Skip to main content

Last post of the semester

This is a very zoned in question that isn’t the central argument Stratton and Ang are making, but I wanted to unpack their description of the cultural studies book as monstrous. I understand their use of it, but it seems like such a specific word to use. On page 363 they write: “What we have here is more than a simple western hegemony; what we have is a new American hegemony in an English-speaking cultural studies (which speaks to their main argument). I think I am wondering about the tension between not being an “average academic book” as monstrous and cultural studies as an ‘international venture’ as monstrous. Should we desire the not typical, average academic (bringing it all the way back to Giroux) while interrogating the ‘international’ venture? 


Also, just a lighthearted question, I was wondering if people wanted to share what they’re walking away with/thinking about as the semester ends :-) 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Corrine Contemplates the Funk

 I will keep my intro brief, as I think I will mainly just be echoing my classmates, but what a delicious book! I have really be enjoying reading two great minds converse through "the mundane to the profound" (2). Gilroy mentions in his introduction that "readers...are invited to appreciate the tone and timbre of these interlocked voices in the same spirit with which the participants listened carefully to each other" (x). I was reminded of this early in the reading, through hooks and Hall's mediations on conversation as pedagogy, especially Hall's comments on page 7: "It is as much about rhythm as anything else. If you are living the rest of your life at a certain intensified rhythm, it just doesn't fit the rhythm of conversation. You can't hurry." This seems to be compounded for academic readers by their reflections on how being "paid to talk" or teach in the academy changes the status of talking or teaching. My question then rev...
Post a Comment
Read more