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?
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?
Comments
Post a Comment