Desert of Humanity

“Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.” - Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (1985)

I understand that this pre-class blog post is not relevant to the readings we were assigned, however, last  nights presidential election results has spurred me into connecting what we have been studying with our current political "situation". A celebrity known for hosting his own reality TV show, running a billion dollar real estate company, a man of a rather low moral character, has just been elected the 45th President of the United States. As if reality TV wasn't a desert of the real itself....we have now deserted America and ALL of its citizens as a whole. Benjamin stated, "The greater the decrease in social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and the enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized with aversion”(45). Now we see this issue of authenticity embroiled in the current issues of the political economy. Originality and creativity has become entirely about politics and commodity. The worlds markets are crashing. There are so many signs that are pointing in the wrong direction yet so many Americans chose to ignore reality and President Donald Trump is the end result. 

“….so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery”(40). 

I currently find myself nostalgic for American politics before Trump. I am nostalgic for Bush vs. Gore....how can this be? Answer: I am nostalgic for some sort or realer "reality" where Donald Trump is not the future leader of my country. Today I genuinely had a difficult time living in the present moment. How do I deal with these anxious, depressed feelings? I read more...I distract more. Yet I found myself consuming more and more of the media that was hurting me in the first place. I didn't want to talk...I didn't want to argue. I didn't want what is currently happening to be real. Ignorance is bliss right? But the facts are clear and simple. Millions of Americans chose to ignore the face that Donald Trump is a racist and a misogynist and by voting for him children will suffer, women will suffer, the climate will suffer, the LGBT community will suffer, and the world will become an overwhelmingly more violent place. If you were one of the millions of Americans who ignored these facts...than you have deserted humanity as a whole. 

A.O.: 11-3-16: Brightside of the Feedback Loop of Fan Culture

I’m not quite sure what tone Jenkins is taking in his piece on participatory culture, but I would like to speak in favor of fan culture and the feedback loop it creates with mainstream industry. In a way this feedback loop reminds me of symbiotic relationships that occur in nature in that both parties, potentially, have something to gain from this relationship.

The media puts forth content which, in Jenkins words, the fans perceive as raw material for telling their own stories and making their own communities (457). They take these “materials” and alter and change different aspects leading to spin-offs, explanations, or just fantasies of fantasies of the stories that they have been told. The companies then see these fan folk works, admire their success, and then attempt to emulate them. In some cases, big companies take on the creators of these fan works to make sure that the corporations properly capture the essence of what they are trying to emulate.

In this relationship, the fan creator was able not only to garner attention and admiration for their work from peers but from the media’s officials as well. Should they be taken in they become official, working under those that the fan admired and can access far more resources. Granted this potentially removes the “folk” aspect from the work it isn’t to say that this is bad. Sometimes it’s nice to see the small indie media that you like have access to the resources and materials that the pros have that allows them to truly flex their creative muscles and make something truly amazing. On the media end of it, the corporations now have a new insight into what the fans want and can (emphasis on can, they might not always…) use the information to generate something different and new. These new media contents can be successful ventures and generate more profit (yes its quite a capitalist driven relation, but hey always look for the silver linings in the clouds).

Of course, this is all provided that the corporations that go out and observe these folk cultures are pleasant in nature. There are some corporations who would go out and adopt these fans offering to make their project big, but in doing so distort the project to make it more fitting for a consumer market, otherwise known as “selling out”. Or worse, if they can, corporations take legal action against fans for infringing on creative laws, sometimes rightfully, other times for the sake of removing competition.

Of course both of all of these instances are plausible but I just thought it would be nice to appreciate the positives of fan culture and how they have a chance at becoming something even greater.  

What’s the Difference

     While, this blog doesn’t directly reflect philosophical points of modernism or post modernism, I believed it was important to write for myself, and others. Last week while trying to discuss a situation I had at Target, I made the mistake of “othering.” This mistake, fueled an in class discussion that left me feeling upset and border line angry. I couldn’t understand what I had done so wrong in discussing how a foreign group was rude to me in the check out line at Target. But after leaving class I began to reflect on the situation, which led me to see the errors in my ways. My self reflection not only helped me see the error I had made, but also the error that many of us make when we quickly formulate words without thought. In my hasty judgment I generalized the individuals in front of me as being foreigners because of the way they spoke, dressed, and acted. The couple in front of me could have very well been American citizens just like myself, but I couldn’t see past what I saw as difference. Furthermore, the way I described the individuals in class made it seem like they were outsiders when in reality we probably had more in common than the small differences I saw. 

     We as people need to see others for our likeness instead of our differences. Color, race, and gender are only small blotches of difference on the fabric of human existence. Whether we knowingly or unknowingly make these utterances of “othering” they still have the same effect on us. Utterances of difference only cut our eclectic fabric at the very seems that hold us together, creating a larger divide. We must all be cognizant of what we say and how our words can be portrayed, especially when talking about people. Human existence is beautiful and should be celebrated for its richness of different people who bring about new ideas, thoughts and ways of life.

A.O.: Marx, Engels, & Althusser

Althusser did a good job in summarizing the abstract concept of ideologies and how they work. The particular line that stuck out to me was: “What is represented in ideology is…not the system of the real relations which govern our existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live (Althusser 1970; pg 44).” I.e. ideologies aren’t real, they are an imaginary guideline to live on, a construct of our material reality rather than a representation of anything real (Althusser 1970; pg 45). One way of looking thinking about this can be seen in the idea that religion is a construct of man (No offence to anyone of any religion, I’m just referencing to a belief that some people hold).

Althusser’s writing on ideology are a bit unnerving when paired with Marx’s and Engels’ vendetta against the ruling classes of society. Marx and Engels proposes a concept saying “…the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time ruling intellectual force (Marx & Engels 1846; pg 39)”. So, if ideologies are intellectual material constructions as Althusser proposes, then do the ideologies we hold as citizens nothing more than the intellectual force imposed upon us by the ruling class, ideologies and intellectual constructs that only express the ideas and values of its own domination (Marx and Engels 39)? Are we as people just perpetuating the ideals of the ruling class, fueling the bourgeoisie machine through the state apparatuses?

However, there is one thing I’m curious about. You break through the apparatuses, and prevent the general interests from becoming the ruling class and perpetuating the cycle. How do you go about finding the truth and the real of ideology? Furthermore, once you find this truth, what do you do then? What if it’s something we can’t agree on, that the system we have now is actually better compared to the truth? I suppose therein lies the point of modernism, just do it anyway. At least go forward and see it rather than live within an ideology, ignorant of what lies beyond.

You Say You Want a Revolution... Now is the time!

After yesterday's class, Dr.Cummings question "Is there an alternative to capitalism?" kept floating around in my head. I do not understand why we accept capitalism as the only option, considering the vast amount of inequalities it breeds across the political, economic, and social sphere. I am not an economist or particularly passionate about economics, but what I do value and defend is equality, social justice, and the basic human rights of all beings. These things are simply not being valued in our society, especially in our economic system. 

So to add on to the first question, I propose another: "Why are we not challenging capitalism?" Why are we not critical of it? Why do we believe that is the most optimal system to follow? Marx and Engels may have an answer to this. They claim that the ruling class presents its interests as the common interests of everyone. “For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present them as the only rational, universally valid ones” (40). Indeed, after feudalism and mercantilism were eliminated, the new system put forth (capitalism) took its place to impose new “common interests” and “achieve domination only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously”(40).

As I was reading both Marx/Engels and Althusser, I was brought back to Macherey’s argument that we cannot move outside of ideology because we are in it. Perhaps we are so immersed in Capitalism to the point where we are indeed not able to move outside of it and create or even imagine any other alternative. Althusser quotes “What thus seems to take place outside ideology, in reality takes place in ideology. That is why those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside of ideology” (48). The ideology of capitalism has become so pervasive throughout all facets of society that we, as its subjects, see it as reality and simply "the way things are." 

Marx’s statement “ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” struck a chord with me. I shared this with my friend sitting across from me and she nearly fell off her chair. We are not even in control of our consciousness. Friends, we need a revolution! We need to attain a state of awakening. Look around us; Capitalism is not working. Something needs to change….  

Althusser: If Only My Grandmother Knew

Louis Althusser author of “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” is definitely one of the most confusing readings that I’ve had to wrap my mind around. It took me a while to understand his two theses on Ideology and the ISA, but I think I finally understand. 

First Thesis: “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (44).

According to Althusser, his first thesis discusses the imaginary form of ideology, such as religious ideology. For this particular blog, I am going to refer to the “I believe in God” ideology.  Althusser says that obviously if we are discussing these “world outlooks,” then we have to assume that we don’t live by these ideologies as the truth. In simpler words, these largely imaginary world outlooks do not correspond to reality. I find Althusser’s statement to be true, but if you were to ask my grandmother I think she would say otherwise. I don’t think everyone perceives religion as an imaginary ideology. Some people literally live by the bible and what it says, unfortunately that is why we have a lot of issues in this world (but I’ll save that for another blog post). 

For example, I was talking to my grandmother about how I believe that people rely on religion to make our world seem like a better place. I told her that I think people rely on religion to help cope with death and to have someone to talk to when no one is around. I agree with Althusser in that admitting that religion does not correspond to reality, this means that religion is constituted as an illusion. If my grandmother knew that I was agreeing with Althusser she would probably disown me as her granddaughter.

Althusser then says, “they need only be ‘interpreted’ to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that world (ideology = illusion/allusion)” (44). 

In my own words, I think he is saying that religion is interpreted in order to be applied to our “real” world. People apply the imaginary representation of the bible and beliefs on our own world, thus creating an imaginary representation of our own world in our minds.  There is a type of distortion that is created from religious ideology that allows everyone to feel as if they are existing in the real. 

Second Thesis: “Ideology has a material existence” (45). 

Imagine you believe in God or a higher power, thus meaning you need to practice your own beliefs of your religion. Where are you going to practice your beliefs? As stated before, ideas and representations of an ideology are solely imaginary and have a spiritual existence. Althusser’s second thesis highlights that ideally has a material existence. For example, the material existence of believing in God would be through the bible and or going to Church. Without the bible, God and many other beliefs would not be here today. In order for an ideology to remain in existence in needs to rely on its material existence. 

Within the ideological state apparatuses, religion ISA, means that there has to be a realization of an ideology, which is what I discussed above. Believing in god, is a representation of imaginary ideas. The only way the ideology of God can be spread is through the bible and or going to church where one will sit and listen to someone read the bible. Thus knowing what we know now, I fully support Althusser’s other thesis that “an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice or practices. This existence is material” (45).

This is my own personal belief,  but to believe in God is to believe in the existence of the material provided. 

I wanted to say sorry If I offend anyone’s religion or opinions on a higher power. I feel like this is a safe place for people to discuss theory, so I hope you understand where I am coming from. :) 

I'm a Catholic Robot?

Althusser presents one of his theses stating: "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence"(44).

I struggled trying to break down Althussers seemingly complicated notion of the human imagination. What I took from his opinion was that ideology is the distorted way we look at our own distorted roles and identities in society.

He goes on to present another thesis in which he states "Ideology has a material existence"(45).

Althusser went off of Marx's idea state ideologies and state apparatus as an important framework in understanding ideology itself. In his second thesis Althusser argues that ideology lacks any spiritual matter. He believes we accept our given identity and our role in society without any conscious choice over whether or not we are for or against it.

I grappled with whether or not I agreed with this pessimistic view of ideological apparatuses and ideology itself. I was born and raised Roman Catholic and consider myself today to be a devoted Catholic. The church, a deemed ideological apparatus, was presented to me as a way of life that I was called to pursue, and that God had a specific plan and purpose for me in this world. I often consider what life would be like if I had not been born into a Catholic family. Would I still be Catholic and/or Christian? Do I belief what I am told because I merely accepted that identity when I was born?

Yes, I was born into the Catholic way of life but once I graduated from Catholic high school having had gone to Catholic school my entire life, I had a choice to either continue practicing or not. Today I an conscious of my beliefs. Yes it was a dominant superstructure in my life but I in no way felt oppressed by it. In fact, I continued to practice because I gained from it personally. I know many people who "broke free" of the Catholic ball and chain once going off to college. If you asked me the same question in middle school I would probably agree that I felt subjected to the religion because of how much my mother forced it down my throat...but I know today I am free to make the decision to participate.

I still am unsure as to whether or not I agree with Althusser on ideology being of material existence. I hope to gain some clarity in tomorrows class period.