I know its been weeks since we’ve read the Dana Cloud piece about the workers that went on strike in Decatur, IL, but I seem to have this reoccurring question that focuses on the definitions of critical theory and critical theoretical work. What is considered resistance and what resistance is more substantial than others? What are the goals of critical scholarship? How do you differentiate critical theory from its close cousin, interpretive work? I understand the tensions between the material and the symbolic and that both are necessary for structural change; however, I am still finding it hard to accept the line that is being drawn between the types of resistance that are considered most appropriate and acceptable when seeking structural change.
I remember our discussion of “feet dragging” and how it should not be considered substantial resistance when compared to more materially based threats to the structure. I see the merit in this statement, but can’t help but wonder, are we so wrapped up in defining what is and what is not critical theory, that we began to build our own structure within the social structure, that marginalizes those who try to resist, but may not live up to our “standards.” Looking at this week’s readings, especially the piece on crisis communication, it seemed that one of the main tenets for subaltern studies is to “acknowledge the existence of the subaltern and of the context in which they coexist with diverse agents” (p. 149). It would seem to me that if a person is a part of a marginalized group or the subaltern, their access to resources and their ability to resist structures is much more limiting than what we as scholars sometimes consider. If a person’s individual livelihood is completely dependent on the very structures that oppress them, then maybe posing a material threat to those that oppress marginalized population is more of a risk than their willing to take. I don’t know, I just fee like our sensitivity to those situations are haughtily placed against our own standards of social change and of resistance, further marginalizing those who do the “feet dragging” because it is all they may be able to access at the time. I’m still thinking it though, still figuring out my response to such claims.
I remember our discussion of “feet dragging” and how it should not be considered substantial resistance when compared to more materially based threats to the structure. I see the merit in this statement, but can’t help but wonder, are we so wrapped up in defining what is and what is not critical theory, that we began to build our own structure within the social structure, that marginalizes those who try to resist, but may not live up to our “standards.” Looking at this week’s readings, especially the piece on crisis communication, it seemed that one of the main tenets for subaltern studies is to “acknowledge the existence of the subaltern and of the context in which they coexist with diverse agents” (p. 149). It would seem to me that if a person is a part of a marginalized group or the subaltern, their access to resources and their ability to resist structures is much more limiting than what we as scholars sometimes consider. If a person’s individual livelihood is completely dependent on the very structures that oppress them, then maybe posing a material threat to those that oppress marginalized population is more of a risk than their willing to take. I don’t know, I just fee like our sensitivity to those situations are haughtily placed against our own standards of social change and of resistance, further marginalizing those who do the “feet dragging” because it is all they may be able to access at the time. I’m still thinking it though, still figuring out my response to such claims.
Comments