Cultural Studies 1983: A Theoretical History by Stuart Hall

Cultural Studies 1983: A Theoretical History Reviews

• 
  Sara Salem

  God I love Stuart Hall
• 
  Chris

  This is probably one of the most insightful writings/lectures on cultural studies's deeply complex relationship to Marxism as well as its founding fathers like Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, and EP Thompson. I suspect that this book will become a primer for graduate students being introduced to cultural studies. Stuart Hall is by far one of the most sophisticated theorists of its earliest generation. Hall, perhaps better than anyone else, addresses the dialectics of theoretical influences that allows him to both praise certain theoretical breakthroughs and limitations. He perhaps does this best regarding Althusser and Gramsci. He clearly documents Althusser's breakthrough in establishing a much more complex base/superstructure model of cultural theory that is not overtly reductive and attempts to theorize a relative autonomy of the cultural sphere from more basic practices of the economic. Yet he also clearly charts how Althusser's insights get compromised by his overly abstract understanding, failing to take into account of historical specificity in his quixotic quest to create a scientific theory of Marxism.
  
  I would argue that no one unpacks the theoretical and political insights of Gramsci like Hall. He admits throughout his lectures (the book is a transcription of his lectures at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1983,which have not dated at all).that Gramsci colors much of his thinking and critique of earlier theorists and the Marxist tradition. Without Gramsci, there would be no Hall. Perhaps most amazing of all is the way Hall unpacks some of Gramsci's core theoretical concepts while simultaneously asserting that they emerged from a very specific historical location so need to be revised and updated to become applicable to present conditions. He understands that Gramsci is not only a theorist, but also deeply committed politically. Because Gramsci was deeply linked to political organizing in Italy, his writing has a nuance to it that remains cautious of how specific historic conjunctures allow certain theories to bloom and the tentative nature of the applicability of any theory. To understand Hall, one must understand Gramsci. Gramsci allows Hall to theorize the semi-autonomy of racial and ethnic categories from economic ones so one does not simply dismiss such categories as secondary concerns to class struggle. Race, he states, "is not free or independent of determinations. But it is not reducible to the simple determinacy of any of the other levels of social formations in which the distinction of black and white has become politically pertinent and through which the whole ''unconsciousness' of race has been articulated."
  
  Much like Foucault's recently translated lectures from the 1970s, Hall's 1983 lecture reasserts the intelligence not just of Hall as well as the potential of what a fully instituted cultural studies project might begin to look like if present day scholars heeded some of the insights that Hall bestowed more than 30 years ago.
• 
  Nour

  Fundamental reading. It’s interesting to see how many graduate courses in the arts (including my personal experience) don’t navigate Hall’s writing as much these days. But I suppose that’s capitalist structures infiltrating university institutions.
• 
  Rjurik Davidson

  A brilliant survey though. Reviewing for a journal.
• 
  Thomaz Amancio

  "Pensadora experiente sintetiza retrospectivamente discussões teóricas articuladas com problemas práticos e políticos", um dos meu gêneros preferidos.
• 
  akemi

  The first half is a historical overview of the differences between historicism and structuralism, a split that Hall traces back to Marx and Durkheim, and then through E.P. Thompson and Raymond Williams v. Levi-Strauss and Althusser. This part of the book really shines.
  
  The second half is Hall working through Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, without ever naming them (though he does name Gramsci). It's essentially an attack on Althusser's ahistorical structuralism and classical Marxism's base-superstructure model of class consciousness. It's okay, but I wish he dedicated a chapter to Laclau and Mouffe (as well as Foucault), to show what they were contesting, how they overcame previous inadequacies in the theorisation of class consciousness, and why he thinks discourse analysis is a retreat into idealism.
  
  Like, if I hadn't already read some of Laclau and Mouffe, I wouldn't have known wtf Hall was saying when he used words like articulation (the chaining together of signifiers by positing them against another signifier that defies signification / is outside of signification. An example: the radical left and right, despite their positive political difference, are united against neoliberalism, through a negative difference — essentially, neoliberalism operates as the barrier to full political freedom for both left and right radicals). Signifying chains of equivalences and differences are pretty obscure / used by many structuralists to talk about very different things.
• 
  amyleigh

  Wowwwww. My brain is so full of ideas and questions and longings to dive back into all things Marx again. Stuart Hall's lectures are groundbreaking in so many ways. He shows the limits of theory, reminding us of the dangers of fetishising terminologies, boxing ourselves into categories and schools of thought. Real real good stuff here.
• 
  Arda

  Notes from C.S:
  
  Hall (1989) contends that Gramsci did in fact not limit himself to theory, and that he was aware of the ever-continuous changes in living conditions. In this respect, Hall warns against reading Gramsci (as well as Marxism) from a fixed and reduced point of view, and opt, instead, for making use of the input provided in Marxist readings with the intention not being so much geared towards theorizing, but rather towards developing better insight of what happens as a result of combining, as well as dividing, values that come into play when forming societies. The effects of such unities and divisions are particularly relevant for Hall in establishing better understanding of racism and discrimination.
  Furthermore, Hall (1989) points out, through Gramsci’s analysis, that what shapes up society does not have a static nature but historical fractions that have been grounded, through bits and pieces, and that have had long-lasting effects on perception and of what makes up various social norms and notions, or, in what Gramsci refers to as “common sense.” This common sense is more or less what guides people on how to live their lives. In that respect, people are not always aware of their own exploitation. In fact, not only are people often unaware of the pre-determined ideas that the states often build themselves on, but they are especially unaware of their own contribution in serving the state’s discourse. The state discourse, therefore, is not to be regarded as an independent force, but rather as an organic entity that is dependent in every way on the collective acceptance of ideology.
  
  Slack (1996) also clarifies the complex nature of how the world is shaped and governed, and recognizes, through readings of Hall and others, the importance of comprehending how articulation cannot be limited to one general whole and merged into one theory. Instead, it is made up of a combination of fractions that are neither static nor permanent. Articulation, as Slack (1996) observes, is the avoidance of reductionism: Just like reductionist economics is a trap, so is reductionist culture. Articulation, therefore, is the realization of the other possibilities that come into play when considering theoretical frameworks. Hegemony, in that respect, and as Gramsci sees it, is not to be restricted to class or economy alone, but must instead be understood as the articulation of interests, geared by ideology, to create one common sense. In other words, the acquired bits and pieces (that are lined with religion, ethics, folklore, culture and such,) form the ideology that creates this one big “common sense” (the hegemony), and getting there most often involves a struggle between domination and subordination.
  
• 
  Hollis

  This is a really wonderful and clearly delivered set of lectures on the relatively recent history of Cultural Studies as a discipline at the time the lectures were delivered. Hall balances his attention between institutional spaces as well as 'real world' historical events, which brings him to perform a sort of cultural studies reading aimed towards the institutionalization of this discursive sphere. Readers should know that large chunks of his analysis are focused around Marxism, if anything would be worth critiquing. Its almost a recent history of Marxism rather than Cultural Studies, or at least I could see someone delivering that critique, but the two fields are quite intertwined so it wasn't much of an issue for me. Some key thinkers discussed include Raymond Williams, Althusser, Gramsci, and, of course, Marx. One could argue that the lectures are not nearly concerned enough with the interactions between Feminist discourse and Cultural Studies (aside from a small passage from Lecture 6 critiquing Althusser's "Ideological State Apparatuses" essay), and, looking back, that is one of the main hindrances that contributes to a creeping discursive monotony by the time one hits the final two lectures. But, with that being said, I still found this quite generative for my own thinking, especially on the issues of articulation and avoiding class reductionism with Marxist analytics. I would especially recommend this for anyone interested in the relationship between literary and cultural studies or the impacts of Raymond Williams and Althusser within critical theory spheres.
• 
  Ofa Fotu

  Read this in my main Cultural Studies course with Dr. Andrea Hawkman.
  Hall is incredible and the patterns of power that he observes as well as the rules he follows of contextualization are helpful ways to analyze and think about in separate contexts (he is British, but also notes some American examples).
  Brilliant theorizing.
  I could see this being helpful in my own conceptual framework if I lean heavily into Cultural Studies cores.
• 
  Donovan Blount

  Critical race theory. Dense
• 
  Yang

  Recall that these lectures were in 1983
• 
  Sara Alexandra

  Una compilación de interesantes ensayos de Stuart Hall. Personalmente, me encanta cuando Hall habla de su propia experiencia y del complejo proceso de formación de nuevas identidades, como es el caso de la jamaicana. Es anecdótico el pasaje en el que Hall cuenta que tuvo que aprender que en Jamaica era "coloured", mientras que en Inglaterra era "black". Cuando intentó explicarle a su hijo que ellos eran "black", su hijo, desde la inocencia de la infancia, le respondió que más bien eran "brown" si tenían en cuenta un espectro real de colores.
  
  Hall debate con brillante astucia las lecturas marxianas de Althusser y de Gramsci. Nos ayuda a comprender cuáles son los problemas de reduccionismo a la hora de familiarizarnos con la teoría marxista auténtica, tratando de evitar las versiones manidas que nos alejan de la real visión que Marx trata de transmitirnos.
  
  En "Cultural Studies" Hall aprovecha para debatir conceptos problemáticos --y necesarios para este campo--, como el de cultura, hegemonía o identidad, entre otros.
  
  Una lectura muy recomendable para entender de primera mano, y sin edulcorantes, cuáles son las cuestiones que ocupan a los Estudios Culturales.
• 
  Iqra Tasmiae

  
  https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...