Teresa's Qs

1- Chantal Mouffe asserts that hegemony is constitutive of the social order; “if we did not have any kind of hegemony, we would be living in complete schizophrenia” (Carpentier & Cammaerts, 2006, p. 967). Therefore, is it possible for the media not to reproduce the hegemonic order, something that is part of the social order? In addition, the political philosopher also asserts that “there are some forms of orders that are more democratic than others” (p.967). How the media can reproduce a more “democratic” hegemony?
On a related topic, in the eighties Mouffe proposed to radicalize democracy. Nowadays, however, she asserts that the situation has changed because the social-democratic ideals have been destroyed. Thus, the efforts of the left-wing project should be devoted to defend and protect the existent democratic institutions from being dismantled. Does this assertion suggest protecting the mainstream media, which is commonly criticized by being agent of the statuo quo?

2- Chantal Mouffe’s idea of agonist democracy posits that disagreements and conflicts between parties should be mobilized and included as constitutive parts of the democratic project (Carpentier & Cammaerts, 2006). Similarly, rhetoricians propose that the public discourse is the process in which different groups dispute against each other (Hanczor, 1997). What are differences and similarities between these two views? Can we conclude that Mouffe is suggesting a rhetorical discourse in public spaces?
On a related note, according to Mouffe’s model of democracy, journalism should foster pluralism and agonism. Why journalism should foster the creation of dissensus rather than consensus? What are the positive aspects for society of this approach?

3- Based on the theory of articulation, Hanczor (1997) concluded that the opponents of the NYPD Blue did not succeed in stopping the program because there were fissures between them. Does this mean that is necessary to build consensus among different constituencies in order to win a struggle, and activate social change? Does this conclusion contradict Mouffe’s proposition that dissensus is necessary to attain a similar goal?

4- Hollywood industry, for example, is nowadays the most evident representation of culture industry. Despite being immersed in the culture of massification, commodification, and standardization (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1944/2006), there are a few attempts to trigger social change (e.g., Spike Lee and his films racial relations). Does this show that social change is possible even within a hegemonic industry, as Chantal Mouffe suggests?

5- Kellner asserts that currently there is lack of new social theories —neither the postmodern theory nor the critical theory of the Frankfurt School provides theoretical resources to explain the events of the contemporary era. Similarly to what is happening in the critical/cultural approach, empirical research is also lacking new theories. Most of the social theories come from 1970s. Why is this happening? What are the factors that explain this lack of social theories to explain contemporary society and events? Does the new academic environment prevent the articulation of new theories? Or the conformity and standardization of our culture, as Horkheimer and Adorno denounce, is limiting our capacity to think creatively?

6- Shugart (2003) criticizes that the academy, even the critical/cultural project, is rooted in the positivist approach. This is true because the peer review system, for example, is based on the scientific method. The author proposes an alternative to the conventional standards of scholarship such as application of methods and a specific jargon. When proposing an alternative, she asserts that rejecting conventional standards does not necessarily mean a “rejection of all standards” (p.300) because it is necessary to assure a valid critical research. Then, the following question emerges: Does the mere institution of standards generate norms, hierarchical relations, and some extent of standardization and uniformity, which eventually yields to the reproduction of power?