HOLLA! 10/25/09

Ideology and hegemony are topics we’ve been discussing since day one of starting the Critical Media and Cultural Studies major. Like I mentioned in class, we knew ideology to be the idea that everything is produced by the haves and internalized by the have-nots. This definition was definitely in use during class on Thursday. I enjoyed the exercise when Dr. Casey showed us the photos of the Mercedes Benz vs. GM and the glasses of champagne vs. Budweiser beer. These images were tricky trying to determine which was the signs of the ruling class. Even though Mercedes Benz and champagne are items that the ruling class might own does that make the items the signs of the ruling class or is the sign of the ruling class those who produce these products/signs like the producer of Budweiser. I see it as the above definition where the haves products (producers of Budweiser/all 4 of those products) are being internalized by the have-nots (the consumers who buy/use the items). This specific example just made me begin to think more in depth about who are the ideological powers in this world, and do the individuals who have the most economical wealth determine of the ruling class. What if for example, all of America and around the world stopped buying Budweiser, would the producers of Budweiser fall out of power making the consumers (the have-nots) the ideological power force in this situation? Another important/interesting thing we went over in class was that of repressive and ideological state apparatuses. It was interesting to compare the two and actually realize that in the end they are both fulfilling the same goal of keeping those in power “in power” and those who are not “out of power.” The concept that these two apparatuses, one functioning through fear and the other through ideology, have the same ending result just shows how ideology, like fear, can be looked at as a negative factor used to gain power over the weak.