Ideology,Ideology, Ideology

In general, I think I had an easier time grasping ideology than semiotics. Semiotics was a new concept to me and understanding it took some time. Now, I am in no way saying that I had an easier time reading these excerpts. When one or two sentences seem to make up entire paragraphs and every other word is "ideology" or some form of it, the word begins to lose its meaning, and I can't remember where I started or the basis of the word when the paragraph started out. On that note. . .

Ideology in its most basic definition is a system of beliefs. In the intro to Section 2, it reads that, "Every sign is ideological." I would say that the interpretation of signs or the narrative or result of signs is ideological. Although, a single sign in the form of a symbol can be ideological. For example, a symbol that represents "government," such as a flag, carries the ideology of what that particular symbol or sign represents. So, yes. Every sign is in fact ideological.

In the readings by Karl Marx, I do agree with him in some respect that economics determines the ideology of society, but not an individual. Basically, whatever power of peoples can control the mode of production, can also control the mode of mental production (to some degree) and the ideas that form or govern a society. However, I would have liked to read a little more on the people who lack the mode of production, or more simply put, the working and lower classes. Marx and Engels say that, "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it." (p39) Yes, I think those who lack the material production may be "subject" to those who have the means of material production. Money generally equals power. It controls the information and ideas being sent out. However, I do not think it is necessarily safe to equate material and mental production. Just because some lack the material production, or the money, to essentially "make things happen," it does not mean they lack the mental production to evaluate for themselves the truth or relevance of the "ruling" ideology and how it pertains and effects them. Marx and Engels even go so far as to say, "The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think." (p39) So, the ruling class thinks. Does this mean that everyone else not part of the ruling class does not think? Our government today is a good example of a ruling class who does not all the time "think". Individuals have the power to evaluate and construct their own ideologies, as well as those of society.

In Simone de Beauvoir's excerpt from the "Second Sex," she quotes Benda as saying, "Man can think of himself without woman. She cannot think of herself without man." (p52) This whole idea of woman as "the other" is similar to Marx's idea of "those who lack the means of mental production" are subject to the ideas of the ruling class. In this case, the ruling class, is the male.

Ideology, like semiotics, can also be thought of as a continuous process. I looked up "Hegelianism" in the dictionary as I had no idea what it was and Marx makes reference to it several times. Hegelianism is the, "philosophy of Hegel, who held that every existent idea or fact belongs to an all embracing mind in which each idea or situation (thesis) evokes its opposite (antithesis) and these two result in a unified whole (synthesis) which in terms becomes the new thesis." Now, does this to anyone else sound somewhat similar to the interpreting, back and forth process of semiotics?