Interview With Stuart Hall, 21st January 2008 Rwza

8/13/2019 Interview With Stuart Hall, 21st January 2008 Rwza

1/18

Cultural Studies in the past and today: Interview with Stuart Hall

Rainer Winter and Zeigam Azizov

The Formation of Cultural Studies

Rainer Winter: Stuart, at the beginning I would like to ask you a question I ever wanted to ask.

How important the tradition of the Frankfurt shool was for your own work and the formation of

Cultural Studies! In "ermany ritial theory will be very often identified with this shool of

thought.

Stuart Hall: Frankfurt shool wasn#t so important at the beginning, for various reasons. $ost of

Frankfurt Shool te%ts were not translated. &nd lots of people didn#t speak "erman. So when the

Centre started up we didn#t have the key te%ts of Frankfurt Shool. Theodor '. &dorno#s work

wasn#t known to us, we didn#t know 'alter (en)amin. There was &dorno#s *The &uthoritarian

personality+ whih is a wonderful book, but it is not a lassial &dorno- te%t. ater on we read

Herbert $aruse, but in his Californian stage. 'e are speaking about the early stage of Centre,

/012s, early 32s. 'e were not very philosophial. 'e had historian, visual theorists, philologists,

but no philosophers. 'e should also think of the state of 4nglish language philosophy, whih

hated the 4uropean metaphysis. 5eading "erman metaphysis, someone like Heidegger was

getting lost in the mist of philosophy. 'e didn#t get that muh of &nglo6Sa%on linguisti

philosophy, like &ustin for e%ample. ater on we got interested in them. That is why early

Cultural Studies was formed as the field without philosophy. 7ou shouldn#t be surprised that it is

so. 'ell, when we went into politial questions we ame aross philosophy via ouis &lthusser,

via his ritique of Hegelianism, deep ritique of ertain kind of Hegelianism. 8ot until later on

/


2/18

some books beame available, when Horkheimer beome available in translations we understood

what a serious pro)et it was. It is the missed moment in the history. Cultural studies had a huge

dialogue with soiology, inluding the "erman soiology, $annheim, 'eber, but not philosophy

as suh. It is real weakness of early Cultural studies, but also has one strength9 esape from the

theory speulation...

Rainer Winter: 5eading early te%ts from the Centre, for e%ample the *'orking :apers in

Cultural Studies+ it will beome lear that the "erman ultural soiology, espeially the work of

$a% 'eber, was intensely read and disussed at the beginning.

Stuart Hall:7es. 'eber was very important. 'e looked at in this way9 (oth 'eber and

;urkheim together with $ar% are the trilogy of modern soiology. (oth ;urkheim and 'eber

were inorporated into soiology in a very partiular way. &nd what happened in Cultural Studies

is faing the soiology without knowing anything about it. 'e read ;urkheims- work on

methodology, 'ebers letters, but we didn#t take the onventional $a% 'eber.


3/18

not purified oneptually. Cultural Studies have always been weak oneptually. That is why my

work is very eleti. I have never been 'eberian, never been "ramsian, and never been

&lthusserian. In *5eading Capital+ &lthusser says that *theory is ompletely autonomous+. There

is a kind of "ramsi, who :erry &nderson talked about and I don#t think everything is right what

is said about "ramsi. (ut I am aware that I engage by all these people by taking something from

them. For e%ample taking something out of "ramsi and re)eting something. &nd most obvious

is $ar%9 I have been operating on the $ar%ist ground ever sine and later moving into something

else. :eople say9 7ou used to be a $ar%ist, but you are not anymore. It is not true, beause I was

never an eonomi $ar%ist, I was never eonomi redutionist, and I was taking something out

of $ar%, beause I thought it was adequate for ideology and ulture. Some way of developing

these ma)or figures# work is to have an argument with them. Taking something out of them what

is useful. In this period the Centre was working like that too.

Rainer Winter:For my reading as a soiologist your ritique of :arsonian soiology and its

dominant6hegemoni position in the field until the 12ties and 32ties was very illuminating. 7ou

show up the possibilities to pratie Cultural Studies without legitimi?ing the ontemporary

soiety.

Stuart Hall:7es. :arsonian soiology is very struturally funtionalisti and was beoming very

popular in (ritish soiology, whih was taking its lead from the &merian soiology in the period

after the war. There was a huge e%pansion of (ritish soiology. In 4ngland there was following

&merian rather than 4uropean trend of soiology. So :arsons was very important. He does give

quite a lot of weight to ulture. He says that there are three systems, soial, ultural and

psyhologial, although it doesn#t tell us what is the ulture. He says that in the soial system

there is ertain kind of )ob, partiularly in ;urkheim, you need to read *Suiide+, you need to

read *Soiologial $ethod+ , but don#t bother with that idealisti staff@ So he doesn-t say what

we are interested in. I was interested in the symboli, in the soialA he doesn-t say anything about

it. (ut for me, for e%ample, Bvi6Strauss was interesting and reading of soial in this kind, but

:arson is on the wrong side. I had to go to :arson e%atly beause the (ritish soiology was

taking on strutural funtioning, rather than taking on &lthusserian ultural line.

Rainer Winter9 There are two other strands of soiology whih don-t belong to the mainstream


4/18

and were important for the onstitution of Cultural Studies in (irmingham9 the interpretive

soiology and the work of Charles 'right $ills.

Stuart Hall: I was massively influened by $ills. I knew him well, in the days of 8ew eft he

ame to 4ngland quite a lot, and then he went to Cuba, where he wrote a book about Cuba in

/01>. He was also friend of 5alf $illiband, father of the urrent foreign seretary ;avid

$illiband, who was a militant. He was very lose friend. He went to the Soviet Dnion on his

motorbike. He wrote a book, whih is as important as *:rotestant 4this+, and it is about the

ob)etive soial position. I also was interested what he wrote about white ollar, power elite. That

is before the Centre. &merian soiology had tremendous amount of influene in terms of

sub)etivity, hermeneutis, soial interationism, symboli interationism. It is a sort of

subterranean tradition in &merian soiology. &nd it is very important work. &ll of the Centre-s

work on the youth ulture, and later the work on sub)etivity is the result of symboli

interationism. It was very important for us. 'e saw that as the subaltern tradition. It doesn-t

laim to tell you the whole truthA it works in a different way as the question of symboli meaning,

question of representation, questions of sub)etivity and soial position et. whih was very

important for our work. (oth *5esistane through 5ituals+ and subsequently *:oliing the Crisis+

would not have been written without the interationist tradition.

Rainer Winter: 7ou onneted the interationist position with ritial approahes. 'hih role

did the soiology of knowledge play, espeially *The Soial Constrution of 5eality+ by :eter .

(erger and Thomas ukmann!

Stuart Hall: 'e did read the #soiology of knowledge#. &t one point we thought that #soiology

of knowledge# might be the way of more soial or soiologial view of ulture and ideas. (ut it

was not a real interest. 'hat we took up was that any soial ation is mediated by meaning,

whih doesn-t mean that people atually reali?e what the meaning is, but any soial ation

involves the mediation of ultural idea. $ar% said it first, that the worth of arhitet is better than

best of bees, beause whereas bees build instintively, an arhitet have a plan. Something in

their heads orresponds to their ation. Soial ation involves both soial and symboli and is the

very muh of part of the problem and interationism in the &merian sense told better , that all

these staff was part of struturalist hegemony .

E


5/18

The Invention of the :opular

Rainer Winter9 $ay I ask you about the role of popular ulture in your work. 7ou have written

very important artiles whih ontributed to a new understanding of this sub)et. Could you tell

me what is the differene in your interest in the popular ulture in the 12#s and today!

Stuart Hall:'ell, I suppose that there are three periods. First is the *:opular &rts+, the first

book we ever wrote with :addy 'hannel. It is before the Centre for Cultural Studies and it

omes out of the loal6 popular. :addy 'hannel was a film offier of the (ritish Film Institute.

He used to teah the film, before any of the universities or olleges did any teahing of film and I

used to leture for him. 'e would go around to film soieties, the only plaes where you ould

see foreign films. 7ou ouldn#t see them in any film theatres. (FI film department started to put

together e%tras. I taught a ourse about gangster films. 'e had a lot of talks about popular

ulture. In weekends we played the musi, I would play )a??, :addy played mainstream musi

and it is when I learned the importane of not )ust of (ergman and urosawa, but also the

importane of Gohn Ford. I reali?ed that Gohn Ford while reating the western as a popular genre

was a very important filmmaker. 'e argued about this, we argued about )a??, we argued a lot

about the rok musi and it was the time of huge e%plosion of rok musi, :addy ouldn#t stand itat all. I liked some of it, but not a lot of it. &nd all these arguments lead to the understanding of

popular ulture. &nd people in the shool were interested in that. :eople in the shool said, that

we have to understand it, beause we are wathing television, listening to the musi, but we don-t

know anything about it@ So the purpose of *:opular &rts+ is to write a book for teahing. If you

want to know about the 'estern wath Gohn Ford, if you want to know about the popular musi

listen to it@ So this belongs to that moment before the (irmingham pro)et started. &nd it is

limited by one aspet9 that is the luk of the interest in ritiism. 'hat was the interest here is

what is good and what is bad@ So Frank Sinatra is good, the other is


6/18

The ne%t one is the work on the popular ulture in the Centre9 =5esistane through 5ituals+,

understanding musi and ;ik Hebdige#s work, and the work on media studies, soap operas and

a lot of interest in the popular ulture. I would say that there was interest in two things9 one is

reogni?ing that it is highly ommeriali?ed, highly tehnologial, highly market oriented

ultural industry. 8evertheless there is a ommon element in it9 popular attitudes and feelings are

not quite ommodified. It is opposite of what &dorno says. &dorno has the notion of ulture

industry whih affets everybody and works like a ultural dope and ompletely insribed by

outside. I don#t think it is true that it is insribed )ust like that.


7/18

wrong with that, but what disturbs me is that interests are there, you don-t have to go bak to

questions we talked before like how to make a distintion between manipulative elements and so

on. I don#t think they go bak to these questions. Seondly9 ontemporary ulture is so massively

tehnologised. It was not so tehnologised when we were thinking about it before. Commerial

TJ omes to (ritain in the /02s and sine then massive tehnologisation of forms and global

dissemination of forms and meaning happened.

Rainer Winter:7ou have mentioned the link between Cultural Studies and pedagogy when

speaking of #popular arts# as well as adult teahing. In a ertain way adult eduation was one of

the beginnings of Cultural Studies.

Stuart Hall: 5ihard Hoggart, 5aymond 'illiams, 4.: Thompson and myself all taught in adult

lasses. 8ot for formal situations, not for e%ams, not for qualifiation, )ust on Friday nights. I

went for years talking about 5ussian novels and translation, "eorge 4lliot novels, and an old guy

about eighties told me *8ot bad@ 8ot bad@ It is fifth time I have been listening to #$iddlemarh#@=

(LaughterK In a ertain freedom and the ertain non6aademi onte%t, talking about what your

everyday life means, how you may adopt your onept and language and your whole pedagogy to

it. 7ou talk about what they already know. It was very formative moment for all us. &nd as you

mentioned like in popular arts it is all to do with popular forms. Then of ourse it is the question

of pedagogy. It is the question of how to teah an unknown field. The pedagogial question at the

Centre for Cultural Studies was like you are teahing as far as it goes. How are you teahing by

disovering between $onday and Friday about ;urkheim, that you have to tell them! 'e were

really making it up. 'e were older, we read more and we had more ideas, but a lot of the

teahing staff was not read any soiology or anthropology. I was trained in literature. I never had

formal qualifiation in soiology ever. I was a professor of Soiology at the


8/18

making it with us. Students were writing alongside the teahers. =:oliing the Crisis= is written

by me and five graduate students. ;ik Hebdige#s famous book on subulture and style is his $&

thesis. It is a giant enterprise and in addition to it we should remember the onte%t. This is /012s,

it is all in the olletive, everything is in the reading group, and there is no differene between the

teahers and taught. So typial pedagogy, teahing the lass, et. forget it@ It was ompletely

impossible to do it like that. 7ou an sense from what I am saying that it is inredibly heady

e%periene. (ut I am not romantii?ing it. It ouldn#t be done again@ So it is a different

pedagogial question now@

Theory and Intervention

Rainer Winter9 In the work of &merian sholars like Henry "irou%, :eter $aren or ;ouglas

ellner ritial pedagogy is looked at as a form of intervention into the soial and ultural field. I

think ritial pedagogy and the pro)et of Cultural Studies are losely onneted in this point. The

idea of intervention is also important for the (irmingham pro)et.

Stuart Hall:7es, absolutely@ 'e were ertainly trying to disover ways in whih every kind of

oneptual development would also be an intervention. The intervention in theoretial field ofourse@ 8ot only that. It should be a point where to onnet to some pratie what was going on

outside the Dniversity.


9/18

we had a few onservatives, soial6demorats. I insisted that it all works for the purpose of

Centre as a group.


10/18

Stuart Hall: 7es, very important for the enemies and it is endlessly quoted laughter).I think I

have said enough when I was talking about the notion of #popular#. That is why I think he is

wrong about Cultural Studies being populist. It is very ommitted to what is alled #popular#, to

what "ramsi alled #popular#. "ramsi says, there is a good sense and there is a ommon sense.

The good sense is the distillation of the onsent, onsent is very haoti, but he says workers may

not be aware of apitalism, but they sort of know what it is. That is a good sense. I don-t think

Cultural Studies were populist, but I do think some of the work of Cultural Studies on popular

ulture did beome a kind of elebration of popular. I don#t think my own interest in popular

ulture was ever that. It was something between the authentiity of the popular ulture and entire

ommodified nature of it. I don#t really think that $"uigan really knows these distintions. (ut

the seond thing in there is what is done in Cultural Studies ever sine. 'hat about the politial

eonomy! 'hat about the eonomy! First of all, it is a #ode word#9 where is $ar%! 'hih is a

good question, what is politial, funtional, soial and eonomi! In that sense we think of

eonomy in relation to ulture and in that period we were not interested in ultural theory for

itself. 'e were interested in ulture and its relation to ritiism. I don#t think people realise how

different it was from the pratie today! 'e were in ulture and soiety, ulture and eonomy

and ulture and politis moment. 'hat is the relationship between those three! That is why

&lthusser was so important to us9 not determination by the eonomi, but all the three praties

taken together. 'e are thinking about the eonomy without eonomi redutionism. I am still

interested in that. I am interested how ulture relates to the nature of global apitalism! 'hat is

the nature of global apitalism! How is the global apitalism insribed in the ulture! How is the

ulture depending on sophistiated tehnologised eonomy! In the artiulation of these three

moments neither one is redued to other nor if you don#t redue one to other have you to think of

over6determination. The result, the outome of all these moments is over6determination. That is

the paradigm of early Cultural Studies. Then you think bak to the equation, either eonomy is at

the last instane, one you read &lthusser. He has a remark that even revolutionary moments have

a ertain transpareny, that in ideologial and politial and soial onditions are eonomi hange

is not suspended. It was not suspended in the Soviet Dnion or Cuba. I think it is very diffiult to

speak of artiulation of eonomy without redutionism and without a kind of refletionism. 7ou

an#t say that eonomy is gone global- so is ideology is gone global, it is not quite like that. That

is an important moment in early Cultural Studies what was ausing what 'illiams alled

/2


11/18

=Culture and Soiety= question. &t one point this omple% question about artiulation and

determinay was broken and the question beame a different question of ultural theory. Cultural

theory started to operate by its own. In that moment god knows where the eonomy is! This

moment is losely related to the moment of development of sophistiated theory9 struturalism,

post6struturalism, deonstrution, psyhoanalysis. This huge e%plosion of radial sophistiation

hanged our minds. It was a ultural turn. (ut this moment beame dislodged. It was a moment

of speaking of eonomy within the ultural time. 'hen people go to talk about eonomy without

the ulture they do not understand it. &s far as artiulation and ulture goes, the evolution of

ulture without artiulation is not possible. That is why I am a little out of love with Cultural

Studies at the moment. 'e an still find ways of speaking about it in terms of globali?ation. How

an ulture be outside of that! In /0N26s and 02s we followed the line, but now we are in the

post6theory moment in that absolute sense. I am not saying that it is not possible to get engaged in

the theory, but the prodution of one theoretial theory out of another is no longer possible.

Culture is onerned with the theory of meaning. I don-t think things in the ob)etive world have

their meanings insribed in them. The table, the piture et. are things that don#t e%ist in nature.

To say that ob)et doesn#t e%ist is not saying that I am a antian I )ust made it up, but in terms of

ultural systems we have to interat with in relation to meaning. It annot be outside the ob)etive

world, beause it is onstruted by the ertain pratie itself. 7ou annot move bak from the

representation to the referene, beause it doesn-t e%ist like a piee of metal, it is not like that. It

is not going bak to the world whih is perfetly onfined, but you annot say that there is no

referene. I knew this at the moment of =5eading Capital=. In this book &lthusser is asking9 how

do I know that this theory is orret! Theory is not guaranteed. I don#t believe in the

straightforward notion of representation, in a language or symboli form, in ulture, but I don#t

believe that ulture is in the end of the world. It is onstruted. It is like in a game9 when people

play with the ball, is that game riket or football! ;epending on the different ation of people

playing with the ball it onnets the rules making differene between the riket and football.

'hen people ask where the disursive is, it is where it is@ These are real people running around

the real ball out there. In the end artiulation is onstruted by the disursive, by the meaning. So

it is a long answer to your question about the eonomy. In understanding of eonomy you have

always to look for ulture, for something different. I used to all it the #third way#, but after

bloody Tony (lair I don#t all it like that any longer@

//


12/18

&rt, ;iaspora and $igration

Rainer Winter: In your reent work art plays an important role. Could you e%plain this hange a

little bit! 'hih funtion an art have today!

Stuart Hall: For last /2 years I have been working with visual arts. I have been writing too, but

mostly politial work. I wrote a piee on Tony (lair, whih is alled #8ew abour#s double

shuffle-, whih takes to the heart of this partiular problem. (ut I hardly have written anything. I

was building. I was building the inIJ&, whih is )ust openedA I have been working with two

visual art organi?ations, inIJ& and &utograph, working with young artists. This year I am /2

years retired. &nd all these years were in onversation with visual arts. I don-t# know anything

about it, but I have always been interested in image, in art and trained in literature. (ut I am not

an e%pert in visual arts. :art of this move is onneted to the fat that I wanted to do something

different in my life, beause I deided that the big theoretial moment is over and I wanted to

move on. I retired and I thought to do something different in my life.

'hat I like about art is that it is about the real world, whih annot be understood bye%periening this world diretly. &rt derives from the real e%periene, but it is different from the

real e%periene, it takes the symboli form. It is similar to ulture9 ulture has to move away from

eonomy in order to make things understandable. I think it is how art works. &part from that I

am interested in diversity of art. (eause I am interested in questions of identity, post6

olonialism, blak diaspora and other aspets of my own work in /002s. I have very broad

interest in visual arts. :artiular work I have done in visual art is an e%tension of my earlier work

on diaspora, identity whih took me into another terrain and I learned a lot from it. & lot of my

work on identity was that identity annot be )ust one thing. 'ith the debate on multi6ulturalism I

thought it was the loosening of the notion of identity in a positive way. That meant that people

are not fi%ed for ever and the sripts of their lives are not written forever in the tradition from

whih they ame. &tually ultural tradition is not fi%ed, there is no fi%ed tradition. :eople ome

from somewhere else, they have been e%periening other influenes, many people have been

interpreted in many different ways, )ust like identity, ulture is not fi%ed. In this onte%t I said9 *I

/>


13/18

am not interested in 5


14/18

Stuart Hall:'hat I meant by #regressive moderni?ation# was the phenomenon of Thatherism9 of

being taken dramatially into an e%treme modern version of neo6liberalism. 'hile at the same

time within the soiety there is moving bakwards towards authoritarian position. I thought you

ouldn#t desribe Thather as simply # regressive figure-, beause of the way of engaging with the

end of soial6demoray, engaging with the work of welfare State. The only way Thather did

was the way bakwards, bak to &dam Smith bak to the past to make it work in a new onte%t. I

think it was very important moment in the /0N2s. I said it is that it was distrative of the old

5ight, it was polemiising against the old 5ight. She ouldn-t stand old right, meanwhile she

loved rituals. 'hen she invaded the Falkland, she en)oyed bringing the old 8avy there. It is very

urious ombination, ontraditory ombination of going bak and going forward. (ut haven#t

you seen it in the history many times! Think of the Central 4urope around osovo question. It is

typial e%ample. There is an advaned move towards 4D but bakwards via its defeat E22 years

ago. That is one dimension I don#t know what it is9 to step bak out of the e%isting framework in

the name of traditional values. There are no other sorts of values. (ut it ouldn#t be done by

straightforward revolution. That was interesting about the time of Thatherism.

I haven#t thought about what it is now, really. 8ow we are in another moment of regressive

moderni?ation .'hat I thought about Thatherism is defining Thatherism largely in relation to

(ritish national politis. It was opening moment of the new on)eture in (ritish politis, global

phenomenon atually. It is the end of welfare state, the moment when apital asserted itself on

the ground on ta%. (ut it ould not be the end of that without finding new soures like globalised

prodution, global onsumption and globalised investment, global military geo6politis and that

moment was the beginning. 'e knew that 5eagan and Thather worked together to reate a new

on)eture. I now understand Thatherism slightly differently in the urrent wider onte%t of

globali?ation. I am very preoupied with the question of globalisation.

Zeigam Azizov: Can you please talk about this new onern with globalisation?

Stuart Hall: I think the internal dynamis of apitalism fundamentally reworked by operating on

the global sale. Capitalism was always that ever sine it has begun and $ar% said that the

purpose of apitalism was to reate the world market. 'hat ever was the end of the soial market

is )ust the beginning of apital market. 'hen you don#t have to onur anywhere, and then you

/E


15/18

have a trade in atin &meria, then China ...That is another moment of globali?ation. 4volution

of apitalism now is serious of globalised on)etures. It began at the end of /0326s and we are in

the middle of it now. So when I say Cultural studies need to rethink itself beause there is a

speifi role of ulture in a new government on)eture. Seond aspet of globali?ation onsists

of two moments9 one is what I all globali?ation from above, and the other is globali?ation from

below. "lobalisation from above is the urrent national prodution, people working for one dollar

a day in $o?ambique or China. :eople wonder what has happened to (ritish system. It is gone

global@ The system is artiulated now aross huge spaes, time6spae ompression@ Condensation

of time and spae is quite a new moment. That is globali?ation from above. The ultural meaning

of globali?ation from above is moderni?ation. 4veryone should beome to the market with

modern goods, messages should be spread everywhere, everyone sooner or later rela%, and wear

)eans and trainers, everybody go to $;onalds in the orner , food is e%atly the same ...sort of

$;onaldisation of the world. (asially globali?ation has its ultural role. 'hen (ush says you

walk like us, make love like us, you dream like us, you dream of us, you dream of $anhattan@ I

think it is moderni?ation. (ut there always been the possibility in that whih is muh more multi6

oloured world with many entres and at the same time people are being horrendously displaed

from their homes, from the plaes where they live in, people want to improve their eonomi

possibilities. For e%ample from the media they know about possibilities in other plaes and they

say9 why should I stay here when I an go to California@

So people are on the moveA they put themselves in the hand of people traffikers, they )oin the

se% industry. This is whole global movement of what $ihael Hardt and Toni 8egri all

#multitudes#9 asylum seekers, migrants, people living in transit amps, who spend nearly all their

lives in transit amps. &nd it is not going anywhere. This whole other movement is globali?ation

from below. & onsequene of it is what I all #vernaular modernity#. It is more limited, beause

resoures are limited but making it beoming part of the new world and trying to keep in

distane. This is another image of globali?ation. &nd many of the things whih I was onerned

about when I wrote about multiulturalism, diaspora, identity et. is falling bak on the

vernaular modernity, as against homogeni?ation. I think globali?ation is a ontraditory system,

there is no one globe at all and ouldn#t possibly be. 'hatever now happens on a planetary sale

is the platform of operation of this ontraditory system, but how it operates in &fghanistan, in

(ra?il, in India and in 8ew 7ork in ompletely different ways. They ombine, what $ar% alled,

/


16/18

the uneven development.

Rainer Winter: There is also a very stimulating and e%iting disussion on alternative

modernities, about the possibilities to be modern in a different way. arry "rossberg has )ust

written about this sub)et..

Stuart Hall:That is the possibility too@ &tually nobody wants to stay in an old wayA everybody

wants a piee of modernity. In an ideal world you ould have had Indian version of modernity,

the Chinese version of modernity, atually we do have those. They are ompressed into the

hegemoni system. This movement turned out to be what really happens. I don-t think the

moderni?ation is the end, I don#t think it was suessfulA I don-t think it ever be hegemoni, and

new visions of the modern ontinue to assert themselves. &fria beomes modern in a way

different from the way of China, I think it is how should be, but these modules are will be tested

by invasion, onquest, neutrali?ation, et. it is horrendous move to that.

Rainer Winter:&nother important notion in the urrent e%hange is osmopolitanism and his

role in the transnational world of the >/stentury. For e%ample, Dlrih (ek speaks of a

osmopolitan vision of soiety, and he also writes about different oneptions and pleads for a

*rooted osmopolitanism+.

Stuart Hall: If by osmopolitanism you mean the world ivility, world peae, the antian

imperative, well, I don#t believe in it that muh@ I don#t think that the world is evolving towards

the system of worldly vision. I think differenes are historialA partly historial, partly

developmental, partly linguisti, partly ultural, partly politial, and partly eonomial. 4ven in a

planetary operation one thing onneting with the other. It will still remain different. There is a

real persistene of differene. 8ot neessarily forever, but for a long time to ome. ;isovering

the differene and finding the differene whih is negotiable like in multiulturalism or differene

whih is fundamentalist like in politial Islam or evangelial Christianity@ (ut I don#t think that

you an get rid of differene. In that sense the utopian onept of osmopolitanism is not

intervening in the question of differene. It is not going to persuade &meria or (ritain that

anything reogni?able in a ountry as traditional and patriarhal as &fghanistan. 'estern politial

institutions are ontinuing to be there. However what you mean is various form of globali?ation

/1


17/18

is onstituted an awareness everywhere of everywhere else. 7ou an not make any modern life

any longer within the national bo%, everybody knows about everybody else. I think that is what I

alled vernaular osmopolitanism#. That is what living with differene means. I believe in that

kind of osmopolitanism. The osmopolitanism from above, whih is largely apaity of

apitalist entrepreneurs whih is the onsequene of apitalism when people have three houses in

different ontinents and they don#t know what they do is the same as others, they don-t speak the

language, beause everybody speaks 4nglish@ That kind of osmopolitanism I don-t think works@

It is new hegemony of global ulture. &nd I think to give to it a utopian name is to invite us to

forget the growth of inequalities in the world.

Rainer Winter:Closely onneted to that is the oneption of a transnational ivil soiety whih

an open up a new global demorati field. Dnrestrained market relations and the politis of

national states an be ritii?ed and hallenged. There an be utopian possibilities, forms of

global resistane. It is a Habermasian onept evidently.

Stuart Hall:


18/18

/N

Documents

Interview With Stuart Hall, 21st January 2008 Rwza