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.

Is This Real Life: Eco & Zizek & Dorfman

I find it a little terrifying that Disneyland if full of audio animatronic robots that seem way too life-like. As humans in order to escape reality we must go to amusement parks such as Disney, Universal, or even adult amusement parks like Las Vegas. The real world can be quite gloomy, so we decide to drop a lot of money and go spend the day in a fantasy land where there are no problems. Why do we feel the need to participate in such actives? Hint: It’s because reality sucks and I would know especially because my image of Disney is now ruined. Thanks Eco and Dorfman. Anyway, as I was growing up, I never really noticed all of the brain washing that Disney does to the young mind with stereotypes, reinforcing gender roles, and other issues. Disney creates this imaginary world where anything seems possible, and I literally mean anything. It’s impossible to think otherwise due to the happiness that is constantly surrounding you at every corner in the park.  

After discussing Zizek and Eco’s piece in class, I found that our world can be very deceiving at times, which is also very upsetting. In class the other day, when we were looking at the photos of war zones, death, victory and other military images, some of us couldn’t depict if the image was real or not. I mean how sad is it that when looking at a photo no one can depict if it’s from a movie or an actual photo. The one photo that really got into my head was the image in the aircraft carrier. The photo had many American flags draped across coffins that held our American troops. When we were in class it was hard for us to decide whether or not this photo was real or if it was in a film. The conclusion that we came to was that it was a real photo because as American citizens we never show our own deaths from war. After class was over I came to the conclusion that reality is painful, confusing, and a constant struggle. I now understand why people, like myself, throw so much money to go to a fake world where everything seems all happy and dandy. All the workers are happy to see you, the other families give you warm smiles, and even the fricken robots want you to join in on the fun. 

Technology has become so powerful and invasive that we don’t even know when we are being tricked. Our own eyes are being tricked with everything that is put in front of us. Eco says, “Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can” (203). The sad part about this is that Eco is completely right. I don’t mean to be a debbie downer here, but I don’t think it’s going to get any better either. If anything, technology is going to keep advancing. If we are questioning reality now, wait till 15 years from now! Who knows maybe robots will take over the world! Maybe, in an alternate universe where robots rule, the robots go to amusement parks to watch humans perform. I know, I know I'm going a little dark here, but I'm just trying to make a point. We must become aware to everything around us!

A.O. Eco

In Umbert Eco The City of Robots, Eco describes Disney as fake/message city; “…A message city, entirely made up of signs, not a city like the others, which communicate in order to function, but rather a city that functions in order to communicate. (Eco 200)” In this case, I assume that Eco is reffering to communicating th.  Eco goes on and on describing Disney as a land of illusions that works so well because we, I guess, give into this myth that it is in a sense real. At one point Eco says that once the total fake is admitted, it has to be as realistic as possible for it to be enjoyed (Eco 202). When coupling Eco’s examination with Baudrillard’s idea that Disneys’ multimedia empire isn’t much more than a machine designed to enforce ideologies in youth and subsequently adults, the “Happiest Place on Earth” title starts to seem rather disingenuous.  

 So all of this said, There’s something I’m thinking here. Unless you’re a young child (Disney’s intended audience), or an adult in need of dire psychiatric care, anyone could tell you that Disney is 100% fake, but that’s ok (for now, I’m sure I’ll be proven wrong soon). The “real world” is a scary and tiresome place and, in my personal opinion, sometimes an escape is nice, especially when reality is apparently just an empty old desert, so where's the harm in spending some time in a fake city. Don’t get me wrong, I by no means believe that Disney should be used as a means of escapism, but as a form of a break from dealing with it all.  Furthermore, I don’t believe that Disney is some precious child that can never do wrong, but I felt that Eco may have been a bit too harsh on the general consumer as in the phrase:

“The pleasure of imitation…is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and that reality will always be inferior” (Eco, pg 204)

Yes, people love a good imitation, look at how many voice imitations there are on YouTube, but I don’t really know if it would be fair to say that people would see it as reality being inferior to it. I’m certain if people were given the honest choice of going to a Polynesian restaurant designed exactly like its referent or ACTUALY going to Polynesia, I think people would take the trip. Perhaps it is just me being optimistic, but I’d like to give people the credit that, while they can’t see past everything, they can see past Disney land and not get swept up in its imagery of being a city.

Not Every "Fake City" Is Run by Robots: Cracker Country

I am well aware that I read the wrong readings for this blog post, but I had an odd connection with Umberto Eco’s reading “The City of Robots.”  In Eco’s piece, he describes how there are many fake cities that have been built in America. Our great country has created places like Las Vegas, Disneyland, and Disney World in order to give people a true escape from reality. As Doorman and Mattelart say, “ ‘Real life is unreal, unglamorous and boring in this world, while the spectacle is exciting and enthralling” (90). Reality must be taken into question when entering into the gates of these perfectly designed worlds. As I continued to read through Eco’s piece, an idea popped into my head about an imaginary world that can be found right in the heart of Tampa. Fortunately, this magical world takes you back to the rural days of 19th century Florida without warping your sense of reality. This beautiful taste of past reality is also known as Cracker Country. 

What is Cracker Country you ask? Well, it is an outdoor history museum to show our generation what it was like to live in Florida’s rural heritage. According to Wikipedia, Cracker Country is located at the Tampa Fairgrounds and many of the buildings in the village date back as far as the 1870’s to early 1900’s. This small village may not sound all that interesting, but once you cross the wooden bridge, you feel as if you've been transported into another time period. Cracker Country, is obviously different than Disney World or Las Vegas but Cracker Country does provide a good illusion of what used to be reality for Floridians. 

After one crosses the wooden pathway, they enter into the world of the 19th century Floridian. One will see the good ole blacksmith shop, an old school house, the corn crib barn, the governors inn, out houses, the cane mill, the post office and even old houses that real Floridans used to live in back in the 1890’s. When I was in fourth grade, my school took us to Cracker Country for a field trip. We made candles out of animal fat, we took a trip to the Blacksmith to see someone get their tooth pulled out, and we even got to pretend we were students in the old school house. The main wall in the school house was covered with a large chalk board and all of the desks faced forward the front. In the left corner of the room, there was a small wooden stool where misbehaved children would sit if they didn’t listen to the teacher. 

We also visited the Cane Mill, which produced cane syrup for the community. A small donkey would power the mill by walking around to an attached lever system, which would squeeze juice from the sugar cane stalks and then eventually be turned into a sweet syrup. The kettle that the syrup is produced in is very large in size and can hold up to 80 gallons of sugary, sweet cane syrup. Another really interesting building in Cracker Country, was the train depot. My generation and many generations were fortunate enough to have cars as our sole form of transportation, but back in the 19th century trains were the only type of transportation. I don’t know why but it’s very hard for me to conceptualize old America with trains, cattle running around and old men spitting in spittoons. That is why I love visiting Cracker Country whenever I go to the Florida State Fair because it gives me a glance at what it was like to live in the ole days of Florida. 

My favorite place in Cracker Country is their beautiful garden, also known as the Kitchen Garden. It’s upsetting in some ways because nowadays one doesn’t see many gardens due to our fast paced demand for fruits and vegetables. Today we have farmers to do all of our dirty work for us. It is always very pleasing to see a garden full of tomatoes, peas, radishes, lettuce, cabbage, roses and so many other greens. Yes, Cracker Country is a representation of the past, but it isn’t as damaging or manipulative on the brain as Las Vegas or Disney. Cracker Country offers a different type of reality because it mimics a past reality. If you want to escape the real world for a few hours, but not be stuck in a toy city, then you should visit Cracker Country in Tampa, Florida.

My question is, Cracker Country is a fake village that was created to show people 19th, rural Florida, but is it deceiving on our sense of reality like Disney and Las Vegas? Why or why not? 

If you want to find out more about Cracker Country, please visit this link: http://www.crackercountry.org/index.php/come-visit/what-to-see