Impossible Labour History: Solidarity Dreams and Antiblack Subsumption

IF 0.2 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.3366/olr.2024.0428
Sara-Maria Sorentino
{"title":"Impossible Labour History: Solidarity Dreams and Antiblack Subsumption","authors":"Sara-Maria Sorentino","doi":"10.3366/olr.2024.0428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Labour, for capitalist critique, is not just slavery analogised; it is slavery materialised and expanded. Across the Marxist terrain, class struggle is presupposed by the struggle not to be a slave: the struggle of ‘the worker’ combats a slavery simultaneously more complex, because it is more mediated, and implicitly more emancipatory, because it materialises what has been called ‘objective possibility’. In this article, I track symptoms of the sublation of slavery by labour in the telling of ‘new labour history’ and counter with ‘objective impossibility’ as a more open and efficacious diagnostic for the slave’s political position. Though the sentences of United States labour history are alive with promises of solidarity, the field also remains an unstable landmine of antagonism, death, failure, limit. I argue that this labour history, despite its gestures towards the problem ‘race’, is grammatically caught in a web of desires that Sylvia Wynter names ‘the hegemony of the labour conceptual frame (i.e., the frame of the struggle against capitalism)’. The labour conceptual frame is hegemonic because the relation between race and class already presupposes a latent Marxist orientation to subjects, objects, consciousness, and history that renders perfect the slave’s objective impossibility and culminates, at the nexus of race and class, in an uncritical conversion of labour’s objective possibility into pure, unmediated possibility. This article tracks how the black worker remains stubbornly impossible throughout this theoretical convergence, bending the apparatus of labour history, the purchase of Marxist theory, and the salience of class-first politics through the excess of blackness to labour.","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.2024.0428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Labour, for capitalist critique, is not just slavery analogised; it is slavery materialised and expanded. Across the Marxist terrain, class struggle is presupposed by the struggle not to be a slave: the struggle of ‘the worker’ combats a slavery simultaneously more complex, because it is more mediated, and implicitly more emancipatory, because it materialises what has been called ‘objective possibility’. In this article, I track symptoms of the sublation of slavery by labour in the telling of ‘new labour history’ and counter with ‘objective impossibility’ as a more open and efficacious diagnostic for the slave’s political position. Though the sentences of United States labour history are alive with promises of solidarity, the field also remains an unstable landmine of antagonism, death, failure, limit. I argue that this labour history, despite its gestures towards the problem ‘race’, is grammatically caught in a web of desires that Sylvia Wynter names ‘the hegemony of the labour conceptual frame (i.e., the frame of the struggle against capitalism)’. The labour conceptual frame is hegemonic because the relation between race and class already presupposes a latent Marxist orientation to subjects, objects, consciousness, and history that renders perfect the slave’s objective impossibility and culminates, at the nexus of race and class, in an uncritical conversion of labour’s objective possibility into pure, unmediated possibility. This article tracks how the black worker remains stubbornly impossible throughout this theoretical convergence, bending the apparatus of labour history, the purchase of Marxist theory, and the salience of class-first politics through the excess of blackness to labour.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不可能的劳工历史:团结梦想与反黑人消费
对资本主义批判而言,劳动不仅是被类比的奴隶制,而且是具体化和扩大的奴隶制。在整个马克思主义领域,阶级斗争的前提是不做奴隶的斗争:"工人 "的斗争打击的是同时更为复杂的奴隶制,因为它更为中介化,也隐含着更大的解放性,因为它具体化了所谓的 "客观可能性"。在本文中,我追踪了在讲述 "新劳工史 "时劳工对奴隶制的潜移默化,并以 "客观不可能性 "作为对奴隶政治立场更开放、更有效的诊断。尽管美国劳工史的句子充满了团结的希望,但这一领域也仍然是一个充满对立、死亡、失败和限制的不稳定的地雷。我认为,这部劳工史尽管对 "种族 "问题做出了姿态,但在语法上却陷入了西尔维亚-温特(Sylvia Wynter)命名为 "劳工概念框架(即反资本主义斗争框架)的霸权 "的欲望之网。劳动概念框架之所以具有霸权地位,是因为种族与阶级之间的关系已经预设了马克思主义对主体、客体、意识和历史的潜在取向,这种取向使奴隶的客观不可能性变得完美无缺,并在种族与阶级的结合点上,最终将劳动的客观可能性不加批判地转化为纯粹的、未经中介的可能性。本文追踪了黑人工人如何在这一理论趋同的过程中顽固地保持不可能,通过黑人对劳动的过度,弯曲了劳动史的装置、马克思主义理论的购买力和阶级优先政治的突出性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Oxford Literary Review, founded in the 1970s, is Britain"s oldest journal of literary theory. It is concerned especially with the history and development of deconstructive thinking in all areas of intellectual, cultural and political life. In the past, Oxford Literary Review has published new work by Derrida, Blanchot, Barthes, Foucault, Lacoue-Labarthe, Nancy, Cixous and many others, and it continues to publish innovative and controversial work in the tradition and spirit of deconstruction. Planned issues include ‘Writing and Immortality’, "Word of War" and ‘Deconstruction and Environmentalism’.
期刊最新文献
The Crisis of Truth Word.Afterward: On the Blackness of Thoreau's Thinking Blackness, Repetition, and Non-Philosophy On Drawing on Blackness: Theory and Crisis Impossible Labour History: Solidarity Dreams and Antiblack Subsumption
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1