aro0823, 2-22

I connected our Marx and Althusser discussion of the binary oppositions in the American ruling class to de Saussure’s notions about the necessity of the interdependence of individual terms for language as a system to function. The prevalence of diverging messages lead to everything in society to become thoroughly coded and contextualized. As we discussed in class, fast cars are good, but fast food is bad. New clothing is expensive, but vintage, preworn designer couture is often equally or more pricey. Though one should always strive to stand out in the crowd, one should simultaneously aim to fit in and purchase only the fashionably appropriate trends. After recognizing the illogicality of these oppositions, one must now question where they come from.
Is ideology formed by the ruling class, or is it really created by the subject and for the subject? There are many contradictory notions floating around in our discussion of the originator of such totalizing conclusions. Although we criticize the idea of hegemony for pushing repressive ideas onto the masses, we all are responsible for the maintenance of such ideas. By internalizing ideas without first critically analyzing them, it is easy for the absentminded audience to create a “common sense.” For example, though everyone is publically critical about the prevalence of gossip, people continue to speak slanderously about their neighbors and the cycle thus continues. If every person is consciously choosing to engage in such as action, can some outside hegemonic power really be blamed?
Naturally, one must then question if ideology is always repressive. Culture is part of the ideological state apparatus, and can therefore be used as a way to explain certain behaviors. Some critics praise globalization for enabling the creation of one world culture, whereas others condemn it because it ruins the unique natures of civilizations. Even though it falls within the dreaded category of “ISA,” culture enables individuals to express themselves in a way that is different from other people in other cultures, and therefore liberates and emphasizes individually.
Unfortunately, because postmodernism functions on chaos and illogicality, these binary oppositions will not soon disappear, and will continue to produce mixed and contradictory messages for the world’s people to internalize.