Skip to main content

(dis)Missing the Discursive

By Anonymous

I wish to call attention to the dismissal of the postmodern line of inquiry that has surfaced in the prescribed readings and our class discussions. We seem to have adapted a line of thought that dismisses everything that is postmodern or that (over)emphasizes the role of discourses in constitution of realities. While I agree to the proposed centrality of Class, it should not come at the cost of omitting other dimensions from our analysis. Attention to the material should not be devoted at the cost of investigating the discursive.

I totally agree with Cloud (2001), when she regrets the turn in Cultural Studies that has taken attention away from politics of material resources to other ‘discursive’ aspects, I also do not doubt the objective existence of class. Having said that, however, I do fail to understand what makes class more ‘objective’ than other forms of discrimination (race, gender and ethnicity for instance). Class is certainly a fundamental ground for inequity in contemporary society; and though this calls for due attention for class related disparities, the attention in my opinion should not come at the cost of neglecting other sites of inequity and domination. Furthermore, inquiry into the material should not relegate discourse to a secondary spot.

Regarding class disparities as more objective seems to lend an overarching effect to Class. It seems to argue that all disparities can ultimately be narrowed down to and investigated in terms of class. I say this on the basis of what has been said on the topic in our class discussions and in response to claims by scholars like Cloud who argue not to regard class as one of the many variables impacting one’s reality. True, Class can be a ground for establishing solidarities, however attention devoted solely to Class cannot account for variables such as race and gender. I thus hold that in establishing the importance of Class we should guard ourselves against a reductionism that makes us neglect other dimensions of existence and domination.

If it is not for explanations that focus on discourses, one cannot investigate the operations of hegemony, ideology etc. The Dutta and Basu (2009) paper is an interesting example in this regard, the domination of the sex workers and their subalternity is not brought about entirely through class related suppression, rather it is brought about by substantial discursive imaginings that legitimates exploitation and counters resistance. It is in the communicative disruption of these imaginings that spaces for material changes are charted out. Discourse thus should not be relegated to the periphery in our preoccupation with the material if our scholarship is to be comprehensive.

Comments

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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more