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

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

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more