On page 80, Hall shares: "We were also formed in a more traditional relationship between the public and the private so although we may have been expanding with it we didn't necessarily have a language that was able to cross those boundaries easily, to speak from one to another." I think about narrative/language/changing language/multiple narratives/etc a lot and here I paused and thought, do we need to change/expand language, or just get rid of it? Meaning, how can we reimagine communicating? A few pages later hooks talks about Bill T. Jones and the ways he doesn't "work solely with language, and that he has such a presence in the body..." (83). What if communication was grounded in the body rather than language? How can our body/experience communicate and in what ways would it be different from language?
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