Brooke Marcy

 

 

Summery of Eugenics: The Second Wave, Fleshmachine, Critical Art Ensemble

 

 

The essay, Eugenics: The Second Wave, Fleshmachine, Critical Art Ensemble, begins by looking at how, though dormant, eugenics has been waiting for the right time to reemerge into society.  The essay asks the question, “Why cant the body be constructed to best serve “the dominant values of culture?”  Eugenics has faced several problems, such as being associated with the Nazi regime, and a lack of acceptance by the general pubic who, though having no problem accepting medical advancements to support life, have a problem with science acting in the role of the creator. So in order to be accepted, eugenics must discover a way to sell medical intervention in creation, as well as, maintenance of the human body.

 

Fredrick Osborn stated in the early 30s that the only way for eugenics to find acceptance would be for the people “to come to eugenics.”  Osborn believed that the development of the “consumer economy” and the nuclear family would eventually lead to a renewed interest in eugenics. Just as food, shelter and healthcare are looked at as consumer products, so too could eugenics.  Human consumption has become a status symbol and when combined with the nuclear family “ the production of reproduction begins to significantly change.” Unlike the nuclear family, the extended family is seen as a threat to the “capitalist imperatives of production,” thus the continuation of the nuclear family structure is encouraged.

 

The education process plays an important role in keeping people tied to nuclear units, and in teaching children how to become active members of the workforce.  Children are separated from working parents at an early age allowing them “more time with their socializers-education services and mass media-than with significant others.”  People are led to equate work success with “satisfaction,” causing work to become more important than relationships.  The concept of the nuclear family fits in well with eugenics by placing an emphasis on creating a quality child and eventually a quality “satisfied” worker.

 

In the past, eugenic has been looked at as an option only available to the wealthy, leaving the middleclass to fend for themselves.  Yet recently there has been a change in thinking, now it is believed that in order for the developments of eugenics to continue, eugenics must become accessible to the middleclass.  Since middleclass people tend to be covered by healthcare, they are an acceptable option for eugenics, unlike the lower class that usually have no healthcare and over reproduce on their own.

 

The media is supporting a “eugenic consciousness” by creating gentler approaches to advertising, promising to help clients produce healthier “happier” children.   Since the word ”happy has been replaced with the word “productive,” a happy child is a productive child, and “a happy child parent relationship” is based on consumption and production. 

 

Most parents want absolute control over their children’s lives, indicating that control before birth would also be desirable. With eugenics women are guaranteed fertility even if they have been told that they would not be able to have children.  More money is spent on creating fertility than researching what causes infertility; this creates a greater demand for fertility products.  Eugenics also allows a woman to remain fertile longer, giving her  “more uninterrupted time to establish herself in the workforce,” and for a woman who have waited too long, eugenic practices are a renewed hope.

 

It is important keep medical breakthroughs within national bonds, insuring that any proceeds will affect the national economy. This being so, then action is required for “the time is right for eugenics practices to flourish on a macro as well as on the micro levels of society.” 

 

Many promises have been made concerning the use of eugenics, but few promises are, as they seem.  For example, eggs and sperm are considered donations because it is not ethical to profit from creation; on the other hand, implanting an embryo costs a large amounts of money. Just as people can choose to manipulate their babies’ genes they can also reduce the number of fetuses that they are carrying.  Often time’s more than one embryo is implanted, and if more than the desired amount of fetuses attach, they can be removed for health reason or desired outcome allowing the consumer to get what they paid for.

 

Now is the time for Osborn’s theories to become realities. Reproduction can be looked similarly to other consumer product dictated to us by “pan capitalist ideological inscription.”  Yet, none of this has come to pass, and will not, until the public is convinced that eugenics is a beneficial to a productive existence.

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm! by Paul Virilio

 

In his essay, Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!,” Paul Virilio begins by examining how real space and geosphere have been taken over by real time, changing our ideas about the world.   He notes that humans have already broken the barriers of sound and heat, yet breaking the barrier of light is impossible, and if done, would discombobulate the living and history.  He examines how democracy is based on the stability of “the city” and how the dominance of real time will change our perspective, switching us from distance perspective to a contact or “tactile perspective.”  He sees the build-up of superhighways as causing a new “phenomenon: loss of orientation,” and how reality is being split into reality and virtual reality, threatening individual orientation.  Virilio notes that this loss of orientation is a negative with potential to dramatically affect democracy and society as a whole.

 

Virilio believes that “globalization” is a fraud and that what actually exists is the “perspective of real time,” which indicates, we are living in a “one-time-system.”  He defines “one-time-system” as being the same thing as global time. Virilio next examines how history no longer exists in a specific time or place and instead occurs instantaneously in universal time. Distances and surfaces are no longer boundaries, and cyberspace allows local time and global time to become one.  Virilio proposes that “such deconstruction of relationships with the world is not without consequences for the relationship among its citizens themselves.”  He believes that for every gain there is a loss, and if we are not aware of the loss, than the gains become obsolete.

 

Virilio believes that a loss of control over reason associated with human interactions with multi media and computers could cause the formation of an “information bomb.”  This “information bomb” will need some form of dissuasion to counter the unlimited information.  Virilio sees this dissuasion as coming in the possible form of an accident,  which the stock market crash can be seen as a precursor.  He believes that the problem is not the information but the interactivity, thus computers are not the problem, but rather computer communication.

 

Virilio points out that “ the suggestive power of virtual technologies is without parallel, “ and this build up of “ a computer communication narco-economy” has great potential to destabilize the economy. He also questions the advancements in entertainment and there effect on the population. He believes we need to “acknowledge that the new communication technologies will only further democracy if, and only if, we oppose from the beginning the caricature of global society being hatched for us by big multinational corporations throwing themselves at a breakneck pace on the information superhighways.”

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Beyond Postmodernism by John Armitage

 

In his essay, Beyond Postmodernism, John Armitage looks at the work of the French cultural theorist Paul Virilio.  Armitage notes that many of Virilio’s theories, such as ‘dromology’ and ‘logic of acceleration,’ are misunderstood. His essay defends Vililio’s theories and suggests “that they exist beyond the terms of postmodernism and that they should be conceived of as a contribution to the emerging debate over ’hypermodernism’.”

 

Armitage begins by outlining Virillio’s biography starting with his birth in 1932. He notes the effects Hitler’s Blitzkrieg had on Virilio, and how early in his career, he spent time working as a stained-glass artist alongside Matisse.  In 1950, Virilio converted to Christianity and later studied phenomenology with Merleau-Ponty.  Virilio’s first major work was Bunker Archeology, which was a study of the architecture of war.  His concepts included ‘military space’, ‘dromology’, and the ‘aesthetics of disappearance’.  Though not a trained architect, Virillio was nominated Professor at the Ecole Speciale d’Architecture. Though producing many works, Speed & Politics: An Essay on Dromology, The Aesthetics of Disappearance etc, Virilio’s theories are just now being realized by the “English speaking world.”

 

Armitage states, “the importance of Virilio’s theoretical work stems from his central claim that, in a culture dominated by war, the military-industrial complex is of crucial significance in debates over the creation of the city and special organization of cultural life.”  Virilio states that the stationary and fortified cities of the feudal era, have been superseded by today’s cities, because weaponry itself has become transportable, thus creating a “war of movement.” He notes that this new form of city has changed how people and the city are governed. Virilio also proposes that it was not the economy that spurred the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but rather “a military, spatial, political and technological metamorphosis.”

 

Many of Virilio’s theories are based on his belief in the ‘gesalt theory of perception,’ which lead to his theory of ‘oblique function’. In the 1970s, Virilio began looking at how  communication and military technology was changing and effecting society. Virilio’s work, in the 1980s and 1990s, focused on the notions of “disappearance; the fractalization of physical space, war, cinema, logistics, and perception.” During that time,  he also concentrated on the acceleration of the ‘techno culture’ and its ramifications, and he equated the “third age of military weaponry” with the every growing technologies such as the internet. “ Armitage points out that Virilio does not consider himself a social theorist, but rather a “critic of the art of technology.”

 

Next Armitage looks at Virilio’s “dromocratic conception of power.” Virilio states that the foundation of society is not only the political economy of wealth but also the political economy of speed.  He looks at what he terms “infowar” and how the threat of “unspecific civilian enemies” is used to justify spending to increase the advancements of communication technologies.  Virilio believes that,” in the near future it will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be the integral accident that is the continuation of politics by other means.”

 

Armitage examines Virillio’s theory that, “ modern vision and the contemporary city are both products of military power and time-based cinematic technologies of disappearance.”  Virilio sees the city as being overexposed by technology and that the cinematographic field is causing fractured perspectives. He points out how war and cinema have become inseparable, and how cinematic images have become substitutions for the real images of war, creating an “infowar.”  Virilio states,” military perception in warfare is comparable to civilian perception and, specifically, to the art of filmmaking.”  This being the case, people “no longer believe their eyes” and the belief in ones own perceptions of reality has been transformed into a belief of the “technical sight line.”

 

Virillo looks at the differences between video screens and “real perspectual objects,” like mirrors, noting the differences between “classical optical communication” and “ electro-optical communication.” Armitage then examines Virilio’s proposal that real time has taken over real space, and the development of what Virilio terms “polar inertia.” He uses Howard Huges as the perfect example of a human being who has allowed ”polar inertia” and technology to replace an active and interactive existence.  He even notes that armies now “watch battles from the barracks” and that “today the army only occupies the territory once the war is over.”

 

Armitage examines Virilio’s concern that in the future the distinction between the human body and technology will be lost; he calls this the “transplant revolution.”  He believes that there is a possibility that not only will body parts be substituted by machines but so to will human functions.  Armitage points out that Virillio does not see men and women as separate entities but rather the human body as a whole.

 

In Virilio’s latest work, Armitage examines his theory that “ while war was a failure both for Europe and for NATO it was a success for the United States.”  He believes that the US used Kosovo as an experiment, testing out new “informational and cybernetic tools, “ in hopes of reaching their goal of “Global Information Dominance.”

 

Armitage next looks at why Virilio’s work should not be labeled as “postmodern cultural theory.” He believes the Virilio is not “reacting against modernism” or against the international style.  Virilio states, postmodernism “has been a ‘catastrophe’ in architecture and has nothing to do with his phenomenological grounded writing,” and that his own work is based on “the modernist tradition of arts and sciences.”  Virilio sees no bases for connection with anti-humanism, structuralism, or theorists like Derrida, and he has no interest in the structural linguistics of Saussure. Armitage notes, “unlike the poststructural theorists, Virilio is a humanist and a practicing Christian.”  Virillio does not condemn modernity but rather views his work as a “critical analysis of modernity, but through a perception of technology which largely…catastrophic, not catastrophist.”

Virilio even defines modernity differently than most postmodernist, and his primary focus is on how the speed of modernity affects technology and society.

 

Armitage concludes by examining how Virilio’s work “remains true to the principle of hope with regards to making sense of history.” He looks at the differences between Virilio and Mcluhan, pointing out that they have little in common. Armitage notes that Virilio’s work cannot be looked at in terms of postmodern cultural theory, instead he should be looked at as a cultural theorist addressing “ hypermodernism.” To understand Virilio’s work one must abandon assumption based on modernist and postmodernist thought, and concentrate on his “work on acceleration through the excessive intensities and placements inherent within hypermodern cultural thought about the military-scientific complex.”

 

Finally, Armitage proposes a brief critique of Virilio’s work and the controversy surrounding his ideas. Deleuze and Guattari look at Virilio’s ideas as problematic. Harvey believes Virillio (and Baudrillard) “seem hell-bent on fusing with time-space compression and replacing it in their own flamboyant rhetoric.”  Harvey sees Virilio’s theories as being limited and likely to rest not on his similarities to Nietsche but “with his differences.”  Yet, Virilio’s theories are beginning to collide with other cultural theorists like Krokers. Armitage states that though his theories are debatable, Virilio “ is one of the most important and thought- provoking cultural theorists on the contemporary battlefield” and that “ his theoretical positions and cultural sensibilities concerning technology thus remain beyond the realm of even cultural theory.”

 

 

 

 

This is not a summery of The Corporation by Brooke Marcy

 

An interesting thing happened while I was watching The Corporation, I began personifying corporations and thinking of them in terms of being human.  What would a corporation look like if it were human and how would it act?  The image of a 60ish well dressed good looking white male came to mind.  He would be the kind of person who went to the right schools and lives in a large house surrounded by a fence. The fence enables others to see his house, envy it, but not get too close, keeping out the aspects of everyday life that don’t concern him. The man would have more money than he knows what to do with, yet no matter how much he has, it will never be enough. He doesn’t think much of others or worry about things outside his own wants and needs. The needs of the people who work under him are not his problem, and he has gotten where he is financially and professionally by exploiting others. He fits the profile of a sociopath, but he is thought of as savvy, not mentally ill. The only time he does something for others or the environment is when he can somehow profit from the action.  Laws are more like guidelines than actual rules, and breaking them is part of his job. His image is everything, and he will do anything to protect and promote it. He doesn’t understand what it is like to be poor or discriminated against, and those who are, don’t concern him. He is very cunning and able to manipulate others and influence their choices.  This is not person I would choose to be around. I could never respect him because of the way he treats others and the environment.  If he were anyone else, he would be in jail or at least heavily medicated.  Yet he surrounds me, and I thoughtlessly play my part by purchasing his products and ignoring his injustice. It is interesting how changing the corporation from an” it” to a “him” better enables me to view the corporation more objectively.

 

I do, however, live my life believing in the power of the people. We need to standup against injustices committed by “the corporation” and have our voices heard.  I was raised a Quaker and have been marching in protests, writing letters and signing petitions since I was old enough to write and walk. I believe that one person can make a difference and that making your voice heard is essential to promoting change.  I am worried that we are creating a generation of people who sit back and let others tell them who they are and what to think.  I guess we shall see.

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of “Signs Address Somebody” by Judith Williamson.

 

 

In ”Signs Address Somebody” by Judith Williamson, she begins by defining signs as having meaning only as long there is someone to give them meaning.  Signs would not exist if they did not have meaning existing within the receivers belief system.  In order for an ad to have meaning, the product must replace an “image or feeling.” Yet Williamson points out, that this relationship between product and consumer is a reciprocal one. The consumer gives meaning to the product and the product gives meaning to the consumer. To fully understand this relationship it is important to examine the space existing between “signifier and signified.”  Williamson notes that this space is held together by the invisible existence of ideology.  Ideology is considered the absolute truth, and we do not question its existence or the belief system it supports. We like to consider ourselves free individuals capable of making our own decisions, when in fact, it is our ideology that dictates our belief system and influences our choices.  In her writing, Williamson explains how advertisements work within our ideology and “invite us freely to create ourselves in accordance with the way in which they have already created us.”

 

We live in a society in which value is determined by what we are willing to exchange for it.  In other words, the more something means to us the more valuable it becomes.  Advertisers are aware of this transference and emphasize value to encourage consumers to buy their products.  By working on the assumption that the consumer/subject intrinsically has the inherent ideology to translate signs into meaning, the advertisers are able to use signs in their ads as a form of manipulation. We see the ad, we recognize it’s meaning, and we buy the product. Here the subject actively fills the space between the ad and its meaning.

 

Williamson points out that since it is the subject that brings the meaning to the ad, then the ad, as well as being “made by us and in us, it is also made with us.”  She uses the example of Clairol as representing happiness. Not only is the consumer able to buy happiness by purchasing a box of Clairol, but the purchase also signifies us, creating a new system of groups.  The consumer enters in to the happy group of Clairol users, which in turn reflects what sort of person you are, a happy Clairol girl. So now the product has actually transferred traits, you are a happier person because you are a Clairol user.  Subjects are now categorized into different groups depending on the products they buy, each “ occupying a particular position in the social structure.”

 

Next Williamson explores Levi-Strauss’s definition of totemism. Levi-Strauss says,” The term totemism covers relations. posed ideologically between two series, one natural, the other cultural.” Williamson argues that ‘totemic’ groups created through advertising are not natural. These groups are based on the members using the same cigarettes or drinking the same soda. Though these groups overlap allowing for multiple memberships, they have been created by the consumers allowing the products to identify who they are and how they feel. Because of this, products and feelings become interchangeable.  People choose products by recognizing themselves “as the kind of person who will use a specific brand.”  In other words, ads must exist from the inside out, so when we are confronted with many choices, we choose the one that best describes our lifestyles and ourselves.

Williamson uses an ad for Cockburn’s port to illustrate how we become participants in the ad itself. In the Cockburn’s port ad, a discriminating group of friends are gathered around a table enjoying a glass of port.  The advertisers have left the place at the head of the table empty; this is the place that has been saved for you. After placing yourself in the ad, you can easily identify the other people at the table as your friends, and as a unique and discriminating individual, you can see yourself joining them in a glass of port.  This ability to interchange ourselves with the people in the ads “ leads to the idea of the mirror phase.”  Regardless of whether it is a group of people or a singular person, we are capable of transferring ourselves into the ad becoming the “you,” and since we are unique and special individuals, the ad must be speaking directly to us.

 

Williamson points out that by individualizing products through naming, they are actually naming the products after us.  We interchange ourselves with the product making the car we drive or the soap we use a reflection of ourselves. This being, we the consumers tend to choose the products that would best represent out ideal selves.  The advertisers realizing this identity transfer design the ads to flatter our egos, making us feel that it is our own preexisting taste and individuality that makes their products a logical choice. Williamson also explains that it is essential for advertisers, though placing us in groups, to keep us as individuals making our own choices, that way if we by buy their product, we will stand out in a crowd.

 

By remaining flexible and identifying the different aspects of each individual, ads are capable of expanding the definition of self.  By addressing people as having multiple experiences, interests and belief systems, advertisers are able to market products as being essential to all aspects of life, thus taking into account who you are at any given moment.  Yet no matter how complex we are as individuals, the many facets of our lives create a whole. Williamson uses the example of an ad showing a woman in various life roles representing “all the kinds of women within you.”

 

Advertising arranges women and men into separate categories, emphasizing different needs.  Women are divided into two parts, the workingwoman and the ideal woman.  Ads tell us that women must physically transform themselves to play different roles.  Williamson uses the example of an ad featuring a woman biochemist.  The woman transforms at the end of the workday by changing out of her work clothes, male influenced, into a soft feminine blouse, abandoning her male association and transforming into her feminine self. In other words, she can be a woman or a biochemist but not a woman biochemist.  Ads focused on men also divide men, but this time, the division is between family and masculinity.  For example, a car ad will try to appeal to men by selling both virility and family comfort. The power of ads lies in their ability to feed off the “subjects own desire for coherence and meaning in him or herself.”

 

Society places emphasis on the Self, and ads respond to the need for individuality within the whole. Levi-Strauss says, “We have each become our own ‘totem’.  Thus the signifying branches of society are inextricably bound up with what we are-who we are.”  Williamson points out that ideology is reproduced in advertisements and is inextricably linked to the conscience.  She sites Lacan’s theory concerning how a child looking in a mirror will separate his identity from what he sees.  The mirror image becomes an object, allowing the child to “ place himself in a similar relation to an object,” thus the child now sees himself as both the object and the subject. Advertisers know that people viewing an ad will place themselves in the role of the imaginary person, making the ad a personal experience. This is how advertising is able to tell us who we are and who we want to be. Thus we assume that by purchasing their product, we will come one step closer to becoming the ideal self-seen within the ad.

 

Williamson looks at how advertisers “ by offering us symbols as the objects of unity, they ensnare us in a quest for the impossible.”  We live within this system of signs lead by desire, which is the “root of the process of the Symbolic.” We are constantly driven to strive for the ideal, and advertisers play to our desires.  If we buy their products, we will become the person we wish to be, smarter, funnier, happier etc. We are even capable of believing that it is our face on the product box, and that by purchasing the product, we are buying a new improved self. Williamson point out that “we are both product and consumer; we consume, buy the product, yet we are the product. Thus our lives become our own creations through buying.”

 

 

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream by Noam Chomsky

 

 

In his essay, What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream, Noam Chomsky begins by looking at how the nature of media relates to the audience and its surrounding controlling power structures. He points out the similarities between media and scholarship, and classifies media into two categories, “mass media” and “elite media.”  “Mass media” is defined as entertainment media, for example sitcoms, cartoons, reality shows etc., all of which are designed as diversions or escapes from everyday life.  “Elite Media” on the other hand, sets “ the framework in which everyone else operates.” Chomsky uses The New York Times and CBS as examples, stating that these corporations dictate what news is to both the public and other media sources. 

 

Chomsky next examines why and how “elite media” has achieved the authority to set the news agenda. He notes, though in their own right powerful and profitable corporations, the “elite media” relies heavily on their “parasitic” relationship with larger power structures, for example the government, bigger corporations, and universities.  To keep their own control, the “elite media” must conform to the ideals of the more powerful institutions and corporations.  Chomsky uses the universities as an example how institutions reliant to outside sources form a dependency, perpetuating the teaching of the ideals of the dominant power structures. 

 

Chomsky points out that an individual can prosper as long as elite ideals and behaviors are observed, if an individual chooses to deviate from these ideals, they are immediately shutdown, fired, censored etc. He uses the example of the censorship of an introduction to Animal Farm by George Orwell. Here the author, stating what was deemed an unpopular opinion, was unable to print his own ideas in his own work.  In some cases, Chomsky notes, the elite ideology is so ingrained in individuals that even those individuals don’t realize its influence. 

 

Chomsky looks at how, for example The New York Times, can be looked at as a large corporation selling its product, the audience, to the market, the advertisers.  Here he defines ”the audience” as educated privileged people with marked similarities to the people running or working within the powerful corporations.  In other words, the media can be looked at as a refection of the interests of the buyers, the sellers, and the greater powers that influence their decisions.  This institutional structure is one that readily exists but is never discussed, questioning its existence would be going against the elite ideology.

 

Chomsky next examines the public relations industry, public thinkers and the “academic stream,” all of which believe in the stupidity of the general public. It is the job of the elite to inform the general public as to how to think and behave, acting as “spectators, not participants.” This theory, Chomsky states, evolved during World War I and II, and stems from the development of propaganda.  The growth of propaganda influenced how Americans saw themselves, and how they interpreted their relationships with other countries. This spurred the first and only propaganda agency, referred to as” The Committee on Public Information” or the “Creel Commission”.  Chomsky even references Hitler’s belief that he lost the war because he could not compete with ”British and American propaganda.”  This concept of controlling public thought, developed during WWI, was the beginning of the public relations industry. Chomsky quotes Barnay, the “guru,” who wrote that these new techniques “had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course.”

 

The American business industry was impressed by the results achieved through the use of propaganda, and with the country becoming increasingly democratic, started placing an emphasis on public manipulation. Here Chomsky uses Barnay again as an example, explaining how his advertising skills made him a leader of the industry by persuading women to smoke. Next Chomsky examines Walter Lippmans concept of ‘manufactured consent.” In order to overcome the problem of the public having the right to vote, Lippman pointed out the need to “manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them.”  This concept of human manipulation began the development of what Harold Glasswell termed “political warfare.”

 

In conclusion, Chomsky looks at how the inner workings of the “institutional structure” remains today exclusively designed for the people on the inside, never to be discussed or questioned, especially by the ”ignorant meddlesome outsiders.”

 

 

 

 

 

Brooke Marcy

 

A summary of Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Louis Althusser

 

In the essay, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, Louis Althusser begins by pointing out that for production to succeed, the creation of the means of production must simultaneously be established.  He states that without the “reproduction of the conditions of production” the production itself would ultimately fail.  One form of production is often reliant on others, creating a complicated chain, so when one fails many can suffer. An important link in this chain of production is the wage driven labor power. Earning a wage enables a person to support themselves and their families, which perpetuates a continued need for earning.  To generate the greatest output, it is necessary for the labor power to possess diversity of knowledge and skills. This diversity is created by the “capitalist education system”, which depending on the amount of study, can prepare the student to work productively in a variety of roles.  Yet, a technical knowledge is not the only thing taught, students also learn the “rules of good behavior.” These rules teach a respect for the dominant class and the “subjection to the ruling ideology”, thus repressing the workers by dictating the roles they will play.

 

Louis Althusser next examines Marx views of the social whole, which consists of the economic base and the superstructure.  The relationship between these two structures is dependent and reciprocal, and without a solid base the superstructure would not survive.  He also discusses Marx’s descriptive theory of State, defining it as a “machine of repression” perpetuated by the dominance of the ruling class.  To expand on this definition, Althusses adds the State apparatus, consisting of police, courts, prisons and the army, supporting a  “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” and State power, which is constantly struggled over by dominant class fractions.  State power and State apparatus are two separate entities and should not be confused.  The possession of State power affects the apparatus, but the apparatus will still function without the State power. On the other hand, the only way to transform the apparatus is to destroy and replace preexisting State power.

 

Althusser next expands on the definition of the State by introducing the new concept of the ideological state apparatus, not to be confused with the State apparatus, though both contain aspects of each other. Unlike the violence driven State apparatus, the ISA functions by the incorporation of ideologies taught in institutions including schools, churches, families etc…  The ideologies, though diverse, function as a unified body under the ideology of the dominant class who control State power.  Though unified, ISA is still a reflection of class struggle and influenced by the ruling class ideology. In order to work properly, the State apparatus must include both violence (SA) and ideology (ISA), and it is the job of the State power to unify both apparatus, creating a harmonious, stable, submissive and productive work force.

 

Unlike the singular State apparatus, there are a number of ideological state apparatuses, which over the years have shifted in dominance. For example, the dominance of the church has been replaced by education. Similarly, State power has shifted from the landed aristocracy to the industrial bourgeoisie.  Althusser points out that it is the education apparatus that perpetuates the ideals of the ruling class and per motes the “capitalist relations of exploitation.”  At a very early age children are taught in school what to think and how to properly act and function in society.  Though schools claim to be neutral institutions for learning, they are in fact machines designed to manufacture people to fit into specific roles whether it is the role of the exploited or the “agent of exploitation.”

 

Next Althusser examines the nature of ideology.  He replaces the definition of ideologies as a “history of social formation,” with the idea that ideology in general has no history of its own, inferring that ideology is nothing more than an internal illusion of reality.  He states that the only true reality is that of everyday life and that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.”  This blurring of illusion and reality combines to form a reality of existence, which throughout history, has acted as a tool for some to manipulate to gain dominance over others. Althusser also looks at how the existence of ideology within an apparatus makes its existence material.  Humans act on their beliefs derived from ideas based on material actions and rituals defined by the ideological apparatus, and it is these beliefs that dictate behavior and create human consciousness.

 

Althusser proposes that, “there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subject.”  He goes on to look at how all ideology functions to identify individuals as subjects.  He defines “subject” as a person living naturally in ideology and that it is through ideology that we are recognized as separate and irreplaceable individuals.  Subject and individual are two separate entities, and to make his point, Althusser uses the example of a person being hailed on the street.  The minute a person being hailed turns their head; they change from a non-specific individual into a specific subject. The reason behind the turn of the head is the eternal existence of ideology, which identifies subjects among individuals. Here Althusser point out that if ideology is internal then“ individuals are always-already subject.”

 

Althusser continues by examining Christian religious ideology. Once again, the ideology revolves around the transformation form individual to subject, but here there must be a belief in the existence of the ultimate Subject (God).  It is within this belief that the subject molds their own existence, and if the subject lives their life by the example of the Subject, then like Christ, the subject will find salvation by “re-entering the Subject.”  This creates an absolute existence with no questions, if one behaves in a specific way, they will be rewarded.  Althusser terms this ideology a “ mirror-structure,” and states,” this mirror duplication is constitutive of ideology and ensures its functioning.” He points out that without subjection there would be no subject and ideology boils down to the need for “ the reproduction of the relations of production and of the relations derived from them.”  In other words, all that must be is and remains so to ensure continued production.

 

Althusser concludes by stating that the relationship he has discussed between Superstructure and infrastructure is abstract and problematic, bringing up several questions. He examines how class struggle is not addressed when looking at the “total process,” and how this struggle effects the generalization of ideology. He notes that even the provenance of the ideology of the ruling class is more complicated than what was earlier stated and is derived by other sources. He states,” ideologies are not “born” in the ISAs but from social classes at grips in the class struggle: from their conditions of existence, their practices, their experience of struggle, etc.”