DOCSLIB.ORG

Marx Between Structure and Culture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marx Between Structure and Culture Stuart Hall. Cultural Studies 1983: A Theoretical History. Ed. Jennifer Daryl Slack and Lawrence Grossberg. Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2016. 232 pp. $23.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-8223-6263-0. Reviewed by Sergiy Yakovenko Published on H-Russia (January, 2017) Commissioned by Hanna Chuchvaha (University of Calgary) Today’s undergrads who take courses in cul‐ of British cultural studies from its inception in the tural studies might be surprised to learn what 1960s, has undoubtedly earned his place in histo‐ their discipline was primarily about thirty-five ry as the most influential theorist in the feld. Con‐ years back. Moreover, leaving alone today’s ever sidering the fact that most of his pioneering work, more diversified feld of cultural studies’ inquiry, done both at the Centre for Contemporary Cultur‐ even such areas as postmodernism, ethnic stud‐ al Studies at the University of Birmingham and at ies, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, new his‐ the Open University, was primarily collaborative toricism, psychoanalysis, communication, and research published in edited volumes, this edition gender, which attracted so many scholars at the is unique in bringing to the public one of Hall's discipline’s very beginning in the United States, full-authored contributions. are barely touched if ever in Stuart Hall’s Cultural The provenance of the totalizing Marxist in‐ Studies 1983: A Theoretical History (2016), edited flection of Hall’s Cultural Studies becomes clear and with an introduction by Jennifer Daryl Slack when we learn about the occasion for the collect‐ and Lawrence Grossberg. Marxism and Cultural ed texts to appear: the eight essays comprising the Studies 1983 would be a much more candid, al‐ volume were initially lectures delivered by the though, admittedly, less commercially viable, title author in the summer of 1983 at the University of for the book. Hence both the editors’ introduction Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as part of the teach‐ and the author’s preface are full of disclaimers re‐ ing institute “Marxism and the Interpretation of garding the seemingly comprehensive and uni‐ Culture: Limits, Frontiers, Boundaries.” As Hall versal character of the title—the disclaimers that had some reservations with regard to the publica‐ are necessary to appreciate Hall’s volume for tion of his lectures as a book (having written, nev‐ what it is and is declared to be: a theoretical histo‐ ertheless, a preface to the projected volume in ry. Hall (1932-2014), who was at the foundations 1988), this posthumous edition can be viewed as a H-Net Reviews tribute to the great scholar by the collection’s edi‐ studies from the very beginning was taken up by tors Grossberg and Slack—Hall’s disciples and col‐ professors and graduates of departments of Eng‐ leagues, who applied minimal editing in order to lish as well as Hoggart and Hall himself, both of preserve “the characteristic rhythms of Hall’s oral whom shaped their theoretical perspectives in a delivery” (p. xiii). In their introduction, the editors respectful opposition to a very influential fgure make it clear that they want us to perceive of the in British literary criticism—F. R. Leavis. Having volume as a record of the event rather than as a paid homage to literary criticism, especially to closed theoretical position: being primarily Leavis’s close reading methodology, as an impor‐ “Marxism’s contribution to the interpretation of tant resource for the constitution of cultural stud‐ culture” (p. ix) due to its necessary compliance ies, Hall notes that it was crucial for Hoggart in with the topic of the teaching institute, the vol‐ his The Uses of Literacy (1957) to overcome ume’s obvious lacunae with respect to a compre‐ Matthew Arnold’s traditional take on culture, hensive account of cultural studies as a discipline championed by Leavis, as the highest achieve‐ were later partially fxed by Hall himself in his ment of human thought, and to turn to the read‐ widely anthologized essay, “Cultural Studies and ing of “the front living room” of the prewar Its Theoretical Legacies” (1992), presented initial‐ British industrial working class as if it were “a ly as a lecture at the 1988 conference “Cultural piece of prose” (pp. 9-10). Among other influential Studies Now and in the Future” (University of Illi‐ sources of cultural studies, Hall mentions anthro‐ nois at Urbana-Champaign), where he extended pology (practiced mainly by Raymond Williams), his survey to the questions of race, subjectivity, admitting its relative weakness in Britain, and so‐ poststructuralism, and feminism. ciology, with its important discussion of mass soci‐ Marxism as a centerpiece of Cultural Studies ety and mass culture, initiated by the Frankfurt 1983 is not only a tribute to the institute’s topic. As School in the 1930s. According to Hall, mass cul‐ Hall elucidates in his preface and in the frst lec‐ ture and late capitalism are exactly the subjects ture, “The Formation of Cultural Studies,” his out‐ where Hoggart’s mere refocusing of Leavis’s look reflects his own personal experience of cul‐ methodology proved utterly insufficient and tural studies, which has its undisguised political where cultural studies wended its way to what and institutional underpinning specific to the in‐ Hall considers its most effective direction—the so- tellectual situation in Britain in the 1950s and called Western Marxist tradition, represented by 1960s. Emerging “as a response to a very concrete Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Ben‐ political problem”—how the British working class jamin, György Lukács, and Antonio Gramsci. That evolved “under conditions of economic affluence” is why Hoggart’s departure from the Centre for (p. 5)—the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Contemporary Cultural Studies to join UNESCO is Studies at the University of Birmingham, of which underlined as a milestone for “the Marxist alter‐ Hall was a director from 1969 to 1979, succeeding native [to] become … a significant reference point its founding director Richard Hoggart, cultural and resource for developing Cultural Studies” (p. studies became a platform for the New Left to 24). wrestle with a vulgar Marxism of class struggle Williams’s contribution to cultural studies, and economic determinism. As Hall himself ad‐ which is the focus of the second lecture, “Cultural‐ mits, “it was partially fortuitous that the feld was ism,” vividly exemplifies that passage from Marx‐ organized around the concept of culture, which is ism as literary criticism to Marxism as critique of exceedingly slippery, vague, and amorphous, with ideology. Williams’s early Culture and Society: multifarious and diverse meanings” (p. 4). In spite 1780-1950 (1958), being just a rereading of the lit‐ of its strong sociological implications, cultural erary, Arnold-Leavis tradition from a broader cul‐ 2 H-Net Reviews tural perspective, was later offset by E. P. Thomp‐ Althusser’s constant attempts to impose a struc‐ son’s The Making of the English Working Class turalist stigma on such key Marx’s concepts as the (1963), where the court documents, pamphlets, metaphor of the base and superstructure, the the‐ and newspapers represent precisely those popu‐ ory of determination, the problem of the subject, lar voices that Williams could not fnd in the liter‐ and the nature of the social formation. Hall ex‐ ary canon. Williams’s The Long Revolution (1961) plains Althusser’s fallacy in distinguishing be‐ brings a different and, for Hall, a much more in‐ tween the “false,” early, Hegelian, pre-structural‐ teresting perspective on what he calls “the totali‐ ist Marx and the “true,” post-Hegelian Marx by a ty” (p. 38), or a conception of narrowly under‐ misreading of “different levels of abstraction” (p. stood social practices in their relations with the 103), on which Marx operates approaching his rest of the social formation. Williams’s “cultural‐ various concepts. Despite his disagreement with ism” stems from his newly acquired philosophical Althusser, what Hall calls “Althusser’s break with and anthropological concept of Promethean Man, classical Marxism” (p. 127) helped him to hone his “who does not exist apart from the activity” (p. position on ideology (Lecture 6, “Ideology and Ide‐ 39), which confirms Williams’s inclination to ological Struggle”). Contrary to Althusser, Hall in‐ Hegel and early Marx’s abandonment of economic sists that ideology does not only reproduce the so‐ determination in favor of human energy that con‐ cial relations of production but also sets limits to stitutes the material social practices. Williams’s the self-reproduction of society by means of an turn to “the structure of feeling” points to the bal‐ unending process of “the shifts of accentuation,” ance of Marxist realization that people are sub‐ which constantly occur in ideology understood as jects of the imposed economic relationships and a language. This conceptualization of ideology as greater attention to the feld of culture and con‐ language with its shifts of accentuation, akin to sciousness, as well as signifies, in Hall’s view, Derridian différance, makes perfect sense when Williams’s passage from being a covert Marxist to projected on Hall’s conceptualization of hegemo‐ a covert structuralist. Hall’s next lecture, “Struc‐ ny, understood in terms of Gramsci, with whom turalism,” is both a tribute to and a refutation of Hall seems to have an unreserved propinquity Émile Durkheim and Claude Lévi-Strauss’s struc‐ (Lecture 7, “Domination and Hegemony”). Refut‐ turalism understood not so much as a particular ing the vulgar economic determinism, Hall posits method as rather “a mode of thought” (p. 54). Like the concept of hegemony as fuctuating and ongo‐ Williams, Lévi-Strauss shows an evolution from a ing mastery of a historical situation where power Marxist-culturalist perspective to a structuralist with its ideological discourses is negotiated in a one; yet, unlike Williams, his structuralism is not wide cultural feld rather than imposed upon pas‐ “covert,” and by the time Lévi-Strauss writes his sive social subjects in a pre-existing class distribu‐ four volumes of Mythologiques (1969-81), he parts tion of power.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Materialism, Social Formation and Socio-Spatial Relations : an Essay in Marxist Geography Richard Peet
    Document généré le 1 oct. 2021 06:28 Cahiers de géographie du Québec Materialism, Social Formation and Socio-Spatial Relations : an Essay in Marxist Geography Richard Peet Volume 22, numéro 56, 1978 Résumé de l'article La géographie marxiste fait partie de la science marxiste et à ce titre elle a URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/021390ar l'autonomie relative des instances qui composent le tout social étudié. Ces DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/021390ar instances, ou les relations qui s'établissent entre elles et qui sont l'objet de la géographie marxiste, sont en premier lieu la relation dialectique entre Aller au sommaire du numéro formations sociales et environnement naturel et en second lieu la dialectique spatiale entre les composantes d'une formation sociale enracinée dans l'espace ou entre des formations sociales dans différentes régions. D'où la nécessité de Éditeur(s) renvoyer aux concepts de mode de production et de formation sociale, de définir et d'illustrer le concept de dialectique spatiale et le développement des Département de géographie de l'Université Laval contradictions dans l'espace. ISSN 0007-9766 (imprimé) 1708-8968 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Peet, R. (1978). Materialism, Social Formation and Socio-Spatial Relations : an Essay in Marxist Geography. Cahiers de géographie du Québec, 22(56), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.7202/021390ar Tous droits réservés © Cahiers de géographie du Québec, 1978 Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Socialism As a Distinct Socioeconomic Formation Internal to the Modern Mode of Production
    New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry Vol. 5, No. 2 (May 2012) Pp. 20-50 Market Socialism as a Distinct Socioeconomic Formation Internal to the Modern Mode of Production Alberto Gabriele UNCTAD Francesco Schettino University of Rome ABSTRACT: This paper argues that, during the present historical period, only one mode of production is sustainable, which we call the modern mode of production. Nevertheless, there can be (both in theory and in practice) enough differences among the specific forms of modern mode of production prevailing in different countries to justify the identification of distinct socioeconomic formations, one of them being market socialism. In its present stage of evolution, market socialism in China and Vietnam allows for a rapid development of productive forces, but it is seriously flawed from other points of view. We argue that the development of a radically reformed and improved form of market social- ism is far from being an inevitable historical necessity, but constitutes a theoretically plausible and auspicable possibility. KEYWORDS: Marx, Marxism, Mode of Production, Socioeconomic Formation, Socialism, Communism, China, Vietnam Introduction o our view, the correct interpretation of the the most advanced mode of production, capitalism, presently existing market socialism system (MS) was still prevailing only in a few countries. Yet, Marx Tin China and Vietnam requires a new and partly confidently predicted that, thanks to its intrinsic modified utilization of one of Marx’s fundamental superiority and to its inbuilt tendency towards inces- categories, that of mode of production. According to sant expansion, capitalism would eventually embrace Marx, different Modes of Production (MPs) and dif- the whole world.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Economics
    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Working Paper Problematizing the Global Economy: Financialization and the “Feudalization” of Capital Rajesh Bhattacharya Ian Seda-Irizarry Paper No. 01, Spring 2014, revised 1 Problematizing the Global Economy: Financialization and the “Feudalization” of Capital Rajesh Bhattacharya1 and Ian J. Seda-Irizarry2 Abstract In this essay we note that contemporary debates on financialization revolve around a purported “separation” between finance and production, implying that financial profits expand at the cost of production of real value. Within the literature on financialization, we primarily focus on those contributions that connect financialization to global value-chains, production of knowledge- capital and the significance of rent (ground rent, in Marx’s language) in driving financial strategies of firms, processes that are part of what we call, following others, the feudalization of capital. Building on the contributions of Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff, we problematize the categories of capital and capitalism to uncover the capitalocentric premises of these contributions. In our understanding, any discussion of the global economy must recognize a) the simultaneous expansion of capitalist economic space and a non-capitalist “outside” of capital and b) the processes of exclusion (dispossession without proletarianization) in sustaining the capital/non-capital complex. In doing so, one must recognize the significance of both traditional forms of primitive accumulation as well as instances of “new enclosures” in securing rent for dominant financialized firms. Investment in knowledge-capital appears as an increasingly dominant instrument of extraction of rent from both capitalist and non-capitalist producers within a transformed economic geography. In our understanding, such a Marxian analysis renders the separation problem an untenable proposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action Udc: 316.286:316.257
    UNIVERSITY OF NIŠ The scientific journal FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Philosophy and Sociology Vol.2, No 6/2, 1999 pp. 217 - 223 Editor of Special issue: Dragoljub B. Đorđević Address: Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, YU Tel: +381 18 547-095, Fax: +381 18-547-950 NEW SOCIAL PARADIGM: HABERMAS'S THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION UDC: 316.286:316.257 Ljubiša Mitrović Faculty of Philosophy, Niš Abstract. The paper discusses the contribution of J. Habermas to the foundation of a new social paradigm in the form of the communicative action theory. The author first gives a global survey of Habermas's intellectual development, starting from Marx through the critical theory to post-Marxism that Habermas finally left behind since oriented towards convergence and integration of the social action theory, the system theory and the symbolic interactionism theory. Unlike Marx's paradigm of production and social labor as the basic category Marxist theory is built upon, Habermas has built a new paradigm of the communicative action focused upon the communicative mind, communication and rationality as well as the communicative community. The author critically points to the values as well as inner limits of Habermas's theory that reduced a complex and controversial class nature of the society to the "communicative community" thus promoting idealistic worship of the role of the rational discourse. Key words: Communicative Action, Rational Discourse, Communicative Mind, Communicative Community, Post-Marxism The theory of communicative action belongs to the set of modern post-Marxist theories. Its author is Jurgen Habermas (1929-), the German philosopher and sociologist who pertains to the second generation of the Frankfurt philosophical circle.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Lenin's Theory of Socialist Revolution on the 150Th Anniversary Of
    LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog: Revisiting Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution on the 150th anniversary of his birth Page 1 of 6 Revisiting Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution on the 150th anniversary of his birth Today is the 150th anniversary of the birth of Lenin. To mark the occasion, David Lane presents an assessment of Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution. He writes that while Lenin was correct in his appraisal of the social forces in support of a bourgeois revolution, he provided an incomplete and erroneous analysis of advanced imperial monopoly capitalism. Consequently, the October Revolution of 1917 was a local and regional achievement, but did not have the global revolutionary consequences that he anticipated. It is 150 years since the birth, on 22 April 1870 in Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk, Russia), of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov: known universally as Lenin. He came from a wealthy family in the social estate of the nobility. His father was an inspector of schools and able to finance the education of his two sons at university. A formative event in Lenin’s life was the execution by hanging of his brother for plotting the assassination of the Tsar in 1887. Lenin himself followed in the tradition of opposition to the autocracy and was expelled from Kazan university for dissident activity and later, in 1897, exiled for three years to Shushenskoye in Siberia. He became an active social-democrat in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and was a founder and leader of its Bolshevik wing. Lenin was a leading Marxist theorist of monopoly capitalism and is best known for devising the tactics and strategy for the successful Bolshevik insurrection against the Provisional Government in October 1917.
    [Show full text]
  • Mode of Production and Mode of Exploitation: the Mechanical and the Dialectical'
    DjalectiCalAflthropologY 1(1975) 7 — 2 3 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam — Printed in The Netherlands MODE OF PRODUCTION AND MODE OF EXPLOITATION: THE MECHANICAL AND THE DIALECTICAL' Eugene E. Ruyle In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material produc- tive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstruc- ture and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that deter- mines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.2 The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of the direct producers, determines the relation of rulers and ruled, as it grows immediately out of production itself and in turn reacts upon it as a determining agent. .. It is always the direct relation of the owners of the means of production to the direct producers which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden foundation of the entire social structure.3 In the first of these two passages, Marx in crypto-Marxist bourgeois social science, and appears to be arguing for the sort of techno- then by exploring the possibilities of supple- economic determinism which has become menting the "mode of production" approach increasingly fashionable in bourgeois social with a "mode of exploitation" analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx and Ralf Dahrendorf: a Comparative Perspective on Class Formation and Conflict
    Karl Marx and Ralf Dahrendorf: A Comparative Perspective on Class Formation and Conflict İdris GÜÇLÜ Dr., Elmadağ Polis Meslek Yüksek Okulu [email protected] Karl Marx ve Ralf Dahrendorf: Sınıf Oluşumu ve Karl Marx and Ralf Dahrendorf: A Comparative Çatışma Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış Açısı Perspective on Class Formation and Conflict Özet Abstract Bu çalışma, klasik sosyal kuramcı Karl Marx ve This study addresses the concepts of class forma‐ çağdaş sosyal kuramcı Ralf Dahrendorf tarafın‐ tion and conflict as defined by the classical social dan tanımlanan sınıf oluşumu ve çatışmayı ele theorist, Karl Marx and the contemporary social almaktadır. Bu çalışmada, bu iki sosyal teorisye‐ theorist, Ralf Dahrendorf. Both social theorists nin sınıf oluşumu ve çatışma kuramlarındaki are pioneering members of the same sociological benzerlikler ve farklılıklar incelenmektedir. tradition called the “conflict” perspective. It is Bilindiği üzere, her iki kuramcı da aynı sosyolojik rather appropriate to indicate that Marx is the gelenek olan “çatışma’ kuramının öncülerinde‐ founding father of Conflict Theory and that his dir. Marx'ın tartışmasız olarak, çatışma teorisinin work had a strong influence on that of Dahren‐ kurucusu olduğunu söylemek pek yanlış olmaz. dorf in almost every respect, providing Dahren‐ Ayrıca, hiç şüphe yoktur ki, Marx’in çalışmaları‐ dorf with the stepping‐stones from which to nın hemen hemen her alanda, çatışma kuramcısı build new theoretical ideas. Within this context, olan Dahrendof’u etkilediği ve çalışmalarının this study first outlines the concepts of both köşe taşı olduğu aşikardır. Bu bağlamda, bu social theorists. Then it deals with what the two çalışmada aynı zamanda, Karl Marx'ın, Ralf perspectives share in common and compares the Dahrendorf’un sınıf oluşumu ve çatışma teorisi differences between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical-Materialism.Pdf
    HISTORICAL MATERIALISM by Maurice Cornforth l LITTLE MEW WORLD PAPERBACKS LNW-30 1.65 Historical Materialism By MAURICE CORN FORTH INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS, NEW YORK Copyright © by I nternational P ublish ers C o ., I nc., 1954 Second (revised) Edition © by Maurice Cornforth, 1962 First U.S. Edition, 1971 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Fourth Printing, 1975 Volume Two of the 3-volume Dialectical Materialism: An Introduction SBN 7178-0327-9 Printed in the United States of America PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION This volume has been so much revised and changed in this new edition as to be virtually a new book. These extensive changes have been made in the attempt to eradicate any kind of dogmatism, and to bring theory into closer accord with practice and with the actual course of events. The second chapter is in part based on an article on “ Marxism as Science’* which appeared in Marxism Today, April, 19G0. M. C. London, May, 1962 CONTENTS C hapter i Scientific Socialism . 7 Chapter 2 Materialism and the Science of Society >4 Chapter 3 T he M ode of Production . 35 Chapter 4 T he Fundamental Law of Social D evelopment .... 55 C hapter 5 T he Social Superstructure 79 C hapter 6 C lass Ideas and C lass R ule 96 C hapter 7 Socialism and C ommunism . 110 C hapter 8 T owards a Human Way of Life 130 Chapter One SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM Capitalism and Socialism The idea of socialism arose and gripped men’s minds in modern society because of discontent with the evils of capital­ ism, and the perception that only by a radical transformation of the entire economic basis of society could these evils be done away with.
    [Show full text]
  • Futures of the Lumpenproletariat
    Lumpen: Vagrancies of a Concept from Marx to Fanon (and on) by Bennett Dempsey Carpenter Program in Literature Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Roberto Dainotto, Supervisor ___________________________ Wahneema Lubiano ___________________________ Anne Garréta ___________________________ Nancy Armstrong Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Literature in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 i v ABSTRACT Lumpen: Vagrancies of a Concept from Marx to Fanon (and on) by Bennett Dempsey Carpenter Graduate Program in Literature Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Roberto Dainotto, Supervisor ___________________________ Wahneema Lubiano ___________________________ Anne Garréta ___________________________ Nancy Armstrong An abstract of a thesis/dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Literature in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright by Bennett Dempsey Carpenter 2019 Abstract This dissertation, Lumpen: Vagrancies of a Concept from Marx to Fanon (and on), tracks the concept of the lumpenproletariat from its coinage by Karl Marx through its reworking by Franz Fanon, the Black Panthers and others in the context of the colonial liberation and Black Power movements, and onwards into contemporary debates about populism, identity, politics, and the end
    [Show full text]
  • On Social Formation Gary Y
    On Social Formation Gary Y. Okihiro and Elda Tsou For whatever reason, unlike women’s and queer studies, which have significant bodies of writings on theory, ethnic studies has not for the most part been reflective of its theoretical formulations that frame, explain, and direct its projects. Mundane, daily survival in a generally hostile environment might have consumed much of our time and energies; race and racial formation might have loomed so large as to block alternate sources of light; identity, experience, and voice might have silenced external criticisms and proof demands. Of course, persistent questions about its legitimacy should have prompted compelling justifications for ethnic studies, including its pedagogical and intellectual merits and distinctions, and actual engagements with our communities and those who hold and wield power should have tested our mettle but also our assumptions and contentions. Even race and racial formation have been more refer- enced than acknowledged or subjected to rough scrutiny.1 We thus welcome this albeit brief moment for critical reflection, and see this occasion as an opportunity to rethink with our colleagues our subject matters and the commitments that underwrite them for the purpose of reanimating our intellectual projects and our politics. Our intentions, nonetheless, for this essay, despite its lofty ambitions, are quite modest. We recognize that many of our colleagues have made enormous contributions to the concept we herein call “social formation,” and that fuller critiques of race-based ethnic studies and political practices, along with their accompanying baggage of nationalism and patriarchy, have been made by others elsewhere and to greater effect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spontaneous Generation of Excess and Its Capitalist Capture" (2009)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2009 The ps ontaneous generation of excess and its capitalist capture Ryanson Alessandro Ku Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Ku, Ryanson Alessandro, "The spontaneous generation of excess and its capitalist capture" (2009). LSU Master's Theses. 2471. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2471 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF EXCESS AND ITS CAPITALIST CAPTURE A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies by Ryanson Alessandro Ku B.S., The George Washington University, 2004 M.A., Louisiana State University, 2008 May 2009 To uncompromising radical thinkers everywhere, like Marx and Deleuze The answer may have emerged in the Manifesto . ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my dear advisors: Greg Stone, who gave me the opportunity to do graduate work, introduced me to theory, and insists on Marx (making him persist); John Protevi, who introduced me to Deleuze and demands a rigorous and complex thinker; and especially Greg Schufreider, the chair of the committee, who with patience, openness, and generosity guided me all the way, going so far as to let me present parts of this thesis in his course in nineteenth- century philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Theories
    06-Walsh (Introduction)-45498.qxd 2/13/2008 7:29 PM Page 196 SECTION 6 CRITICAL THEORIES Marxist, Conflict, and Feminist At the heart of the theories in this section is social stratification by class and power and how it generates conflict. The theories address how those at the top of the social heap pass laws to maintain their privileged position and how those at the bot- tom often violate those laws to improve their position. These theories are thus the most “politicized” of all criminological theories. Sanyika Shakur, a.k.a. Kody Scott, came to embrace this politicized view of society as he grew older and was con- verted to Afrocentric Islam. Shakur was very much a member of the class Karl Marx called the “lumpenproletariat,” which is the very bottom of the class hierarchy. Many critical theorists would view Shakur’s criminality as justifiable rebellion against class and racial exploitation. Shakur wanted all the material rewards of American capitalism, but he perceived that the only way he could get them was through crime. He was a thoroughgoing egoist, but many Marxists would excuse this as a trait in him nourished by capitalism, the “root cause” of crime. From his earliest days, he was on the fringes of a society he plainly disdained. He frequently referred to whites as “Americans” to emphasize his distance from them, and he referred to black cops as “Negroes” to distinguish them from the “New African Man.” He called himself a “student of revolutionary science,” referred to the 1992 L.A. riots as “rebellion,” and advocated a separate black nation in America.
    [Show full text]