MARXISM, WITHOUT GUARANTEES: WHAT I LEARNED FROM STUART HALL

With the death of Stuart Hall we have lost the last of the British, or British-based, leftwing intellectuals who began their work in the decade or so after the end of the Second World War. The roll of honor of the departed is long, and it includes, in addition to Hall, Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Victor Kiernan, Raphael Samuel, Ralph Miliband, John Westergaard, Roy Pascal, Geoffrey de Ste Croix, George Rud, Isaac Deutscher, Norman Geras, Chris Harman, and Tony Cliff (and these are only those Im aware of). Of the succeeding generation, Terry Eagleton, David Harvey, Sheila Rowbotham, Perry Anderson, and Robin Blackburn endure in immensely productive ways, but weve also lost Ernesto Laclau, Peter Gowan, Gerry Cohen, and Andrew Glyn from this later generation. The prospects for a continued and vibrant British Marxism, combining intellectual activity with practice, are certainly not sunny on the surface, but there is still before us the formidable, albeit posthumous, instance of Stuart Hallan always bracing presence, at all times combining a gravity in his analyses with an unstoppable willingness to be up for the next battle, even as he was engaged in what seemed like two or three other concurrent battles as he was speaking or writing (and these included poor health, barely mentioned by him, involving long-term dialysis and an eventual kidney transplant, in the two decades before his death).I was at Birmingham from 1972 to 1977, doing my PhD in Philosophy and Theology. On most days it was possible to see this stylish black man (the only one on the faculty as I recall) -- usually wearing an open-necked shirt and blue jeans, with a sports jacket reserved for cooler days-- walk across the main quad between the Muirhead Tower and the faculty common room.[endnoteRef:1] Hall was director of the Centre of Contemporary Cultural Studies, whose remit was a source of puzzlement for those of us chained intellectually, and mostly unknowingly so, to the seminar tables of more traditional departments. What do they do there?, some of us asked, a question to which even our fellow PhD students in English, naively presumed by the questioner to be interested in culture, seemed not to have an answer. In time this questioner got a vague sense that they worked on topics usually ignored by the academic mainstream, using a distinctive pedagogy involving team-based research and working groups. [1: The main quad at Birmingham was in those days, and probably still is, a favorite spot for many who escaped, or pretended to escape, the library fronting it when there was a vestige of pale sunshine. The reading of books, often in circles of three or four, somehow served as a pretext for surveying the action around oneself. Edward Thompson, who was on the faculty at nearby Warwick while his wife Dorothy taught in Birminghams history department, was a frequent sight as he walked across the quad, his wonderful mane of silvery hair made even more glorious when caught by the sun. Also unforgettable for me, even though I had not read him then, was Nicos Poulantzas, invited by Hall in 1976 to give some lectures at the Centre, who loped across the quad wrapped in a heavy scarf seemingly in an attempt to keep even the warmish weather at bay. His face had a look of unspared anguish, noticeable even to our small group of light-hearted sitters on the quad.]

Hall had a reputation, which transcended departmental boundaries, as a rivetingly charismatic lecturer, and he did give the occasional open lecture, a couple of which I attended. But at that point in my intellectual formation, with a first degree in analytical philosophy, plodding now with a zig-zagging passion through a narrowly focused dissertation on the ontological argument for the existence of God using the semantics of modal logic, I had no real reference points for engaging with the intellectual agendas associated with Hall, even though I was in complete agreement with the essence of his politics. Towards the end of my time at Birmingham, as a respite from reading (ah, that endless bibliography!) Quine, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, Richard Montague, Alvin Plantinga, Richmond Thomason, Nino B. Cocchiarella, Richard Routley (who changed his name to Richard Sylvan when he abandoned quantified modal logic for environmental philosophy), Jaakko Hintikka, Stig Kanger (a pioneering modal logician in his 50s from Helsinki who gave a talk to our philosophy department; he was a very dignified grandfatherly figure with shoulder-length gray hair, dressed in what looked like a pale blue spacesuit with boots of the same color, a veritable prefiguration of Gary Numen and Devo in the post-punk movement of a decade laterdid they know that a great Finnish logician was their precursor in fashion?), and others; I read with absolute fascination Adornos Minima Moralia and Martin Jays intellectual history of the early Frankfurt School at the instigation of Rex Ambler, the much-loved but at times bewilderingly eclectic Quaker theologian in Birminghams theology department. A revolution in modal logic had taken place in the 60s and 70s, and some of it was deeply fascinating even for someone who was starting to become interested in other quite different things. But it was now dawning on me, with a sporadic but nonetheless unbending force-- and in spite of the excruciatingly delightful logical itch that compelled someone like me to scratch this itch in the form of a tightly circumscribed dissertation on modal logic somehow capable of surviving the caprices of the British external examiner system-- that not a single aspect of my PhD work addressed the social and political questions pressing on me in what were the dying days of Jim Callaghans sclerotic Labour government.Callaghans doomed Labour regime was soon to be supplanted by the upstart Margaret Thatcher. Id of course been interested in many of these now burning social and political questions in simpler and more practical ways since I was in high school in Wales and subsequently an undergraduate at Keele and Reading. My political concerns at that time were largely in agreement with the late Tony Benn, viewed as being on the extreme left of the Labour Party. Benn of course started to leave behind the official and increasingly watered-down Labour Party positions in the later stages of his political career. Like many of us on the extra-parliamentary left, Benn firmly acknowledged that these official positions were framed, intellectually at any rate, entirely within the terms of a protection and retention of the postwar compromise between labor and capital. Hall never made an explicit repudiation of Benns militantly socialist platform, though it was clear from Halls close affiliation with the journal Marxism Today that he believed that this Bennite socialist platform, with its statist underpinnings, was already being superseded by the existing political conjuncture.[endnoteRef:2] [2: Marxism Today, which existed from 1977 to 1991, was widely regarded in old-leftist circles as the purveyor of a watered-down and reformist version of Marxism, indeed for many in these circles it marked the emergence of a British post-Marxism.]

The soon to be terminal crisis of this postwar concordat between labor and capital, and the seemingly rapid emergence of its Thatcherite successor, signaled the necessity for new modes of description and analysis, as well as alerting those of us on the left to the need for an invention of forms of opposition perhaps not seen since the General Strike of 1926 and the Great Depression (these were to occur in the year-long miners strike in 1984, in which Thatcher prevailed largely by turning the police into a paramilitary army; and the 1990 riots over the so-called poll tax which prompted Thatchers party to dismiss her as its leader).[endnoteRef:3] With the exception on the 1984 miners strike and the 1990 riots, most of these oppositions emerged in ways that Thatcher-- with a typical combination of ruthlessness and sheer good fortune was able to quell relatively easily. She was of course aided by crucial events and circumstances, primarily the Malvinas War (which already seems like one of those meaningless but seemingly unending British neocolonial enterprises condemned to be forgotten by the next generation of Britons, many of whom would probably now say that the Falklands are somewhere off the coast of Scotland next to the Shetlands), and major defections from an already faltering Labour party, that led in a seemingly unstoppable way to the formation of the breakaway Social Democrats. These circumstances forged for Thatcher an increasingly manageable consensus sufficient to defeat or neutralize almost all of the oppositions confronting her. [3: While analytical philosophy in the main avoided addressing questions of political and social import (hence the extraordinary attention given to Rawlss A Theory of Justice when it appeared in 1972, a tour de force certainly, but with premises and conclusions that were banal for anyone with a left-wing bone in their body); it should be stressed that analytical philosophers were politically engaged in the opposition to Thatcher in their individual capacities. If the Marxist historians (Thompson, Hobsbawm, Samuel) and the cultural and literary theorists (Williams, Eagleton, Hall) were prominent in their opposition to Thatcher, it should be remembered that well-known analytical philosophers were also at the forefront of opposition to Thatcher-- most notably Antony Kenny, Michael Dummett, and Simon Blackburn.]

With PhD in hand, but no academic job, I became a schoolteacher for seven years, did my best to continue publishing in the philosophical aspects of theology, and having abandoned analytical philosophy, was reading (in addition to a lot of theology), Marx, Gramsci, Althusser, Benjamin, Raymond Williams, the continental philosophers proscribed by the typical UK philosophy department, and of course much more Adorno. Thus, more through happenstance than anything else, I was able to acquire, after leaving Birmingham, some of the intellectual tools needed to engage in due course with the work of Stuart Hall. As already indicated, the election of Thatcher as prime minister in 1979 was a decisive turning-point for many of us on the left. Her project-- it was nothing less than this, as Hall was one of the first to realize was aimed ultimately at a complete overturning of the postwar rapprochement between labor and capital. We were now forced willy-nilly into the position of looking for theoretical resources, most still to be summoned into some kind of public visibility, able in whatever way to augment our visceral opposition to Thatchers gleichschaltung. Hall had since his arrival in the UK in the early 1950s always been interested in issues of public import (the CND campaigns and marches of the early 1950s in which he took part; the Vietnam War; racism in Birmingham, especially in the borough of Handsworth, where the neo-fascist National Front used to hold rallies as a provocation to its overwhelmingly Afro-Caribbean residents). This prior activity on Halls part notwithstanding, Thatchers emergence also marked his own growth in prominence. He was of course by this time a fully-fledged intellectual with a national audience, but Hall now soon acquired an international visibility, as it became clear that Thatcher and Reagan had embarked, with an increasingly confident single-mindedness, on a political project that was to be epochal in its ultimate reach. With a barely concealed fervor, Thatcher and Reagan were sensing, in ways sometimes untidy and sheerly opportunistic even as they were always resolute in intent (Reagan with his actors smile, Thatcher with her teeth-clenching harshness), that they were launched on the business of undoing the economic and political paradigm of their political predecessors. The waning Keynesian accord that had prevailed since the end of the war was now being supplanted by an emerging neoliberalism, and Hall was its earliest theoretical cartographer.Hall is of course credited with coining the emblematic term Thatcherism even before Thatcher was elected. He was soon recognized as the foremost analyst of the intellectual-cultural formation whose label is now indelibly associated with her name. The label Thatcherism designates a populism combining a then new-fangled economic neoliberalism (the crackpot ideas of Milton Friedmanbased on the premise that just about any macroeconomic problem could be resolved by tweaking the money supply-- were being installed in a position of official primacy where the economy was concerned, in the UK and US, and not just in the Pinochet-ruled Chile admired by Friedman), along with an atavistic social authoritarianism, as evidenced by Thatchers braying refrain We need a return to Victorian values, etc.[endnoteRef:4] [4: Nigel Lawson, Thatcher'sChancellor of the Exchequer(i.e. finance minister) from 1983 to 1989, described Thatcherism in the following terms:Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure,tax cuts,nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of theSamuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash ofpopulism. (Lawson, 64)In reality of course, Lawsons phraseology failed to indicate that markets were freed precisely in order to be rigged by big businesses and the financial sector; that financial discipline was always selectively imposed (Lawson himself engineered a massive pre-election boom to enhance Thatchers electoral prospects); that tax cuts invariably favored the rich; and of course privatisation provided repeated opportunities for privileged interests with the appropriate political connections to loot the Treasury coffers.For Halls writings on Thatcherism, see his collection of essays in Hall 1988. Especially significant are the essays The Great Moving Right Show, Popular-Democratic versus Authoritarian Populism, and Gramsci and Us. Also important is Hall and Scraton 1981.]

Before anything is said about Halls analysis of Thatcherism, it has to be noted that in addition to dealing with Thatcherism and its legacies, Halls richly varied purview included the key topics of our time: cultural coding, policing, implicit racism, immigration and diaspora, the role of television, neoliberalism, and this is only skimming the surface. The reader who followed his treatment of these topics soon realized that while Hall eschewed an explicit systematicity in his presentation of this material, there was nonetheless a powerfully implicit coherence in his work: the treatment of Thatcherism was therefore inextricably bound-up with the analyses he provided of cultural coding, policing, implicit racism, moral panics, immigration, neoliberalism, and so on.So what was distinctive about Halls analysis of Thatcherism? Using the Gramscian notion of hegemony as his primary reference point, Hall characterized her politics as an authoritarian populism. This right-wing populism mobilized consent through an integration of several fronts: primarily, racism both explicit and implicit, the crude but effective rhetoric of law and order, and the generation of moral panics (these were created to stigmatize certain social and cultural groups for political advantage, hence she called the miners the enemy within[endnoteRef:5]); there was a repeatedly stoked and media-driven disquiet about crime involving inner-city youth, especially mugging (the very designation of which by Rupert Murdochs pro-Thatcher tabloids carried racial overtones); and an equally contrived alarm over skiving (i.e. shirking) strikers and welfare recipients. [5: 5 The following segment from one of Thatchers speeches (delivered on November 25, 1984) conveys the tone she used on such occasions where undertaking an Althusserian interpellation was clearly her task at hand, this time aligning British trade unionists with the IRA gangs in the North of Ireland:At one end of the spectrum are the terrorist gangs within our borders and the terrorist states which arm them. At the other are the hard left, operating inside our system, conspiring to use union power and the apparatus of local government to break, defy and subvert the laws. Now the mantle has fallen on us to conserve the very principle of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law itself.Quoted in Scraton 2005.6 A flavor of this old-left sentiment regarding the primacy of class is to be found in Alex Callinicoss obituary of Hall (Callinicos 2014). It should however be acknowledged that Callinicos is largely complimentary in his treatment of Hall, and that he does recognize that Halls refusal to make class the preeminent Marxist analytical category did not entail an accompanying rejection of economic determination-- Hall was always resolute, albeit in ways subtle and carefully qualified, in his adherence to the latter.]

Hall argued that this populism could not be overcome by a left still attached to a statist political horizon, bent on using the instruments of the state to defend or advance interests based on class and class positions. Instead, he suggested, the left had to promote a populism of its own, involving the marshalling of forces along a broad and diverse front not overwhelmingly dependent on state formations for its potential success. Hall was criticized for this proposal, on the one hand by those who thought it too nebulously utopian (their argument being that any expanded politics of the kind proposed by Hall would require bringing together heterogeneous groups and movements that were unlikely to cohere into any kind of effective longer-term bloc); and on the other by stalwarts of the old left who were dismayed by what they perceived as Halls demotion or abandonment of class as an analytical category in what was ostensibly a Marxist assessment of Thatchers UK.[endnoteRef:6] [6: ]

But today five virtually uninterrupted decades of the Thatcherite hegemony-- the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown having merely embedded her neoliberal policies while giving them a less bellicose visage, as Blairs rictus smile replaced Thatchers hectoring snarl on television screens-- have in the main proved Hall right. The mobilization undertaken by Thatcher exploited, shrewdly, the complex fractures and dissents emerging in the British body politic as the post-war Keynesian compromise buckled under the weight of pressures its economic model could no longer resolve. In their quest for an adequate response to the collapse of the postwar settlement between capital and labor, Thatchers opponents always seemed one step behind her in the wretched but nonetheless crucial competition for the available forms of ideological primacy. Thatcher enveloped her economic agenda in a wrapping that contained carefully, and always opportunistically, selected components of British culture that could be ordered in ways that recomposed to her advantage the forms of opposition confronting her. Her opponents, by contrast, seemed always to be in a fatal lag when it came to finding alternative resources for the task of hegemonic recomposition.Many of the key ruptures and transformations associated with the collapse of the Keynesian compromise were only tenuously connected with class and explicit class positions. Thatcher and her backers realized, for instance, as Reagan and his promoters did in the US, that repeated invocations of patriotism and striving to earn your way, when delivered with the appropriate rhetorical pitch and the requisite symbolism (the fictional Reaganite welfare queen demonized for picking up her checks in a Cadillac; the Thatcherite equivalent being the equally mythical chappie on the dole with a Jaguar and (small) yacht on a trailer parked in front of his rent-subsidized council house), served to dragoon significant fractions of the working class into voting against their own economic interests. The essence of this class-dividing strategy is reflected in the words one of Reagans slogans, used by supporters of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election: "I believe thebest social program is a job. This catchphrase-- indicating that taking a job with miserable pay that made one a veritable serf could somehow obviate the need for a welfare state-- also represented the quintessence of Thatcherism, even as she espoused policies which destroyed the industrial base that was the massive core of working-class employment in the UK. Overcoming this Thatcherite hegemony was clearly going to require a counter-mobilization on a comparable scale. So far, alas, no such counter-mobilization on the part of the left has been forthcoming, as, at the time of writing, the Labour Party led by Ed Miliband trails behind the ruling Conservatives in some opinion polls with the next general election due to take place in May 2015.Hall always worked with an extensive and varied theoretical palette, and as evinced by his analysis of Thatcherism. His range of interests were correspondingly broad (indeed too far-reaching to be dealt with adequately in the span of a single article such as this). He was also the foremost explorer of the phenomenon labeled multiculturalism, a label much excoriated in the right-wing press because of its implied dilution or relativizing of a settled and robust English identity, an identity accompanied by largely unacknowledged and sometimes savage mechanisms of interpellation. These mechanisms interpellated the British people primarily by resorting to some version, whether mildly attenuated or full-blown, of the rebarbative fantasy of a Britain that was once populated by sturdy folk who talked like Miss Marple, and dressed like Margaret Thatcher with her hats, handbags and decorous costumes, or Denis Thatcher in his Harris tweed jackets (the petty bourgeois Margaret Thatcher was once recorded on a leaked tape taking elocution lessons to make herself sound more like televisions Miss Marple)-- the Miss Marple of this caricature who cycles decorously down the cobbled streets of antique and orderly villages, coupled with a yeoman working class that would tip its collective working-class cloth cap at Miss Marple as she cycled past these befittingly deferential representatives of Englands yeomanry. Somehow this was also portrayed as an England where food (anthropologists from Lvi-Strauss to Jack Goody have alerted us to the centrality of food as a decisive marker of cultural and social demarcations and identifications) was not tainted by such importations as curry, kebabs and sushi, but consisted instead of wholesome roasts, pies and puddings, and cider or real ale, and involving routines such as the four oclock afternoon tea with triangular cucumber sandwiches and scones with strawberry jam and clotted cream, all consumed by seemingly redoubtable English men and women still more or less in active touch with such traditions as Morris dancing, playing cricket on the village green, tending an allotment, and having a small wager on the Grand National.[endnoteRef:7] [7: Anyone in the US who believes the above-mentioned to be too outlandish in its depiction of fantasies regarding English identity should spend several months watching Sunday evenings Masterpiece Theater on the American PBS channel. Of course one persons identification with a dish betokening a distinctive national or regional identity may have no such significance for an outsider. The former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who oversaw Germanys reunification, would insist on serving saumagen (stuffed pork intestine) to an unreceptive Mrs Thatcher, who was of course a strenuous opponent of German reunification. See How Kohls favourite pig dish turned Mrs Ts stomach, at http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/37711/how-kohl%E2%80%99s-favourite-pig-dish-turned-mrs-t%E2%80%99s-stomach, accessed on May 19, 2014. Some maintain that this merely reflected the burly Kohls provincialism where food tastes were concerned, but the more appropriately cynical, mindful of the unconcealed mutual antipathy between Kohl and Thatcher, were ready to discern a seeming ulterior motive on Kohls part.]

Hall of course had no truck with this cockeyed and anachronistic sentimentalism, which naturalized and concealed the very mechanisms of interpellation served by such rose-hued invocations of a merrie olde England.[endnoteRef:8] In acknowledging, correctly of course, that the UK has always taken many more multifarious, less overt and often troubled paths when dealing with questions of national and ethnic identity, Hall quickly decided that there is more than one species of multiculturalism.[endnoteRef:9] The one that grabs the headlines-- with its sometimes vacuous and politically-correct sloganswas based typically on an identity politics propped-up by the appropriate discourse of rights and liberal inclusivity. Hall, however, was about something much more challenging and hard-headed than the latter identity politics, namely, the question of how the dominant culture has an inbuilt insularity which can only be contested (without guarantees, his favorite phrase) if we manage to find real alternatives to it, without resorting to the self-defeating means espoused by single-issue constituencies using their self-identities as the only basis for this struggle against the prevailing order. Halls writings on this topic were really much more about the partial and selective ways in which all identities are constructed by the dominant order, that is, he wrestled above all with the question of multiculturalism as a problematique, rather than simply being interested in championing a boutique multiculturalism where the picture of the fabled Miss Marple is expanded or supplemented by the insertion of a smiling turbaned Sikh or beaming dreadlocked Rastafarian.[endnoteRef:10] [8: Hall was not alone in this. Raymond Williams, in his classic The Country and the City (Williams 1973), uses countless historical and literary sources to demonstrate how this idealized vision of an English identity was manufactured in ways that were often hard-fought and largely exclusionary in their intent. ] [9: In Hall 2000, Hall identifies at least six multiculturalisms: conservative, liberal, pluralist, commercial, corporate, and a critical or revolutionary multiculturalism. Hall was of course a proponent of the last-mentioned (and none of the others).] [10: For Halls work on multiculturalism and its cognate issues, see, in addition to the article mentioned in the previous footnote, Hall 1986, 1992, 1993, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c. For the phrase without guarantees, see Hall 1996d.]

The above sketch is unavoidably incomplete, and vastly so. Nothing has been said here about Halls pivotal role in the inauguration of cultural studies, not just institutionally at Birminghams Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, but also in providing this field with its conceptual underpinnings.[endnoteRef:11] Nothing has been said about the unflagging energy and verve with which he inaugurated and sustained collaborative projects, from giving the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies its distinctive approach both methodologically and pedagogically; to the founding editorship of New Left Review; his participation in several educational and artistic projects after his retirement from the Open University; his life-long political campaigning and activism; as well his numerous interventions (his involvement in The May Day Manifesto in 1967, his abundant contributions to groundbreaking collections, his association with Marxism Today, and shortly before he died his participation with Doreen Massey and Michael Rustin in the launching of The Kilburn Manifesto).[endnoteRef:12] [11: For Halls writings on the theoretical bases of cultural studies, see Hall 1980 and 1996e.] [12: All of these, and more, are documented in the many obituaries of Hall. See, for instance, Blackburn 2014, Morley and Schwarz 2014, Williamson 2014, Jeffries 2014, Gilbert 2014, Wark 2014. ]

I met Hall once, in the 1990s, and we had a conversation about C.L.R. James (we had contributed to the same volume on James a short time before). In 1977 I read Jamess Beyond a Boundary for the first time, which marked the start of an engagement with the work of James that continues to this day. One of the highpoints of this interest for me was Halls marvelous 1985 television interview with James, dealing with cricket (of course), but also Trotskyism, Paul Robeson, and Jamess life and writings.[endnoteRef:13] Hall also wrote essays on James.[endnoteRef:14] It would be very easy to emphasize the affinities between Hall and James-- the Anglo-Caribbean background, the colonial education that sought to replicate a constricted version of the English prototype, the domicile in the UK, the lifelong (but always probing) affiliation with the Marxist tradition, and a cosmopolitanism both intellectual and practical. But there were also differences: James was a prodigious autodidact whereas Hall was a renowned university academic; and there were evident generational differences, marked by tastes in music (Jamess love of the calypsonian Mighty Sparrow in possible contrast to Halls devotion to the jazz of Miles Davis); Jamess persistent engagement with nationalist movements in the pan-African world, as opposed to Halls place in the world of neo-coloniality; and so on. James inhabited the world of Marcus Garvey, Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky; Halls world, a world marked decisively by the demise of actually existing socialism, was peopled (though not exclusively!) by Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Rupert Murdoch. These were hugely different worlds, obviously, but responding to both required an indomitability and creativity with striking characteristics that overlapped, the differences between James and Hall notwithstanding. [13: For this interview, see Hall 2014.] [14: For these essays (and one interview on James), see Hall 1992b, 1995, Hall 1998.WORKS CITEDBlackburn, Robin. 2014. On Stuart Hall. In New Left Review 86: 75-93.Callinicos, Alex. 2014. Stuart Hall in perspective, International Socialism, no. 142 (April 2014). At http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=975&issue=142#stuarthall142_12 (accessed May 17, 2014). Chen, Kuan-Hsing and David Morley, eds., 1996. Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.Gilbert, Jeremy. 2014. A tribute to Stuart Hall. In Open Democracy February 10, 2014, at http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jeremy-gilbert/tribute-to-stuart-hall (accessed May 19, 2014).Hall, Stuart. 1980. Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms. In Media, Culture & Society2: 57-72.Hall, Stuart and Scraton , Phil. 1981 "Law, Class and Control". In Crime and Society: Readings in History and Theory. Eds. Mike Fitzgerald, Gregor McLennan and Jennie Pawson, 460-97. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.Hall, Stuart. 1985. CLR James in Conversation with Stuart Hall, on the New Left Project website at http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/clr_james_in_conversation_with_stuart_hall (accessed May 19, 2014).Hall, Stuart. 1986. Gramscis Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10: 5-27. Hall, Stuart. 1988. The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left. London: Verso.Hall, Stuart. 1992a. "The Question of Cultural Identity". In Modernity and Its Futures. Eds. Stuart Hall, David Held, Anthony McGrew, 274316. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.Hall, Stuart. 1992b. C. L. R. James: a Portrait. in C. L. R. Jamess Caribbean. Eds. Paget Henry and Paul Buhle, 3-16. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Hall, Stuart. 1993. Culture, community, nation. Cultural Studies 7:34963. Hall, Stuart. 1995. A Conversation with C.L.R. James , in Rethinking C.L.R. James: A Critical Reader. Ed. Grant Farred, 14-44. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.Hall, Stuart. 1996a. Introduction: Who Needs Identity?. In Questions of Cultural Identity. Eds. Stuart Hall and P. du Gay, 1-17. London: Sage, 1996. Hall, Stuart. 1996b. Ethnicity: identity and difference. In Becoming National. Eds. Geoff Eley and R. G. Suny, 339-49. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hall, Stuart. 1996c. New Ethnicities. In Chen and Morley 1996: 441-51Hall, Stuart. 1996d. The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In Chen and Morley: 24-45.Hall, Stuart. 1996e. Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies, in Chen and Morley: 262-75.Hall, Stuart. 1998. Breaking Bread with History: C. L. R. James and The Black Jacobins, Stuart Hall Interviewed by Bill Schwarz". In History Workshop Journal 46: 17-31.Hall, Stuart. 2000. Conclusion: The multicultural question. In Un/Settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, Transruptions. Ed. Barne Hesse, 209-241. London: Zed Books, 2000.Jeffries, Stuart. 2014. Stuart Hall's cultural legacy: Britain under the microscope, The Guardian February 10, 2014, at http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/10/stuart-hall-cultural-legacy-britain-godfather-multiculturalism (accessed May 19, 2014). Lawson, Nigel. 1992. The View From No. 11: Memoirs of a Tory Radical. London: Bantam.Morley, DavidandSchwarz, Bill. 2014. Stuart Hall Obituary: Influential cultural theorist, campaigner and founding editor of the New Left Review. In The Guardian February 10, 2014, at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/10/stuart-hall (accessed May 19, 2014).Scraton, Phil. 2005. The Authoritarian Within: Reflections on Power, Knowledge and Resistance (Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Queens University, Belfast, June 9, 2005). At http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/phil-scraton-inaugural-lecture.pdf (accessed May 18, 2014).Wark, McKenzie. 2014. RIP Stuart Hall. In Public Seminar February 10, 2014, at http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/02/rip-stuart-hall/#.U3p7Q_ldW7 (accessed May 19, 2014).Williams, Raymond. 1973. The Country and the City. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williamson, Marcus. Professor Stuart Hall: Sociologist and pioneer in the field of cultural studies whose work explored the concept of Britishness. In The Independent February 11, 2014 at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-stuart-hall-sociologist-and-pioneer-in-the-field-of-cultural-studies-whose-work-explored-the-concept-of-britishness-9120126.html ( accessed May 19, 2014)]

A massive and irreplaceable force has departed, but Halls sheer density of influence is likely to endure, even in unpropitious times. And if it does not.

NOTES11