Post by jjnickell on Feb 3, 2016 7:59:01 GMT
While I am not myself strictly preoccupied by the questions of Marxism and materialism raised in these articles (despite these authors’ apparent hatred of critical rhetoric, I’m still in McKerrow’s camp on these questions), I will presently take Greene’s side on this one. I think he makes a compelling argument that Cloud et al. don’t seem to grasp, which is that status quo capitalism has coopted the forms of communication upon which the latter authors seem to depend for social change. Given this, much of their animosity seems fueled by the belief that Greene advocates giving up on social reform – when, in fact, Greene does not; rather, he proposes an intellectual starting point that functions as a prerequisite for social change. Indeed, Greene reminds me of Adorno’s response to critics arguing that his theorizing is not action. Adorno agrees, but demands that theory is required for planning, which is necessary for action to actually be successful (see the brief attachment at the end of this post – an affirming read for any critical scholar who worries that her or his academic efforts are without worth).
I also side with Greene on the argument pertaining to the others’ neglect of other identity factors that compound the ill-effects of capitalism, believing that his project is one that better enables us to challenge (read: acknowledge) the subjugation of women, people of color, and those of the global South by considering ways in which labor may be gendered, raced, and oppressively entrenched in areas not considered to be first-world countries.
I would love to know how Cloud et al. would respond to this. What do you all think they’d have to say? And, more generally, what side do you take overall?
I also side with Greene on the argument pertaining to the others’ neglect of other identity factors that compound the ill-effects of capitalism, believing that his project is one that better enables us to challenge (read: acknowledge) the subjugation of women, people of color, and those of the global South by considering ways in which labor may be gendered, raced, and oppressively entrenched in areas not considered to be first-world countries.
I would love to know how Cloud et al. would respond to this. What do you all think they’d have to say? And, more generally, what side do you take overall?
