Within the Hall reading, he distinguishes two popular paradigms in cultural studies: structuralism and culturalism. Is it possible to combine both paradigms? I want to think that folks could pull from both to get a complete picture of the role of culture in society.
The Giroux et al. 2016 reading addresses arguments that I have read about with Black studies: how could we use disciplines to liberate racially marginalized groups when their previously radical origin stories are erased as the discipline still exists within an institution that is hellbent on maintaining the status quo? They claim that we must resist intellectuals, which involves recognizing that intellectuals have political power, recognizing their positionality, and taking on projects that force them to reflect on their role and be involved in the public sphere. Is this enough to bring back the radical origin stories of these disciplines, or are there still structural barriers in academia that make this more difficult to solve (which is why we may need counter-institutions)?
This last point isn't a question, but the second paragraph on page 9 is reminiscent of Lamont's argument about cultural studies in stratification and inequality literature. Lamont and her colleagues (2014) point out that inequality literature focuses specifically on structural inequality, neglecting how it can also be cultural. With this logic, these taken-for-granted, seemingly minor culture repertoires that take place on the individual level become structural (Lamont et al. 2014), which is why we need cultural studies to uncover those covert, everyday, routine messages that go unquestioned.
Comments
Post a Comment