In class on Tuesday we touched on the idea of nature vs. nurture referring to Marx’s statement “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness”. The questions is: Is it your class structure or your genetics that determine your consciousness? I always found the debate of nature vs nurture very complex and interesting, but this is the first time I have approached it in relation to culture and politics. In reference to the example we did in class, we have come to learn that Mercedes means high class and luxurious, whereas GM is the ‘average’ American car dealer. We learn these generalizations through signs and symbols and the way that we interpret them. Barthes would say that mythologies get created by this type of communication, whereas Althusser would say that ideology saturates everyday speech in the form of common sense. In Thursdays class, we furthered this idea with Althusser when talking about the author and the reader living naturally in ideology. Althusser would argue that there is nothing natural in this world unless it appears in nature. I would agree-I think that everything we do as humans we have learned. It does not exist genetically within our DNA. Consistency in our lives produces a ‘natural’ lifestyle. Therefore, our social beings (unconsciously) determine our consciousness.
In my Contemporary Jewish thought class this week we had a visiting rabbi that talked about the nature vs nurture debate. We discussed whether or not gender is an illusion or if it genetically exists. Do women have a gene for motherly characteristics or is it something that has been repetitively produced in our society? I believe that clearly there are opposite sex but that gender roles are completely learned and arbitrary. The only things that we innately know are aspects of nature-our needs to eat, sleep, etc..We do not ever question what appears ‘normal’ to us so we come to believe that it is natural.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
LightningBolt, 3/19/09
“The author and the reader... both live… ‘Naturally’ in ideology” (46) Althusser
Today in class we discussed why we do not question the everyday acts in our life; we instead regard them as natural. This is not very evident to our culture as a whole because we are so used to them. For example, no one questions the act of waiting in line at a check out counter or shaking someone’s hand when you first meet them. Starting at birth we are exposed to the ideology that these things are “natural.” Traveling different places while I studied abroad and being exposed to other cultures caused me to realize that other cultures have their own “natural” occurrences, which differ dramatically from our own. For example in China their seemed to be no concept of waiting in line, instead their cultures ideology tells them who ever can push to the front the hardest is the next in line. When people from other cultures travel to America they must recognize some of our “natural” ideologies instantly. I bet they even find some of them comical, and if we took the time to examine them, they would be comical to us as well.
Now we are aware that we are mistaking these ideologies for “natural” occurrences, but what should be done about this recognition? We touched briefly on this in class, but never came to a conclusion. For example, I am now aware of the fact that walking into class, sitting down, taking notes, stand up and leave is an ideology, but that is not going to stop me from doing it. I think that mistaking these ideologies as a natural part of life is acceptable, mostly because this new knowledge will not cause us to take action. I will continue to live life the same way whether I realize I am conforming to ideologies or not. This is what I must do in order to survive in our culture. If I chose to never conform to an ideological event, I would never be able to go to class, wait in line, drive without killing people, or cross the street. Following these broad ideologies is part of our culture.
Today in class we discussed why we do not question the everyday acts in our life; we instead regard them as natural. This is not very evident to our culture as a whole because we are so used to them. For example, no one questions the act of waiting in line at a check out counter or shaking someone’s hand when you first meet them. Starting at birth we are exposed to the ideology that these things are “natural.” Traveling different places while I studied abroad and being exposed to other cultures caused me to realize that other cultures have their own “natural” occurrences, which differ dramatically from our own. For example in China their seemed to be no concept of waiting in line, instead their cultures ideology tells them who ever can push to the front the hardest is the next in line. When people from other cultures travel to America they must recognize some of our “natural” ideologies instantly. I bet they even find some of them comical, and if we took the time to examine them, they would be comical to us as well.
Now we are aware that we are mistaking these ideologies for “natural” occurrences, but what should be done about this recognition? We touched briefly on this in class, but never came to a conclusion. For example, I am now aware of the fact that walking into class, sitting down, taking notes, stand up and leave is an ideology, but that is not going to stop me from doing it. I think that mistaking these ideologies as a natural part of life is acceptable, mostly because this new knowledge will not cause us to take action. I will continue to live life the same way whether I realize I am conforming to ideologies or not. This is what I must do in order to survive in our culture. If I chose to never conform to an ideological event, I would never be able to go to class, wait in line, drive without killing people, or cross the street. Following these broad ideologies is part of our culture.
yellowdaisy4, 3/19/09
When discussing Althusser in class, a couple quotes caught my attention more than others because they were easier to understand and relate to. My first example is when Althusser states “the author and the reader…both live…naturally in ideology”. I found this quote interesting because when I first read it, it was hard for me to figure out what he meant by natural because what’s natural is never usually given much thought. The example of having a white board from a classroom in a hotel room would have you questioning it and noticing it as strange, even though seeing it then in the classroom wasn’t, helped clear up exactly what Althusser meant. I can also connect this to how when I was in France when I was younger and saw a bunch of naked people on the beach. I was shocked and questioned what they were doing because to me being naked on a beach wasn’t normal, yet the French see it as natural and were not phased by anyone around them. I also found the quote “those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology” to be very relatable as a CMC student. Because we study ideologies at work, we try to be less of a passive audience and believe that it’s everyone else who is in ideology not us because we are now aware of what it does. As Benjamin talked about the public is an absent minded examiner who just follows ideologies and because we know this, we should be able to know what to look for. Yet, I agree with the concept of double-coding because when we are in class we do actually think this way and believe it. Yet later when we are out of class and go shopping to buy the same jeans we saw Katie Holmes wearing in a magazine, then we are part of another different ideology.
Additionally, the Marilyn Manson video for “Dope Show” was fascinating to watch because it showed how Marilyn, as a symbol for counterculture, challenged ideologies through being taboo and shocking. Marilyn Manson was seen as a freak or a threat to some because of this. However, he was just the avant-garde who put out something different to the forefront, like on MTV for example, but now is replicated by other rock bands so now it has less meaning. Moreover, when we were discussing how Hebdige explains Althusser in the quote “ideology is profoundly unconscious”; an example was given about a mother seeing her son get hit by a car and also being the doctor. This example really got my attention because I had a hard time figuring out how the doctor and mother could both have that boy as their son without connecting that the doctor could be a mother. The fact that I couldn’t put that together made me upset with myself because no one, especially women, wants to believe that we are just following that ideology of doctors only being male. Lastly, I found the concept of hegemony and “social authority” to be interesting because like Dr. Rog discussed, everyday we are going on facebook and seeing pictures of our friends really drunk or dressed scandalously and we laugh and talk about it. Even though we all know it’s not good for future employers to see, people still post these pictures because they do gain social capital. This can go as far as to make people famous like Paris Hilton for example. She puts out a sex tape and although morally wrong for most, she gains a lot of social capital.
Additionally, the Marilyn Manson video for “Dope Show” was fascinating to watch because it showed how Marilyn, as a symbol for counterculture, challenged ideologies through being taboo and shocking. Marilyn Manson was seen as a freak or a threat to some because of this. However, he was just the avant-garde who put out something different to the forefront, like on MTV for example, but now is replicated by other rock bands so now it has less meaning. Moreover, when we were discussing how Hebdige explains Althusser in the quote “ideology is profoundly unconscious”; an example was given about a mother seeing her son get hit by a car and also being the doctor. This example really got my attention because I had a hard time figuring out how the doctor and mother could both have that boy as their son without connecting that the doctor could be a mother. The fact that I couldn’t put that together made me upset with myself because no one, especially women, wants to believe that we are just following that ideology of doctors only being male. Lastly, I found the concept of hegemony and “social authority” to be interesting because like Dr. Rog discussed, everyday we are going on facebook and seeing pictures of our friends really drunk or dressed scandalously and we laugh and talk about it. Even though we all know it’s not good for future employers to see, people still post these pictures because they do gain social capital. This can go as far as to make people famous like Paris Hilton for example. She puts out a sex tape and although morally wrong for most, she gains a lot of social capital.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
JLO63O, Hebdige response to ashalaya
In response to ashlaya, I also picked up on the quote “The media, as Stuart Hall (1977) has argued, not only record resistance, they “situate it within the dominant framework of meanings” and those young people who choose to inhabit a spectacular youth culture are simultaneously returned, as they are represented on T.V. and in the newspapers, to the place where common sense would have them fit.” (155). I understand where you were coming from with the Dove commercials, but I think what Habdige is talking about is how power structures are taking subculture trends and portraying them as unnatural and puts a deviant label on it because they do not fit the norm. The norm, he says, is constructed by dominant ideologies which, and in this context, ideologies of fashion, which brings us to a whole other topic of dominance and getting to the top. Fashion – something so simple and unrepresentative of a person’s character –can determine how far, or how not far rather, a person can get to in the dominant/ruling class. I would pay to see the day that someone who dressed like the singer Pink would make it to any governmental position. You can only make important decisions in a hegemonic society if you meet the dominant hegemonic credentials, so hegemony is relatively homogeneous, which is ironic because as Americans we pride ourselves on freedom, diversity, and acceptance, but only to a certain extent it seems.
Back to the Dove commercials, I don’t think this is what Hebdige is saying because Dove is part of the dominant structure of media, but rather what he is saying is that it’s when the media broadcasts subcultures in a particular light which views them as either outcasts or accepted. I think the earlier quote is actually quite upsetting because national broadcasts aren’t only rising awareness that subcultures look different, but it makes people FEEL like they are different -- widely promoting negativity and rejection to certain groups and individuals nationwide.
Back to the Dove commercials, I don’t think this is what Hebdige is saying because Dove is part of the dominant structure of media, but rather what he is saying is that it’s when the media broadcasts subcultures in a particular light which views them as either outcasts or accepted. I think the earlier quote is actually quite upsetting because national broadcasts aren’t only rising awareness that subcultures look different, but it makes people FEEL like they are different -- widely promoting negativity and rejection to certain groups and individuals nationwide.
Trapnest, Hebdige
Hebdige’s piece “Subculture: The Meaning of Style” is a compilation and assessment on previous theorists work and an analysis on culture. Hebdige begins by looking at the “notoriously ambiguous concept” of culture. He sites the work of Williams, saying that one way to observe culture as relationships, interactions, broad shared meanings that encompass every element of a society. Elaborating upon these shared meanings that can unite society Hebdige moves onto the work of Barthes and Althusser. In shared meanings and signs as well as the dominant ideologies that can unify and unite a culture. These two elements of culture are related, because it is as a result of shared signs that a culture can have dominant ideologies across a broad range of people. These broad ideologies bring forth hegemony; hegemony is rooted in a system of unbalance where one group has the ability to be dominant over another. Subordinate groups are made to understand that this is “natural.”
Then Hebdige begins to discuss the break that subculture creates within a society. As he says,
“Subcultures represent “noise” (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence which leads from real events and phenomena to their representation in media.” (153)
This is saying that the subculture is against the dominant culture, and their representation within the media context is translated from the actual events and setting. This subculture uses the dominant signs to oppose the dominant ideologies, it’s this metamorphosis of common understandings that creates the nature of the subculture, the opposition. Finally Hebdige begins to discuss the incorporation of these subcultures, their signs and understandings are either mass produced, or they are defined as the “Other” or the “Enemy.”
All of this makes me think of Durkheim’s notions on society in his work “The Division of Labor in Society.” He discusses in this that the Traditional society, which I link to the world of the hegemonic ideologies because in Durkheim’s traditional society everyone is very similar and operates with a similar mindset. Therefore, the subculture is linked to the Modern Society, the society in which people thrive more on individualism and become to separate from those normal Molds. As Durkheim’s Modernity suggests these movements cannot be stopped and eventually overtake the Traditional Society, as seen in Hebdige’s work.
Then Hebdige begins to discuss the break that subculture creates within a society. As he says,
“Subcultures represent “noise” (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence which leads from real events and phenomena to their representation in media.” (153)
This is saying that the subculture is against the dominant culture, and their representation within the media context is translated from the actual events and setting. This subculture uses the dominant signs to oppose the dominant ideologies, it’s this metamorphosis of common understandings that creates the nature of the subculture, the opposition. Finally Hebdige begins to discuss the incorporation of these subcultures, their signs and understandings are either mass produced, or they are defined as the “Other” or the “Enemy.”
All of this makes me think of Durkheim’s notions on society in his work “The Division of Labor in Society.” He discusses in this that the Traditional society, which I link to the world of the hegemonic ideologies because in Durkheim’s traditional society everyone is very similar and operates with a similar mindset. Therefore, the subculture is linked to the Modern Society, the society in which people thrive more on individualism and become to separate from those normal Molds. As Durkheim’s Modernity suggests these movements cannot be stopped and eventually overtake the Traditional Society, as seen in Hebdige’s work.
post-it note, Hebdige
Dick Hebdige’s understanding of subculture exists in his understanding of the term culture. As it is, culture started out as a suggestion of all the luxurious and elite of the educated classes. It then transitioned to mean the “everyday;” the actions of all the people everywhere. So then, what is culture?
This is the problem that exists also with hegemony in Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Punks dress against the conventional standards in order to defy the hegemonic controls that are present but often go unnoticed because they are everywhere. But this defiance also assists in the hegemonic powers being kept in their position, as the “recuperation” of culture occurs in one of two ways: when subcultural signs become mass produced, and when deviant behavior is re-defined in order for the public to gain an understanding of it. It is in these ways that subculture becomes mainstream, although the mainstream does not necessarily have to participate in it. And so the envelope is continually pushed so that a subculture can continue to surprise the mainstream and give them something to talk about.
Hebdige can be connected to Habermas in that the “cult of the new,” which has been created by the media, is that which suggests to us that exposure to such oddities is alright. The cult of the new tells us that new is better, but subcultures are often looked at with secretly interested but shielded eyes. Hyperstimulated sensitivity also comes into play when “culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (Habermas 101). Here, everyday life is mentioned, so hatred is against the conventions and virtues of culture from the subcultures side of the token. The tension that exists between culture and subculture create media-worthy events. Extreme change is usually the TOP STORY. Surprising details interest the public, whether they believe in them or not. It is for this reason that I am going to conclude that Hebdige and Habermas should be friends, as the tension between culture and subculture would provide all the proper conversation for a truly unique friendship.
This is the problem that exists also with hegemony in Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Punks dress against the conventional standards in order to defy the hegemonic controls that are present but often go unnoticed because they are everywhere. But this defiance also assists in the hegemonic powers being kept in their position, as the “recuperation” of culture occurs in one of two ways: when subcultural signs become mass produced, and when deviant behavior is re-defined in order for the public to gain an understanding of it. It is in these ways that subculture becomes mainstream, although the mainstream does not necessarily have to participate in it. And so the envelope is continually pushed so that a subculture can continue to surprise the mainstream and give them something to talk about.
Hebdige can be connected to Habermas in that the “cult of the new,” which has been created by the media, is that which suggests to us that exposure to such oddities is alright. The cult of the new tells us that new is better, but subcultures are often looked at with secretly interested but shielded eyes. Hyperstimulated sensitivity also comes into play when “culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (Habermas 101). Here, everyday life is mentioned, so hatred is against the conventions and virtues of culture from the subcultures side of the token. The tension that exists between culture and subculture create media-worthy events. Extreme change is usually the TOP STORY. Surprising details interest the public, whether they believe in them or not. It is for this reason that I am going to conclude that Hebdige and Habermas should be friends, as the tension between culture and subculture would provide all the proper conversation for a truly unique friendship.
WoolyBully7, Hebdige
“Style in particular provokes a double response: it is alternately celebrated (in the fashion page) and ridiculed or reviled (in those articles which define subcultures as social problems). -154
Usually the fashion trends of subcultures are so different and unique that is almost hard to miss them and immediately attracts the media’s attention. This is how only a few individuals in a given era can have such a huge impact on the public, especially within the same demographic. I mean look at James Dean, he died at the age of just 24 yet he was so influential in the 1950’s as far as male style went. The blue jeans, white t-shirt, leather jacket, converses and slicked back hair lasted well past his years and some may even argue is still evident today. That is not an example really of a subculture as Hebdige does but it still shows how prominent fashion can be. Dean’s style was also not really ridiculed; it was praised as it helped give a voice to a young generation.
Back to the double responses though, there are many new styles today that are both celebrated and also ridiculed simultaneously. Certain subcultures in today’s youth seem to be obsessed with tight jeans and black t-shirts. Pop media shows mostly mixed opinions as they celebrate the individuality and creativity yet dislike the outwardly ominous theme and melancholy demeanor, something that has often been called “emo” meaning emotional. I’m not against being who you are and dressing how you want, I’m just saying I wouldn’t ever dress like that because it is not representative of me or my style. The Clash, a famous 1970s/80s punk rock band was also celebrated for their punk style and it really was a revolution, especially since they were British and single-handedly created their own subculture, much like the Star Wars culture we learned so much about from our visitor Claire. Their style exploded and was revered by many while also receiving much criticism from more conservative media critics.
Usually the fashion trends of subcultures are so different and unique that is almost hard to miss them and immediately attracts the media’s attention. This is how only a few individuals in a given era can have such a huge impact on the public, especially within the same demographic. I mean look at James Dean, he died at the age of just 24 yet he was so influential in the 1950’s as far as male style went. The blue jeans, white t-shirt, leather jacket, converses and slicked back hair lasted well past his years and some may even argue is still evident today. That is not an example really of a subculture as Hebdige does but it still shows how prominent fashion can be. Dean’s style was also not really ridiculed; it was praised as it helped give a voice to a young generation.
Back to the double responses though, there are many new styles today that are both celebrated and also ridiculed simultaneously. Certain subcultures in today’s youth seem to be obsessed with tight jeans and black t-shirts. Pop media shows mostly mixed opinions as they celebrate the individuality and creativity yet dislike the outwardly ominous theme and melancholy demeanor, something that has often been called “emo” meaning emotional. I’m not against being who you are and dressing how you want, I’m just saying I wouldn’t ever dress like that because it is not representative of me or my style. The Clash, a famous 1970s/80s punk rock band was also celebrated for their punk style and it really was a revolution, especially since they were British and single-handedly created their own subculture, much like the Star Wars culture we learned so much about from our visitor Claire. Their style exploded and was revered by many while also receiving much criticism from more conservative media critics.
ashlayla, hebdige
The Hebdige reading was a little difficult for me, but it was also a review of what I had learned in CMC 100. Culture is defined in many ways and varies in different countries. The American definition of culture is different than the Russian definition culture.
“The media, as Stuart Hall (1977) has argued, not only record resistance, they “situate it within the dominant framework of meanings” and those young people who choose to inhabit a spectacular youth culture are simultaneously returned, as they are represented on T.V. and in the newspapers, to the place where common sense would have them fit.” (155)
“Each new subculture establishes new trends, generates new looks and sounds which feed back into the appropriate industries.” (155)
When I read these quotes it made me think about some of the newest Dove commercials. Today, younger generations look up to the people that they see on television. When a little girl sees a pretty, skinny actress or model they want to grow up to be like them. When a girl combines the style of two different celebrities that they look up to, they create a new trend or “subculture.” I thought of the Dove advertisements because they are trying to send a message to younger girls that they are beautiful just the way they are. It’s okay if they look up to these celebrities but they shouldn’t completely change themselves into an unrecognizable person. It’s okay to borrow ideas from the celebrities because it creates a new trend.
I hope that when we talk about this topic in class I am able to understand it more because I did have a hard time reading Hebdige.
“The media, as Stuart Hall (1977) has argued, not only record resistance, they “situate it within the dominant framework of meanings” and those young people who choose to inhabit a spectacular youth culture are simultaneously returned, as they are represented on T.V. and in the newspapers, to the place where common sense would have them fit.” (155)
“Each new subculture establishes new trends, generates new looks and sounds which feed back into the appropriate industries.” (155)
When I read these quotes it made me think about some of the newest Dove commercials. Today, younger generations look up to the people that they see on television. When a little girl sees a pretty, skinny actress or model they want to grow up to be like them. When a girl combines the style of two different celebrities that they look up to, they create a new trend or “subculture.” I thought of the Dove advertisements because they are trying to send a message to younger girls that they are beautiful just the way they are. It’s okay if they look up to these celebrities but they shouldn’t completely change themselves into an unrecognizable person. It’s okay to borrow ideas from the celebrities because it creates a new trend.
I hope that when we talk about this topic in class I am able to understand it more because I did have a hard time reading Hebdige.
Marie89, Hebdige
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling class, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same tome its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it” (Marx as quoted in Hebdige 150). I believe that this quote is essential in the explanation of ideology within culture. Culture is based on a set of common beliefs and ideas held by a group of people. These ideas are filtered into a society through the ruling class, as they are dominant and therefore their ideas are permeated as dominant as well. Through the ideologies presented by this ruling class, the rest of a culture comes to accept these ideas as real and a culture is created and continued. Without such a group of people to contribute ideas, there would be no culture, as people would not be structured in their thinking through ideology. Society functions on social structure. If there is no structure, then no society may exist and no culture can be formed. It is through the subconscious thought, however, that ideas are formed and perpetuated. On page 149, Hebdige states that in order “To uncover the ideological dimension of signs we must first try to disentangle the codes through which meaning is organized.” In other words, signs and symbols differ from culture to culture which is what makes cultures unique. In order to understand ideology, we must break down the infinite symbols behind the signs that have been produced by the ruling class within a society.
CMCstudent, Hebdige
I really enjoyed this reading because not only did it bring back around a lot of things we learned in CMC 100 brought home some of the theories we have recently been studying in CMC 300. In other words it is giving me a way to really tie the information together and make since of it all.
I was surprised to come across all the multiple meanings of “culture.” I found the most interesting part of the article to be Raymond Williams “dream of the ‘organic society’— society as an integrated, meaningful whole” (144).
When we are little we learn that it is important to be worldly and understand cultures other than our own. Many young girls participate in ballet, and even elementary schools are starting to offer second language courses. As we get older we attend ballets, operas, theatrical plays, and gallery openings so we can learn of the excellence of both our own and other cultures.
I strongly believe in the second definition William describes culture being the “particular way of life which expresses certain meaning and values not only in art and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behavior” (145) I think this is the essence of culture that is overlooked. I feel like culture cannot be defined by just looking at just one aspect.
T.S. Elliot decides to broaden the definition’s range even more by saying that the characteristic activities and interests of a people” should also be studied (145). William has to come up with a new theory, to “study of the relationships between elements in a whole way of life” (145). He does not want to compare or create a scale with his subjects, rather than study “their modes of change to discover certain general causes or “trends” by which social and cultural developments as a whole can be better understood” (145).
Something that caught my attention was that Louis Althussar says, “ideology has no history,” meaning it replaces history with myth. Althussar goes on to say that ideology is “an essential element of every social formation.” This is very alarming because if all history is replaced with myth how will anyone ever make a distinction of what is real? If this mythical formation happens in all societies ideology will completely dominate the existence of history.
I was surprised to come across all the multiple meanings of “culture.” I found the most interesting part of the article to be Raymond Williams “dream of the ‘organic society’— society as an integrated, meaningful whole” (144).
When we are little we learn that it is important to be worldly and understand cultures other than our own. Many young girls participate in ballet, and even elementary schools are starting to offer second language courses. As we get older we attend ballets, operas, theatrical plays, and gallery openings so we can learn of the excellence of both our own and other cultures.
I strongly believe in the second definition William describes culture being the “particular way of life which expresses certain meaning and values not only in art and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behavior” (145) I think this is the essence of culture that is overlooked. I feel like culture cannot be defined by just looking at just one aspect.
T.S. Elliot decides to broaden the definition’s range even more by saying that the characteristic activities and interests of a people” should also be studied (145). William has to come up with a new theory, to “study of the relationships between elements in a whole way of life” (145). He does not want to compare or create a scale with his subjects, rather than study “their modes of change to discover certain general causes or “trends” by which social and cultural developments as a whole can be better understood” (145).
Something that caught my attention was that Louis Althussar says, “ideology has no history,” meaning it replaces history with myth. Althussar goes on to say that ideology is “an essential element of every social formation.” This is very alarming because if all history is replaced with myth how will anyone ever make a distinction of what is real? If this mythical formation happens in all societies ideology will completely dominate the existence of history.
000ooo000ooo 3.18
One thing that I found interesting in class today was the opposing views in American culture about where the "power" lies and who is the ruling class. The reason for this disagreement is clear, our government is much different than the governments Karl Marx was writing about in Europe almost two centuries ago. Our government is designed to give power to the majority so technically the "ruling class" should be the majority. However, suspicion remains that perhaps Marx's ideas aren't so wrong, even in modern America.
As we talked about in class, "He who has the gold rules". In America, those with the gold were having a difficult time ruling because their voices and opinions didn't count for anymore than their farmhand's. By no coincidence though, America is arguably the birthplace of advertising and marketing. Even though technically our voices are all equal, "he who has the gold" has an incredible ability to get everyone else thinking on the same page as them. One good example of this is in Amy Goodman's speech about media in times of war. She explains how even though national public opinion was split about 50/50 about whether we should invade Iraq, and hundreds of people showed up to protest in New York, the media only provided pro-war views which, at the time, were the views of the people with gold.
In other words, the idea of the majority being the ruling class in America is idealistic. We would all like to believe that the ideas our country was founded upon have held up through the centuries. To believe otherwise is often considered unpatriotic. Realistically though, while the majority makes decisions, there is absolutely a ruling class that heavily affects the ideologies of these people. THis goes back to the difference between ideas and ideologies. The majority are often under the influence of the ruling classes ideologies so even though they have the ability to make their own decisions that will benefit them, they often choose decisions based on the ideologies of the ruling class. If Marx's ideas about ideologies are true, it shouldn't matter who is directly responsible for decision making - decisions will still be made based on the ideas of the ruling class.
As we talked about in class, "He who has the gold rules". In America, those with the gold were having a difficult time ruling because their voices and opinions didn't count for anymore than their farmhand's. By no coincidence though, America is arguably the birthplace of advertising and marketing. Even though technically our voices are all equal, "he who has the gold" has an incredible ability to get everyone else thinking on the same page as them. One good example of this is in Amy Goodman's speech about media in times of war. She explains how even though national public opinion was split about 50/50 about whether we should invade Iraq, and hundreds of people showed up to protest in New York, the media only provided pro-war views which, at the time, were the views of the people with gold.
In other words, the idea of the majority being the ruling class in America is idealistic. We would all like to believe that the ideas our country was founded upon have held up through the centuries. To believe otherwise is often considered unpatriotic. Realistically though, while the majority makes decisions, there is absolutely a ruling class that heavily affects the ideologies of these people. THis goes back to the difference between ideas and ideologies. The majority are often under the influence of the ruling classes ideologies so even though they have the ability to make their own decisions that will benefit them, they often choose decisions based on the ideologies of the ruling class. If Marx's ideas about ideologies are true, it shouldn't matter who is directly responsible for decision making - decisions will still be made based on the ideas of the ruling class.
Super!Geek, 3/18, Hebdige
I remember the first time I heard the term hegemony. It was during my second CMC 100 class, and honestly, I hadn't done the reading. My professor was presenting a power point to support the reading, and I kept thinking "What is hegemony? And why the heck did I skip the reading for the second class?!" I left class and and pretty much read three classes ahead. I was always struck by the term hegemony; I clung to the term, and I remember using it so much over the following weeks that people got annoyed with me over it! Hebdige's article was like rediscovering the term. The concept of culture transitioning into hegemony is extremely intriguing. With so many facets of culture, how does one piece transform into a normative value? Hebdige offers t
Happy Birthday, Hebdige
Culture is something that varies from city to city to state to state...it may as well even vary from family to family. It’s very personal and can effect different populations of people completely different. This theme can easily be related to Macherey’s intertextuality. Hebdige is saying that culture is different everywhere because we all have our own personal realities and have all experienced, seen, and heard different things throughout our lifetime.
Throughout Hebdige’s piece, “From Culture to Hegemony”, Hebdige questions what culture actually is and the many meanings that come along with the word culture. It's amazing how once again, language is proved as arbitrary and that a single word can actually have multiple meanings. I found Williams definition of culture to be one that I relate to most. He states, “ culture is referred to as a particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and values not only in are and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behavior…the analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit and explicit in a particular way of life, a particular culture”. (45) Williams is saying that pretty much everything and anything is culture. Hegemony, Hebdige’s other main point, occurs when one realm of culture when a large group of people follow the same belief. This group of people then becomes the dominant class because they will tend to speak for the general public. Hebdige then explains that the remaining public becomes the “sub culture” because they are less dominant. This is the transition that Hebdige explains throughout his writing, the transition from culture to hegemony…which is what most of us see today.
Throughout Hebdige’s piece, “From Culture to Hegemony”, Hebdige questions what culture actually is and the many meanings that come along with the word culture. It's amazing how once again, language is proved as arbitrary and that a single word can actually have multiple meanings. I found Williams definition of culture to be one that I relate to most. He states, “ culture is referred to as a particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and values not only in are and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behavior…the analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit and explicit in a particular way of life, a particular culture”. (45) Williams is saying that pretty much everything and anything is culture. Hegemony, Hebdige’s other main point, occurs when one realm of culture when a large group of people follow the same belief. This group of people then becomes the dominant class because they will tend to speak for the general public. Hebdige then explains that the remaining public becomes the “sub culture” because they are less dominant. This is the transition that Hebdige explains throughout his writing, the transition from culture to hegemony…which is what most of us see today.
Asyouwish/Hebdige..spaghetti 3/18/09
I agree with Spaghetti's post. As I was reading Hebdige's piece I felt like it was a review of what I had learned in CMC 300 and that there was very little creativity in his work. In fact I found this reading to be so similar to the other readings read for CMC courses that I personally think his material would almost constitute as plagiarism because very few of what he wrong about were his own ideas. Yes I realize he gave credit where it was due but all the while reading I was just thinking come on dude think of your own concepts and ideas and stop constantly quoting other peoples works. Okay now that I have finished venting I believe it is time for me to analyze a portion of Hebdige's piece.
While the portion I have chosen to talk about is not Hebdiges idea it was a quotation that I found very interesting.
"A sign does not simply exist as part of reality - it reflects and refracts another reality. Therefore it may distort that reality or be true to it, or may perceive it from a special point of view, and so forth. Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation....The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Whatever a sign is present, ideology is present too. Everything ideological possesses a semiotic value. (Volosinov, 1973). However I honestly was very confused by a lot of this chapter so what I am reading this quote as might not be correct. I believe this quote is saying that a sign is something that shows reality but abbreviates it as in Mcdonalds sign as the M. Mcdonalds one might note starts with an M but its sign is abbreviated and yet it still is signifying a reality.
While the portion I have chosen to talk about is not Hebdiges idea it was a quotation that I found very interesting.
"A sign does not simply exist as part of reality - it reflects and refracts another reality. Therefore it may distort that reality or be true to it, or may perceive it from a special point of view, and so forth. Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation....The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Whatever a sign is present, ideology is present too. Everything ideological possesses a semiotic value. (Volosinov, 1973). However I honestly was very confused by a lot of this chapter so what I am reading this quote as might not be correct. I believe this quote is saying that a sign is something that shows reality but abbreviates it as in Mcdonalds sign as the M. Mcdonalds one might note starts with an M but its sign is abbreviated and yet it still is signifying a reality.
aro0823, hebdige
The Hebdige piece was very much a general summary of all of the frameworks we studied in CMC 100. Reading about the theorists side by side allowed for the illumination of their similarities and differences.
Barthes: Barthes built upon de Saussure’s linguistic theory to talk about the transmission of myth through society. In his work, he was able to bridge the gap between the language and reality to form a more tangible understanding of everyday experience.
Hall: Hall theorized about encoding and decoding of text. He argued that the audience was not just a passive one, instead, they formed their own negotiated reading of a given text based on previous life experiences.
Althusser: Althusser, as we studied last class, took Marx’s ideas of the imbalance between the ruling and the ruled and developed ISAs and RSAs. The things that we come to accept as common sense are by no means what they appear.
Gramsci: Gramsci is the originator of the notion of cultural hegemony. He expounds upon Althusser’s framework and says that common sensical notions are purposefully developed by the hegemonic elite and passed down to the masses. The lower classes internalize this ideology so thoroughly that they fail to question it and merely accept it as natural.
de Saussure: de Saussure, in review, was the establisher of the notion of the arbitrary nature of language. He posited that language was comprised of a series of signs and signifiers, and “in language, there are only differences.”
By studying the ideas of these postmodern thinkers, it is easy to establish a relationship between the political, economic, social, and cultural ideals of any society. Hegemony, a term I had never heard of before CMC 100, suddenly seems to be the framework for life as we know it. The more we discuss hegemony, the more I am inspired to (in colorful Marxist language), through of the shackles of passivity and take a more active approach in interpreting the ideological notions I am bombarded with everyday.
Barthes: Barthes built upon de Saussure’s linguistic theory to talk about the transmission of myth through society. In his work, he was able to bridge the gap between the language and reality to form a more tangible understanding of everyday experience.
Hall: Hall theorized about encoding and decoding of text. He argued that the audience was not just a passive one, instead, they formed their own negotiated reading of a given text based on previous life experiences.
Althusser: Althusser, as we studied last class, took Marx’s ideas of the imbalance between the ruling and the ruled and developed ISAs and RSAs. The things that we come to accept as common sense are by no means what they appear.
Gramsci: Gramsci is the originator of the notion of cultural hegemony. He expounds upon Althusser’s framework and says that common sensical notions are purposefully developed by the hegemonic elite and passed down to the masses. The lower classes internalize this ideology so thoroughly that they fail to question it and merely accept it as natural.
de Saussure: de Saussure, in review, was the establisher of the notion of the arbitrary nature of language. He posited that language was comprised of a series of signs and signifiers, and “in language, there are only differences.”
By studying the ideas of these postmodern thinkers, it is easy to establish a relationship between the political, economic, social, and cultural ideals of any society. Hegemony, a term I had never heard of before CMC 100, suddenly seems to be the framework for life as we know it. The more we discuss hegemony, the more I am inspired to (in colorful Marxist language), through of the shackles of passivity and take a more active approach in interpreting the ideological notions I am bombarded with everyday.
Spaghetti, Hebdige
I found Hebdige's piece to be a more in-depth review of a lot of what we talked about in CMC100 infused with some sociological perspective from another class I am taking this semester. It is very interesting to see all of these ideas come together. I was reminded of several past theorists in just the first two pages of this reading. Hebdige touched on notions of traditionalism versus avant-gardism, notions of culture existence as determined through a collective consciousness, etc. I agree that there exists a symbiotic relationship between the concepts of culture and of society. They not only influence one another but they also arguably depend upon the other for their respective individual existences. Using the more common reference to the term "culture," individuals have to be considered one for it to exist. Once these people come together and organize themselves in a unified or consistent way, then the base exists for a culture to flourish. In order for a culture to thrive, its principles have to be agreed upon. If they are not, then that particular aspect of the culture cannot continue and the culture itself can not thrive and develop. Hebdige's article really inspired me to think about the way in which people organize themselves and to look at culture as a whole in all different parts of the world as it exists and continues to develop today.
Juice15, Hebdige
“We have seen how subcultures ‘breach our expectancies,’ how they represent symbolic challenges to a symbolic order” (Hebdige 154).This section by Hebdige discussed subcultures and the ways they are perceived by the media and the market.
The media is attracted to events that involve fighting, “anti-social” acts or anything that causes a scene or goes against the grain and can make subcultures look more or less ‘exotic’ than they really are.. Subcultures grab this media attention a lot of the time because they are typically considered different or the other. “…the other can be transformed into meaningless exotica, a “pure object, a spectacle, a clown.” This goes along with the example of how a news anchor referred to soccer hooligans not as humans but as animals. Where I live back home people that are part of the Insane Clown Posse are considered this “other” group and were typically exploited on the different form of mass media. The idea of them being “unnatural” was a common occurrence.
Media can also turn subcultures into a market for consumption and/or trivialized, naturalized or domesticated. The media can run stories to try and show people how a certain subculture is really not that different from you and I. The example of Punk families shown in magazines as a normal everyday family was used to show that they might dress different, but besides that they are typical. As subcultures appear markets can turn up to satisfy the needs of their clothing or jewelry choices. When this occurs they become codified, made comprehensible and become profitable merchandise. I feel this happens when a lot of music groups who are considered others become popular and their style become a commodity form. Overall I feel the media has an influence on how subcultures are perceived and treated by the general public today.
The media is attracted to events that involve fighting, “anti-social” acts or anything that causes a scene or goes against the grain and can make subcultures look more or less ‘exotic’ than they really are.. Subcultures grab this media attention a lot of the time because they are typically considered different or the other. “…the other can be transformed into meaningless exotica, a “pure object, a spectacle, a clown.” This goes along with the example of how a news anchor referred to soccer hooligans not as humans but as animals. Where I live back home people that are part of the Insane Clown Posse are considered this “other” group and were typically exploited on the different form of mass media. The idea of them being “unnatural” was a common occurrence.
Media can also turn subcultures into a market for consumption and/or trivialized, naturalized or domesticated. The media can run stories to try and show people how a certain subculture is really not that different from you and I. The example of Punk families shown in magazines as a normal everyday family was used to show that they might dress different, but besides that they are typical. As subcultures appear markets can turn up to satisfy the needs of their clothing or jewelry choices. When this occurs they become codified, made comprehensible and become profitable merchandise. I feel this happens when a lot of music groups who are considered others become popular and their style become a commodity form. Overall I feel the media has an influence on how subcultures are perceived and treated by the general public today.
ginger griffin, hebdige
Culture is many different things and like this article states, it is often contradictory. "cultivation, tending, in Christian authors, worship...the artificial development of microscopic organisms...the intellectual side of civilization."(Oxford Dictionary,144) Culture is something that has many meanings and is different to everybody else. Culture changes around the world and its meaning also changes around the world. I feel that the hegemonic views of every society define what their culture is and how it is played out. Culture is everything dominant in a society and it is also everything that goes unseen to the outside world. I really didn't understand this article so I am not quite sure what else to write on. Hopefully in class tomorrow I will better understand exactly what Hebdige was talking about when writing this article.
coolbeans, Hebdige
In Hebdige’s From Culture to Hegemony, he describes culture as an ambiguous concept that can take on a variety of meanings. Culture encompasses so many different areas that it cannot just be pinpointed in one meaning. For example, culture can be art, but it can also be government, media, values, behaviors or ideologies. Within culture there are several different realms. As we learned in CMC 100, there is high culture and low culture. High culture is culture that requires some sort of education in order to read or understand. Low culture is culture that is popular and can be read or understood by anyone. Culture can also be shaped by ideologies. People of a particular group define themselves through a common set of beliefs and ideologies. When ideologies are involved usually there is a dominant ideology in which a majority or powerful group of people follow the same belief. This group of people becomes the ruling class because the ideologies tend to be more favorable for the general population or has the best interests for the dominant groups in society. The ideologies of the non dominant population tend to become a sort of subculture or counter culture because of this. This is how the transition from culture to hegemony occurs. Hegemony is a “situation in which a provisional alliance of certain social groups can exert total social authority over other subordinate groups, not simply by coercion or by the direct imposition of ruling ideas, but by winning and shaping consent so that the power of the dominant classes appears both legitimate and natural” (150). The dominant ideologies overshadow the non dominant ideologies, without even really meaning to. As long as the majority agrees with the ideology, the group that follows it is still the hegemonic power. The ones who do not follow the hegemonic ideology form into their own subcultures. A good example of this is political parties. The two dominant political parties in the United States are Republican and Democratic. These two parties are the hegemonic powers. Those who do not subscribe to either of those ideologies can choose to associate themselves with the Libertarian party, the Constitution party or the Green party, which can be labeled as the subculture.
ginger griffin 3/18
Yesterday in class we talked about the ruling class and about how we thought the ruling class was by looking at different signs. "Signs become the arena of class struggle." This was a quote given to us during class and then was followed up by many different pictures and we were asked to decide which one we thought was the ruling class of the two. The first pictures were Mercedes vs. GM and my initial reaction was that Mercedes was the ruling class, but after thinking about it I came to believe that GM was the overall ruling class. I feel that the ruling class and the dominant class are the same thing. Is it not the ideas from the dominant class in which we follow? I am teetering on this idea because after I thought about that I started to think about an example that completely negate my previous one. I'm thinking about actors and actresses and what they wear and how they act and that reflects on what we wear and how we act. Actors and actresses are most certainly not the dominant class, they are the minority and we reflect upon them. My point is that maybe it is not the dominant class that is the ruling class and that I am still completely confused about the entire concept.
Aside from being completely confused about that concept, one concept I did understand was that OBVIOUS means that which is obvious to you becomes the dominant ideology. What is obvious? How did it become obvious? At which point does it switch over in your head to become obvious? This is a concept that I have never thought about until yesterday but now I understand that concept.
Aside from being completely confused about that concept, one concept I did understand was that OBVIOUS means that which is obvious to you becomes the dominant ideology. What is obvious? How did it become obvious? At which point does it switch over in your head to become obvious? This is a concept that I have never thought about until yesterday but now I understand that concept.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
DBA123, post class 3/17
“Sign becomes the arena of the class struggle”
After viewing this quote today, we looked at several different images and discussed which was the sign of the ruling class. One example is of the Mercedes symbol and the GM symbol. We all agreed that one product is only in the means of a small, selective group of people, while the other is capable to be bought by a population probably ten times as big, but we did not reach a unanimous answer of which was the ruling class.
After class I thought about this some more. In my opinion, America, by having a democracy, has been set up for the ruling class to be the people who are buying the GMs. Our government was designed to be able to voice the opinions of all citizens, which for the most part, do not fall in the elitist category who can afford the Mercedes. Looking at our recent Presidential election is another example of why America has turned, and let the “GMs” take charge.
President Bush was a from the Republican party, the political party which is associated with having strong local government to strengthen individuals, and letting these individuals keep what they have worked hard for and earned. Although I am not trying to stereotype, it would be safe to say that some of those who find the Mercedes symbol to represent the ruling class might be a member of this political party. Our new president is a Democrat, the political party that is associated with the working class and sometimes giving money back to the government so it is able to offer assistance to citizens, including those who would not be able to afford such amenities if they were not provided. These people might find the GM symbol to be associated with the ruling class because it is the product that is driven by more of the majority.
Using political parties is an example of how the “sign” has created a class struggle here in America. Many citizens of our country were fed up with money not being spent in the best interest of our nation as a whole and only a small percentage of the population reaping the rewards. By taking control of “the arena,” citizens of this country changed which sign was identified as the ruling class.
After viewing this quote today, we looked at several different images and discussed which was the sign of the ruling class. One example is of the Mercedes symbol and the GM symbol. We all agreed that one product is only in the means of a small, selective group of people, while the other is capable to be bought by a population probably ten times as big, but we did not reach a unanimous answer of which was the ruling class.
After class I thought about this some more. In my opinion, America, by having a democracy, has been set up for the ruling class to be the people who are buying the GMs. Our government was designed to be able to voice the opinions of all citizens, which for the most part, do not fall in the elitist category who can afford the Mercedes. Looking at our recent Presidential election is another example of why America has turned, and let the “GMs” take charge.
President Bush was a from the Republican party, the political party which is associated with having strong local government to strengthen individuals, and letting these individuals keep what they have worked hard for and earned. Although I am not trying to stereotype, it would be safe to say that some of those who find the Mercedes symbol to represent the ruling class might be a member of this political party. Our new president is a Democrat, the political party that is associated with the working class and sometimes giving money back to the government so it is able to offer assistance to citizens, including those who would not be able to afford such amenities if they were not provided. These people might find the GM symbol to be associated with the ruling class because it is the product that is driven by more of the majority.
Using political parties is an example of how the “sign” has created a class struggle here in America. Many citizens of our country were fed up with money not being spent in the best interest of our nation as a whole and only a small percentage of the population reaping the rewards. By taking control of “the arena,” citizens of this country changed which sign was identified as the ruling class.
Rubber Soul, 3/17
In class today, we talked about Althusser's concept of the Ideological State Apparatus. We were asked to think of how we've experienced any form of ISAs in the past week. Pink Floyd's music video of another Brick in the Wall was an excellent example of education as an ISA. I thought of two other recent experiences involving religion and the media. Two people I know have recently told me that they were considering getting body altering procedures. One procedure being plastic surgery for breast enhancement and the other for electrolysis which is the laser removal of hair so that it never grows back. The first person thought her body was disproportionate and the second person thought her arms were too hairy. Obviously, women in our society have these ideological standards they think they need to live up to in order to be considered desirable. The media creates this "ideal" image of a woman and mass produces it everywhere you turn. Therefore, younger AND older women aspire to reflect these ideal characteristics by transforming themselves using expensive and sometimes dangerous surgical procedures. In this way, the media helps create dissatisfaction among women's self perceived body image in America. Therefore, conveniently there are expensive procedures to help you "fix" your societal proclaimed "problems." Another instance of an ISA I experienced this past week surfaced when I was talking to someone about finding a job this summer. I was telling them how my job of two years had fallen through and that I was applying for other ones, but I wasn't getting much positive feedback. The reply was, "Well it's all in God's hands." I realize that this was said as words of kindness, but really, how does this help me? So many religious people do leave it up for God to fix what's wrong in their lives. But what happens when things get worse instead of better for them? Like someone stays in an abusive relationship because they are convinced that God will fix it, or if someone has an eating disorder and they don't go get help because they think God will help them overcome it. Thus religion is an ideological state apparatus because it has become natural and rational to believe that a greater being is in charge and that is why things are the way they are.
I think it is important to keep in mind who is benefiting from these societal structures. People need to be more critical of what our society enforces as the "norm," because many times these norms benefit the minority instead of the majority.
I think it is important to keep in mind who is benefiting from these societal structures. People need to be more critical of what our society enforces as the "norm," because many times these norms benefit the minority instead of the majority.
brookes77, 3/17/09
“ The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: “i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal consequently also controls the means of mental production” (39) This quote really made me think in class when we had to choose between different products such as cars or drinks (etc.), of which out of the two were the ruling class and why. An example we were showed was a fancy, personalized new car parked on the open road verses a older red color car parked in the middle of a parking lot. Immediately I thought that the ruling class would be the older average car that was parked next to another red car and with other examples shown I thought that the ruling class would be GM, and Budweiser. I understand the other side and how people think that the ruling class would be the “higher class” products but the majority of people do not have the ability to be selective with their products so to me, ruling class, is what people have, what people settle for rather then what they desire. People settle for what is in their means, what they are capable of, there is only a select amount of people who have what others desire. The desire to have what we do not have is an ideology that is ingrained in our heads and to some extent it does rule what we wish we had, but since that is not reality the ruling class is the less valued products because it is what is normal, and normal always rules over abnormal.
Also I agree that branded things are the ruling class over something that is not branded even if it is more valuable. Our society feeds off of what is safe, normal, known. This is like the example we used when talking about the nice Italian restaurant versus the Olive garden, in this case the Olive Garden would rule over the small authentic Italian restaurant. We discussed why the Olive garden is so much busier then the nice, organic expensive Italian restaurant. It is what is known to people it is what people are surrounded with, and that classifies the average products to be the ruling class above desired products.
Also I agree that branded things are the ruling class over something that is not branded even if it is more valuable. Our society feeds off of what is safe, normal, known. This is like the example we used when talking about the nice Italian restaurant versus the Olive garden, in this case the Olive Garden would rule over the small authentic Italian restaurant. We discussed why the Olive garden is so much busier then the nice, organic expensive Italian restaurant. It is what is known to people it is what people are surrounded with, and that classifies the average products to be the ruling class above desired products.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Petite Etoile, Marx and Althusser
I think that it is very interesting that at one point ideology did not exist. That the elite were very open and forceful about keeping their command over the rest of society and didn’t care whose feelings they hurt. They did whatever they wanted blatantly without a care as to how it effected others. Today we live in a world where everyone is constantly afraid of hurting someone’s feelings. Everyone wants to be “politically correct”. And I think the change happened because power was given to the people to stand up for themselves. That’s why today people are more careful of disturbing others, because they have the power to retaliate. I think that the reason why the old ways of the elite of not caring what anyone thought and just blatantly doing as they wished went away because the people were given the power and a voice to fight back. Therefore the elite created a new way to suppress them without them even being aware of it. And I think now with critical culture and media studies we are coming full circle again and giving the power to fight back to the people again. The elite are using a different method, ideology, so we are studying it and giving the people new weapons to fight it, knowledge. Just as the elite have evolved so must the way we handle the suppression and manipulation of society. This gives me hope that one day using ideology will be as obvious to the public as a flaming cross in someone’s front lawn.
yellowdaisy 4, althuser/marx and engels
In the Althusser reading, he broke down the differences in Ideological State Apparatuses and Repressive State Apparatuses. Althusser defined the ISA as “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions”. The examples given of churches, schools, families and trade unions also helped clarify exactly what an ISA is. A difference in ISAs and RSAs is that ISAs utilize by ideology while RSAs function through the use of repression which can be violence. What’s important to understand though is that they are not as mutually exclusive as the sound. This is because RSAs, like the police use ideologies secondary like morals, as well, and the ISAs like schools use punishment to gain control too. Another difference is how RSAs belong to public domain like how the army controls the public of places in a broader scale. The ISAs are usually private institutions but whatn really matter is how the institutions whether public or private function best.
The Marx and Engels reading connected to the Althusser reading because similar to the Repressive State Apparatus, they were discussing how the ruling class dominates the ideology of the non ruling class. I found it interesting how “the class which has the means of material production at is disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production.” This shows how not only the ruling class controls everything because they have the means to, such as weapons or money, but also by controlling how others think. The ruling class sets the norm for others to follow not only by force but by how they use others thinking to agree with them. An example of this can be how celebrities decide what’s in fashion not only through their materials they have like money or connections to get the clothes but also by how they convince others to want it too by the attention they get when they are wearing it.
The Marx and Engels reading connected to the Althusser reading because similar to the Repressive State Apparatus, they were discussing how the ruling class dominates the ideology of the non ruling class. I found it interesting how “the class which has the means of material production at is disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production.” This shows how not only the ruling class controls everything because they have the means to, such as weapons or money, but also by controlling how others think. The ruling class sets the norm for others to follow not only by force but by how they use others thinking to agree with them. An example of this can be how celebrities decide what’s in fashion not only through their materials they have like money or connections to get the clothes but also by how they convince others to want it too by the attention they get when they are wearing it.
Brookes77, Marx and Althusser
Ideology, a term we use over and over again in all Critical Media Studies classes, it has shaped the way we think, about ( I know this is broad) everything. These dreams have been created for us to desire, and without this notion of Ideology I believe we would be lost, even though I think it is sad it has come to this point. On page 34 it states “ The second issue, the falseness of ideology, has provided another topic for continuing debate. Is ideology, simply ‘ false consciousness’, an illusion, albeit one its proponents share in through self deception, and so possibly opposed to the true knowledge objectively obtained by science?” I really agree with this, I believe that the knowledge over all of ideology is very small, and that the majority of people are not aware ideology and how it is creating how we think, want, and live. This is how it gains credibility because people do not understand, or do not try to understand that there are ruling ideas that are trying to make us live a certain way and want certain things. The education of this notion of ideas of ideology, needs to be expanded people understand signs, and signifiers on a level, yet not on a deeper level. The majority understands signs but we do not understand that the signs, signifiers, are leading us to. Because we do not understand this and we “go with the flow” following these signs on a surface level, we become the hegemonic force without even understanding that we are forcing this on ourselves. It is all sub conscious, and a cycle that keeps repeating. In the second reading when talking about the division of labor on page 39 it states “…. Other’s attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves”. I agree with this yet that they have less time, to think of new ideas, yet I believe that people do not even realize that they have that advantage, yes they do not have the time, yet they are not educated enough to do so, or they have not taken the time in creating ruling ideas.
" Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence". This is the first thesis that Louis Althusser states, although it was complicated to grasp, to me it means that ideology is shaping our real existence which i strongly agree with. Although i believe for most it is sub conscious it is becoming the relationship of our conditions of existence, it is how we are defining ourselves.
" Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence". This is the first thesis that Louis Althusser states, although it was complicated to grasp, to me it means that ideology is shaping our real existence which i strongly agree with. Although i believe for most it is sub conscious it is becoming the relationship of our conditions of existence, it is how we are defining ourselves.
Smiley Face - Marx and Althusser
The conceptions of ideology from Marx and Althusser go hand in hand. On the one side you have Marx who looks at the expression of class structure from ideology and the production of hegemony. What first struck me was his statement on how the class ruling material force rules the intellectual force, and therefore the class in control of material production controls its mental capacity. From this theory, Marx suggests that the ruling class seemingly holds no true function in society for their job truly belongs to the working class, yet the ruling class are the 'thinkers' and shape the functioning of the working class. He shows the reliance of classes upon one another for anyone to be present and functioning in society. The way that the ruling class is able to make their ideologies universal is by making them rational and sensical to those adopting them in society. Secondly, to go to his most broad concept of how every sign is ideological, reflects the work of Sender, the author of one of my CMC 200 readings. The article is a study on advertising and the way that certain adverts hold homosexual qualitites to broaden their target audience. Here, advertising is a good example of how ideology is found in signs, and signs are what advertising agencies rely on to convey their message and ultimately make capital.
On the other side, Althusser was a good review of CMC 100 when the references to the RSA and ISA, as well as the private and public spheres. How analysis of ideology was enlightening and almost shocking, in regards to the theory of ideology having a material existance. At first I was skptical, yet thinking about it ideology is found in signs and signs are found in text, which is physical (whether it is writing in a magazine or a billboard on the side of a highway). Most of these material existances of ideology come from sources that promote these signs...such as advertising companies whose purpose is to convey to the viewer similar images they can relate to as well as making apparent what is in demand.
Overall, ideology is present in advertising by the way that advertising relies on signs to convey certain ideas to make a profit, and then consequently the production of such advertising material makes ideology a material existance.
On the other side, Althusser was a good review of CMC 100 when the references to the RSA and ISA, as well as the private and public spheres. How analysis of ideology was enlightening and almost shocking, in regards to the theory of ideology having a material existance. At first I was skptical, yet thinking about it ideology is found in signs and signs are found in text, which is physical (whether it is writing in a magazine or a billboard on the side of a highway). Most of these material existances of ideology come from sources that promote these signs...such as advertising companies whose purpose is to convey to the viewer similar images they can relate to as well as making apparent what is in demand.
Overall, ideology is present in advertising by the way that advertising relies on signs to convey certain ideas to make a profit, and then consequently the production of such advertising material makes ideology a material existance.
thestig, Marx/Engles, Althusser
“Ideology is a ‘representation’ of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”
In breaking down this quote, I’m interpreting the relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence to be their relationship with others in society. Why then, would Althusser suggest that this is an imaginary relationship. In Ed Royce’s class, Sociological Theory, we have just started to study Emile Durkheim’s conception of sociology. He suggests that in order to understand individuals, we must understand “social facts.” These social facts are to say that the individual lives in a society, which shapes our being. This is not to say that our intentions do not have an effect on society, but we cannot explain society through these intentions. This is similar to Marx’s critique: that “It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” So what makes this relationship imaginary?
A Marxist would argue, and Althusser touches upon this, that the relationship is imaginary because of alienation, the process in which people are detached from their being, which takes place among the working class through capitalism [“What is represented in ideology is…relations in which they live” (44)]. I think this helps to explain why the relationship is imaginary. It isn’t actually imaginary, but it is as if their life is imaginary because of the social forces that shape the individuals life. This force is ideology because it is the force that creates the “illusion” that individuals shape their own lives.
What Althusser touches upon as what “the subject” makes of this ideology is interesting to me because I’ve always wondered how other “products of ideology” consider themselves amongst other members of society. His example this, “Hey, you there!” helped to clarify what others may be thinking. We’ve been raised in a society with standards (like, as Althusser points out, shaking someone’s hand as a gesture to make an agreement/say hello, what have you) that we do not challenge, but accept as true. After all, everyone’s doing it.
In breaking down this quote, I’m interpreting the relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence to be their relationship with others in society. Why then, would Althusser suggest that this is an imaginary relationship. In Ed Royce’s class, Sociological Theory, we have just started to study Emile Durkheim’s conception of sociology. He suggests that in order to understand individuals, we must understand “social facts.” These social facts are to say that the individual lives in a society, which shapes our being. This is not to say that our intentions do not have an effect on society, but we cannot explain society through these intentions. This is similar to Marx’s critique: that “It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” So what makes this relationship imaginary?
A Marxist would argue, and Althusser touches upon this, that the relationship is imaginary because of alienation, the process in which people are detached from their being, which takes place among the working class through capitalism [“What is represented in ideology is…relations in which they live” (44)]. I think this helps to explain why the relationship is imaginary. It isn’t actually imaginary, but it is as if their life is imaginary because of the social forces that shape the individuals life. This force is ideology because it is the force that creates the “illusion” that individuals shape their own lives.
What Althusser touches upon as what “the subject” makes of this ideology is interesting to me because I’ve always wondered how other “products of ideology” consider themselves amongst other members of society. His example this, “Hey, you there!” helped to clarify what others may be thinking. We’ve been raised in a society with standards (like, as Althusser points out, shaking someone’s hand as a gesture to make an agreement/say hello, what have you) that we do not challenge, but accept as true. After all, everyone’s doing it.
dmariel, Marx and Althusser
Marx explains that the ruling class is defined by who rules material forces, therefore ruling intellectual forces. Therefore, their ideas are the “ruling ideas of the epoch”. Within the creation of the ruling class, apparatuses are formed. I remember first learning about the repressive and ideological state apparatuses in CMC100. I understood their concepts well enough to answer a multiple choice question. After reading more about ideology and these two apparatuses, I now understand their application in the cultural sense.
Last semester I was taught that the repressive state apparatus functions only by violence, whereas the ideological state apparatus does not use violence at all. I never ventured on beyond what I was taught, but after reading from “Ieology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, it is clear that there is a deeper perspective of these two apparatuses. It does remain true that the repressive state apparatus functions primarily through violence, but functions secondarily by ideology. On the other hand, the Ideological state apparatus functions primarily through ideology and secondarily through violence. When I first read this, I was confused-the example of the church and family made the distinction clear to me. Although a church clearly functions through ideology, there are still measures of punishment, suspension, expulsion, and rules to discipline people. In addition, the concept of the family is based on ideologies, but punishment and boundaries still exist secondarily as repression.
Althusser states “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”. As soon as I came across this sentence, I was immediately reminded of Baudrillards concept of simulacra. If ideologies “constitute an illusion” and “make allusion to reality”, then they are a mere representation of the world, rather than a firsthand example. I believe that religious ideologies mask and denature ideology. The meta narratives within religious study are just an imaginary guide used as a relation for peoples actions in our world. Therefore, I would agree with Althusser’s idea that ideologies do not correspond directly to reality.
Last semester I was taught that the repressive state apparatus functions only by violence, whereas the ideological state apparatus does not use violence at all. I never ventured on beyond what I was taught, but after reading from “Ieology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, it is clear that there is a deeper perspective of these two apparatuses. It does remain true that the repressive state apparatus functions primarily through violence, but functions secondarily by ideology. On the other hand, the Ideological state apparatus functions primarily through ideology and secondarily through violence. When I first read this, I was confused-the example of the church and family made the distinction clear to me. Although a church clearly functions through ideology, there are still measures of punishment, suspension, expulsion, and rules to discipline people. In addition, the concept of the family is based on ideologies, but punishment and boundaries still exist secondarily as repression.
Althusser states “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”. As soon as I came across this sentence, I was immediately reminded of Baudrillards concept of simulacra. If ideologies “constitute an illusion” and “make allusion to reality”, then they are a mere representation of the world, rather than a firsthand example. I believe that religious ideologies mask and denature ideology. The meta narratives within religious study are just an imaginary guide used as a relation for peoples actions in our world. Therefore, I would agree with Althusser’s idea that ideologies do not correspond directly to reality.
LightningBolt, Althusser
“to recognize that we are subjects and that we function in the practical rituals of the more elementary everyday life….this recognition only gives us the ‘consciousness’ of our incessant (eternal) practice of ideological recognition…but in no sense does it give us the (scientific) knowledge of the mechanism of this recognition” (47)
Althusser presents an interesting idea that ideology is only made possible by the subjects. He then goes on to explain that we are all subjects all the time. By participating in these “everyday” acts we as subjects are providing them meaning and importance. Althusser’s quote that I presented demonstrates that it is one thing to be aware of the fact that you are giving in to ideological practices and by doing this, you yourself are helping the creation of these ideologies. Knowing this however, does not give us the ability to examine scientific, or subjectless, discourse on ideology.
Marx and Althusser - Dot
In the introduction to Marx and Althusser's work readers are presented with the idea of ideology, something I thought I was very familiar with. After reading the introduction, it turns out I am not as sure of my knowledge on the subject as I had previously thought. I was very intrigued by one of Marx's statements which reads "It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness"
In reading this line, I considered the many stipulations that could go along with it. Mainly I thought of my own life and how I rarely realize that things that I do are because of the ideology I participate in. Therefore, how can one tell if something is done out of the influence of ideology or if a person is simply doing something because they think it is what they should do?
But them, why do they think they should do that particular thing? Who tells us to do the things that we do, is every aspect of our life controlled by the society around? Do we really have any original thoughts? Without ideology how would culture function? Would anything make sense?
As I am sure Marx and Althusser would agree, ideology is an extremely dynamic part of our society that controls all of our actions and thoughts. I am very interested to see how we will discuss this topic in class and how it will be used to further explain post-modernity.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Marx and Althusser 000ooo000ooo
Reading Marx's interpretation of ideology reminded me of Jon Stewart's recent interview with Jim Cramer. Althusser's piece then gave an interesting context to this interpretation. As Marx explains, the goal of the creators of an ideology are "to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is... it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid ones" (40).
In the interview, which appeared on The Daily Show, Stewart accuses of Jim Cramer and the rest of financial "news" shows of serving the interests of creating an ideology that favored big businesses and stock brokers even though they knew the things they were saying would eventually lead to the collapse of the market. In other words, the class in power was creating an ideology that would lead to their own advancement but would ruin many people in lower classes. It is clear that what they were creating was an ideology because if people had really thought about what they were being told they would have had some idea that it didn't make sense. People were being told that they didn't have to work or really do anything and they could just make money. All they had to do was give their money to someone else and watch it grow. This really shouldn't make much sense to a rational individual. However, the ideology created by these shows was able to make people think it was obvious and self-evident that putting your money in stocks was the best way for it to grow and that the stock market could be easy money.
Althusser would probably refer to this as a financial ideology. He explains that most people do not believe ideologies whole-heartedly and understand that they are "largely imaginary, i.e. do not 'correspond to reality'"(44). In this example, most people understand that the stock market is unpredictable and nothing is ever a sure-fire buy. However, while they may not entirely represent reality, ideologies make allusions to reality and provide a way to interpret reality. In this case one could argue that what was being shown on financial TV shows was not an allusion to reality but simulacra. However, in either case people begin to lose sight of the fact that they are not viewing reality, but someone else's representation of it and so they stop thinking about things clearly. This is largely what led many people to get into trouble with the stock market but it also shows the powerful effect that a well thought out and carried out ideology can have on people.
In the interview, which appeared on The Daily Show, Stewart accuses of Jim Cramer and the rest of financial "news" shows of serving the interests of creating an ideology that favored big businesses and stock brokers even though they knew the things they were saying would eventually lead to the collapse of the market. In other words, the class in power was creating an ideology that would lead to their own advancement but would ruin many people in lower classes. It is clear that what they were creating was an ideology because if people had really thought about what they were being told they would have had some idea that it didn't make sense. People were being told that they didn't have to work or really do anything and they could just make money. All they had to do was give their money to someone else and watch it grow. This really shouldn't make much sense to a rational individual. However, the ideology created by these shows was able to make people think it was obvious and self-evident that putting your money in stocks was the best way for it to grow and that the stock market could be easy money.
Althusser would probably refer to this as a financial ideology. He explains that most people do not believe ideologies whole-heartedly and understand that they are "largely imaginary, i.e. do not 'correspond to reality'"(44). In this example, most people understand that the stock market is unpredictable and nothing is ever a sure-fire buy. However, while they may not entirely represent reality, ideologies make allusions to reality and provide a way to interpret reality. In this case one could argue that what was being shown on financial TV shows was not an allusion to reality but simulacra. However, in either case people begin to lose sight of the fact that they are not viewing reality, but someone else's representation of it and so they stop thinking about things clearly. This is largely what led many people to get into trouble with the stock market but it also shows the powerful effect that a well thought out and carried out ideology can have on people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)