FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Stuart Hall and Us

Stuart Hall is one of the most profound cultural theorists of the 20th century.  However, recent rediscoveries of Marx, Engels, and other earlier thinkers often overshadow the work that later theorists did to move the tradition of Marxism forward. First published in 1988 in The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left, Stuart Hall’s essay “Gramsci and Us”  raised questions that linked the theories of Anontio Gramsci with the conservative revolution of Margaret Thatcher.  It goes without saying that it offers a different analytical framework for the Trump era, one that uses concepts such as conjuncture, hegemony, ‘authoritarian populism,’ and ‘regressive mordernisation’ to understand political power.  Hall’s main point was that political power cannot be understood without examining shifts in the cultural and ideological terrain of politics.  Furthermore, he understood that power required understanding the  ‘common sense’ that everyday people use to think through their struggles for daily existence.

Reexamining culture does not mean reigniting the culture wars of the 80s, and 90s.  It means developing a sharper analysis of the impact of culture on the wider class struggle.  Drawing on the work of Antonio Gramsci, Stuart Hall showed that political coalitions gain power through cultural hegemony  – the shaping of thoughts, beliefs, and values by the ruling class in order to dominate society through consent.  Hegemony gives coalitions the mandate to carry out a given political project such as free market capitalism, New Deal-style programs, or neoliberal reforms.  Ruling class hegemony masks contradictory interests within and between classes by concealing exploitation with imagery, slogans, and nationalist sentiment.  As Stuart Hall suggested, a more holistic understanding of power is necessary: “The nature of power in the modern world is that it is also constructed in relation to political, moral, intellectual, cultural, ideological, sexual questions. The question of hegemony is always the question of a new cultural order.”  The cultural terrain is not just a conflict over moral preferences, such as reproductive rights, school curriculum, gun control, and separation between church and state.  The cultural terrain is an ideological struggle.  Fundamentally, it is  a struggle between competing visions of how the world works.

Historical eras develop a revolutionary character when ideas that were once fresh and innovative are no longer accepted by the general public due to given circumstances.  At its root, this cultural analysis is material, because the circumstances are almost certainly economic.  In American history, economic contradictions inevitably lead to profound changes.

Throughout much of the early 19th century, Southern slaveholders held immense control over the branches of the American government.  The Mexican American War and the debates over expansion of slavery led to profound disagreements over the future of the country.  Eventually, this slaveocracy was overthrown by the Republican party, leading to abolition of human property and the radical reforms of Reconstruction.  The intensification of political crises in the 1850s made it impossible to avoid the issue of slavery.  Parties that tried to avoid the issue of slavery either split – like the antebellum era Democratic party – or faded into existence all together – such as the Whig Party.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the overwhelming power of big business reached its climax with the laissez-faire fundamentalism of Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression.  Hoover refused to accept that “business as usual” was no longer sustainable, even as millions of Americans sank deeper and deeper into extreme forms of poverty.  In that historical moment, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was embraced by a wide array of social groups who feared the complete collapse of capitalism all together.  The economic crisis of the Great Depression gave Roosevelt a mandate for a political transformation.  In the end, the ‘New Deal Consensus’ lasted until the 1970s, when the crisis of inflation and economic competition – from rising industrial powers such as Japan and Germany – precipitated hyper-privatization under neoliberalism.

These are not only revolutionary moments in history, but moments of ‘reconstruction’ when the reorganization of social groups leads to opportunities for new ideological projects.  As Stuart Hall explained:

There is nothing more crucial, in this respect, than Gramsci’s recognition that every crisis is also a moment of reconstruction; that there is no destruction which is not, also, reconstruction; that, historically nothing is dismantled without also attempting to put something new in its place; that every form of power not only excludes but produces something.

What is new during each ‘reconstruction’ takes an ideological form.  In this case, the most visible form of ideology is culture.  Stuart Hall drew on Gramsci in order to understand the political and ideological development of economic interests.  Using Gramsci, Hall pointed out that class interests are not reflexive representations of immediate needs.  The aesthetic appeal of conservative ideology is its veneer of loss, masochistic austerity, and nationalist redemption.  Where there is loss, there is something to be regained. Hall saw this in Thatcherism:

“…Thatcherism, as an ideology, addresses the fears, the anxieties, the lost identities, of a people.  It invites us to think about politics in images. It is addressed to our collective fantasies, to Britain as an imagined community, to the social imaginary.”

The feeling of loss is not necessarily a basic need, but it is also not ‘false consciousness.’  What becomes clear in “Gramsci and Us” is how the political vision of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump can be both revolutionary and reactionary:

In our intellectual way, we think that the world will collapse as the result of a logical contradiction: this is the illusion of the intellectual – that ideology must be coherent, every bit of it fitting together, like a philosophical investigation. When, in fact, the whole purpose of what Gramsci called an organic (i.e. historically effective) ideology is that it articulates into a configuration different subjects, different identities, different projects, different aspirations. It does not reflect, it constructs a ‘unity’ out of difference.

Conservatives have a long history of appearing contradictory and inconsistent.  Their ideological peculiarities are not simply a ‘Rorschach Test’ that comfortingly reflects people’s needs.  The right uses contradiction to bring together different class interests under one banner. It reinvents the timeless conservative vision, hiding its reactionary character, and presents it as something new.

John Forte is a high school social studies teacher, a union activist, and a DSA member living in New Jersey.  He can be reached at joforte9@gmail.com.

 

More articles by:

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail