ESPN, 10/21/09

In this week’s discussion I really understand, enjoyed and agree with both of the readings. When we look at Jenkin, I am able to see how far the world has come as there are now many conversations between people who don’t even know each other nor can see each other. The topics of conversation are attributed to things that are seen in the media. This can be seen in blogs and such as people discus any number of topics without ever seeing each other. With the increase of non face to face communication there comes an increase in, if you will, amateur videos and such online. With the increase of sites like youtube, it allows amateur works to arise and express themselves, even if it something as weird as a video about a kitty. Such sites can make money from nothing else but the advertisers. Furthermore, with these increases, it takes being a fan to a new level. For Instance, I have noticed, it is no longer enough to only be a fan of a sports team or movie. They must also have such things as non mainstream merchandise, unpublished videos, blogs, and information that the general public has not seen on TV or the regular movie. When we look at Marx, I like his quote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” I have always agreed with the fact that society constructs the way that we think. I believe, while individuals have their own thoughts, it is society that constructs more of who we are. Thus, that is why are why there are so many differences in people from country to country. Furthermore, we are constructed by the ruling class which, in our society is the class with the most money and material things. It is the ideologies that contrast who we are which we get from the ruling class, and like Althusser says there are two kinds, the RSA and the ISA, both which contribute to our being in society. I just wonder if there is a way for us to break out of letting society and the ruling class control are thoughts and actions, or will even trying not to have them effect us, still effect us in some way, even if it is are subconscious?

Graham, 10/21

We discussed media convergence, and the ways that advertising corporations use many means of media in order to sell products. I never really thought about how many different ways there were to advertise, until multiple individuals in the class began expressing ways that they would advertise. Billboards, toys, food and beverages, posters, internet, commercials…etc. Also, advertising has changed a lot, because companies used to get mad when other companies would sell products that others have created the idea for (for example, if Disney made a movie, and my company started selling Mickey Mouse dolls, then they would probably not be extremely upset, because it is making their movies more popular and could ultimately increase the amount of people who buy the movies). This is because of participatory culture, and now corporations feel like if other people are advertising their products, then in the end the gains will beat out the losses.

I also thought the discussion about the fan sites was interesting. The videos that we watched were really funny, and it was hard for me to understand how anyone would actually have the time to make things like that, but there are some hard core fans out there...obviously. It is no longer enough to say that you are a fan. You have to join the blogs, discuss the interest on a regular basis, join the fan sites and watch the videos that other fans have made. This gives individuals a sense of connection to others in society, even if they have never had a face to face interaction. They feel like they know one another because they are so involved in the same things, such as star wars. Now, people are even taking this “fannism” to a whole new level, because they are taking all of their favorite television shows and movies (for example, South Park and Star Wars) and they are putting them together in order to attract viewers. We saw a few examples of this in class, and I especially enjoyed the Pirates of the Caribbean video where they added the music in the background. What people do with technology these days is unbelievable!

Kiwi, 10/22/09

This week I really enjoyed our discussion on the ruling class and how “signs become the arena of the class struggle.” (Volonsinov) we talked about how signs are where class struggles play out. In determining what signs mean it is a mean of exemplifying the class struggle that all societies have. Class is the struggle within cultures is more so than race. How much material you have determines the conflict within a culture. But here’s the question… why is it that we think this? And why is it that it has to be like this in our society?

In class Rog discussed how we don’t have repressive apparatus, but our repression operates ideologically, and we are unconsciously being repressed. So who makes the decisions? A group of peers? These ideologies that are work on us constantly cause us to do the things we do. For example, Education.. we are taught history with an emphasis on American being the hero. This reminds me of one of my blogs I did a while ago about “they” how we say sometimes to people… o you shouldn’t do that because “they” say its bad for you… but who is they? In ideology we are unconscious followers. We are individuals vs subject (one) we cant escape ideology, no matter how hard we try. It is an image projected by the ideology of a particular.

HOLLA! Marx & Althusser

Well reading about Marx and Althusser was a definite refresher. Even writing a 423 word blog on it was even better. To bad my word document closed out on me and recovered NOTHING Word/computers have become the ideological force in my life when it comes to getting my homework turned in...maybe next time. Sorry

Bubbles- Althusser

In Althusser’s reading he explains two different apparatuses used to influence society. The first is the Ideological State Apparatus, which maintains values and order in society by transmitting ideologies through different systems of the sate, such as religious institutions, family, and educational institutions. In the Ideological State Apparatus there is willing compliance, which is what contrasts it from the Repressive State Apparatus. Althusser explains, the Repressive State Apparatus functions with fear and violence. Such institutions such as the police, the army, and laws are examples of the RSA. He explains that both are very effective in the influence of values on society. When reading about the RSA it reminded me of one of out first discussions on this class on postmodernism. The first thing that popped into my mind was “Fear is the aesthetic dejour.” In the beginning of he semester be spoke about the postmodern idea that fear is what dictates our decisions. Its why we put our seat belts on, why we have Purell “stations” at every corner of this campus, because of fear of accidents and fear of getting sick. This is very similar, almost identical to Altheusser’s Repressive state Apparatus. We use fear and violence to maintain order in the society. We make laws for us to be afraid of the punishment we will face if we make certain decisions. We put so much money into weapons and building a large Army so other countries are afraid to attack us. Fear has become the stimulus of all of our decisions.

As a target of both the ideological State Apparatus and the Repressive State Apparatus I find myself pondering, where do my ideas come from? I was brought up as a Catholic, following the values and faith of the religion, and I follow the law because I am afraid of the punishment. I have been a victim of both of Althusser’s apparatus’, so do I make conscious decisions based on personal beliefs that are independent from ideology, or have all of my opinions come from subconsciously accepting the ideology?

Penny Lane - Marx

Upon reflecting on the Marxist conception of Ideology, I began to wonder how similar connections could be drawn within our own society. I believe that the illusion of the 'American Dream' is one of the most significant fallacies present in our contemporary culture. Works of Marx teach us that the working class often internalize a false sense of personal influence and capability from the same ideological framework that demean their plight. Under capitalist agenda, the worker is merely an unfortunate but necessary cost in the means of production. Like any other commodity, workers sell their time and efforts to capitalists without any hope of reaping the benefits. Profit, not people, is the primary concern of nearly all economic ventures. To make matters worse, producers are constantly competing against one another in the open market. The labor force is typically the first to experience the repercussions of rivaling businesses, because wages and efficiency cut the greatest costs. While workers have the most to lose under this economic organization, they also have the least to gain from their experience. Due to the class structure in place, the concepts of work and career tend to evoke very different meanings. The American dream propagates the myth of success and passion being a synonymies possibility. Marx states: 'It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." We are raised to believe that no matter where we come from or who are fathers are, any individual in this country can make something of themselves if they just try hard enough. This mentality of 'pulling yourself up by the boot straps' is a very American ideology. You only have yourself to blame for personal failures, or so we are told from a young age. The fact of the matter is that the system works to benefit certain types of people, while disadvantaging others. This is not an opinion; it is the cold hard reality of our world. Most people, regardless of skill, intellect, or talent, will remain in the socioeconomic class into which they were born (whether rich, poor, or in between). However, our culture repetitively reinforces the possibility of instant success, rags to riches, and perseverance through hardship to keep the dream alive. The ideology is false, but is continuously propagated through popular media forms. The American dream is simply that, just a dream.

DoubleBubble - Althusser

According to Althusser, if ideology is not reproduced it is unlikely that a system will survive. This continuous reproduction of ideology creates an imaginary representation of the real conditions of their existence. Ideological State Apparatuses are influential to determining the existence of reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology and also a reproduction of the capability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for agents of exploitation and domination. The ideology ruling must transfer over to every generation in order for the ruling ideology to survive. Totalitarian order must be forced if people of the society are not buying into the rules. The ability to create this willing submission to an unfair system is achieved through the ISAs.

Althusser begins his article by explaining to us what Ideological State Apparatuses are. He begins by explaining how it cannot be confused with the idea of Repressive State Apparatus. Repressive State Apparatuses contains the government, the army and the police. Althusser defines Ideological State Apparatuses as, “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (42).
I think the way that Althusser explains ideology is great because he is saying in order for us to understand ideology we first must understand the question of what is society? After explaining to us what is society by explaining the ISA’s he begins to go into further detail about ideology.

Althusser's first thesis is that "Ideology is a 'representation' of the Imaginary Relationship of Individuals to their Real conditions of existence" (44). He begins his explanation of this statement by looking at why it is necessary for people to need this imaginary relation to real conditions of existence. Why can they not just understand the real?

These ideas about representation and reality believe that what is reflected in the imaginary representation of the world found in ideology is the "real world". Althusser explains that ideology doesn't technically describe the real world, but instead peoples relations to the real world, to their perceptions of the real conditions of existence. It is possible that we do not even know the real world directly but what we think we know is just representations or ideas of the real world. Ideology then is the imaginary story, the represented story, the stories people tell themselves about our relation to the real world.

So the "real world" becomes, not objectively out there, but instead is the outcome of our relations to it and has the ideological portrayals people make of it. These stories are what people believe are what is real. That's how ideology operates. Connecting Marx into this idea of ideology, Marx says that ideology presents people with ideas of their relations to relations of production, instead of ideas of the relations of production themselves.

Ron Burgundy, Marx and Althusser

In preparing for our Thursday class, we looked at Marx and Althusser, with their concept of the all important ideology. Having studied the concept of ideology and the apparati in several classes before, I felt confident in understanding the readings and was able to recall earlier readings which had similar ideas on the topic. One of the most interesting things involved with ideology is the concept of hegemony and the power of the ruling class in constructing ideology. The concept of hegemony was originally coined by Lenin and later adopted by Antonio Gramsci in explaining his fascination with the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church (35). According to the “Reader”, hegemony “specifies ideology as ways a ruling group, bloc or class must rule by winning consent in conjunction with the threat of force, the effectiveness of hegemony depending on how rarely force, always present, actually has to be used” (35). In other words, hegemony is the perpetuation of dominant ideologies constructed/developed by the ruling class sometimes by persuasion and other times by force. The ruling class, which usually consists of those members of society with the most affluence and therefore most control, create meaning and ideologies which serve their interest, usually economically driven. The lower classes, without out much money and consequently without much say, are exposed to these ideologies and usually just accept them as the “norm”, or at least forced to deal with them, internalize them, and eventually accept them. When I took the course The American Dream in Popular Culture, we examined various popular films within our culture and analyzed the types of “American Dreams” that were present in the films. In every single film it never failed that the ideology that was the “American Dream” was reflective of a dominant ruling class ideal that benefit their interests above all. The films attempted to blur economic and social lines but in the end only proved that no such things really happen in real life, a reality that keeps the lower classes in their place and perpetuates the idea of the power of the ruling classes. This idea of the “battle of the classes” that is inherent with the idea of ideology and hegemony closely ties to Habermas' concept of the “culture wars” that exist between the high culture and the conventions/virtues of everyday life. In discussing ideology, hegemony, and the culture wars, its easy to see a connection. Ideologies of the appropriateness and normality of “high culture”, another ideology created by the dominant class, are perpetuated on to the “lower culture” to replace their “lower class” culture and ideals, therefore creating a “culture war” that really just involves the upper class dominating the lower. One of the greatest examples of the dangers of ideology and hegemony in history is the Holocaust. During this time, the dominant ruling party, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Regime, were able to create arbitrary constructions of the Jew as the sign of evil and the blame for the problems in Germany. They created dangerous ideologies of what the dominant culture should be and look like and because of their power and influence practiced hegemony to get even those unassociated with his regime to follow and accept his ideas. In evaluating this type of hegemony, it is easy to see that coercion and not consent were dominantly used to enforce the ideologies and were the main reason it was able to be resolved and seen as an ultimately evil and wrong occurrence (think if perhaps force was not as necessary in perpetuating the type of ideologies that existed during this time, there would be less people who saw it as wrong because they instead would have accepted the ideology as the “norm”, less people would have been in the fight against the Nazi regime). In reading about ideology and hegemony one has to wonder about the dominant ideologies at work in your life now, and whether or not you are conscious of these ideologies or just accepting these ideas and living your life in accordance with the norms of the dominant ruling class.

ESPN12, Marx and Althusser

In Marx’s writings one can see the ideas of classes and that the class with the most material force is equal to the class that is the intellectual force. Further more from Marx, I found his idea of the classes as two separate parts and as a whole. It seems that another thing and groups of people can be parts and whole. As a Steeler fan we are part of the Pittsburgh sports culture. However, on a greater note, they are a part of the NFL and the Steelers, like other teams are a part of something greater.
Just has there are parts within Marx, there are two parts with Althusser, He explains the RSA and ISA. These are terms I never quite grasped in 100 however I now believe I further understand and they seem to be a simple concept. RSA leaves room for people to question the ideologies while the ISA leaves no room for such things. ISA can be such things as church or a political system which gives you a guide line for life. I question is this almost the same thing as with Lyotard and the previously discussed idea of a mena-narratives? The authors both speak of ideologies as well. We use ideologies to explain things that happen, they seem to be greater ideas then the ones we have control of on a personal level. Ideologies are a greater idea for instance they might be on a political level. Though, I understand ideology, if you will, has a hegemonic idea, which as we saw from Marx seems to be the group with the most materials. The group that is in power, “the upper class”, is the ones that enforces ideologies on others. People then accept that and rarely question even though the dominant class may not always be right. It is as if the ideology’s control people; I understand an ideology to be one grand idea with two separate kinds, an RSA and ISA. Furthermore, there is a regular idea and an ideology.

Gwatter06, Marx / Althusser

Ideology is quite like postmodernism in the sense that they are both quite ambiguous. As we covered early on in the course, we discussed how postmodernity suffered from a certain semantic instability and could not even be attributed to one particular era. I found it interesting in the excerpt when they reviewed that; “definitions of ideology have spread in widening circle, from a local concern with the ideologies of groups in a conjuncture, to those of a period, an epoch and…a sense of ideology as perhaps characterizing the whole of Western culture since Ancient Greece” (33). I believe these holes in semantics of these terms and subjects actually create what they are and fuel their existence. Without this range for each subject, the inability for critical discourse and understanding would hamper what we now know or are beginning to know on each subject. The next intriguing topic and concept I came across in our assigned reading was Marx and his understanding and notion of the ruling class. Marx goes on to explain and evoke the relation and connection of the ruling class and the ruling ideas in stating that, “insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an historical epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch” (39). This basically explains that the ruling class and the dominant ruling ideas are directly correlated and proportional, meaning the ruling class distinguishes the ruling ideas and the ruling ideas distinguish the ruling class. In other words, those who attain control are those who attain consciousness and think. Even being elicit in a previous era to this day in time, we see this concept in action constantly. There are always those trying to rule by implementing their thoughts onto the larger whole or mass society, and sadly as we’ve been learning, the channel for this has been mass media. This is where ideology comes back into play. This concept closely relates to the concept of ideological hegemony, as Gramsci theorized that, “a ruling group, whether of the left or the right, must now govern through a balance of force and persuasion” (35). These points and concepts stood out to me firstly and were the most clear, I was able to relate some of the things in the reading to prerequisite knowledge and concepts from CMC100 so it propelled me to my blog for the day!

FloRida, Althusser/Marx

Ideology has been a main concept studied throughout all Critical Media and Cultural studies classes. It has been mainly focused on the dominance of Big Media over other media corporations but it was interesting to learn throughout these readings, how connected ideology is to politics and other aspects of our culture. What really struck me was the notion of “reality” to ideology. Baudrillard talks about what society views as “real” and how reality has become more fictional than real because it is scripted or plotted. Altuhusser states that, “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” Comparing these two theorists’ ideas creates many similarities and connections of their teachings. In reference to Althusser’s thesis about ideology he makes it clear that, “It is not their real conditions of existence, their real world, that ‘men’ ‘represent to themselves’ in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them there. It is the relation which is at the centre of every ideological, i.e. imaginary, representation of the real world.” We believe what we hear and see because it is what we are told to believe by the “higher powers” of our society. This does not even depend on if the information we are presented is true or not. What is crazy is that we are dealing with an Ideological State Apparatus throughout every part of our lives and might not even realize it. There are religious ideologies, ethical ideologies, legal ideologies, and political ideologies ruling over our mentalities of thought and course of action. Going back to Baudrillard’s ideas, we never really know what to believe because reality has become such a falsity. These Ideological States Apparatus’ are created a false reality for us as well by created an illusion of the truth.

Daisy, Marx/Althusser

The term ideology is a constant term used to critically describe our culture. My own definition of ideology is a view created by a few and followed by many. There are many variations of the definition of ideology, but the main idea is that a few, the dominant class, produce the idea, and the rest of society follows it. According to Marx and Engels, their definition of ideology has to do with the economics of society, and that individuals will follow the ideas, which represent “the economic interest of the class they belong to” (34). For example, the dominant class adheres to the ideas that perpetuate their position of economic status in society. Marx and Engels also explain that the ruling class has both material and intellectual force. “The individuals composing the ruling class posses among other things consciousness, and therefore think” (39). This quote is essentially saying that the thinkers are the ones in power, because they are consciously participating in our culture and created valid ideas that can be followed by the majority, who are said to unconsciously function. I found this to be related to Benjamin’s quote, “the public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one” (33). According to Benjamin, the public is not critical enough; we will essentially accept anything that is given to us.
Ideologies are systems of ideas that are produced by the dominant class and normalized by a culture and we act in accordance to them. Althusser expands on the idea of ideology and theorizes that ideology does not exist without subjects (46). We do not have to be made subjects because we are subjects already. A subject produces a particular ideology and other subjects follow that ideology, for an ideology to function others have to follow it, otherwise the ideology would not exist. For example, an ideology at Rollins is to receive a liberal arts education. For this ideology to exist, the idea has to be perpetuated by a ruling class, in this case it is the administration and staff at Rollins, and people must adhere to the ideology. As students, we are following the ideology by attending school and following the general education requirements to graduate from a liberal arts school.

Graham..Althusser, Marx

I feel that the readings had a lot to do with ideologies. The ideologies determine the way that we live our lives, because they tell us who we should marry, what we should become, where we should live…etc. The author mentions that these are false in a sense. I believe that this means that how could something be real when it is something that society made up? But ideologies have become so important in our lives, that we are not satisfied if we do not accomplish these things in our lifetime.
From this reading I got the impression that he was attempting to say that the “ruling class” is basically in charge of the thinking process that occurs in society, and this is their only job. They create the ideologies and ideas that the mainstream should follow and live by. The job of the working class is to take care of everything else. In order for the society to work properly, everyone is required to do their part (this reminded me of a machine. If one part isn’t working properly, it is not going to work). The society will ultimately fail if everyone is not on the same page with their roles.
Another quote that I found interesting was "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence". I believe this relates to previous readings we have studied this semester, saying that in order to understand something, we must know background knowledge on it. For instance, I can say that I know the boy who sits next to me in math class, because I see him every day. But do I know why he says the things he does based on where he is from, his political views, religion…etc. Therefore we have a somewhat “imaginary” relationship, because I am not aware of the information I would need to fully understand him.

Teets, Marx and Althusser

“For each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid ones” (Marx 40).

The ruling class unfortunately gets to create ideologies for the society it rules. The public perceives these ideologies as universal, which means people believe it affects them personally. It is disheartening to think that material power (Money) can lead to intellectual power, but that is essentially the situation in most societies. Money talks, as they say. Money controls societies by placing forth these ideologies that people must follow. The ruling class is dynamic, though, which means it changes hands throughout history. Because it changes, ideologies change slightly over time as well. The problem I see with ideologies is it interpellates individuals as subjects, as Althusser mentions. People are no longer identified as individuals, but rather as subjects of a whole. This is troubling because people end up conforming to society, and lose their individuality in a sense.

Althusser talks about Ideological State Apparatuses, or ISA’s. I find ISA’s to be extremely stifling, which is why I tend to stay away from them. ISA’s tell you how to live your life, especially one as huge as the religious ISA. I would not call myself a rebel, because I function under the umbrella of some ISA’s, but in general, I view conformity as a weak, negative trait in individuals. I believe that life is something that needs to be spontaneous, with an experimental basis. Rather than following the lead of ideologies, step outside of the bubble of society and develop some of your own rules. Life is boring when you become a subject, so retain your individuality. Nobody has to follow exactly what the ruling class projects. Reject ideologies and live a more fulfilling, interesting life. The phrase “Everybody else is doing it” should never persuade you to do anything. Stop being a subject and become an individual again.

Mongoose, Marx / Althusser

The basic premise of these writings seems to be that ideology is everywhere, we can not escape it. Everywhere we look, every advertisement, billboard, commercial etc has some underlying influence on us that is in some way affected by ideology. The introduction explains to us that ideology, at first, starts off as a conscious and deliberate effort to influence us in some way yet eventually turns into an unconscious influence on our lives, meaning that one’s lived experiences and personal lives will begin to shape our belief system, no longer needing the conscious effort of those in power to influence our thinking because it has already taken over. The concept of ideology is quite prevalent in the writings of Karl Marx particularly in his concept of the division of labor. One concept of ideology is that those who hold the power in a given society (usually those with money) have a great influence over those who are not in power and to some extent can control or influence what they believe. In the time that Marx was writing there was a drastic division in society between those who had money and those who didn’t (much like today) and the influence which they held over the thinking of others. However, Marx believed that those who were expressing their opinions were not actually the thoughts of the entire class; he felt that those who actually had good ideas did not have time to “toot their own horn” so to speak because they were busy accomplishing things within society or were “active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves” (39). Ithink this holds true even in today’s society; take the healthcare debates for example: al we saw on the news from the ‘town hall meetings’ were the extremists who were screaming and yelling and threatening anyone who opposed their viewpoint (this came from both those who agreed with the proposal as well those who disagreed) while a large majority of Americans may have actually been civil and had good arguments for their beliefs. However, because the rational people more than likely had better things to do, we only see and hear the ‘crazies’ and are influenced by their actions when they do not hold the viewpoint that most on their side or in their class do.

Serendipity, Althusser

In the reading by Althusser, he explains the differences between ISA’s (Ideological State Apparatuses) and RSA’s (Repressive State Apparatuses). Examples of Ideological State Apparatuses are the religious system, the education system, and the cultural system. They function off of ideology. Repressive State Apparatuses function by violence. Examples of RSA’s are the army and the police. Both of these systems need each other in order to survive. There is not a purely ideological system or a purely violent system. There has to be ideology behind the violence, and there has to be some sort of “fear” in order to repress culture in order for them to follow the ideology that has been chosen. To me, this seems to be connected to the notion of fear in our modern day U.S society. The media completely controls us by fear in order to make us believe and follow their ideologies. For example, the constant “high alert” for terrorists, the repetition of the images of the incidents from 9/11, and the constant words “nuclear weapon and mass destruction”, are part of our everyday culture, especially for those that watch the daily news. The reason for this is not necessarily because there IS an inherent danger, but because the newscasters/the corporations/the government want us to believe that there is danger lurking, so that we will be complacent with their further actions, and have more trust in the state, since we are constantly taught to be in a state of fear. It is very apparent that both Repressive State Apparatuses and the Media function by fear, the media simply exposes the fear over and over to the entire nation in order for there to be order. As a governmental tactic, this may not be such a bad idea, since our culture is mostly observant. However, in the long run, this may have great implications, and make our generation one that is untrusting and paranoid.

Elmo, 10/21

The class where we discussed Jenkins and the media convergence was very fascinating to me. I had never really thought about how we have seen a shift from passive to active citizens. It is amazing to me how many people publish their own media nowadays because a while ago this wasn’t very popular. It is also crazy how horizontally integrated something can become in our society today. The term media convergence was a new term to me and seems to describes what has happened with our society perfectly. When we discussed the potential movie “Tar Man” we thought of so many ways in which to integrate “Tar Man” into our everyday lives. We thought of toys, posters/cups/popcorn at the movies, commercials on TV and before other movies in theaters, t-shirts, pop ups on the computer, games, toys in cereal and kids meals, promotions on websites such as goggle, facebook, or twitter, school supplies, theme parks, cards, blankets, towels, candy wrappers, and many more. It is crazy how one small idea of one movie can become so mass-produced into a whole slew of items to be purchased. It seems that nothing can be just a movie anymore, there has to be so much more that comes along with it otherwise it will not be as popular or successful. For example, the new movie “Where the Wild Things Are” has become quite popular, but it didn’t begin as a movie, it was a children’s book, which was all of ten sentences long; yet these ten sentences have made it to the big screen and into stores around the country. The movie, which I saw last night, is vastly different from the book, yet it is still gaining popularity as we can see from its $32.5 million dollars it made in its first weekend alone. I guess the concept of how things become so popular so fast still baffles me, but I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles these days.

Elmo, Marx/Althusser

In Karl Marx’s essay "The German Ideology" he makes an interesting point by saying, “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it” (39). Marx is basically stating that the upper class controls the ideology of everyone else. This happens because the upper class has the most means of forming ideas and letting these ideas be heard, because of their upper level in society people are more apt to listen to them and go along with what they are doing. While lower classes may have just as many good ideas, they may not have as many outlets in which there ideas could be heard.

Althusser also makes an interesting point stating that, “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 seems to be making a point that without people or “subjects” ideology wouldn’t really be possible. We, as subjects, play into these ideas given to us and thus support the ideology. If we did not play into these ideologies they would have little or no importance because no one would follow along with them or even care. It’s our little acts of following along that play into the making of ideology. We may not think that each one of us makes a different, but each one of us that plays into these ideologies set forth is supporting them and making them stronger. We have learned a lot about ideology and ISA’s since CMC 100, but I think that these readings helped solidify the concepts for me.

Capri Sun, Marx, Althusser

This week we read about Marx and Althusser’s thoughts on ideologies within society. Marx believes in two types of classes that make up a whole, the class with more material is the intellectual class. This class makes the rules and dominates society by creating ideologies. Because these ideologies are in their interest and work to their advantage they can also be considered hegemonic. Marx says that there are two different groups but each are apart of a whole. Therefore the “lower” class abides these rules that are enforced on them and are taught not to question.
Althusser, however, is interested in two different types of societies. One is the ISA (ideological state apparatus) where the people in the community are not to question or challenge the current system. The second is a RSA (repressive state apparatus) society, where ideologies should be questioned. Marx and Althusser’s theories go hand in hand because either way certain ideas are enforced on society as a whole, its whether that society is open to challenging or not that differentiates the two. Ever since becoming a CMC major, I feel like I have focused on figuring out if America is an ISA or RSA society. I think, the average person would say an RSA because of the very first Amendment within the American Constitution. However, I personally would say an ISA because I have been taught in my classes to question every idea that is presented to me from institutions. These beliefs are actually hegemonic because they are coming from the “ruling” class that Marx talks about in his article. It is interesting because ideologies are controlling people, but the people in charge of that society control the ideologies of that society. It is a never-ending cycle because we are taught we can question but we don’t because we believe the ideas and laws imposed on us are for the greater good of the society as a whole.

Ace Ventura, Marx and Althusser

Ideology, Hegemony, and the Ideological State Apparatus are some things that have been discussed since CMC-100, so I feel like I've got a pretty firm grasp on this reading. The first interesting point that was mentioned is the different between ideas and ideology. While ideas are something that is more of a personal opinion or a thought that is created by an individual, ideologies are widely accepted beliefs that reflect a general attitude. This creates somewhat of a chicken and the egg dilemma. Do our ideas only exist because of ideologies that we have already subconsciously accepted, or do your ideas create these socially accepted ideologies? This brings about the concept of hegemony; the idea that the ruling class of any society creates these ideologies for the rest of society. They started first with their ideas that were based off of their perception of things and then created these ideologies to be accepted by the masses. Their ideas and ideologies only reflect the way they think society should run. As Marx says, "The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations grasped as ideas; hence of the relations which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance" (39). These ideologies are impressed upon the rest of society either by persuasion or force, if the former doesn't work. The idea of forcing these ideologies upon someone is what brings about the Repressive State Apparatus while the persuasion more leans toward the Ideological State Apparatus, as Althusser discusses. Institutions that function as the Repressive State Apparatus are put into place for those people that question the ideologies created by the ruling class. And the private Ideological State Apparatus are more along the lines of institutions where individuals who have accepted (either somewhat or fully) the ideologies can create their own ideas and interpretations based off of these ideologies.

Kiwi, Marx

Habermas argues that we will never be able to have eclecticism; we will never be able to compromise with one another and be both. We are all neoconservatives. It is the critics vs the public. We are wither this or that and we both have our different ideas about one another and will never be able to reach ground zero. We will never be able to compromise with each other on one idea. Each party believes that he or she is living the right way and the others are doing it wrong and there is no convincing. Habermas says that there isn’t even hope for eclecticism because it is not possible ad never will be possible for everyone to come together at ground zero.
We create something in our culture to deal with the divide weather its dealing with: religion, politics, or even little things such as sororities.. However after reading Marxs I thought it was interesting when he states that, Within this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts, but when ever a practical collision occurs in which the class itself is endangered they automatically vanish.” (38) I think that Marx’s makes a very good point of this division we have in our society but when catastrophe happen for example like 9/11 we are no longer a divided society, we are all America. For example, republicans and democrats… it is, US vs THEM... however when we have a mass destruction like 9/11 during that time we all become one.. we all refer to ourselves as “America.” Another example of this that comes to mind is for instance, sororities. If i'm in NCM and someone else is in Kappa Delta we refer to ourselves as two different groups but when a Kappa Delta and I (NCM) play Tampa in basketball we refer to ourselves as “Rollins”
I think that this was a very interesting point that Marx made and I thought it was really neat how I right away thought of Habermas and how Marx would say that Habermas is wrong in a way because we will never have a chance of coming together and agreeing (as one) However from my two examples above, it shows that there are times like those that we do refer to ourselves as one. But here is my question, is the only time we are able to come together and comprise with one another is when we are at war? Or when we are competing? Why does it have to be we only come together when mass destructions are happening or competition of us vs them? I may be looking at this totally wrong but this again was what came to mind when I read.

BiegieGo/ Marx, Althusser, and Engels

“It is not’, writes Marx ‘the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousnesses”
The things people do is what makes them aware of what they are doing. For example, the American dream. Before this class I didn’t really think of what the American dream really meant to someone. I knew it was something along the lines of freedom and money, but I didn’t realize that it was an international thing that some people striving for on a daily bases. The media and everybody in the advertising business tell us that if you have our product your life will be a whole lot better. If you live and have this much money you will be living the American dream. Well, by doing this kind of advertisement they are falsifying what America is all about. A lot of people look at America as the power house, the nation of all nations. When people actually move here and see how hard people have to work to make a living, such as, immigrant farm workers then they really come to realize that this so called “American dream” is false. This notion of falsification can relate to theorist Dorfman and Eco because their ideas are related to the falsification of real things or the imitation of cities that try to be or copy the real. I also believe that this can be related to Baudrillard and the depiction of hiding the real. For example, we are told to believe everything we see on TV. We must act like robots and if the news is done telling us what is known as “the truth” then we must go straight to bed and believe it. Ideologies is something we follow and if the ruling class has all the money in the world then there is no stopping them because that’s how we are suppose to think.
An even better quote of ideology is “The ruling ideas are nothing more than ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations grasped as ideas; hence of the relations which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the idea of the dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think.” People are in belief that what is the idea of the ruling class is what should be and that how things are suppose to be.

Nate Dogg, Marx/Engels & Althusser

"Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence....it is not that their real conditions of existence, their real world, that 'men' 'represent to themselves' in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them there." (Althusser, 44)

Individuals use ideology to help explain their reactions to experiences that occur in the real world. We like to be able to associate things with one another. Our brain is naturally trained to make billions of possible connections to anything at anytime, so it makes sense that we should do so. The problem is that ideology is not real, only a projection of specified traits and objectives, and we like to associate ourselves with ideals and beliefs that befit our personalities.

ISAs exploit this by using individual ideology as a means of control, to gain profit, gain support for a cause, etc. We subconciously make connections, and people understand that this can be toyed with in order to deceive and convince. It becomes extremely important when we look at communications. The internet, television and radio exist only because there is money to be made from advertising. We have to look at what we are associating ourselves with carefully, because those ideologies are not real. When an ad for General Electric comes on during a football game, we don't associate GE with building and testing nuclear weapons, we associate GE with appliances, lights bulbs, power bills. We don't make that connection because what we see and hear does not reflect reality. The image of the cheery, friendly and most importantly, American company is only a projection carefully designed in order to convince you of everything but the truth.

Captain Outrageous, Marx and Engels

Andy Sachs: No, no, nothing. Y'know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. Y'know, I'm still learning about all this stuff.
Miranda Priestly: This... 'stuff'? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff."
(Devil Wears Prada)

I feel this quote directly relates to Marx and Engels concept of the ruling class and production. They describe that the ruling class is the class that dominates material production thereby dominating mental production. The individuals who make up the ruling class rule as thinkers, producers of ideas and regulate the production and distribution of ideas. The fashion industry is just one example of this concept, though it is a good one. As can be seen in this quote, the ruling class (the designers) control the material production and therefore control the mental production (cerulean blue).

Furthermore, this quote elaborates the concept of the division of labor within a class- one part thinks, the other part recieves because they are too busy to come up with such ideas. In the fashion lens, the designers and corporations do the thinking, the consumers do the receiving and don't give much thought to it.

In my opinion, this poses a conundrum, fashion and otherwise. The non-thinking, non-controlling members of the class do nothing to absolve controlling ideologies. "I'm too busy to think about it, so let them handle it" is precisely the attitude that puts us in the control of others. So really, what room do we have to complain?