Stuart Hall in perspective

Posted on 2nd April 2014 (http://isj.org.uk/stuart-hall-in-perspective/)

Alex Callinicos

Stuart Hall’s death removes from the scene one of the most influential Marxists in
Britain of the past 50 years. To describe him thus is immediately to invite
controversy. Among admirers, he seems to be chiefly remembered in two ways.
First, as one of the founding figures of the intellectual discipline of cultural studies,
particularly during the time he ran the celebrated Centre for Contemporary Cultural
Studies (CCCS) at Birmingham University between 1968 and 1979. Secondly, and
in more recent years, as a writer who moved from his own experience as a
Jamaican living but never entirely at home in Britain to thematise the problem of
being “black British” and more generally to explore the political and cultural
implications of the hybrid identities created by empire and its aftermath. 1

For his critics among what used to be called the “hard left”, a very different Hall
emerges. At the height of his influence during the 1980s he was, together with Eric
Hobsbawm, in the intellectual vanguard of the attempt by the Eurocommunist
monthly Marxism Today to marginalise those trying to defeat Margaret Thatcher’s
government using the methods of class struggle and to rally support behind Neil
Kinnock’s project of moving the Labour Party to the right. Hall’s own contribution
was less openly Labourist than Hobsbawm’s. He developed a celebrated analysis
of Thatcherism as “authoritarian populism”, “an exceptional form of the capitalist
state”, and deployed all his intelligence and eloquence to demolishing the hard left
within the Labour Party (a formidable force in the heyday of Tony Benn at the end
of the 1970s).2 It was in this guise that Hall figured in this journal, for example, in a
lengthy critique of Marxism Today that I wrote in the immediate aftermath of the
defeat of the Great Miners’ Strike of 1984-5. There I taxed Hall for what his own
favoured Marxist Antonio Gramsci called “ideologism”—privileging “conjunctural”
short-term variations in the ideological and political superstructures over “organic”
movements in the forces and relations of production. 3

Marxism Today enjoyed great notoriety during the intense political conflicts in
British society in the early and mid-1980s. But by the end of the decade it had
drifted into an embarrassingly crass celebration of the “New Times” of globalised
multicultural hyperconsumerist capitalism that displayed the worst of
postmodernism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the
Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), Marxism Today closed, its mission
accomplished, only—risibly—to revive itself for a one-off issue denouncing Tony
Blair’s government, like a sorcerer’s apprentice revolted by the results of his own
handiwork. Even then, while criticising Blair for continuing Thatcher’s project, Hall
still found in him: “a genuine humanity which one would have been unwise to put
any money on in Mrs Thatcher”.4 The people of Iraq would beg to differ.
This sorry history invites the conclusion that Hall didn’t have much to do with
Marxism. This is in effect he argument that Colin Sparks, a longstanding
contributor to this journal, makes in a careful and scholarly study of the relationship
of Hall and the CCCS to Marxism. Sparks traces Hall’s development from the late
1950s onwards, when, as one of the founders of the New Left that emerged after
the crisis the CPGB suffered in 1956 under the impact of Nikita Krushchev’s
denunciation of Stalin and the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution,
Hall helped to set up Universities and Left Review while a student at Oxford and
was the first editor of New Left Review. Sparks argues that, “at this early stage in
his career, Hall identified Marxism as an obsolete and reductivist system of
thought. It was necessary to go beyond these limitations in order to understand
contemporary culture”.5 The later embrace of Marxism by Hall and the CCCS was
a passing affair, which focused on the work of Louis Althusser, much in vogue in
the late 1960s and early 1970s. This encouraged a preoccupation with ideology
that soon collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. The escape route
was offered by Ernesto Laclau, who, particularly in his work with Chantal Mouffe,
sought to liberate Gramsci’s theory of hegemony from its author’s unfortunate
commitment to “classism” and to integrate it into poststructuralist philosophy of
language.6

One of the great strengths of Sparks’s interpretation of Hall’s development is the

stress it lays on the continuities it stresses between Hall’s writing in the late 1950s
and his enthusiasm for “New Times” 30 years later:

Certainly, the language and some of the issues of relevance have changed in three
decades, but the central concern with the impact of increasing wealth, changing
patterns of work, increased leisure, the centrality of consumption, fragmentation of
the social structure, the problematisation of old identities and the fragmentary and
transitory nature of their replacements, are [sic] common to the thinking of both
periods.7

So, as in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Decline and Fall, our hero finds himself in the
same place at the end of his story as he was at the beginning. This is a view Hall
himself encouraged, for example in this reminiscence of his own Oxford days: “I
remember going to a meeting and opening a discussion with members of the
Communist Party, arguing against the reductionist version of the Marxist theory of
class. This must have been in 1954, and I seem to have been arguing the same
thing ever since”.8 More broadly, Hall underlined his continuing identification with
the politics of the “first New Left” of the late 1950s and early 1960s, writing in 1989:
“The ‘third space’ [between Stalinism and social democracy] which the ‘first’ New
Left defined and tried to prise open still seems to me the only hope for the renewal
of the democratic and socialist project in our new and bewildering times”. 9

But what Sparks’s interpretation misses are the depth and originality of Hall’s
engagement with Marxism in the 1970s and 1980s. This was no dilettantish toying
with Althusser. It’s true that, unlike most contributors to this journal as well as his
fellow founder of the first New Left Edward Thompson, but like, for example, Perry
Anderson, Terry Eagleton, and myself, Hall took Althusser seriously as a
worthwhile interlocutor, though not one to be followed slavishly. Thus he wrote
during the 1970s a series of texts notable for their detailed readings of, for
example, Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and the 1857
Introduction to the Grundrisse that seek to establish their distance from the then
hugely influential Althusserian interpretation of Marxism. 10 Hall’s key reference
point was provided by Gramsci. As he recalled, “Gramsci is where I stopped in the
headlong rush into structuralism and theoreticism. At a certain point I stumbled
over Gramsci, and I said, ‘Here and no further!’” 11 (“Structuralism” and
“theoreticism” are, in this context, code words for Althusser). Like many at the time,
Hall was particularly interested in the relationship between discourse and ideology,
but the main theoretical influence here wasn’t so much the structural linguistics of
Ferdinand de Saussure that was so important for structuralism and
poststructuralism as the materialist philosophy of language developed by Mikhail
Bakhtin and his collaborators in post-revolutionary Russia. 12

What Hall took from Gramsci negatively was a theoretical justification for rejecting
economic reductionism. Having taken this stance early on, he stuck to it for the rest
of his career, declaring on the occasion of his 80th birthday in 2012 in terms very
similar to those he used in the 1970s:

I got involved in cultural studies because I didn’t think life was purely economically
determined. I took all this up as an argument with economic determinism. I lived
my life as an argument with Marxism, and with neoliberalism. Their point is that, in
the last instance, economy will determine it. But when is the last instance? If you’re
analysing the present conjuncture, you can’t start and end at the economy. It is
necessary, but insufficient.13

This position did not imply the rejection of any form of economic determination (as
opposed to determinism). Althusserian Marxism began to disintegrate in the
second half of the 1970s as former followers such as Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst
replaced Althusser’s formula of “economic determination in the last instance” with a
conception of the social as a plurality of interacting practices not too distant from
mainstream sociological approaches stemming from Max Weber. Hall took his
stand against these developments, even occasionally endorsing “the base-
superstructure topography” as “a defining conceptual threshold and boundary limit
for Marxism (without which it becomes another thing, another kind of theory—a
theory of the absolute autonomy of everything from everything else)”. 14

He resisted the drift into poststructuralism, criticising Hindess and Hirst for
dissolving the real into discourse.15 This position doesn’t seem to have changed
during the storms of the 1980s. Thus Hall would stress the difference between
Michel Foucault’s philosophical views and “’the realist philosophical position I
myself adopt”.16 Interviewed in 1985 about postmodernism, he dismisses the idea
of a “postmodern condition” that represents a radical break with social modernity
and aesthetic Modernism as “another version of that historical amnesia
characteristic of America culture—the tyranny of the new” and more broadly takes
his distance from the philosophical positions taken by then fashionable figures
such as Jean Baudrillard, Foucault, and Laclau and Mouffe. 17

What, then, did Hall take more positively from Gramsci? This is most strongly on
show in an essay, “The Problem of Ideology—Marxism without Guarantees”, first
published in 1983 for the centenary of Marx’s death. Here Hall, like Gramsci before
him, takes as his cue the famous passage in the 1859 Preface to A Contribution to
the Critique of Political Economy referring to “the legal, political, religious, artistic or
philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this
conflict [between the forces and relations of production] and fight it out”. 18 Often
commentators contrast the conception of ideology implied here as a “positive” one,
without any connotation that these ideas represent a form of “false consciousness”,
with the more “negative” treatment found, for example, in Marx’s theory of
commodity fetishism in Capital, according to which social relations take the
mystified form of relations between things.19 What is very impressive is how Hall
advances essentially a positive conception of ideology as “the practical as well as
the theoretical knowledges that enable people to ‘figure out’ society and within
whose categories and discourses we ‘live out’ and ‘experience’ our objective
positioning in social relations”, but simultaneously and very skilfully integrates the
key idea of the theory of commodity fetishism, namely that “the categories of
market exchange obscure and mystify our understanding of the capitalist process”
by presenting one aspect of that process as if it were the whole. 20

Ideology is understood here, following Gramsci, as primarily the means through

which classes or fractions of classes constitute themselves as collective subjects in
the course of social and political struggles. 21 He argues that this view of ideology
is incompatible with both the vulgar Marxist “image of great, immovable class
battalions heaving their ascribed ideological luggage about the field of struggle,
with their ideological number plates on their backs, as [Nikos] Poulantzas once put
it” and the poststructuralist “infinity of subtle variations through which the elements
of a discourse appear spontaneously to combine and recombine with each other,
without material constraints of any kind other than provided by the discursive
operations themselves”.22 Once again Hall is engaging in a delicate balancing act.
He invokes Laclau to reject the idea, which he associates with Georg Lukács in
History and Class Consciousness, that particular ideas can be “ascribed” to
particular classes. But Hall is careful to differentiate his position from any
suggestion of the autonomy of ideology:

Certainly, it is not necessarily a form of vulgar materialism to say that, though we

cannot ascribe ideas to class position in certain fixed combinations, ideas do arise
from and may reflect the material conditions in which social groups and classes
exist. In that sense—ie historically—there may well be certain tendential
alignments—between, say, those who stand in a “corner shop” relation to the
processes of modern capitalist development, and the fact that they may be
predisposed to imagine that the whole advanced economy of capitalism can be
conceptualised in this “corner shop” way. I think this is what Marx meant in the
Eighteenth Brumaire when he said that it was not necessary for people actually to
make their living as members of the old petty bourgeoisie for them to be attracted
to petty bourgeois ideas. Nevertheless, there was, he suggested, some
relationship, or tendency, between the objective position of that class fraction, and
the limits and horizons of thought to which they would be “spontaneously”
attracted. This was a judgement about the “characteristic forms of thought”
appropriate as an ideal type to certain positions in the social structure. It was
definitely not a simple equation in actual historical reality between class position
and ideas. The point about “tendential historical relations” is that there is nothing
inevitable, necessary or fixed forever about them. The tendential lines of forces
define only the givenness of the historical terrain.23

Sometimes Hall falls off the high wire. Thus he endorses Laclau’s claim that the
different elements of an ideology are neutral between differing class interests.
Laclau’s favourite example is that of the nation, which, he argues, can be used by
both left and right. This argument is a very dangerous one, since any conception of
the nation implies the existence of a community that transcends class antagonism. It
also implies a conception of ideology as the infinite variation of meanings that
Laclau position that all discursive articulations are possible, but I do want to hear
the argument [about the nation] gone through”. 25 This doesn’t take away from the
merits of Hall’s development of Gramsci’s conception of ideology. It is most fully on
display in Policing the Crisis, a collective CCCS work published in 1978 that uses
the case of a moral panic over mugging under the Heath government in the early
1970s to unravel the different dimensions of crisis—economic, political, ideological
—afflicting British capitalism and to trace the moves preparing for the distinctive
mix of economic liberalism and traditional Tory invocations of family, nation and
state that was to characterise Thatcherism. This book is particularly interesting
because the final chapter, on “The Politics of ‘Mugging’”, surely written mainly by
Hall, contains the closest he came to a discussion of revolutionary strategy,
exploring the then current idea that wageless black youth could act as a political
vanguard.26

So why did such promising ideas become attached to the Marxism Today project?
It’s not terribly profitable to hunt for theoretical original sin, but it is striking how
innocent Hall’s writings are of Marxist political economy (Policing the Crisis is, once
again, an exception here). He himself sometimes acknowledged this weakness; it
may have had something to do with the reception of Gramsci in English. The
celebrated 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks edited by Quintin Hoare
and Geoffrey Nowell Smith has many virtues, but it focuses on Gramsci’s political
and philosophical writings. The importance of Marx’s critique of political economy
to Gramsci only begins fully to emerge in the Further Selections published in 1995
and in the as yet incomplete translation of the Quaderni.27 But without the
orientation provided by an understanding of what Gramsci called the “organic”
tendencies and contradictions of the capitalist mode of production political analysis
is liable to collapse into ideologism. Such an understanding might have immunised
Hall to the absurdities of Marxism Today’s cult of “New Times”, which completely
missed the emergence during the 1980s of the financialised capitalism that has
haltered the development of the world economy to surges of euphoria and panic on
the financial markets.28 In its absence, and given his earlier “New Left” views on
culture and class, it was easy for Hall to drift into fellow-travelling with the
Eurocommunist wing of the CPGB. This is particularly so because his theoretical
explorations of Marxism were carried out without any organised connection with
British working class life—from which Hall may well have felt alienated because of
his own black, Jamaican identity.29

After the 2008 crash Hall sought to update the approach he developed in the
1970s and 1980s, describing the Conservative-Liberal coalition as, rather
improbably, “arguably the best prepared, most wide-ranging, radical and ambitious
of the three regimes that since the 1970s have been maturing the neoliberal
project”.30 He showed no interest in critically revisiting his original theory of
“authoritarian populism”, even though the heads of his “three regimes” have proved
remarkably vulnerable to traditional parliamentary rebellions—Thatcher removed
by a cabinet coup, Blair forced into retirement by the anger provoked among
Labour MPs by his support for Israel’s 2006 Lebanon war, David Cameron running
scared in the face of his Europhobic backbenchers. From the Great Miners’ Strike
of 1984-5 to the pensions struggle of 2011 it has been the trade union
bureaucracy, not the repressive powers of the state, that has contained social
resistance to neoliberalism. Finding a way round this obstacle is one of the biggest
conundrums facing the contemporary anticapitalist left, as Ralph Darlington
discusses elsewhere in this journal. We are unlikely to find much to help us in Hall,
whose practical orientation didn’t shift much from the political habits he fell into
during the 1970s and 1980s.31 But this doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn
from him theoretically.

Notes

1: See the very interesting quasi-autobiographical interview in Hall, 1996f. This

appears in Morley and Chen, 1996, a valuable collection of articles by, interviews
with and commentary on Hall, see Hall, 1996b, 1996c and 1996d. While I
recognise the importance of Hall’s work on race, culture and identity, it is not my
focus here.

2: Hall, 1979, p15.3: Callinicos, 1985; see also Callinicos, 1983a.

4: Hall, 1998, p14. Older readers will remember the CPGB as the most important
organisation of the Marxist left in Britain between the 1920s and 1980s-not to be
confused with the producers of a
annual conference (http://www.isj.org.uk /index.php4?s=resources#HMconf)

From Our Archives

The roots of gay oppression (Norah Carlin 1989) (http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?

id=310)

The ‘workers’ government (Chris Harman 1977) (http://isj.org.uk/the-workers-

government)

A critique of Nicos Poulantzas (Colin Barker 1979) (http://isj.org.uk/a-critique-of-

nicos- poulantzas/)

Theories of Patriarchy (Lindsey German 1981) (http://isj.org.uk/theories-of-

patriarchy/)

Mike Kidron on Marxist political economy (1974) (http://isj.org.uk/marxist-political-

economy- and-the-crisis/)

The State and Capital (Chris Harman 1991) (http://isj.org.uk/the-state-and-

capitalism-today/)

Gramsci versus Eurocommunism (Chris Harman 1977) (http://isj.org.uk/gramsci-

versus- eurocommunism/)

5: Sparks, 1996, p78. On the early New Left see Blackledge, 2006.

6: Laclau, 1977, and Laclau and Mouffe, 1985. 7: Sparks, 1996, p98.8: Hall, 1996f,
p492.

9: Hall, 2010, p196. See the more detailed account of the outlook of the first New
Left (so called to distinguish it from New Left Review after Perry Anderson took
over as editor in 1962 and took it in a much more theoretical and cosmopolitan
direction) in Hall, 2010, pp185-88.

10: Respectively Hall, 1977b and 2003.

11: Hall, 1988, p69.

12: See the retrospective discussion in Hall, 1996e.

13: Williams, 2012.

14: Hall 1977b, p59. See also Hall 1977a. It is, however, more usual for Hall to
reject the metaphor altogether.

15: For example, Hall, 1978. This text is also interesting because Hall, though
influenced by Althusser’s famous essay on ideology (Althusser, 1970), takes his
distance from Althusser’s attempt to make Jacques Lacan’s interpretation of
psychoanalysis the basis of a theory of subjectivity. As he later put it, “I don’t think
we can replace economic determinism by a psychoanalytic reductionism”-Hall,
1988, p68.

16: Hall, 1988, p58.17: Hall, 1996a, p133,18: Marx, 1975, p426.19: See, for
example, Larrain, 1979.

20: Hall, 1983, pp60, 73. Maybe I’m particularly impressed by Hall’s achievement
here because at much the same time I was making the big mistake of
counterposing the theory of commodity fetishism to the “positive” conception of
ideology: Callinicos, 1983b, chapter 5. Elsewhere, however, Hall offers a much
more caricatural view of the Marxist theory of ideology: see Hall, 1988, criticised in
Larrain, 1996.

21: I develop a very similar account of ideology in Callinicos, 2004, chapters 4 and
5.

22: Hall, 1983, p79.

23: Hall, 1983, pp80-81.

24: Hall, 1983, pp77-78, drawing on Laclau, 1977, chapter 3. For a brief critique,
see Callinicos, 2004, pp252-254. The approach implicit in Laclau’s argument here
is most fully developed in Laclau, 2005.

25: Hall, 1988, p66.

26: Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke and Roberts, 1978.

27: See Krätke, 2011, for an excellent study of Gramsci’s economic writings.

28: Whatever the limitations of my own take on the conjuncture of the late 1980s, it
was alert to the developing dynamic of financial boom and bust: see Callinicos,
1989, chapter 5.

29: I’m grateful to Colin Sparks for this suggestion, and for his bracing comments
on an earlier draft. Thanks also to Tom Hickey for suggesting this article and for his
own comments.

30: Hall, 2012, p22.31: For Hall’s last political intervention, see Hall, Massey, and
Rustin, 2013.

References

Althusser, Louis, 1970, “Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses”, in Louis
Althusser, Lenin and

Philosophy and Other Essays (NLB).

Blackledge, Paul, 2006, “The New Left’s Renewal of Marxism”, International
Socialism 112 (autumn), 5 de 7

Callinicos, Alex, 1983a, “The Despair of the Reformist”, Socialist Review (June),
Stuart Hall in perspective – International Socialism

http://tintinrevolution.free.fr/stuff /Alex%20Callinicos%20-%20The%20despair
%20of%20the%20reformist.pdf (http://tintinrevolution.free.fr/stuff /Alex
%20Callinicos%20-%20The%20despair%20of%20the%20reformist.pdf )

Callinicos, Alex, 1983b, Marxism and Philosophy (Clarendon).

Callinicos, Alex, 1985, “The Politics of Marxism Today”, International Socialism 29

(summer), www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/callinicos/1985/xx/marxtoday.html
(http://www.marxists.org/history /etol/writers/callinicos/1985/xx/marxtoday.html)

Callinicos, Alex, 1989, Against Postmodernism (Polity).Callinicos, Alex, 2004

(1987), Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory (Brill).

Hall, Stuart, 1977a, “Rethinking the ‘Base and Superstructure’ Metaphor”, in Jon
Bloomfield (ed), The Communist University of London: Papers on Class,
Hegemony and Party (Lawrence and Wishart).

Hall, Stuart, 1977b, “The ‘Political’ and the ‘Economic’ in Marx’s Theory of
Classes”, in Alan Hunt (ed), Class and Class Structure (Lawrence and Wishart).

Hall, Stuart, 1978, “Some Problems with the Ideology/Subject Couplet”, Ideology
and Consciousness, number 3.

Hall, Stuart, 1979, “The Great Moving Right Show”, Marxism Today (January).Hall,
Stuart, 1983, “The Problem of Ideology—Marxism without Guarantees”, in Betty
Matthews (ed),

Marx: 100 Years On (Lawrence and Wishart).Hall, Stuart, 1988, “The Toad in the
Garden: Thatcherism among the Theorists”, in Cary Nelson and

Lawrence Grossberg (eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (University of

Illinois Press).

Hall, Stuart, 1996a [1986], “On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with
Stuart Hall”, in Morley, David, and Kuan-Hsing Chen (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical
Dialogues in Cultural Studies (Routledge).

Hall, Stuart, 1996b [1986], “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and
Ethnicity”, in Morley, David, and Kuan-Hsing Chen (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical
Dialogues in Cultural Studies (Routledge).

Hall, Stuart, 1996c [1988], “The Meaning of New Times”, in Morley, David, and
Kuan-Hsing Chen, (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies
(Routledge).

Hall, Stuart, 1996d [1992], “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies”, in
Morley, David, and Kuan-Hsing Chen, (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in
Cultural Studies (Routledge).

Hall, Stuart, 1996e [1993], “For Allon White: Metaphors of Transformation”, in

Morley, David, and Kuan-Hsing Chen (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in
Cultural Studies (Routledge).

Hall, Stuart, 1996f, “The Formation of a Diasporic Intellectual”, in Morley, David,

and Kuan-Hsing Chen (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies
(Routledge).

Hall, Stuart, 1998, “The Great Moving Nowhere Show”, Marxism Today
(November/December),
http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/98_11_09.pdf
(http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/98_11_09.pdf)

Hall, Stuart, 2003 [1974], “Marx’s Notes on Method: A ‘Reading’ of the ‘1857
Introduction’”, Cultural Studies, Volume 17, Number 2.

Hall, Stuart, 2010 [1989], “Life and Times of the First New Left”, New Left Review
61, http://newleftreview.org/II/61/stuart-hall-life-and-times-of-the-first-new-left
(http://newleftreview.org/II/61 /stuart-hall-life-and-times-of-the-first-new-left)

Hall, Stuart, 2012, “The Neoliberal Revolution”, in Jonathan Rutherford and Sally
Davison, (eds), The Neoliberal Crisis (Lawrence and Wishart).

Hall, Stuart, Chas Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts, 1978,
Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order (Palgrave Macmillan).

6 dHeal7l, Stuart, and Martin Jacques (eds), 1983, The Politics of Thatcherism
(Lawrence & Wishart).Hall, Stuart, Doreen Massey, and Michael Rustin, 2013,
“After Neoliberalism? The Kilburn Manifesto”,

(http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/pdfs/manifestoframingstatement.pdf)

Krätke, Michael, 2011, “Antonio Gramsci’s Contribution to a Critical Economics”,

Historical Materialism, volume 19, number 3.

Laclau, Ernesto, 1977, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism-

Fascism-Populism (Verso). Laclau, Ernesto, 2005, On Populist Reason (Verso).

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe, 1985, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy:
Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (Verso).
Larrain, Jorge, 1979, The Concept of Ideology (Hutchinson).Larrain, Jorge, 1996,
“Stuart Hall and the Marxist Concept of Ideology”, in Morley, David, and

Kuan-Hsing Chen (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies

(Routledge).

Marx, Karl, 1975 [1859], “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, in

Early Writings (Penguin), www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-
economy/ (http://www.marxists.org /archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-
economy/)

Morley, David, and Kuan-Hsing Chen, (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in
Cultural Studies (Routledge).

Sparks, Colin, 1996, “Stuart Hall, Cultural Studies, and Marxism”, in Morley, David,
and Kuan-Hsing Chen (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies
(Routledge).

Williams, Zoe, 2012, “The Saturday Interview: Stuart Hall”, Guardian (11 February),
www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/feb/11/saturday-interview-stuart-hall
(http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/feb/11/saturday-interview-stuart-
hall)