Skip to main content

Globalization/Hybridity Questions_Escatel

 Hi everyone,

I can't believe this is our last post for the semester!

Paul du Gay explores the discourse of economy and economic management in the context of economic globalization alongside national economic securitization. Understanding globalization as a form of common sense, du Gay insists on a distinction between what was once a rhetorical logic of homoeconomicus to its contemporary iteration of entrepreneurial self/man. (119-120) I wan to posit a question on method, how do we come to name a new constitutive formation? To me, both of these sound oddly similar. From my understanding, entrepreneurial man is coded to be in constant making of the self (attempting to erase the "losers" of capitalism as always self making; i.e. unemployment), one whose status is perpetuated by the convergence of state and market logics. So while I think I follow where there is distinction, how do we become perceptive to the complexity of the contemporary moment without flattening distinctions of what is occurring now than what was occurring before? 

Nestory Garcia Canclini's engagement with hybridity (intersections and mixings between cultures--p.41 and the generative space of creating new structures/new practices--43 a field of energy and sociocultural innovation--49) was very illuminating for me. Canclini argues that hybridization is taken up by Hall to resist detainment he states, "boundaries, borders, instead of detaining people, are places that people cross in a continuous manner illegally." (50) How is the literal border a site of constant negotiation, or a space of sociocultural innovation troubled/challenged by migrating bodies? 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2/2 Discussion Questions

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?

Week 6 Discussion Qs

 Hall brings up the concept of interpellation as applied to social formations. (p 335) How is interpellation related to articulation? How are the two different, if at all? Must the two be discussed together? I have more difficulty conceptualizing interpellation than I do articulation. If we are to take up Hall's warning not to study racism as a set of "historically specific racisms" (336) nor as something with a "universal structure" (337). What balance can we strike today between these two approaches in our current historical moment? Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has written that certain forms of modern racism have been impacted by the prevalent ideology of "colorblindness." Are we still in this moment or are new specificities arising?