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual” and Hall’s “public pedagogy?”   On the topic of the diasporic intellectual, Kuan-Hsing Chen mentions that “Some of the diasporic intellectuals I know of have exercised their power, for better or worse, back home, but you have not. And some of them are trying to move back, in whatever way. So, in that sense, you are very peculiar” (503). Although Hall felt some reconnection with the Carribean through the Black diasporic population in Britain, he insists that cultural identity is not fixed but “comes out of very specific historical formations, out of very specific histories and cultural repertoires of enunciation, that it can constitute a ‘positionality’, which we call, provisionally, identity” (503). Individuals can negotiate, rearticulate, recontextualize their different identities, but how does this rearticulation work at an institutional-level?   Thelma
Post a Comment
Read more