Skip to main content

The confused Rajorshi

I found it a bit weird that Jon Stratton and Ien Ang seem to agree with Graeme Turner’s reading of British Cultural Studies as “a form of intellectual neo-colonialism” (384) but spend very little time unpacking Taiwanese Cultural studies and terms like “subaltern” or “postcolonial.” How can an entire country be representative of the “subaltern”? How can only former colonies represent the“diaspora”? 


I will also take this opportunity to ask a question that is bothering me for some time. What does institutionalization mean? If cultural studies emerged as a result of conversations between people in academia, isn’t institutionalization a predictable fallout?

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