For Hall, ‘post’ means continuing within a problematic, not abandoning it.
Evidence
SH : I am a “post-Marxist” only in the sense that I recognize the necessity to move beyond orthodox Marxism, beyond the notion of Marxism guaranteed by the laws of history. But I still operate somewhere within what I understand to be the discursive limits of a Marxist position. And I feel the same way about structuralism. My work is neither a refusal nor an apologia of Althusser’s position. I refuse certain of those positions, but Althusser certainly has had an enormous influence on my thinking, in many positive ways that I continue to acknowledge, even after he has gone out of fashion. So “post” means, for me, going on thinking on the ground of a set of established problems, a problematic. It doesn’t mean deserting that terrain but rather, using it as one’s reference point. So I am, only in that sense, a post-Marxist and a poststructuralist, because those are the two discourses I feel most constantly engaged with. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 753
Categorization
Category: Definitional Content
- DEFINE: Defines Hall’s idiosyncratic sense of post-Marxism and poststructuralism as thinking on the ground of a problematic rather than deserting it.
- XREF: This self-positioning is essential context for situating Hall as an economic and cultural thinker against orthodox Marxism.
Related
- The ‘post’ in post-Marxism means working within but beyond an established problematic (similarity 0.96)
- Poststructuralist concepts drop the ideological dimension that social analysis needs. (similarity 0.82)
- Post-Marxist theory emerged to correct Marxism’s economism and reductionism (similarity 0.80)
- Hall accepts anti-foundationalism yet rejects full relativism and deconstruction (similarity 0.80)
- Hall’s Marxism was always heterodox, never economically reductionist. (similarity 0.79)
- Hall rejects the teleological determination latent in orthodox Marxism (similarity 0.79)