Definition One
Althusser explains that ideology is a “closed system,” a world constructed by the historical, political, religious, and economic institutions that determine the boundaries in which people can exist. Alhusser defines this existence as a practice, which “shapes an individual’s lived relations to the social formation” (Storey, p. 71). The system is closed because it allots the available options for an individual to work, study, and live. To me, it is similar to The Truman Show where Truman is given his existence in a simulated realm of reality, “offering false, but seemingly true, resolutions to real problems.” This idea of ideology “is profoundly unconscious in its mode of operation” (71). Truman’s interactions with his world and the relationship with his wife were both real and imaginary, real because they were the actual conditions that he interacted with, imaginary because of the representations of reality offered to him (e.g. the idea that everything had already been explored, the notion that he could not travel to Fiji).
The “problematic” emerges from this closed system in providing meaning to words and objects that come to life only within this world they live in. Perhaps ideas like war or famine had not been introduced to Truman’s world, and therefore would have no meaning in that system. Words take on meaning as they interact within the system that allows for them. Therefore, there are only a limited number of outcomes, solutions, or possibilities in the expression and interpretation of a text (as Scarlet Johansson’s character in The Island asked after breaking out of her false world, “What’s love?”). To recognize the problematic is to recognize unanswered “questions which threaten to take [ideology] beyond these boundaries” of a mythic reality (p. 72). Recognizing the problematic for Truman was when he smashed into the wall which presented itself as an eternal sky. He then saw the limitations of his world and the imaginary interactions in which he unconsciously engaged. Not only did he recognize the imaginary, but he questioned the reality of the closed system itself by asking, “Was nothing real?” Leaving the dome he lived in, he was then able to see a host of new possibilities, conditions, and systems of existence beyond what had been previously appointed and presented to him.
This closed system is similar to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, in which a certain reality is presented to men chained in a cave, an initial manifestation of what the world looks like and offers. The chained men only see the shadows cast on the walls which constrains their understanding of reality in terms of silhouettes. They are unaware of the world outside of the cave. It is important to understand Pierre Macherey’s ideas concerning symptomatic reading, not only because it provides valuable insight into the notion of Althusserian thought, but because it allows new ways for students to approach text and media. “For [Macherey] the text is not a puzzle that conceals a meaning; it is a construction with a multiplicity of meanings” (p. 74). This provides a practical approach to critically analyzing artifacts like film narratives, sermons, and political rhetoric in new ways.
Similar to the Truman Show, George Orwell’s 1984 presents a dystopia where an environment is controlled, regulating the interaction individuals have within their world and their perception of reality. A Macintosh commercial plays on 1984’s notion of “bad faith,” causing an “innovative revolution”—a computer that overthrows the “limited” awareness of what a computer is and what technology “Big-Brother”-corporations provide/allow.
Definition Two
The second definition of ideology focuses on the institutions themselves that produce beliefs and ideas. Althusser calls these institutions Ideological State Apparatuses or ISAs. The act of taking tests in university, praying in church, going on family vacations, and voting are actions called interpellation. Individuals who are interpellated allow themselves to be shaped by the ISAs, producing for the individual a confined outcome of beliefs, values, and behaviors. Althusser’s example of interpellation is helpful. He explains that a police officer hails an individual—“Hey, you there!” “When the individual hailed turns in response, he or she has been interpellated, has become a subject of the police officer’s discourse” (p. 78). Responding to the institutions that “hail” us or present material practices, rituals, and customs that we engage in subjects us to their particular value system.
Just as Pierre Macherey utilized Althusser’s ideology in critical approaches to literature, Judith Williamson looked at advertising using the second definition of ideology. She moved her focus from what commodities are produced to what commodities we consume. An advertisement can “call” or interpellate us by drawing upon how we identify ourselves. As it identifies us, it simultaneously adds to the construction of our identity, thus we see ourselves in the product. An individual may think that he or she is the only audience of the product because of the unique identity the individual assumes, seeing the product as “special-made” for him or her. I’ve observed that competition ensues as people claim the product is most unique to them. Have you have heard someone claim, “I was listening to this band long before they were on the radio.
Giving presents is an interesting custom in regards to product interpellation. In searching for Christmas gifts, for example, I believe I am buying something in which I can see the identity of the receiver of the gift. I look for things that has the other person’s name “written all over it.” Not only do I strive to select a gift “tailor-made” for the receiver, but oftentimes I am pulled to items that I can also identify myself partly in the gift as well. Much of the gifts I end up buying for others is usually stuff I like. Perhaps it’s the unique relationship between me and the receiver that is bound within the identity of the gift. Also, some gifts I receive from others I don’t appreciate as much like gift certificates because they aren’t as personal to me. I don’t see myself in a plate of sea food, for example.
I wonder about this second definition of ideology because of the certain practices, ideas, and values that I have not absorbed from constant interpellation. Perhaps part of that is because interpellation demonstrates that it is the act of the person responding to the “hail” of the product or ISA that the person then becomes interpellated. Throughout my life, people have done everything they could to get me to like country music—radio, dances, restaurants. But I continue to loathe it. Is this an exception to the rule of ideology, or has interpellation actually taken place?
Hegemony
The word that perhaps best defines Gramsci’s hegemony is “consensus.” Basically, hegemony refers to a social group that is willing to be led by particular interests, regardless of oppression or injustices. It is “a society in which subordinate groups and classes appear to actively support and subscribe to values, ideals, objectives, cultural and political meanings, which bind them to, and ‘incorporate’ them into, the prevailing structures of power” (Storey, p. 80). My understanding of hegemony is that it’s similar to ideology in that it demonstrates a limited palette of options for individual freedom on a society, and it influences a society because of ruling institutions or the bourgeoisie. The difference is that ideology is an unconscious submission to societal oppression, hegemony is consciously participating in these cultural influences and oppressive “norms.”
In my example of ideology, once Truman recognized the problematic, he left the closed system and ventured to other possibilities. As one discovers other possible meanings of a text after the surface-level meaning emerges, one rejects the idea that the surface-level meaning is the true nature of that text. However, in hegemony, one could recognize further meanings or realities but continue in the closed system or initial interpretation of the text. Had Truman stayed in the dome after Cristof invited him, he would partake in a hegemonic society, consciously subjected to the control of that realm by Cristof who manipulated the conditions of that society.
Storey discusses capitalism’s hegemony, a system acquired over many years as the result of social, cultural, and economic influences. Regardless of the injustices this system maintains, the U.S. and other capitalist nations continue in the system. However, a non-capitalist nation like North Korea is also a clear example of hegemony. In a documentary by National Geographic, North Koreans are conscious (although perhaps not in full) to poor conditions and injustices rampant in the country. Yet they worship their leader, Kim Jong Il who recently died. On a global level, North Korea wants to be as independent as possible from the rest of the world and has rejected the “hegemonic” society of the global community. This detachment (although extreme) is understandable given powerful nations like the U.S. and England with their hegemonic cultures and efforts to take advantage of globalization. Some nations in the past have resisted interaction from the United States (like Brazil and Argentina) but have more recently become “allies” to them.
Discussion Questions
1. How do you recognize a “closed system” in your day-to-day life?
2. How do you reinforce the idea of hegemony by acting as an interpellator, not as one being “hailed” by the officer but one who “hails”?
3. Give an example of identifying the problematic in the media, literature, or every-day life.
Brian, I like your example of The Truman Show as a closed system. Interestingly, Pleasantville came out the same year and deals with ideology in a similar way: two teenagers from the 1990s get pulled into a black and white television show from the 1950s and trigger a large shift in consciousness throughout the town of Pleasantville. Most notable is a visual shift from a world in black and white to a world in full color. Both The Truman Show and Pleasantville use the television show as a mode of enclosing the main characters and limiting the worlds in which they exist. Both have god figures that represent an accumulation of the Ideological State Apparatus. There’s Cristof (Christ of) for Truman’s world and the TV Repairman character (played by Don Knotts) in Pleasantville. The fact that these movies were made almost simultaneously, in 1998, suggests a commonly held ideology during that time period. Was the rising power of the Internet rippling into our collective unconscious? Were these movies part of the hegemonic process to keep us in lock step with the changing times? The next year brought two more major movies, The Matrix and Existenz, that presented ways of transcending the experienced world. This kind of synchronicity of media is a mysterious and fascinating phenomenon, and seems to be a product of ideology and zeitgeist.
ReplyDeleteIn this video, http://youtu.be/-CU040Hqbas, Riley has become aware of the ideological forces at work in the toy aisle of an unknown store. Though the location is unknown, we are familiar with this type of store. It replicates a well-known ideological pattern to which consuming Americans are accustomed. This type of color-coding is a standard gender-based association established early in our lives. From hanging blue or pink balloons outside a house to signify the gender of a newborn baby to the association of the color pink with being feminine, this seemingly inescapable ideological pattern is hard to shake. What would happen if somebody mixed the aisles up and scattered super heroes amongst the princesses?
While ideology is what impacts and influences us, it seems that hegemony organizes and prepares us for the impact of ideology. It is not stable and fixed, but built for fluctuation and evolution. It amounts to a kind of leadership aided by what Gramsci labels “organic intellectuals.” But who are these intellectuals? Would Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, Martha Stewart, Tavis Smiley, Bill O’Reilly, Oprah, Glenn Beck, and Steven Colbert classify?
We the people still have a say in the organizing principles of hegemony, and we even have an opportunity to resist before our resistance becomes incorporated into the larger system.
Facebook is an everyday closed system that creates identity through accumulated artifacts. When I post a comment on my wall, I am hailing any and all who somehow connect with my words.
The idea of interpellation as central to the structure of ideologies “hails” me in a unique way and, Brian, your question about whether or not we have functioned as interpellators hails me as well. I often consider the way the statement that I make so often, “I'm a preacher, so...” affects the people to whom I make it. I have a distinct motive for saying it so often. Since we're talking about ideology and hegemony, I will disclose my secret to just you few.
ReplyDeleteI consciously act as interpellator every time I make that statement, but not for the reasons many might think. I am trying to put into place what some might consider an ideology that supports the a re-imagining of what it means to be “preacher.” Each time I say, “I'm a preacher...” the response I desire is “Wow. Really?” I want this, not because I want to be impressive. Instead I desire this response because if the response is disbelief (and understand, here, that politeness keeps people from verbalizing the disbelief most of the time so I never know if I have achieved the desired response), then I have hailed them into the space of being the subject of the discourse I hope to open.
I do this in order to combat hegemony in the way justice oriented teaching in recent years has come to define it and, as I am learning from our readings, I guess also to replace one hegemony with another. I combat the hegemonic teaching that functions often in my church tradition to teach that women are not preachers and if they are, they must look, act, walk and talk a certain way. In Gramsci's terms, my statement that I am a preacher, I hope, becomes a space for the struggle of hegemonies that he argues will help people “arrive at a higher level of consciousness.” (ST 264)
Great job Brian! I loved your example of people trying to sway you to enjoying country music, and your second question really made me second guess several Christmas presents I sent out this year. As I was reading through the materials and blog this week I could not stop thinking of a recent trilogy that was passed along to me, The Hunger Games. Disclaimer: if you plan on reading these I may ruin the books for you. The trilogy is set in a post-apocalyptic world, in the country of Panem. The reason I bring this up is because I thought it was a wonderful example of a closed system. You began your blog post with the following, “Althusser explains that ideology is a “closed system,” a world constructed by the historical, political, religious, and economic institutions that determine the boundaries in which people can exist. Alhusser defines this existence as a practice, which “shapes an individual’s lived relations to the social formation” (Storey, p. 71). “ Panem’s world is constructed around historical & political institutions. Due to a failed revolution the political powers set up rules and regulations for each district. These strict guidelines determine how the citizens of Panem exist.
ReplyDeleteAlaenor, I appreciate how you have answered Brian’s 2nd question. I think we all act as the interpellator. Brian you stated, “Individuals who are interpellated allow themselves to be shaped by the ISAs, producing for the individual a confined outcome of beliefs, values, and behaviors.” I think of the campus ministry I work with, here at the University. When I talk with the students who come through the doors I am “hailing” them. I encourage hegemony through my suggestions of religious practices. For example, if a student is having some personal struggle I might encourage them to pray. The students are allowing themselves to be shaped by the ideology of our religious group, and my encouragement could be viewed as an act of the interpellator.
I think the idea of the problematic is a very interesting one. In order to identify it, we must be able to stretch beyond our own realm of ideology. The Truman Show example was a really great (although I feel like someone went off to Vietnam or something like that in the film. Not sure, it’s been years since I’ve seen it.)
ReplyDeleteThe problematic seems to suggest a necessity for some sort of intuitional process. Explain the as yet unexplained, determine that which we do not currently have the means to determine, and so on. However, this intuitional process does require a catalyst.
For example, say you’re a Mac user. (Not like I have an iPhone, but I mean a real card carrying Macophile- the sort of people that own an iPhone, iPad, iMac, Macbook, and an Apple TV. If they’re creative types, they use programs like Final Cut Pro [or X] and Aperture). Macophile’s have a certain ideology about how technology is supposed to function (as it was handed down by Lord Jobs). To a Macophile- shiny aluminum box good, large black tower bad, etc.
Now, a Macophile is never going to sully their fingertips by straying away from the company’s product line. However, let’s say one day someone shows them a cat video on YouTube on their Android powered Galaxy Nexus, and they notice how big and beautiful the 5” Super AMOLED HD screen is compared to their tiny little Retina display. Catalyst.
Or that one day, one of those weird creative types that work in the visual medias, we’ll call him Sleeve, gets so frustrated with the inadequacies of Final Cut Pro that he decides to check out Adobe’s video editing solution, Premiere Pro. Ultimately the experience leaves him questioning what a piece of editing software should be and how such a tool should be able to augment and not hinder the entire creative process.
So, in both of the above examples the problematic, how the Macophile defined what a cell phone or a piece of editing software is, ultimately lead to questioning his ideology and eventually brought about the ushering in of a new ideology.
I hope that made some semblance of sense and that I didn’t just ramble on like an idiot for 350 words. See you guys in class Tuesday!
http://youtu.be/OgssLmsOa2s
ReplyDeleteAlso, Crystal have you seen this?
Yes! I am pretty excited...I hope they stay true to the books.
DeleteAnd Ironically, Gary Ross, who directed the Hungers Games films adaptation also directed Pleasantville. And Big.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote Big. Penny Marshall directed it. That's why it has that after school vibe goin on there.
DeleteA friend and I were discussing our reasons for wanting to get a PhD. We both have hopes of changing, improving and influencing our communities, but we constantly revisit the question of practicality: How will what we learn be applied to effect change? Theorizing ad nauseam seems ridiculous in the midst of human hunger, torture, blight and hopelessness literally in the neighborhoods we live in. Gramsci emboldens those of us in pursuit of having the "function of intellectuals" like teacher, professor, consultant, etc. by affirming that "there is no organisation without...a group of people 'specialised' in conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas" (ST 265). We might raise the quality of life of the people around us by pointing out the numerous tensions in the hegemony between our interests and the dominate group’s where we negotiate “values, ideals, objectives, cultural and political meanings” (CTPC 80). Hopefully, identifying those aspects we’ve incorporated that strengthen the dominant group’s rule and hamper our ability to thrive will lead to actions that might resist being subsumed in the “prevailing structure of power” (80). Brian's reference to the Allegory of the Cave illustrates the role of the intellectual.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, too often I see intellectuals intentionally distance themselves from “the simple” wrapping themselves in theory and in the people who love theory, creating what Gramsci refers to as “small intellectual groups” (ST 264). For them, praxis not only becomes a negligible theory but an irritant that not-so intellectual people adhere to.
My friend and I always wonder about our fellow students who know all of Marx’s and Freire’s work and will never ever go to North Memphis, better yet those who look forward to leaving Memphis for an escape to a clean city with a cushy position at a university with a better library.
“Consciousness of being part of a particular hegemonic force…is the first stage towards a further progressive self-consciousness in which theory and practice will finally be one” (ST 264). My prayer is that I will I stay critical while learning critical theory having praxis as my goal.
Another class I am taking looks at the relationship between perception and cognition; that is, how we take information in (through our five senses) and how we process that information at thoughts and emotions. This has led me to think a lot about how much are reasoning processes are shaped by how we encounter our environment. The limit of our senses shapes our concept of reality. In the same way that Truman’s ideology was limited by his experience as limited by the TV studio, our ideological basis for believing what is “real” is a closed system defined by the limits of our senses. For example, you look at a bird, and assuming you are not color blind, you see the bird is brown. Everyone else who is also not color blind agrees that the bird is brown. So logically, the bird is brown in reality. Not so fast! Some birds see and wear colors that are not visible to the human eye. While these colors may not matter to humans, they seem to be very important to other birds. Actually, my first question was, “how do you describe a color that you cannot see?”
ReplyDeleteIf thinking about colors that you have never seen doesn’t hurt you head enough, try this: theoretical physics argues for the existence of 11 dimensions in our universe, of which we can only experience 4 (height, width, depth, and time). Because of the limit of our senses, we have no way of experiencing the seven other dimensions. Maybe they are not important or maybe they affect us constantly in ways we are not aware.
So what does any of this have to do with cultural studies? Ideologies throughout the human history have been based on the limit of our knowledge and understanding. The most obvious example of this is religious ideology which has evolved over time as our knowledge and understanding have increased. From Titans and Olympians interfering in the lives of men to the diverse views of contemporary monotheism, what makes ideology a closed system is our lack of knowledge. As a person gains new knowledge or understanding, he or she must either alter their ideology, or live in a state of cognitive dissonance.
I would further argue that the ideology of the hegemony is the ideology that best reflects the understanding of the majority of a culture. As new knowledge or understandings come into a culture, the dominant ideology will shift, therefore causing a shift in hegemony. Often this can take a very long time to occur. However, given the increase in communication technology, ideological and hegemonic shifts that once took centuries, can now occur in months. A more present example of this also answers Brian’s third question. As a father, I “hail” my children or direct them in some way on a daily basis. Their response usually falls in line with the ideology and hegemony that we have created in our family. However, as they grow and become more aware of their own abilities and the world around them, our relationship changes. We are in a constant state of defining, redefining and negotiating our roles in relation to each other.