I agree that this is easier to understand than semiotics, assuming that I'm understanding it correctly. I found Althusser's section to be most helpful. He breaks down ideology into two parts; there is the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatus. He refers to the RSA as belonging to the "public domain" and functioning through violence. Constrastingly, he defines ISAs as being part of the "private domain" and consisting of religious, educational, familial, etc... institutions. The ISA, he claims, functions by ideology. He then goes on to explain the inter-relationship between the two. RSA's function mainly through violence and repression and secondarily through ideology. The ISA functions inversely.
Althusser also offers a thesis, which for me could work as a definition. His thesis is that, "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence." His second thesis is that ideology also has a material existence but I think that this can be absorbed into the first thesis, if I'm understanding it correctly. I think that ideology is the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions but it does have a material existence in that is always exists in practices.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Ideal Ideas of Ideology
First, did these writers breath between words? Second, I'm sure glad I opted for semiotics. I will first have to excuse myself slightly because I just received my book yesterday evening and so have been reading frantically trying to catch up, but thus far I must say I'm in need of further explanation with some of these essays. In the intro they don't bother breaking down Ideology, which I feel is critical in introducing a complex subject. Its not until I get to the Althusser essay and he is stating his first thesis, ideology=illusion/allusion. Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of exists. Is it that we create ideas that we relate to the reality that exists around us? As others do from all over and this is why there are so many conflicts of interest? Such as in the Marxist essay, the aristocrats have the upper hand because they own more material goods, therefore their ideology is placed upon the rest of society who then have to abide to their rulings. Ideology to me is a set of thoughts or beliefs (cause a belief is a thought to start) that come together to form a more structured representation of the reality perceived through whomever’s eyes. Therefore it is unique to every person, and doesn't pertain to the whole of one society. I am very curious to see where Simone de Beauvoir's essay will lead us in class. Is this supposing the ideology of men about women or is it about who has control of the material goods? And since men have almost always received more praise in the sense of achieving something they create a set of engrained ideas about women. What I defining is, that men obtain material/survival goods, such as meat from a hunt and even though the women do EVERYTHING else to prepare it, the rest of the villagers would give praise to the hunter. And more or less this has been going about since then until modern times. This is essentially playing upon the Marxist idea that those who posses, posses the ruling ideas. If man is the aristocrat, he posses the ruling and women continue to be the social class. That woman have to create an identity other than being the "other," but in doing so they have to stop placing themselves in that category and have their own set of ideologies. Who knows, maybe I've miss-interpreted this whole thing completely wrong, but hopefully it will all be straightened out in class.
Ideology
What do I know about ideology that I didn’t know before this weekend? Better yet, what can I say about ideology that I couldn’t say before? This week’s reading explored different concepts of ideology. The editors do not define ideology. They claim it’s too hard to define ideology and they provide us with various samples so that we can see the complexity and range involved with defining and explaining ideology. For me, ideology is a system of beliefs that is shaped by our own life experiences. Our ideologies may be shared, but for the most part they differ and in some cases these differences bring about real conflict. As we go through life and different experiences, we may become more entrenched with our ideologies or we may cast them off and adopt new ones.
While reading the discussions by Marx and Engels it is easy to see how class and social structure shape one’s ideology. Individuals in union jobs are going to have a different set of beliefs about life and the working world then those who are not in unions. We are not born with these beliefs and feelings, it is our life experiences that shape and mould them. Marx and Engels discussions also invoked ideas about political ideologies. We can either accept the current political ideologies or we can reject them and follow other ideologies or develop our own. In the U.S. we tend to have a peaceful acceptance or rejection of ideologies. Violence and conflict occurs when ideologies are opposed in a non-peaceful manner.
This leads us into Althusser’s discussion about ideology and his concept of Ideological State Apparatuses and Repressive State Apparatuses. Repressive State Apparatuses function through violence. In a discussion I had today with a friend about Sadam Hussein and Iraq, we noted that Hussein ruled with an iron fist. He was repressive. He kept those who did not follow his beliefs in line through violence and intimidation.
Althusser’s discussion about the imaginary nature of ideology was also very interesting. The concept of illusion and allusion is something that should not be overlooked when discussing ideology. When reading this I was reminded of a discussion from my youth group when our teacher pointed out to us that we often think we are close to heaven but in fact we still have a long ways to go. This idea that we are good, this ideology that we are good perfect Christians is illusionary. (On a side note, I have to comment about the last part of Althusser’s writing. I began to lose focus on what he was saying and soon began to keep track of the structure of his sentences. In one sentence he used ideas 3 times and ideology 4 times. In another sentence he used ideology 6 times. It seems to me the point he was trying to make was so complex that even he was having a hard time trying to make it coherent!)
The last readings concerned gender and race. The one word I didn’t see come up in these discussions was prejudice. It seems to me the point these authors were trying to make were the flaws that exist in the ideologies of gender, race, and religion. I found Said’s discussion about the development and definition of Orientalism interesting. He pointed out the flaws that are a result of the “White Man” defining Orientalism. While reading Said, I couldn’t help but think about the embarrassing performance by Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. His outrageous portrayal of an “Oriental” was based completely on stereotypes of Asians as developed by the “White Man.” As people today ask that Mark Twain’s Hukleberry Finn be pulled from high school reading lists because of the use of the “n” word, I wonder why they don’t also ask that Breakfast at Tiffany’s be pulled from the public’s view or at least cut Rooney’s scenes.
To sum up, I see that the discussions about ideology can be endless and that today’s artists are continually challenging us to think about the various ideologies that exist and surround us in our world.
While reading the discussions by Marx and Engels it is easy to see how class and social structure shape one’s ideology. Individuals in union jobs are going to have a different set of beliefs about life and the working world then those who are not in unions. We are not born with these beliefs and feelings, it is our life experiences that shape and mould them. Marx and Engels discussions also invoked ideas about political ideologies. We can either accept the current political ideologies or we can reject them and follow other ideologies or develop our own. In the U.S. we tend to have a peaceful acceptance or rejection of ideologies. Violence and conflict occurs when ideologies are opposed in a non-peaceful manner.
This leads us into Althusser’s discussion about ideology and his concept of Ideological State Apparatuses and Repressive State Apparatuses. Repressive State Apparatuses function through violence. In a discussion I had today with a friend about Sadam Hussein and Iraq, we noted that Hussein ruled with an iron fist. He was repressive. He kept those who did not follow his beliefs in line through violence and intimidation.
Althusser’s discussion about the imaginary nature of ideology was also very interesting. The concept of illusion and allusion is something that should not be overlooked when discussing ideology. When reading this I was reminded of a discussion from my youth group when our teacher pointed out to us that we often think we are close to heaven but in fact we still have a long ways to go. This idea that we are good, this ideology that we are good perfect Christians is illusionary. (On a side note, I have to comment about the last part of Althusser’s writing. I began to lose focus on what he was saying and soon began to keep track of the structure of his sentences. In one sentence he used ideas 3 times and ideology 4 times. In another sentence he used ideology 6 times. It seems to me the point he was trying to make was so complex that even he was having a hard time trying to make it coherent!)
The last readings concerned gender and race. The one word I didn’t see come up in these discussions was prejudice. It seems to me the point these authors were trying to make were the flaws that exist in the ideologies of gender, race, and religion. I found Said’s discussion about the development and definition of Orientalism interesting. He pointed out the flaws that are a result of the “White Man” defining Orientalism. While reading Said, I couldn’t help but think about the embarrassing performance by Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. His outrageous portrayal of an “Oriental” was based completely on stereotypes of Asians as developed by the “White Man.” As people today ask that Mark Twain’s Hukleberry Finn be pulled from high school reading lists because of the use of the “n” word, I wonder why they don’t also ask that Breakfast at Tiffany’s be pulled from the public’s view or at least cut Rooney’s scenes.
To sum up, I see that the discussions about ideology can be endless and that today’s artists are continually challenging us to think about the various ideologies that exist and surround us in our world.
Monday, September 17, 2007
blogless?
I will be handing out my paper version of a digital blog in my attempt to presnt this tomorrow!
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.
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.
Ideology: The System, the Self and the "Other"
Ideology is a belief system. It is bound up in politics, domination and power. It is an expression of class interests, particularly of those in power who represent their own interests as universal and so natural that we need not question them. And yet, it represents a system whose self-perpetuation is so important that it will be maintained “peaceable if we can, forcibly if we must.” (35)
If we follow the trajectory of the readings, ideology has transmuted from the time of Marx and Engels (1846) from a place from which individuals become” conscious of conflict and can fight it out” to something that in the 20st century has become so pervasive, permeating all aspects of our daily existence, that it is only in dreams, through the unconscious, that we can recognize it and resist it (Zizek, 1989)
.
Beginning with Marx the groundwork is laid for our discussion. The economic mode of production determines the political and legal superstructure of society, the social consciousness and the social classes of individuals. In turn, ideology is determined by who people are and their place in society. Marx and Engels define ideology as the interests of a class expressed as ideas. Within the ruling class are mental and material laborers. The ideologists (mental laborers) form the “illusions of the class about itself.” Jae Emerling, in discussing Althusser in Theory for Art History, calls this “the narrative or story we tell ourselves in order to understand our relationship to the modes of production.” (60). It is not that other members of society are thought-less, but it is the ideologists of the ruling class who control the message and the official means of disseminating that message.
Which brings us to Althusser who defines ideology as both an illusion and an allusion. The real world is not represented in ideology. Instead, like Peirce’s interpretant, it is a mental concept based on something real. According to Althusser, ideology interpellates individuals as subjects. We are “hailed,” we recognize that we are the object (subject?) of the hailing and we behave accordingly as dictated by convention. This takes place as a matter of course, and the system perpetuates itself.
Beauvoir, Said and Bhabha all look at the process by which the female and racial “Other” come into being. Beauvoir finds parallels between the relationship of women and of Blacks to the white male master class through which, and by which, everything is defined. Language provides the structure through which ideological concepts of unequal dualities (Self/other, Insider/outsider, Male/female, Subject/object) are produced. Said shows how the Orient is defined by a lack, by what is missing in the West. It is a fictionalizing of a culture to serve the needs of the West. What the Orient really is is forgotten in the process. Bhabha (from what I can gather) emphasizes the “other” as both an object of derision and of desire. What comes to mind for me is a Freudian/Lacanian maneuver in which white males mentally split off the parts of themselves that are threatening and that cannot be tolerated and project these characteristics onto something outside of themselves. (Blacks/women are lazy, childlike, amoral, incapable of governing themselves etc.) But these lost parts are secretly missed and desired even though this cannot be acknowledged consciously. He talks about stereotypes as being ambivalent in character. On the one hand, they are fixed and unchanging but on the other hand they are ambiguous and must be anxiously repeated as if they can never quite be proven.
What is frightening to me is what Zizek calls the “success” of ideology. He sites an example of the stereotype of a Jew and what occurs when the stereotype conflicts with the congenial behavior of one’s nice Jewish neighbor. The “objective proof” that would negate the stereotype is turned into an argument to prove its veracity. The nice behavior is just proof of how duplicitous Jews really are. They can hide their real nature behind a false front. When this is the case, it seems the only way to get at the truth or the “hard kernel of the Real” is through dreams and the unconscious.
I’d love to discuss how all of this applies to art. Julia, we could have a great discussion about the Chinese avantgarde, (I have stories to share about Yan Lei), artists of the African diaspora and postcolonialism as it plays out in the art museum. Hopefully there will be time for these topics in future classes.
If we follow the trajectory of the readings, ideology has transmuted from the time of Marx and Engels (1846) from a place from which individuals become” conscious of conflict and can fight it out” to something that in the 20st century has become so pervasive, permeating all aspects of our daily existence, that it is only in dreams, through the unconscious, that we can recognize it and resist it (Zizek, 1989)
.
Beginning with Marx the groundwork is laid for our discussion. The economic mode of production determines the political and legal superstructure of society, the social consciousness and the social classes of individuals. In turn, ideology is determined by who people are and their place in society. Marx and Engels define ideology as the interests of a class expressed as ideas. Within the ruling class are mental and material laborers. The ideologists (mental laborers) form the “illusions of the class about itself.” Jae Emerling, in discussing Althusser in Theory for Art History, calls this “the narrative or story we tell ourselves in order to understand our relationship to the modes of production.” (60). It is not that other members of society are thought-less, but it is the ideologists of the ruling class who control the message and the official means of disseminating that message.
Which brings us to Althusser who defines ideology as both an illusion and an allusion. The real world is not represented in ideology. Instead, like Peirce’s interpretant, it is a mental concept based on something real. According to Althusser, ideology interpellates individuals as subjects. We are “hailed,” we recognize that we are the object (subject?) of the hailing and we behave accordingly as dictated by convention. This takes place as a matter of course, and the system perpetuates itself.
Beauvoir, Said and Bhabha all look at the process by which the female and racial “Other” come into being. Beauvoir finds parallels between the relationship of women and of Blacks to the white male master class through which, and by which, everything is defined. Language provides the structure through which ideological concepts of unequal dualities (Self/other, Insider/outsider, Male/female, Subject/object) are produced. Said shows how the Orient is defined by a lack, by what is missing in the West. It is a fictionalizing of a culture to serve the needs of the West. What the Orient really is is forgotten in the process. Bhabha (from what I can gather) emphasizes the “other” as both an object of derision and of desire. What comes to mind for me is a Freudian/Lacanian maneuver in which white males mentally split off the parts of themselves that are threatening and that cannot be tolerated and project these characteristics onto something outside of themselves. (Blacks/women are lazy, childlike, amoral, incapable of governing themselves etc.) But these lost parts are secretly missed and desired even though this cannot be acknowledged consciously. He talks about stereotypes as being ambivalent in character. On the one hand, they are fixed and unchanging but on the other hand they are ambiguous and must be anxiously repeated as if they can never quite be proven.
What is frightening to me is what Zizek calls the “success” of ideology. He sites an example of the stereotype of a Jew and what occurs when the stereotype conflicts with the congenial behavior of one’s nice Jewish neighbor. The “objective proof” that would negate the stereotype is turned into an argument to prove its veracity. The nice behavior is just proof of how duplicitous Jews really are. They can hide their real nature behind a false front. When this is the case, it seems the only way to get at the truth or the “hard kernel of the Real” is through dreams and the unconscious.
I’d love to discuss how all of this applies to art. Julia, we could have a great discussion about the Chinese avantgarde, (I have stories to share about Yan Lei), artists of the African diaspora and postcolonialism as it plays out in the art museum. Hopefully there will be time for these topics in future classes.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Ideology
The Raft of George W. Bush (2006) Joel-Peter Witkin
I have to admit that Ideology appears to be easier to grasp as a theory than Semiotics. By definition, a part of Ideology seems to shape histories of politics, economies, and cultures of the so-called ruling class of a favorable ideology controlling the overall consensus of that time. Also, as Marx points out, Ideology is defined not as the consciousness of the individual but of an individual’s social being (33). In this statement, we can correlate, as discussed by Zizek in Section 2.7, that our individual consciousness is of a dream state of our internal world whereas our social being is the reality of our exterior world.
This appears many of the readings in chapter 2. In 2.1, Karl Marx states a social being’s economic class interest results in the ideology of the production that satisfies the material existence of that class. In 2.2, Marx and Engels make note of the Hegelian idea that a ruling class will force their ruling ideas until the ideas cease to be of importance and necessity of the ruling class of that time. In Edward Said’s Orientalism, the ruling class of Western Europe imposed its ideology of “The Orient” (a subjective definition imposed by “The West”) in order to expose the so-called weaknesses of these countries in the Far East. Hence, we come to the idea of the White Man’s Burden and that because Western society has been civilized whereas The Orient is exotic and dangerous. Therefore, the ideology of the White Man’s Burden pushes forth that The Orient is lacking wisdom for autonomy and must be imperialized by The West. Interesting how similar this appears with the United States involvement in the Middle East. Is it the White Man’s Burden to enforce the democratic ideology in a geographic region halfway around the world? Or is it in the interest of the ruling class that all have similar economic interests in a certain commodity like Oil? Lastly, in 2.7, Zizek makes me aware than a ruling ideology will only exist when there is no opposition in changing reality. Only when we confront our dreams or unconsciousness in opposition to reality that a new ruling class can emerge in our social beings to promote a new ideology that will continually take form.
In all of the above examples, it appears that ideology can only succeed when an overwhelming number of individuals and their dreams, or unconsciousness, react in order to enforce a collective ideology of their real social beings, I look forward to discussing more in class and seeing how this translates in The Subject of Art History.
Ideology
Ideology: A Body of ideas that influences a person, group, culture, or political party.
When one is first reading about ideology one does not see to grasp the whole concept until one reads many different interruptions of the theory of ideology. I think that the author Althusser seemed to sum the best way of thinking of Ideology by saying “Ideology does not have a history”. So if this theory of ideology does not have its own history or way of thinking: then why or when do we use it?
According to all of the authors we use ideology all of the time. This theory mechanism is all around us it is the why we shop, think, and live our daily lives. So the real question to ask is who decides what we should buy, think, and live? I think that Marx had the right idea that different people in different class groups have different ways of thinking and buying.
Now the way that ideology works in the history of art is that people in the past and present commissioned (buy) works of that relate to their taste and way of living. For instance many of the lower class could never buy a Michelangelo even during his own time. Now during the late nineteenth century, middle class or bourgeois could go out and but a Monet and Degas. True because the artwork appealed to the middle class. However, today many people cannot go out and buy a work of art they have to buy reproductions. Marx would make it sound like only the elite can own nice things, maybe that it true.
Now that I have understanding of ideology I look around and notice different things about people. Like the people who go to over price coffee houses, is it for the good coffee or for the status symbol?
When one is first reading about ideology one does not see to grasp the whole concept until one reads many different interruptions of the theory of ideology. I think that the author Althusser seemed to sum the best way of thinking of Ideology by saying “Ideology does not have a history”. So if this theory of ideology does not have its own history or way of thinking: then why or when do we use it?
According to all of the authors we use ideology all of the time. This theory mechanism is all around us it is the why we shop, think, and live our daily lives. So the real question to ask is who decides what we should buy, think, and live? I think that Marx had the right idea that different people in different class groups have different ways of thinking and buying.
Now the way that ideology works in the history of art is that people in the past and present commissioned (buy) works of that relate to their taste and way of living. For instance many of the lower class could never buy a Michelangelo even during his own time. Now during the late nineteenth century, middle class or bourgeois could go out and but a Monet and Degas. True because the artwork appealed to the middle class. However, today many people cannot go out and buy a work of art they have to buy reproductions. Marx would make it sound like only the elite can own nice things, maybe that it true.
Now that I have understanding of ideology I look around and notice different things about people. Like the people who go to over price coffee houses, is it for the good coffee or for the status symbol?
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?
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?
'So Be It"
My belief is that we only bump up and question our own ideologies when we are outside of own safe ideological sphere. For me, it happened when I went and lived in Germany and, to a lesser extent, when I moved to the US. It is only at that time that I even questioned the ideologies I had been unquestioningly living. To this extent Althusser's statement "ideology = misrecognition/ignorance" is so true.
Simone de Beauvoir is a Goddess - which is, sadly, a lesser relative state of being than a God. Unfortunately, despite great strides being made since de Beauvoir wrote her text, our language structure perpetuates the male dominance and female oblique.
Of all the discussions, I am most interested in the debates concerning colonial discourse particularly with respect to the dominance of the western perspective. Artists who are working in this sphere are creating some of the most interesting work right now. A couple of favourites of mine are Yinka Shonibare whose image titled "Scramble for Africa" is shown above. And of course many of the current crop of Chinese artists are questioning the dynamics of the consumer oriented Western Art Scene. As Artist Zhou Tiehai stated: "The relations in the art world are the same as the relations between states in the post Cold War era. Just as wealthy nations have controlled trade barriers, tariffs, and other international trade mechanisms to promote their own interests, Western curators and critics have controlled the standards for what is deemed 'world class' art." (from Cantor Arts Center Press Release about their exhibition: On the Edge: Contemporary Chinese Artists Encounter the West). Shown is Zhang Huan's 'My New York #4'.
Of course the current fad of embracing the Chinese artist is also a form of colonial paternalism. I predict shows on African Artists viewing the West within the next decade.So the question is once you recognise that there is a power structure, how can we form a resistance. In the case of the fictitious upcoming African Art show at the Cantor Arts Center (or wherever), it would mean the museum would give up control of how the art show is shaped. The museum would hire a curator based in Africa - preferrably one not educated in the West and preferably from an African State that has shed the majority of its colonial ties. The museum would supply the space and pay for shipping. All the framing of the show - from wall labels, to display - would be entirely given over to the African curator. Would we then view be able to view the art away from the lens of Western discourse? Of course not. As Zizek writes "the ideological construction always finds its limits in the field of everyday experience" and therefore we are "unable to shake so-called ideological prejudices by taking into account the pre-ideological level of everyday experience" (71).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)