12. Antonio Gramsci, Richard Hoggart, Stuart Hall: Hegemonie, Arbeiterklasse, Subkulturen (Cultural Studies, Teil I)

2007 ◽  
pp. 127-136
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 366-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rainer Winter

Stuart Hall was a nonconformist intellectual in the tradition of the New Left whose work was inspired by the writings of Antonio Gramsci. Drawing on Hall’s deconstruction of the popular, and his critical analysis of, ideological struggles in media and society, my article examines his critique of capitalistic society and his political visions within the framework of the concept of hegemony. The central question of my contribution concerns what we can learn from Hall’s work today with regard to the following aspects: First, we have to recognize the importance of intellectual interventions to change the world. The second aspect follows his creative way of using and combining theories and concepts. Against this background, I conclude by addressing the ways in which we can understand our present age and look for more democratic alternatives.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-173
Author(s):  
Ann Curthoys ◽  
John Docker

Stuart Hall sought to internationalise theoretical debates and to create Cultural Studies as interdisciplinary. We chart his theoretical journey through a detailed examination of a series of lectures delivered in 1983 and now published for the first time. In these lectures, he discusses theorists such as E.P. Thompson, Raymond Williams, Louis Althusser, Levi Strauss and Antonio Gramsci, and explores the relationship between ideas and social structure, the specificities of class and race, and the legacies of slavery. We note his turn towards metaphors of divergence and dispersal and highlight how autobiographical and deeply personal Hall is in these lectures, especially in his ego histoire moment of traumatic memory recovery.


1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-353
Author(s):  
Fran Markowitz

Ever since the late 1960s, when Fredrik Barth urged us to move away from the idea that ethnicity is constituted by “cultural stufT and to focus instead on the boundary that demarcates groups, anthropologists (and their perhaps more radical half-siblings in cultural studies) have cast into doubt the primordial or essentialist nature of ethnic groups, to say nothing of ethnic identity. Earlier studies focused on the groups themselves—how they display and are constrained by their identity as immigrants, minorities, ethnics, “persistent peoples,” and even “marginal men” (sic)—while more recent investigations have taken up the “borderlands” where groups meet, confront each other (Rosaldo; Rouse), and become zones of hybridized cultural production (Bhabha). In a related vein, ethnicity is also explored as one of many possible intersections of power and culture, and ethnic identity becomes a crazy-quilt of namings and “being-called” (Probyn 25). Indeed, Stuart Hall informs us that “identities are never unified, and in late modem times, increasingly fragmented and fractured, never singular but multiply constructed across different, often intersecting and antagonistic discourses, practices and positions” (4, emphasis added).


2019 ◽  
Vol 96 (96) ◽  
pp. 5-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Gilbert

When Stuart Hall died in 2014, many tributes and memorial activities were planned by organisations, institutions and publications that felt they owed him a debt. New Formations was no exception, and the editorial board spent some time reflecting on an appropriate tribute. Stuart himself, as many of us knew, had little interest in seeing his work codified or memorialised for its own sake. But there was one injunction that many of us were familiar with from that work, his example, and from frequent personal and political conversations with him. The importance of thinking about 'the conjuncture', of 'getting the analysis right', was one that Stuart frequently emphasised to his students and interlocutors. The importance of mapping the specificity of the present, of situating current developments historically, of looking out for political threats and opportunities, was always at the heart of Stuart's conception both of 'cultural studies' as a specific intellectual practice, and of the general vocation of critical and engaged scholarship in the contemporary world. This is double-issue is the first of two volumes of New Formations to be dedicated, in Stuart's honour, to the understanding of this conjuncture. This introductory essay/editorial considers the relationship between 'cultural studies' and 'conjunctural analysis' as specific types of intellectual practice, before proposing a specific analysis of our present 'conjuncture', in dialogue with the other contributors to this volume.


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 556-563
Author(s):  
JAY GARCIA

Recalling his work as cofounder and contributor toUniversities and Left Review, or the ULR group, in the lead-up to the founding of cultural studies during the 1950s, Stuart Hall noted that much of that work had to do with the United States. “In geopolitical terms we were of course neutralists, hostile to the politics emanating from the State Department in Washington,” Hall wrote, “but culturally we were nonetheless attracted by the vitality of American popular life, indeed to the domain of mass culture itself.” If the ULR group and similar collectives shared an “anxiety about the stupendous power of the booming consumer capitalism of post-war America,” they were also united by an appreciation for the ways the “vitality and raucousness of American culture certainly loosened England's tight-lipped, hierarchical class cultures and carried inside it possibilities – or the collective dream? – for a better future, which we felt was a serious political loss to deny.” Not unrelatedly, by the 1960s and 1970s, cultural studies and certain quarters of American intellectual life were proceeding along comparable tracks. Many American scholars and at least some working in cultural studies moved toward social history that emphasized the “hidden experiences of subordinated groups and classes.” Undertaken in concert with the new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, this version of social history would ramify widely, furnishing the very questions and analytic habits of many fields, not least American studies.


2005 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-319
Author(s):  
Meenakshi Ponnuswami

Gabriele Griffin's study of black and Asian women playwrights in contemporary Britain fills a gap in British theatre studies. Although a comprehensive study of black British theatre has yet to see print, two developments have, in the past decade or so, begun to stimulate critical attention in the field. One is the publication of plays by black and Asian authors, including collections of plays exclusively by women (such as Khadija George's edition of Six Plays by Black and Asian Women Writers of 1993), as well as the more systematic inclusion of works by writers such as Winsome Pinnock and Trish Cooke in anthologies of plays by new British dramatists. A second is the work of British cultural-studies scholars and sociologists during the same period, which has offered theatre historians some new approaches and challenges: Kobena Mercer's Welcome to the Jungle (1994); Catherine Ugwu's Let's Get It On (1995); Baker et al.'s Black British Cultural Studies (1996); Heidi Mirza's edited volume Black British Feminism (1997)—not to mention a vast body of work by Stuart Hall, Avtar Brah, Paul Gilroy, and others. Still, as Griffin notes at the outset, while immigrant and second-generation novels and films have received attention and accolades, black British theatre has tended to be ignored except by a handful of feminist theatre scholars.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document