Skip to main content

Too Much Communication

By Saqib
A few thoughts on this week's readings:

-Cloud's (2005) article was a highlight for me given the stinging nature in the way it attacked conventional communication literature for its shortcomings. The idea that we view labor movements and frictions with the corporate world through strictly a communication lens has major issues. I do conceded there is a certain value in using the discursive space afforded by alternate channels of communication and to find a "democratic" representation of labor in the communication process. But this should not be taken as interchangeable to an improved physical situation for those doing the work under harsh conditions. To assume that communication alone makes things hunky dory is nonsense.

The root of this disease in my mind is partly the academic specialization. Assuming you are a communication scholar, it is logical that in many cases you will view things exclusively from a communication angle. In doing so, you run the risk of exaggerating the effects of engaging in more democratic forms of communication. A less-than rudimentary knowledge of economic policy also adds to this. More ivory-tower syndrome.

-I was wondering of the response of you guys to the point made in Cheney and Cloud's (2006) work on different forms of capitalism. (page 522) Cheney suggests that you have to take into account the "variety of relations among the state, capital, labor and the citizenry" before applying some Marxist-one-size-fit-all theories. As he points out, some of these models operate against TNC interests and take social costs into account. Shouldn't these models pe preserved, or does it boil down to capitalism=bad?

-Again, Cheney suggests on page 529 that we take the modern consumerist economic model into account before setting a Marxist critique. Under this thought, should we view consumer rights as a viable form of capitalist resistance, though it buys into the notion that consumption is the driving force of society? I would say that as long as it does create a net benefit effect to the consumer (most of society), we should not dismiss it, even if it falls short of chosen ideals for class freedom.

Comments

Shaunak Sastry said…
Saqib, I think Cheney's argument is weak. I constantly get the feeling that he's trying to place himself in relation to Cloud's position, which is more firm. Cheney's hedging himself, and seems to be warning us about the perils of relegating democracy as ineffective without showing us what the argument is based on. He seems to be agreeing on most of Cloud's (Marxist) assumptions, and yet differs on the most fundamental one: structural transformation.
March 1, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Academic integrity and knowing what you stand for

By
Reading the story of the UVa President Teresa Sullivan, I am filled with amazement at her integrity and character. Professor Sullivan first and foremost is an A-grade academic, a solid researcher, a great teacher, and an engaged citizen. Of course above and beyond these top-notch credentials, she is a strong leader, one with vision and compassion for her faculty and students. When I read more and more about her leadership style, I am reminded of something my father used to tell me when I was young "You need to have integrity to do anything well in life. You need to figure out where you stand and make sure to stand up for what you believe in, even when that is inconvenient." Now, I don't think I have always been able to follow this dictum consistently, but it is a broad principle that guides me and the way in which I understand leadership. Part of the story of Professor Sullivan's integrity is her excellence as an academic. Academic excellence to me is deepl
Post a Comment
Read more

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
6 comments
Read more

Activism, Communication and Social Change

By
Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var
1 comment
Read more