Stuart Hall, Living with Difference

8/7/2019 Stuart Hall, Living with Difference

1/11

Living with differenceStuart HallSoundings; Winter 2007; 37; Alt-Press Watch (APW)pg. 148

Stuart Hall in conversation with Bill Schwarz

Living w ith differenceIn y ou r a rtic le 'T he G re at MovingR ig h t S h ow (Marxism TodayJanuary 19791. you toldus th at w h at M rs T h at ch e r w a s going to a ch ie ve w as n ot so m u ch th e v ic to rie s o f h er ow na d m in is tr a ti on : s h e w a s g o in g to s et th e to ne o f p oli tic s fo r fu tu re g en er atio ns . w h oe ve r w a sin g ov er nm en t. A nd y ou h av e b ee n v in dic ate d in that .

Thats an interesting story because I think I came to understand the profundity of thechange in political culture which Thatcherism represented. really, out of the workthat we did at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies on race and muggingand crime, which was published in Polidng th e Crisis (Macmillan 1978). This wasan effort at understanding what was happening in Britain in the 1970s. and theprismatic function of race in aUof that - race as a kind of recurring motif. It wasn'tthat the deepening political and social crisis of the 19705 was all about race. butsomehow race and crime were at the very centre of what it was that Thatcherismcould operate on to try to roll back the social democratic feelings which had beendeveloping during the war and the post-war period. and this provided a sort ofprism through which the whole conjuncture could be 'read' symptomatically. Itwas not just a question of the political victory of the new right. It was a profoundchange in political culture. marking the shift to a new historical conjuncture. Andif the left didn't understand the depth at which this change was operating. it wouldbe captured by it - itwould be obliged to operate on territory which had not beendefined by itself. And 1think that is indeed what has happened.

What I have come to understand since then is that Thatcherism was not simplya British manifestation. Itwas the beginning ofwhat we now call globalisation. thebeginning of a new stage in the global capitalist economy: the revival of internationalcapital after the period of the cold war and the welfare state. This could onlyhappen if the new kind of market state - which is what is emerging today under

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.21


2/11

14 9

Living with difference

th e au sp ices o f N ew L abo ur - w as lin ked to a p ro fo un d tr an sfo rm atio n o f s o ciala nd c ult ur al r ela ti on s a cr os s th e wo r ld . I n o w u n de rs ta nd Tha tc her ism mu chmo re i n t erms o f it s g eo po li tic al r ev er be ra ti on s, a s t he b eg in n in g o f a n ew p oli tic alc on ju n ct ur e. N eo lib er ali sm i s a n ew e po ch i n t he wo r ld , r ep la ci ng t he e po ch wh ic hcam e in to exis ten ce at th e en d o f t he s eco nd w o rld w a r; w h ich - ev en if th ere w asa Co ns er va ti ve g o ve rnm en t i n p ow e r - w a s d om in ate d b y th e p er sp ec ti ve o f s oc iald emo cr ac y. Th at i s wh a t has b ee n e nt ir ely r olle d aw ay a cr os s t he wo r ld . We ar e n owin a comp le te ly d if fe r en t momen t .

This new con junc tu re , n eo li b e ra l g l oba li sa ti on , is a n i nte rn a ti on a l p h en o m en o n, a n d h a si n vo lv e d t he r e -m i li ta r is a ti on o f r e la ti on s h ip s b e tw e e n t h e west and th e rest

Ye s, g l o ba li sa ti o n h as ma ny a sp ec ts , i nc lu d in g i ts s tr at eg i c a n d m i li ta ry d ime ns io n s .H ow e ver w h at I w a nt to em ph as is e h ere is i ts co n tr ad ic to ry n at ur e. O n t he o n eh an d i t i s a p la ne ta ry p ro je ct ; i t r olls a cr os s t he b ou n da ri es o f t he n at io n s ta te th ath av e o r ga n is ed p o li ti ca l a n d s o ci al li fe i n t he i n du s tr ia li se d s o ci et ie s f or t he la st t woto t hr ee h un dr ed y ea rs ( th ou g h t he re h av e b ee n p re vi ou s e ra s o f g lo ba lt sa ti on ), I th old s o u t t he p os si bi li ty o fw h at w e u se d t o c all i nte rn at io n ali sm (t ho u gh . s in ce i tsn o lo ng er s om eth in g w h ich hap pen s betw e en n atio ns . w e can 't u se that ter m an yl on g er ). P o te n ti al ly . t hi s i n te rd ep en d en ce c an b e t he s o u rc e o f a mo re p lu r i- ce n te re dwo r ld . t he b as is f or t he p ro li fe ra ti o n o f d if fe re n ce .

On t he o th er h an d . g lo b al is at io n p ro v id es t he basis o f th e in co rpo ratio n o f a ll o fp la n et ar y SOCie tyw i th in t he f o rm s o f we s te rn l if e. I n t hi s s en s e it i s a n ' impe ri al is i n g 'p ro je ct , a c iv il iz at io n al s tr u gg le , t ho u g h i ts f orm s a re d if fe re nt f rom t he se types ofs tr ug g le s i n t he p as t. A n d t his i s t he t en si on : th e p ro lif er at io n o f d if fe ren ce v er su sthe 'M a cd on ald is ati on ' o f th e wo r ld , as s om e p eo ple c all i t - t he im p ri nti ng o fwe s te rn f orm s o f c on s umer ism . we s te rn v al ue s, we s te rn ways o f l if e. we s t er n l ib e ra ld emo c ra cy , we s te rn c ap it al ism , e tc , a cr o ss t he f ac e o f t he g lo b e. o n o n e s o ci et y a ft eran o th er . R ea lly t o w o r k i n i ts d om in an t fo rm . c ap it ali st g lo ba li sa ti on m u st t ry todr aw ever ybo dy in to its w e b. w i th in its g eo po litical s ph ere. It is a n ew p has e o f w h atMa rx c alle d t he c on str uc ti on o f t he wo r ld m ar ke t. w h ic h h e s aw a s n ea rly comple tebu t w hich in fact was o n ly ju st b eg in n in g . E ve ry on e mu st c om e t o lo o k a li tt le b itlik e an Amer ican . o r to lo ve a little bit lik e an American , o r to w a lk a little b it like anAmer ic an . Tha ts why t el ev is io n a nd t he c ul tu r al i nd u st ri es a re s o c ri ti ca l, b ec au s e

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

22


3/11

Soundings

you don't know quite how to walk and think in American until you look at enoughtelevision.

That is one side of the globalisation project. It is throwing people acrossboundaries, drawing cultures contradictorily together, sometimes of course inthe most horrendous ways. People are displaced from their homes, forced acrossboundaries - living in transit camps, stowing away in the backs of lorries orunderneath aeroplanes, putting themselves in lifelong debt to people traffickers inorder to get somewhere else, to get out, to find a new life. This is globalisation too,the dark side, globalisation from below. In this aspect of globalisation, everything isfree to move - investment, capital, images and messages: only labour must stay put.The great majority of people are not supposed to move, they are supposed to staywhere they are and accept low wages, and become pan of the world economy in thatlimited way.Otherwise how could the new international division of labour work?Instead of that, they get on a leaky boat and row towards the good life. Of course.What did we think they were going to do? You tell them that the good life is likethat, and over there, and they're on their way.'Economic migrants' are just peoplewho want a better life. They are also people displaced by poverty, famine, diseaseand civil war. This is the other face - the underside, the underhfe, ofso-called globalsociety.

And our politics now, in the new conjuncture, is the result of a tension betweenforces associated with these new possibilities, and the tremendous barbarities anddangers associated with it, these two forms of global society.

So y ou a re lo ok in g at t he d im e n si on s o f m u lt ic ul tu r e i n t hi s g lo b al is a ti on . But over th e la stt en y e a rs y ou 'v e m ov ed s p ed J ic a ll y i n to l oo k in g at th e a rts , a nd th e black visual arts . Canyo u te ll us s o m et hi ng a b ou t t hi s move t o t he v is u al ? Do y ou th in k th e b la ck v isu al a rtsin B rita in r ep re se nt a p ri vile ge d w a y o f lo ok in g a t q ue stio ns o f r ac e a nd d ia sp or a a t th em o m e n t ?

let me just say a few words about how the two things are connected. As you know,I don't like the word multiculturalism, but I am interested in the multiculturalquestion. And what that is, for me, is this: how are people from different cultures,different backgrounds, with different languages, different religious beliefs, producedby different and highly uneven histories, but who find themselves either directly


23


4/11

Living with difference

connected because they've got to make a lifetogether in the same place, or digitallyconnected because they occupy the same symbolic worlds - how are they to makesome son of common life together without retreating into warring tribes, eating oneanother, or insisting that other people must look exactly like you, behave exactlylike you, think exactly like you - that is to say cultural assimilation? How can werecognise the true, real, complicated diversity of the planet - societies produced bydifferent forms of development, etc - which iswhat constitutes difference? Differenthistories, different cultures, over long periods of time, have produced a variegatedworld, but the barriers are now breaking down. People find themselves obliged tomake a common lifeor at least find some common ground of negotiation. Culturalabsolutism is the great enemy of this multicultural project. The multiculturalquestion, then, is: how can we do that without giving up the investments whichpeople have made inwhat makes them who they are, which iswhat I call difference.

Cultural difference doesn't mean that I am totally different from you. But I corneto the present, to who I am, by a different route from yours; and therefore ourconversation has to recognise that different histories have produced us, differenthistories have made this conversation possible. I can't pretend to be you. I don'tknow your experience. I can't livelife from inside your head. So our living togethermust depend on a trade-off, a conversation, a process of translation. Translations arenever total or complete, but they don't leave the elements exactly as they started, Idon't want to be you. I don't want you to be me. I don't want to insist that you giveup being who you are and become me. Well, how are we to proceed? Questions ofdemocracy, questions of equality, questions of difference, all have to be resolved.Together - and in ways which are unfamiliar to the culture of the left, which haslong grounded its constitutive basis in quite unexpected and unexamined kinds ofEurocentrisrn, inwhich the civilizational value of one of those ways of life over allthe others is taken for granted. Multiculturalism is a peculiar kind of way of trying tomanage the problems which globalisation has created.

And this is only the most recent of the multicultural problems that globalisationhas created. It created exactly the same kinds of problem twenty. thirty. a hundredyears ago. One multicultural question has b een how black people and white peopleare to live together in the post-plantation-slavery Caribbean, when for centuries onerace had simply assumed its civilizational superiority over the other; another is howMuslims and Christians are to live together, t oday, in Darfur. We are looking at new


24


5/11

Soundings

fo nn s o f the sam e qu estio n, pro du ced by a n ew fo rm o f capitalis t g lo balisatio n. A ndit has n ow arr ived rig ht in to the m iddle o f the so cieties that have lived the las t tw ohu ndred years preten ding that they cou ld draw a bo un dary betw een themselves an dthe o thers ; o r that they co uld g overn the o thers bu t at a safe distance w hich didn 'tthreaten their cu ltu ral ho mo gen eity; o r that they co uld reg ulate the lives an d theeco no mies o f o ther peo ple becau se they w ere o r lo oked differen t, an d this pro vided aleg itim ate bas is fo r their explo itatio n. I am in terested in the im pact o n these E uro peansocieties in pan icu lar - s in ce thats the m ost 'develo ped' fo nn of life w e have - ofh av in g to liv e w ith d iffere nc e, w ith p eo ple w ho d res s d iffere ntly , s peak differ en tly ,h av e d iffer en t m em orie s in th eir he ad s, k no w a diffe ren t w ay o f life , fo llo w a differ en trelig io n - ho w are they g oin g to live in g reater equ ali ty bu t also with difference? How areth es e o ften co nllictin g o bje ctiv es - eq ua lity an d d iffere nce - to be r eco nc iled ?

If I g ive up my bu rka w ill you g ive up you r un io n jack? W hat is it the differen cethat I'm w illin g to die fo r? W hat differen ce is so impo rtan t to me that I'm go in g tofig ht fo r it, that I'm w illin g to m urder yo u fo r it? O r am 1 w illing to have a trade-o ff?Am I w illin g to n eg otiate w ith you to live in relative peace? That trade-o ff is go in gto be an un tidy row . D on 't think it is g oin g to be w hat is called, these days, socialco hes io n - w hich is a po lite fo rm o f assim ilatio n o f 'the o ther', an d represen ts ineffect the aban do nm en t o f the mu lticu ltu ral prin ciple. There is g oing to be no thin gco hes ive abou t it at all. Its g oing to be a blo ody g reat ro w. A ny fo rm o f dem ocraticlife - and I'm n ot talkin g abo ut po lit ical dem ocracy o nly n ow - is a big , stag ed,co ntin uo us ro w. B ecau se there are real differen ces , an d peo ple are deeply in ves tedin them an d so they have to fin d w ays - difficu lt w ays - o f n eg otiatin g differen ce,becau se its no t go in g to go aw ay.

Now , you can have a po litical argumen t abou t that, and I'm in teres ted in thep olitics o f n eg otia tio n th at co uld m ak e m ulticu ltu ra l so cie ties a p oss ib ility in th efu tu re. Iraq an d A fg han is tan are differen t exam ples o f the failu re o f this pro ject o fnego tiation betw een differen t w ays o f being in the modem w orld. B ut I am alsoin teres ted in ho w the o ther - ho w differen ce - o perates in side peoples heads . An dif yo u w an t to learn m ore, o r see ho w difference operates in side peoples heads, youhave to go to an , you have to go to cu ltu re - to w here people imag ine, w here theyfan tas ise, w here they symbo lise. Yo u have to m ake the deto ur from the lan gu ag eo f s traig ht descriptio n to the lan gu ag e o f the im ag in ary. U nless w e can deco ns tru ctthe co lo nised im ag in ary w hich g overn s the heads o f a substan tial n umber o f


25


6/11

Living wi th difference

B ritish peo ple w e w ill n ever live m ulticu ltu rally w ith differen ce. I have alw ays beenin teres ted in the 's traight' argum en t, bu t also in the argum en t by indirection . So , thevisual arts is no t a su rprise. I've alw ays been in terested in cu ltu re becau se it is thed om ai n o f i nd ir ect io n. As S hakes peare o nce s aid, 'B y in directio n fin d directio n o ut'.

O f co urs e the real w orld, the his to rical w orld, the po litical w orld, has themos t eno rmous bearing on cu ltu re, bu t the one thing w e can 't say is that cu ltu res im ply reflects this o ther w o rld. It is co nn ected w ith it, bu t u nco ns cio us ly, at s om epro found level - and w e can 't decode one w orld directly in to the o ther. This is them ysterio us place w here an aris es fro m experien ce, is at the sam e tim e differen t fro mexperien ce. an d reflects critically back o n it. This i s t he in vis ib le p oi nt o f i nte rs ec ti onbetw een the social and the symbo lic. W e have to take one s tep back and g o throughthe im ag in ary to en ter the do main o f cu ltu re.

So metim es peo ple say to m e that cu ltu ral s tu dies thin ks cu ltu re is everythin g,bu t I don 't think that at all. I think cu ltu re is very im po rtan t, mo re than im po rtan t- i ts a bs o lu te ly const i tu t ive . Bu t its also one among o ther thing s - how cou ld youno t be also in terested in capital, o r w ar, and be alive today? O f cou rse cu ltu re isn 'teverythin g. B ut cu ltu re is a d im e n si on o f e v er yt hi ng . E very practice exis ts in them aterial w orld an d sim ultan eo usly s ig nifies, is the bearer o f m ean in g an d valu e.Everything bo th exis ts and is imag ined. And if you w an t to play in the area w heredeep feeling s are invo lved, w hich people hardly understand, you have to look atcu ltu re. People don 't understand w hat it is that terrifies them abo ut differen ce. T heydo n 't mow w hat it is that dis tu rbs them viscerally abou t peo ple w ho don 't look o rthink like them. W hat is it? It gets them somew here in there, bu t it is no t a placethat you can get to by reason ing w ith them . (Have you ever tried to say 'you shou ldg ive u p yo ur racist preju dices becau se they are rather irratio nal'? F org et it.) T hecom mon respon se to ou r fears abou t difference is to split the o ther from ou rselves,symbo lically expel them from the body social so that w e can pro ject on to them ou rdeepes t fears an d fan tas ies . S o, if yo u are in terested in a s ociety w hich so meho wlearn s, pain fu lly, ho w to begin to live w ith differen ce, to reco gn ise the w ay in w hichit has con s tructed the o ther as the opposite o f itself, you have to unders tand how thecu ltu re is w orking . In the an s thing s get said in w ays in w hich they can 't g et said inany o ther domain . So I'm in terested in people w ho are living here w ho come fromdifferen t cu ltu res, w ho se ro ute to the presen t is differen t fro m that o f the 'n ative',and w ho n ow also con fron t the difficu lt conundrum of difference. And in w hat this

1 5 3


26


7/11

Soundings

has done to the dream of equality and justice. I'm interested in what people imagine,how they imagine, how they represent themselves, figurally,in the visual and literaryfield, how they position themselves in the narratives of self and society. And I amcommitted to the wider society having a greater access to these visions and dreamsand nightmares and traumas and fears. So, the tum to the visual arts.

[question f ro m a u di en c e} What w ou ld y ou sa y to t he p ro p os it io n t ha t p eo p le s ho u ld ignoredifference as opposed to embracing it, th a t t he y s ho u ld f oc us on wha t we sha re , a nd s ha re dexperience?

That is a big and complicated questions. I used to think that, basically, we are allhuman beings. and so what one should do is ignore the differences and find thecommonality. Of course we are indeed all human, but I'm afraid I came to think, at acertain point in my life. that our common humanity is not enough. What makes usdistinctive is indeed the particularities, the spectficittes, of our historical and otherexperiences. There's a phrase by Marx - why is it that one might be hesitant to quoteMarx? - that. of course, people are all unified in the factthat they are all human.but that what matters more are the different social categories into which people aredivided: slave and slaveholder, worker and capitalist. It is the distinction betweenslave and slaveholder that registers historically Thats where the trouble begins.Thats where the conflict over wealth or interest arises. And analytically thats moretmportant'than what Marx calls the more 'chaotic' generality or understanding of thehumanity we all share. That, in some ways, was a very difficult proposition for meto accept; it is a more difficult route to follow.However I do think that differencedoesn't go away. Difference is ineradicable.

Of course, its not absolute. Of course there are things we all share as humanbeings, and this impels us to find common forms, in order to make a life in whichwe don't destroy one another, or oppress one another, or make the other abjectbefore us. But these will be common forms that recognise the diversity of humanhistories, human cultures, languages and so on. The more difficult but greaterambition, then, is to try to recognise and generalise those differences, so that whator who begins as 'other ' to us, outside us, can be gradually taken into us, withoutrequiring it to becomeus. Emesto Laclau argues that this process of trying to expandthe universe or demands so as to take in and include those interests and ambitions

1 5 4


27


8/11

1 5 5

L iv in g w i th d iffe re nc e

which begin as different from, and 'other' to, us and ours is the only 'universalism'there is - an always-unfinished process of universalization. It'sa difficult operation- but I think we'd better try to find a way through that if that's really how it works.I think, now, though I didn't for a long lime, that its a more complicated, moredifficult, but wider ambition than relying on the universalism of our commonhumanity - particularly since the masking or disavowal of difference always involvesthe operation of some kind of power over 'the other'.

I don't want other people to be like me. I don't know why they should be. I don'tthink my experience is rich enough to embrace the existence of the rest of the world.I have to find a way of recognising that I cannot be selfsufficient in myself. I am, fromthe moment ofbirth, from the moment of entry into language and culture, dependenton that which is different from me. Otherwise love is selflove, love is narcissism, loveis locked in solipsism, never gets out of the confines of the reflection in the mirror.It'snot enough. Weare dependent on the other - to feed us, to recognise who weare, to speak a language. Our common humanity, which iswhat you are speakingabout, is the process of reciprocity with that which is not us, which is other than us,which is different. So I hope that when we tear each other apart, we'll find a little bitof common humanity, just so that we don't fallinto what Hobbes called the war ofallagainst all. Buthumanism is not any longer quite enough for me.

{ qu es tio n fr om a ud ie nc e] C o uld y ou s ay s om e th in g a bo ut th e e ar ly 1960s, th e t ime o f th enew l ef t, w h e n we were serious a n d d ed ic at ed a b ou t o u r p o li ti cs , but there was also a f u ns id e - we ta lk ed a bo ut th e d ne m a, g oo d fo od . Iwas wonde ri ng if y ou c ou ld ta lk a bo ut someo f th e i nf lu en c es o f t ha t t ime an d how th at le d to y ou r m o ve in to c ultu ra l studies.

That was a very important moment for me, and one of the most important thingswas the recognition that political and economic questions were grounded in, anddependent on, the cultural. The conception of politics had to be expanded in orderto deal with cultural questions. So it wasn't simply that we liked to go to the cinema,or we were interested in L o ok B a ck in Anger and the theatre and so on; we saw thesethings as constitutive of political subjectivities. You couldn't be a political subject- having an economic programme, urging political mobilisation, identifying withthe oppressed, the exploited, etc - without also thinking about what were the ideasthat held these structures in place, legitimated them. Culture, we.came to believe,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permlsslon,

28


9/11

Soundings

wa s c on st it ut iv e. E co n om ic s w a s c on st it ut iv e b ut s o w a s c ult ur e. T he c on di ti on s o fe xi st en c e we r e c u lt u ra l, p o li ti ca l a n d e co n om ic . A ll t hr ee t hi ng s h ad t o b e a rt ic u la te dt o m ak e s en se o f a ny s it ua ti on , e ve nt o r c on ju n ct ur e. T ha t's w h y p eo ple lik eR aymon d W i lli am s , wh o e xp re ss ed t hi s i de a i n wh at m ay n ow s eem r at he r s im p leterm s, w ere s o im po rtan t to u s in the early days o f the n ew left.

T his m ay com e as a s ur pr is e to m an y p eo ple, b ut I s aw cu lru ral s tu dies as th ep urs uit o f tha t p olitics in an oth er p lace r ath er th an as a car eer . I w e nt in to it b ecau seI w a nted to g o o n pu rs uin g th os e q ues tio ns . I s aw cu ltu ral s tu dies , in th e earlys tag es at an y rate - it later b ecam e s om eth in g els e - as a w a y. w i th in an aca demic an di nte lle ct ua l f ramewo rk , o f p ur su in g th e s am e k in d o f q ue st io n s t ha t la y a t t he r oo t o fw hat had created the n ew lefttn the m id 1 950 5.

So th e thin gs th at y ou ta lk ab ou t w e re o ne o f the m os t im po rtan t co ntr ib utio nsth at the n ew left m ade to th e p olitical. B u t I w o u ld g o b ey on d th at. W e d id n'tr eco gn is e, an y o f u s , at th at m omen t, th at th is to o was a n ew c on ju nctu re , th ec on ju n ct ur e i n wh ic h c ultu re , i n t erms o f th e c ult ur al in du s tr ie s, was b eg in n in g t op la y a n e co n om ic a nd p oli ti ca l a nd s oc ia l r ole o f e no rm o us imp or ta nc e. T he c ult ur alin du stries w e re be comin g - an d ag ain I u se a M a rx is t p hras e - p ar t o f s o-c alledm ater ial p ro du ctio n. C ultu re is n ow as in teg ral to h ow th es e s ocieties w o rk , h ow th eg lo b al s o ci et y wo r k s, a s t he e co n om ic i ts el f. A ll e co n om ic s t he se days i s c u lt ur al , a sall cu ltu re is eco nomic. In th at s en se, I am n ot talkin g ab ou t h av in g a p olitics , an dt he n b ei ng i nt er es te d i n t he c in em a, I 'm t alk in g a bo u t a r ed efi ni ti on o f t he p oli tic ali ts elf, a n e xp an si on o f t he n o ti on o f t he p oli ti ca l t o i nc lu de th e c ultu ra l.

T he n, o f c ou rs e, t he re 's t he n ew a nd majo r e xp an si on o f t he p oli ti ca l t ha t o cc ur si n t he 1 96 0 5, e sp ec ia lly i n f em in ism , wh ic h e xp an ds t he p oli ti ca l t o i nc lu de a llk in ds o f n ew d om ain s - th e p olitics o f th e fam ily ,th e p olitics o f th e b ed ro om , th ep oli ti cs o f s ex ua li ty , t h e p oli ti cs o f f oo d. Wh en th e n ew le ft i n t he 1 95 0s a nd la te rw e re t alk in g a bo u t a ll p oli ti cs b ei ng c ult ur al, w e d id n't g et t o t ha t, w e d id n't c om ea n ywhe re n e ar t ha t.

Ithink you m ay need to go back to t he q u es ti on abou t good food and th e p le a su re p ri nc ip le .

The imp or ta nt t hi ng a bo u t p le as ur e i s t ha t i t c an 't b e e as ily c or ra lle d t o a ny p oli ti ca lt en d en c y o r p ar ty - t o r ec o gn is e t he v er y e xp lo s iv e, b o un d ar y- sh if ti n g n a tu r e


29


10/11

Living with dif ference

o f pleasu re. T his is pan o f the histo ry o f h ow I h ave had to tran sfo rm m y o w nh ea d. I t ra ns fo rm ed i t a bo u t c ult ur e. I t ra ns fo rm ed i t a bo u t g en de r a nd s ex ua li ty .I tran sfo rm ed it ab ou t d iffer en ce - I h av e g on e o n tran sfo nn in g it - w h ich isw hy Id on 't b eliev e in id en tity as a fix ed p rin cip le. I'v e h ad to lear n ab ou t th e n atu re o fp leas ure. I d id n't th in k p olitic s h ad an yth in g to d o w i th p leas ur e - an d p leas ure is av er y d ec ep ti ve p o li ti ca l v al ue . P le as u re . a s I wa s s ay in g e ar li er a bo u t a n . a dd re ss esy ou r s ub je cti ve i nv es tm en ts i n w a ys o ve r wh ic h y ou h av e le ss c on tr ol. i n w a ysth at a re le ss c on sc io u s. le ss u n de r t he r at io n al in s pe ct io n o f y ou r p ur po s es a ndi nt en ti on s. I t p la ys a cr os s t he b ou n da ri es . I t c on n ec ts y ou w i th p eo ple y ou s ho u ld n'tli ke . fo r i ns ta nc e. I t m ak es y ou lo ve y ou r p oli ti ca l e nemy . o r s ee s om et hi ng p os it iv ein p eo ple th at y ou q uar rel w i th . I s up po se m y life has b ee n c ha n g ed p re ci se ly b y thisawa re n es s t ha t w i t hi n t he p o li ti ca l d omai n. t ho u g h p o li ti cs is a lw a ys c ompo s ed o fa nt ag o ni sm s - i t's n o th in g i f t h er e a re n't p eo ple wh o ta ke d iff er en t p os iti on s - t he sea nt ag o ni st ic p os it io n s a re n ev er o n es wh ic h e xc lu de t he o th er . t he y c an 't e xc lu de th eo th er . A n d t he q ue st io n o f p le as u re e nt er s i nt o this u n de rs ta nd in g . t ha t o n e c an n otc on st ru ct o n e's p oli ti ca l o pp on en ts a s a m ir ro r ima ge o f o n es elf.

{quest ionJrom audience] W h a t would you sa y to th os e w h o p oin t o ut tha t encouragementoj th e assert ion oj di fference an d ou r multiple specificities is also th e project oj neol ibera lc a p it a li sm . a n d . even a s it w o rk s a lw a ys a nd everywhere to undermine d i f f e r e n c e . it wan t sto s eU b a c k to u s o ur f li m s y a f fi rm a t io n s oj wha t our d i f f e r e n c e s migh t b e ?

Yes . tha t is o ne o f th e m os t d ifficu lt an d p er plex in g q ues tio ns th at I h av e h ad tot hi n k a bo u t. b ec au s e, o f c o ur se , c o nt empo ra ry c o ns umer c ap it al ism abs o lu t el yloves difference. It t hr iv es o n d iff er en ce o f a c er ta in k in d. I t c re at es a n ic he m ar ke tb ef o re y o u c an s ay h ell o. o v er n ig h t. Th e p ro li fe ra ti o n o f d if fe re n ce i s t he re fo r e acom plicated th in g b ec au se it b rin gs y ou s o c lo se to tha t as pect o f th e s ys tem th aty ou a re t ry in g t o c on te st .

T his is a qu es tio n abo ut a lo t o f m y w o rk, that I have co me dan gero us ly clo se toth at ag ain st w h ic h I w a nt to s ta nd . I'v e c om e clo se to T hatch eris m, an d I s om etim ess ou nd as if T hatch er is m is th e b es t th in g s in ce s liced b read - b ecau se in th e 1 98 0si t u n de rs to o d h eg emo ni c p oli ti ca l s tr ug g le i n a w a y inwh ich th e L abo ur P an ys imp ly d id n 't . A n d I 'v e c ome c lo s e t o d if fe re n ce , wh i ch is, a ft er a ll , s imp ly a n a sp ec to f m o dem co ns um er is m an d th e m ark et. A nd cu ltu ral s tu dies c om es very c lo s e t o

I~


30


11/11

Soundings

celebrity and commodified culture. You like popular culture, and before you knowwhat you are saying there is no difference between commodified popular culture andserious culture, and one is in danger of falling into a falsekind of cultural populism.

I don't know how to answer this critique in a principled way - that is to say, Idon't know what general principle is in operation. What I know is the strategy. Iknow I have to get close to that against which I want to mount an argument. ] haveto understand from the inside how it works and what it is about. This has to dowith this failure of any field to polarise itself into absolute opposites. Of course a lotof popular culture is simply the commercialised repetition of formulae, but at thesame time popular culture includes feelings and experiences which have not gotexpressed in the dominant culture, in high culture, and without which you don'tunderstand, actually, how ordinary people are thinking and feeling. So popularculture is a complicated combination of the commodified and the experientiallysignificant. You can't draw a simple line between high culture and popular culture.It has to be a line drawn within popular culture. You have got to get into the fieldin order to see where the critical distinctions occur. So I have to go with differencein order to see which differences don't matter a damn, which differences are just arepetition of superficial market varieties - ifyou make soup, you make a thousandvarieties of them, but it doesn't make a difference. These are differences that don'tmake a difference. But paradoxically you have to get close to understanding whydifferences of that kind appeal, become pleasurable to us, in order to understandthose differences which really do make a difference, which constitute the differencesof actual experience, the differences of real history. So ] can't stand outside thefield. I can't make the distinctions and judgements I need to make without gettingperilously close to it. I have to run the danger ofbeing assimilated by it in order toknow what it really looks like. Only then can I know why its winning!

This is a n e dite d e xtrac t fro m a c onv ersa tio n be tw een S tu ar t H all a nd B ill S ch wa T:! a t th eQ ue en E liza be th H all in F eb ru ary 2 00 7. T ha nk s to R uth B or thw ic k an d the S ou th BankC en tr e T alk s D ep artm en t fo r p erm is sio n to pub l i sh .

I s S


31

Documents

Stuart Hall, Living with Difference