>The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
What did Professor Butler mean by this?
>>1119937
That she successfully outkiked me.
why do you keep posting this instead of just reading it, it's hardly the most opaque thing by Butler
>>1119937
What a lifeless way of writing.
What's the matter, baby boy? Words too big for you? Never read Althusser? Don't know what "rearticulation" or "temporality" or "inaugurate" means?
Maybe you're a pseudointellectual. Maybe you should try thinking for once. Maybe if you spent half the time reading texts that you do shitposting, you'd learn a thing or even two.
>>1121240
English is my 2nd language so it can be hard. Im familiar with most Marxist theory, calm your autism.
>>1119937
Butler is postmodern trash, lots of fancy talking to hide the fact that ur ideas are shiet.
althusser was a retard
That the HRE was right.
I understand the necessity of terminology in
philosophic discourse, but this seems to be a bit much.
I think she is trying to describe an expanded conception of hegemony, in which the hegemonic structure,
rather then being seen as a complete object, is in fact made up of power-dependent instances wherein power is expressed once more.
Or she may be pulling those Derrida tricks of having new definitions of established words.
The fact that this is a run-on sentence makes it difficult to make heads or tails.
Any postmodern pros wanna confirm or deny my understanding of her idea?
>>1122541
A structuralist account of capital existed. (Althusser)
This account viewed social relations as structured. Social relations are 1:1 to capital's structuring of economic relations. (Poulantzas)
Some people have moved on from this account.
They have chosen to abuse Gramsci's concept of Hegemony.
They have chosen to view "power," an abstract cultural thing as central. (Foucault)
They have chosen to see power as a contingent process, rather than a timeless structure.
Thus we want to talk about structure and time.
Because we aren't historians we're fucking stupid about this (Thompson, "Poverty," Anderson, "Arguments in English Marxism")
This shift from structure to hegemony, from timelessness to history:
This shift moved from structures as "total" theoretical objects. Structures which theoretically structure all life.
Moved from this to potentials of structure historically enacted. (Varieties of Capitalism debate).
And a return to my misreading of Gramsci's Hegemony as being about cultural "power."
