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