Month: October 2013

Categories
Marx Marxism

Dear Iphone…

Marxist-AliensI read Marx years ago, probably like most students in the class, and it was refreshing to go over his ideas again. Although this time, it was different. I was reading Marx under a different angle. I was trying to figure out how to apply the marxist theory to literature. Yes, one can write about workers condition or economic and social challenges in societies driven by capitalism which would then constitute a marxist approach to literature? That would be too easy. Then I started to read Gramsci on hegemony and I started to see a light? Marx mentioned that «literature could only be understood within its full context that is by considering the historical, the economical, the social and the cultural contexts.» For Marx, «literature can reproduce the class structures of society and, therefore, is an active agent». Marx was writing in 1830-1840 and saw in literature, in consumerism and in certain societal institution some agents that participated in the «enslavement» of the worker or the individual by extension. How would Marx feel about the importance of media nowadays?? We live in an era where media «reach» you even when you do not want them to. You can hardly ignore information appearing on your screen when you read your emails or screen a blog, you can hardly ride a bus without seeing the free newspaper your neighbour is eagerly reading, you can hardly stay away from Facebook as on your way home there is always a student willing to play with his phone as if his life depended on it and not even caring to hide his Facebook page. If literature reproduces the class structure of society, we are in trouble! We are no longer the ones seeking literature but we are literally being stalked by it. Is that media invasion the ultimate manifestation of what Gramsci called hegemony? Why do we buy an Iphone? Is it truly for the technology or is it because we read the reviews and the frenzy around the product somewhere? Those of us who do not own an Iphone, who are we? Like my friends call me, we are the nannies of the cell phone industry. Literature dictated that owing an Iphone was necessary (for your image, for your reputation, for Apple’s sake). What are the consequences of these daily little articles that praise that apparently technological piece of jewelry? We consume! We buy it for $600-700 even though it cost 170$ to make. The value of labor was of nobody’s concern especially after Steve Jobs’s revolutionary book on how to be successful. This is probably a ridiculous comment and example for many of you, but it, somehow, helped me to see how I could be critical of literary objects from a marxist perspective.


Categories
Marx Marxism

Ruling ideas in our times?

In the fragment of The German Ideology that we have read, Marx says “The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of material production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it” (656). I think he has reason, and in our times we can see this, for example, in the dominant industry of entertainment. The values of Capitalism are exalted all the time: consumption, success as accumulation of material goods, work hard to get rich, get rich to get a perfect family, etc., etc. In other words, false promises to keep people working hard in order to sustain the dominant system. (I remember here the acid critique to these false promises of the “american dream” that Arthur Miller made in 1948 in his brilliant play Death of a salesman).

Nevertheless, I was wondering if the quoted statement and the one that says emphatically “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” (656) are still completely valid in our times. Certainly, we can assume that when Marx was writing his texts, he doesn’t consider his work as part of the “ruling class”. However, less than a Century later his ideas become ruling ideas of a ruling class in societies that based his economy in agronomy and not in the industry. But beyond this historical fact, I want to emphasize the question that if in our days is still possible to talk about one –and only one- dominant ideological discourse.

Of course, in Occident there is one –the Capitalist- and his discourse is reproduced through the mass media and other institutions everyday. This also happens with other dominant discourses in other parts of the world. But, I think that the era of the cyberspace allows the confluence of other mental productions and ideologies besides the one of the ruling class. A good example is how in the recent revolution of 2011 in Egypt the social networks played an important role to organize the protests and the subsequent fall of Mubarak. He, by the way, tried to shut down the communications or, in other words, the discourses that were threating the dominant one.

But not only the world of cyberspace allows the presence of important discourses that are not the dominant one and that goes against it. The academic world is another important space were other discourses emerge. Of course it do not have the power of the dominant, but in the recent times they also have an important presence. Again, it could be thank to the development of the tools of the cyberspace. So, I think it is a good idea to discuss if is still completely valid the idea of Marx that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas”. Maybe we are in a moment where dominant ideas have less power and maybe are condemn to disappear.

Between Illusion and the Conscious

Based on what we discussed last week and this week’s readings, I am very interested in the role of consciousness in the way the individual or the subject interacts with and through language and ideology, and if living in the truth of ideology is a conscious decision.

Bakhtin, for example, highlights the importance of the awakening moment when an individual (an illiterate peasant in his extreme example) realizes there are variegated languages that juxtapose, encounter, interact and contradict each other just like in a novel, and he faces the moment of choosing one (678).

Before that, the individual just use various (not variegated) languages automatically. What triggers that moment of consciousness? If we say during the mirror stage when the child determines his identity as a separate entity and recognize the Other, then I don’t think children will have the capacity of realization and Bakhtin is not proposing that either as the peasant might have gone through that stage and not necessarily choose a specific orientation at such an early age.

It seems to me that we have the faculty to choose at some point, according to Bakhtin, between the Authoritative discourse and the Internally persuasive discourse, this latter enabling multiplicity of the semantic structure, an open window where languages can have a dialogue.

In contrast, Althusser’s perspective is more deterministic and blunt: ideology is false consciousness and consciousness is seen as the means by which ideology will preserve the order or, in his words “the imaginary relationship to their real conditions of existence” (693). If man is by nature a subject (“individuals are always-already subjects” p. 700). Then one cannot even talk about an “awakening moment” or the mirror recognition (although he suggests that this is what is really in question) since ideology will interpellate us since always and our ‘free’ subjection will always be mediated by an illusion.

As a side note, the way Althusser wrote the text with self-reflecting quotes such as “To speak in a Marxist language…” (694) or “And I shall be expected to use a more directly Marxist vocabulary” (697) or the justification of quoting Aristotle by saying Marx had a very high regard for him (695) were very comical, and make me wonder about his intention. As he insisted that one might be able to observe the distortion ideology displays in front of us if we don’t live in its truth, should these quotes be interpreted as a claim of distance from Marx while still using a Marxist framework for his analysis?

Back to the topic of consciousness and ideology, Zizek replies to Althusser arguing that ideology is not simply a false consciousness but it’s this reality which is “already to be conceived as ideological” (716). This implies blindness or a cynical attitude in which subjects are conscious of the ideological discourse and the distorted reality offered to them but still live in its truth because they find reasons to retain the mask (718). The solution to break the cycle would be rather than unmasking, to confront the Real of our desire (723), but how? He doesn’t say and perhaps there is no way to do it as reality is always mediated by the language and other structures as Lacan said.

Between Illusion and the Conscious

Based on what we discussed last week and this week’s readings, I am very interested in the role of consciousness in the way the individual or the subject interacts with and through language and ideology, and if living in the truth of ideology is a conscious decision.

Bakhtin, for example, highlights the importance of the awakening moment when an individual (an illiterate peasant in his extreme example) realizes there are variegated languages that juxtapose, encounter, interact and contradict each other just like in a novel, and he faces the moment of choosing one (678).

Before that, the individual just use various (not variegated) languages automatically. What triggers that moment of consciousness? If we say during the mirror stage when the child determines his identity as a separate entity and recognize the Other, then I don’t think children will have the capacity of realization and Bakhtin is not proposing that either as the peasant might have gone through that stage and not necessarily choose a specific orientation at such an early age.

It seems to me that we have the faculty to choose at some point, according to Bakhtin, between the Authoritative discourse and the Internally persuasive discourse, this latter enabling multiplicity of the semantic structure, an open window where languages can have a dialogue.

In contrast, Althusser’s perspective is more deterministic and blunt: ideology is false consciousness and consciousness is seen as the means by which ideology will preserve the order or, in his words “the imaginary relationship to their real conditions of existence” (693). If man is by nature a subject (“individuals are always-already subjects” p. 700). Then one cannot even talk about an “awakening moment” or the mirror recognition (although he suggests that this is what is really in question) since ideology will interpellate us since always and our ‘free’ subjection will always be mediated by an illusion.

As a side note, the way Althusser wrote the text with self-reflecting quotes such as “To speak in a Marxist language…” (694) or “And I shall be expected to use a more directly Marxist vocabulary” (697) or the justification of quoting Aristotle by saying Marx had a very high regard for him (695) were very comical, and make me wonder about his intention. As he insisted that one might be able to observe the distortion ideology displays in front of us if we don’t live in its truth, should these quotes be interpreted as a claim of distance from Marx while still using a Marxist framework for his analysis?

Back to the topic of consciousness and ideology, Zizek replies to Althusser arguing that ideology is not simply a false consciousness but it’s this reality which is “already to be conceived as ideological” (716). This implies blindness or a cynical attitude in which subjects are conscious of the ideological discourse and the distorted reality offered to them but still live in its truth because they find reasons to retain the mask (718). The solution to break the cycle would be rather than unmasking, to confront the Real of our desire (723), but how? He doesn’t say and perhaps there is no way to do it as reality is always mediated by the language and other structures as Lacan said.

Discourse in the Novel, Dialogues in a book, Convos in a text



Although I found Marx’s texts interesting and also relatable to today’s society, I felt that Bakhtin’s words stayed with me. 

“Certain features of language take on the specific flavor of a given genre (675)”.

Although a part of me knew this to be true, it’s as if it just hit me when I read all of Bakhtin’s text. Like when we were in class and talking about how we don’t think about everything that is actually happening since most things are automatic… unless we actually make ourselves think about it (I believe an example was our heart pumping blood or us being hungry).  Anyway, I think it is quite fascinating to really think about it.

Everything we read and write it affected by the language we use every day. Many things that were once said in the 80s (or even further back) may no longer be used today or if it is, is looked at/read with bewilderment. Even when Bakhtin wrote about words having specific flavor the thing (or person) that came to mind was Flavor Flav which is ridiculous but true and this is due to “pop culture”, to the way words are now used.

Many words including vulgarity are now seen as something common among people, movies, and books. It is now (for some) a form of everyday speech. I will admit that I have become more accustomed to fouler things than when I was younger but that I am very cognizant of my surroundings and try to be respectful of others.

But, when I hear children saying profane words or talking about inappropriate things, my “mom” hat comes on. For example, last week I entered my usual bus route to UBC and found it to be full of children (ie middle schoolers). I already find it strange that Canadian schools use public transportation for field trips (but that is a whole other story, prob related to my American upbringings) but what I found even odder was that there was a group of boys discussing the movie Ted. They spoke of how they thought it was good and really funny. I won’t lie. I have seen this movie and some parts of it were funny BUT it is not anything someone their age should be watching. It is full of drugs, alcohol, basically everything your parents wouldn’t let you watch when you were 12 years old….ever.

And it’s not just movies slowly influencing society but books and articles. Authors have also become more comfortable and have adapted to the change in language within society and they reflect it in their own writings. I do think it is important to understand that this is happening and to “keep with the times” but will we ever get to a point when people or our language is going to far? Are we getting too comfortable? Does a line need to be drawn as to what is ok and not ok to say/write? Of course, here we go into freedom of speech oh wait….there is no freedom according to Zizek. 

Discourse in the Novel, Dialogues in a book, Convos in a text



Although I found Marx’s texts interesting and also relatable to today’s society, I felt that Bakhtin’s words stayed with me. 

“Certain features of language take on the specific flavor of a given genre (675)”.

Although a part of me knew this to be true, it’s as if it just hit me when I read all of Bakhtin’s text. Like when we were in class and talking about how we don’t think about everything that is actually happening since most things are automatic… unless we actually make ourselves think about it (I believe an example was our heart pumping blood or us being hungry).  Anyway, I think it is quite fascinating to really think about it.

Everything we read and write it affected by the language we use every day. Many things that were once said in the 80s (or even further back) may no longer be used today or if it is, is looked at/read with bewilderment. Even when Bakhtin wrote about words having specific flavor the thing (or person) that came to mind was Flavor Flav which is ridiculous but true and this is due to “pop culture”, to the way words are now used.

Many words including vulgarity are now seen as something common among people, movies, and books. It is now (for some) a form of everyday speech. I will admit that I have become more accustomed to fouler things than when I was younger but that I am very cognizant of my surroundings and try to be respectful of others.

But, when I hear children saying profane words or talking about inappropriate things, my “mom” hat comes on. For example, last week I entered my usual bus route to UBC and found it to be full of children (ie middle schoolers). I already find it strange that Canadian schools use public transportation for field trips (but that is a whole other story, prob related to my American upbringings) but what I found even odder was that there was a group of boys discussing the movie Ted. They spoke of how they thought it was good and really funny. I won’t lie. I have seen this movie and some parts of it were funny BUT it is not anything someone their age should be watching. It is full of drugs, alcohol, basically everything your parents wouldn’t let you watch when you were 12 years old….ever.

And it’s not just movies slowly influencing society but books and articles. Authors have also become more comfortable and have adapted to the change in language within society and they reflect it in their own writings. I do think it is important to understand that this is happening and to “keep with the times” but will we ever get to a point when people or our language is going to far? Are we getting too comfortable? Does a line need to be drawn as to what is ok and not ok to say/write? Of course, here we go into freedom of speech oh wait….there is no freedom according to Zizek. 
Categories
Gramsci Marxism

Gramsci: a short text raising many questions…

Reading Gramsci, I discovered a really interesting thinker. Most of his work is available on line… in French http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/gramsci_antonio/gramsci.html in English http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/ I am very convinced by the concept of hegemony, that probably influenced Bourdieu’s work…The idea of “spontaneous consent “given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the
Categories
Lacan

Lacan y la Revolución!

My Dad sent me this…perfect transition between last week topics and this one subjects of interest…Viva la revolución!
Categories
Freud

Blog analysis

If pigs could dream….

This week I am having trouble getting to grips with Freud’s take on things. WHY does everything have to revert back to sex, or childhood, or parents? I found it almost funny reading about the woman who had a dream about the beetles and being shocked when she was told it was OBVIOUSLY because she is concerned about relations with her husband. I think the fact that she had seen a drowning moth just before she had been to sleep was a more plausible explanation of animal suffering in her dream. Or maybe she had recently read Kafka, and the image of the beetle had stayed with her. I think there could be hundreds of possible interpretations and Freud should have commented on these instead of referring her dream instantly to sex.

I found interesting his thoughts on displacement, and think this part of his theory plausible. The fact that important things in the latent dream-thoughts are represented by things which appear to be unattached to them in the manifest content of the dream, and vice versa makes sense. Also the fact that one’s dream can to be about one thing whereas the dream-thoughts show it is really about something else also makes sense to me.
 The emotion associated with one idea or experience is detached from it and attached to another one seems again another plausible suggestion. Last night I actually had a rather odd dream, and I wonder what Freud would have to say about this – I was on a farm with my mum, and we stole a pig. We thought about NOT stealing the pig but the thought of having a pig as a pet was really appealing, so we decided to still steal the pig. It wasn’t a dirty pig, or a thin pig, or an overly fat pig, just a rather nice pig we thought would make a good pet – we weren’t going to eat it, just keep it. I was actually intrigued to see what this might have meant, and on searching ‘pig dreams’ numerous things came up in my Google search; some interpretations hinted at my ‘gluttonous nature’ (I did have an extra After Eight last night), others suggested that my luck was about to change (better buy a lottery ticket, or perhaps take more care when crossing the road). Yet when interpreting dreams in a Freudian manner I know I must not look at the pig itself but what it might suggest – what kind of ‘displacement’ could have occurred in the dream. Freud suggests that through associations we can infer the real meaning of the dream, which is all well and good but where is the intrigue when we know everything will hark back to sex? I agree with his theory of displacement and condensation yet the handling of it in psychoanalysis seems rather shallow, if I may say that. I guess for now I will have to content myself in the knowledge that my dream about owning a pig does not in fact mean that I desire this, that it is associated to something else more profound (I hope). Though I have always quite liked the idea of being a farmer.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet