Hall, Stuart

I do think Gramsci's notions of politics are a starting point, maybe not a place to stay forever but he helps to think. Hall's notions had deep implication, especially in the contexts in which ethnicity and race were considered as false consciousness by more rigid marxists. One of the problems is that is difficult to evaluate which type of ideological struggles are in fact transformative, and of course the critique to ideology would be then important. It is a very tempting way of organizing the social world, but then there are all this movements that do not match. So if Foucault in a way would problematize what do we mean by consent and what is the work done for-by it, we would then have the post - colonial critiques, and still I do find Gramcsi important and in other level Hall proposing complex notions on identity which cannot be easily discharged. Even I get less interest in focusing only to the making of identities by looking to the processes of becoming and this semiological models of positioning, I do not think that only "undoing" identities is enough and productive and it have proven to be almost a cliche' (even if important)exercise. In other article Hall addresses the critiques to the notion of identity and he clarifies that what he proposes is to think about identity but form a and through its deconstructive and de-totalizing variants, form the gaps of meaning opened in it that allow the inversion of terms and the emergent of newness. He also proposes to think identity not form the point of agency as rational choice, but form the perspective of subject And of course i do think this is the way to go if we think of identities. Probably the question on whether there is a subject without identity does not make a lot of sense since Althusser's hey (or maybe yes). However to delimit the field of sociality and power as the articulation between processes of subjectification and discursive practices (and vice versa), is something that leaves a lot of opened questions especially in regards to practice and the body.

Hall, Stuart. 1996. "Gramsci's relevance for the study of race and ethnicity." Journal of Communication Inquiry 10: 5-27.
Hall argues that Gramsci makes very important contributions to thinking the field of the political as not just a superstructure of economical relations. Hall thus recognizes economy as a “horizon of possibilities” (13) rather than a field of determination. It is the domain of the state civil society which is central for understanding social reproduction. In this process hegemony is a central process involving not only economic dominance but mostly a cultural direction in all social fields. Hegemony is the direction of the general interest of a social formation with those of a dominant group, in a way in which the “collective will” but also the unspoken and taken for granted regulations of social interactions. Hegemony defines what is worth fighting for and also how in which terms that should be done. Its is the play of hegemony what defines the historical unfold of social relations rather than any deterministic line towards communism set by the development of forces of production. In sum for Hall following Gramsci there is no just a one way causality of change form economy to the social, political and ideological, but rather multiple reciprocal multiple causalities [what Althusser would call overdetermination]. Hall points to the fact that capitalism was not just developed equally but rather the way racism played a central role in the establishment of inequalities. Racisms as a practice and as a classificatory system are no just a reflection of the structure, but have to be understood as the particular historical process resulting form particular social configurations [conjunctures]. The question is not then what is preventing political articulation of a certain type or veiling a class consciousness but rather how politics are actually articulated in terms of class, race ethnicity. It is the type of alliances rather than the position in the economic structure what define the political field, in this racial and ethnic alliances are as significant as could be a class, however neither class nor race or ethnicity are given categories that should be made conscious, rather they are (conjunctural) possibilities of creating collective movement. The state power is then operating by the dual movements of coercion and consent, where the former is mostly only operated in the times of crisis, and is exercised more as a positive type of power (through for example education, communication) which shapes civil society. Coersion is thus reserved as an “armour” to shield hegemony bringing together state and civil society. Racist ideologies may be activated within institutional and civil society’s hegemonic struggles, it is not rare then to see that subordinated groups and ideologies define in terms of race after being subjected by racism. It is form this position that ideological struggles can be meaningful for certain groups and be articulated. These struggles can generate important transformations in the terms of hegemony, and thus reshape commonsensical ideas about race and ethnicity.