In Gramsci’s Hegemony, Intellectuals and the State, the “normal” exercise of hegemony - is “characterized by the combination of force and consent…. The attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by so-called organs of public opinion - newspapers and associations;” this, in connection to Althusser appears to be an example of a state ideological apparatus. This is helpful to inform my own work surrounding the insistence of American journalists to present to their audiences as “objective” professionals; how does this relate to Althusser’s postulation of ideology interpellating individuals as subjects? The more I begin to connect Gramsci, Althusser, and Hall into my research, the usage of “objectivity” does present as more of a cynical hegemonic practice to disguise a reflection of the ruling class; as Althusser poses “there is no ideology except by the subject and for subjects.” To claim to be objective, as a subject yourself- does begin to signal an alarm of hegemony/protection consciousness of the ruling class.
In response to Colin Sparks' piece, where does W. E. B. Du Bois fall within the discussion of cultural theory? I think especially - moving away from some of the economic reductiveness of Marxism in the second half of the 20th century, and what Althusser and Hall propose - Du Bois and his incorporation of race to explain conjuncture and even “crises” of the early 20th century would fit well into the debates within cultural studies, e.g., theories surrounding double consciousness and so forth.
Comments
Post a Comment