Which came first, the consciousness or the ideology?

All of the selections seem to deal in some way with the concept that ideologies are so prevalent in our world and so ingrained, yet they wouldn’t exist without humankind. Thus, there is no elemental reality or truth to them. The varying ideologies are formed around perceptions of truth and the common thought is that whichever ideology is prevalent or whichever ideology “wins” is based on who is in power. When looked at from a world-view the ideologies that appear to dominate are those put forth by the White Male.
Easthope and McGowen state in their introduction that “two things come through strongly: that ideology consists of ideas in the service of class interests, and that ideology is a gigantic masquerade.” This is reminiscent of discussions of the feminine or masculine masquerades and is also where the concept of ideology merges with semiotics. The term woman or man have certain symbolic meanings depending on which ideology one is obligated to prescribe to. Because there are different possibilities of ideologies means that they are illusions, subjective, and somewhat naive. But, what is there without ideology? How do we formulate our lives?
Semiotics also came to mind when Althuser was talking about interpellation or hailing and the way in which a person becomes a subject. In my view, the subject is the object or sign, and once he or she has been hailed or brought into a certain ideology, a particular image or idea of themselves forms within their mind.
Marx says, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.” It is true that we are highly influenced by our environment and whatever its ideology is, however, I would argue that if we are taught to question, then we will not always be SO swayed by it. Perhaps this is what Bush is relying on. Education is highly lacking in our country and when that happens society is less able to question those in power.
Marx and Engels speak more about the concept that the ruling class form prevailing ideologies, which the working class is subject to. This segment reminded me again of our current political state. They talk about the division of labor not only occurring between classes but within classes – some are the thinkers and some are the doers. In our ruling class there certainly appear to be thinkers and doers who often oppose one another and clash. And at this point, the overall approval record of the current ruling class is dwindling or perhaps vanishing. So, perhaps the ruling ideals will also vanish. But, there is also argument that by planting seeds now, the current ruling class is sabotaging the next ruling class. Or perhaps our system of government is the thing that is vanishing.
The arguments by Simone de Beauvoir, Edward Said and Slavoj Zizek, were all well made arguments against prevailing ideologies and calls for new ideologies. Beauvoir’s was beautifully made and perhaps the clearest yet.
Edward Said’s discussion from 1978 seemed to me something that everyone should have to read now. It felt very pertinent in light of the current situation in the Middle East as it puts forth the possible origins of our current belief systems and ideologies, and therefore suggests the possible strength and thus danger in allowing for particular ideologies to dominate.
And finally Zizek who tries to separate Reality from Ideologies by equating ideologies with dreams which hinder us from seeing reality. But, at the same time (as Lacan says), we can only see reality as separate from ideology in a dream. I found his example of anti-Semitism to be dangerous somehow, but as a result it drives home the importance of examining our ideologies.