Kill all the fetuses!
19th November 2014, 18:36
Trying to understand what is ideology and how it functions I've spent some time thinking about it and watching every lecture by Zizek that I could lay my hands on. I tried to look for such a thread on Revleft, but I couldn't find anything apart from a couple of threads that stop at 5 or so posts. I would like to have a serious discussion about ideology and its functioning. However, not to simply leave an open question here, I will try to put my own understanding of ideology so that it acts as a starting point for critique and/or further elaboration.
After reading several threads related to ideology, it seemed to me that many people hold the view that ideology is simply that which is actively and cynically propagated by the bourgeoisie, i.e. something they really don't believe in, but using the media they spread the false consciousness among the workers. On top of that, some hold the view that ideology is a set of ideas that are passively created by the economic base, a sort of deterministic view. It seems to me that both of these views are fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, ideology is a set of ideas that shape the way we understand reality, which comes from the real and existing material interests of the ruling class. It is not cynically promoted by the ruling class, but forms the very basis of their understanding of the world and so in that sense is real. So, for instance, capitalists get rich through their own effort, through their hard work and whatnot, which then forms the underlying logic of their ideology, i.e. liberalism. In many cases it is literally true that he became a capitalist precisely this way and so creates an ideological view of the world, which stems from the real experience of his.
In the absence of class struggle, workers are left with nothing, but liberalism as their ideology. As long as he finds himself as an atomized individual in his relation to other workers, capitalists and means of production, liberalism naturally becomes worker's ideology. However, class struggle is in-built in capitalism and so these outbursts of class struggle shatters into pieces the liberal ideology of the bourgeoisie in the minds of the workers, replacing them with the ideology of communism (not in any linear, automatic way, of course). That's why class struggle and not some abstract propaganda is the best way to raise class-consciousness, i.e. it is a real social relations, which begets the ideology of communism and shows how liberalism is true only in so far as it represents the social relations and experiences of bourgeoisie.
So take the issue of racism and other forms of discrimination. In the absence of class struggle, i.e. right now, it is always presented as an issue of tolerance. While discrimination is very real, the way it is conceptualized (i.e. as a problem of tolerance) is a natural outcome of the dominance of the liberal ideology or to put it in different words, it is a natural outcome of the absence of class struggle. That is to say, that since one understands reality through the eyes of an atomized individual and, hence, understands it through liberal eyes, it naturally approaches the problem of discrimination as a problem of individual preferences as opposed to the problem of class struggle.
In the same way, if one takes the idea of bourgeois family, it is not the case that bourgeoisie actively and cynically promoted and promotes this sort of family, but rather that it arose naturally out of the necessity to reproduce capitalist social relations as the basis for liberalism. One can say that it arose due to the workings of the invisible hand. And so it brings me to my last point: the relation between base and superstructure.
I saw a thread recently (I didn't read it all), which went something like this: if base determines superstructure and base is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, how can we ever destroy capitalism? The first problem is that such a question misses the point that communism as an ideology is in-built into capitalism through the class struggle. Communism is a natural and inevitable part of the dominance of capitalism. But furthermore, it indicates for me a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between base and superstructure. Such relation is not deterministic and one-sided in that base determines superstructure and so we have it. Base "determining" superstructure means only that ideas do not originate independently from material reality and in the last analysis comes from it. But it doesn't mean that there is some one-sided mechanical relationship between base and superstructure, which isn't Marxism, but economic determinism.
It is rather the case that base and superstructureconditions one another. Base "determines" superstructure, but this very superstructure is necessary and inseparable part of the reproduction of the base. Without ideology acting back upon base we couldn't even have capitalism to begin with. Without bourgeoisie family, without workers being atomized, without patriarchy and so on, capitalism couldn't function in the same form (and at the end - in any form) as it does.
So take this as a starting point for a discussion, tarnish it, jack it into pieces, set it ablaze, do whatever you want.
Please note: this post is full of certain abstractions, for instance, when I say "in the absence of class struggle" I don't literally mean that there is or must be no class struggle etc.
After reading several threads related to ideology, it seemed to me that many people hold the view that ideology is simply that which is actively and cynically propagated by the bourgeoisie, i.e. something they really don't believe in, but using the media they spread the false consciousness among the workers. On top of that, some hold the view that ideology is a set of ideas that are passively created by the economic base, a sort of deterministic view. It seems to me that both of these views are fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, ideology is a set of ideas that shape the way we understand reality, which comes from the real and existing material interests of the ruling class. It is not cynically promoted by the ruling class, but forms the very basis of their understanding of the world and so in that sense is real. So, for instance, capitalists get rich through their own effort, through their hard work and whatnot, which then forms the underlying logic of their ideology, i.e. liberalism. In many cases it is literally true that he became a capitalist precisely this way and so creates an ideological view of the world, which stems from the real experience of his.
In the absence of class struggle, workers are left with nothing, but liberalism as their ideology. As long as he finds himself as an atomized individual in his relation to other workers, capitalists and means of production, liberalism naturally becomes worker's ideology. However, class struggle is in-built in capitalism and so these outbursts of class struggle shatters into pieces the liberal ideology of the bourgeoisie in the minds of the workers, replacing them with the ideology of communism (not in any linear, automatic way, of course). That's why class struggle and not some abstract propaganda is the best way to raise class-consciousness, i.e. it is a real social relations, which begets the ideology of communism and shows how liberalism is true only in so far as it represents the social relations and experiences of bourgeoisie.
So take the issue of racism and other forms of discrimination. In the absence of class struggle, i.e. right now, it is always presented as an issue of tolerance. While discrimination is very real, the way it is conceptualized (i.e. as a problem of tolerance) is a natural outcome of the dominance of the liberal ideology or to put it in different words, it is a natural outcome of the absence of class struggle. That is to say, that since one understands reality through the eyes of an atomized individual and, hence, understands it through liberal eyes, it naturally approaches the problem of discrimination as a problem of individual preferences as opposed to the problem of class struggle.
In the same way, if one takes the idea of bourgeois family, it is not the case that bourgeoisie actively and cynically promoted and promotes this sort of family, but rather that it arose naturally out of the necessity to reproduce capitalist social relations as the basis for liberalism. One can say that it arose due to the workings of the invisible hand. And so it brings me to my last point: the relation between base and superstructure.
I saw a thread recently (I didn't read it all), which went something like this: if base determines superstructure and base is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, how can we ever destroy capitalism? The first problem is that such a question misses the point that communism as an ideology is in-built into capitalism through the class struggle. Communism is a natural and inevitable part of the dominance of capitalism. But furthermore, it indicates for me a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between base and superstructure. Such relation is not deterministic and one-sided in that base determines superstructure and so we have it. Base "determining" superstructure means only that ideas do not originate independently from material reality and in the last analysis comes from it. But it doesn't mean that there is some one-sided mechanical relationship between base and superstructure, which isn't Marxism, but economic determinism.
It is rather the case that base and superstructureconditions one another. Base "determines" superstructure, but this very superstructure is necessary and inseparable part of the reproduction of the base. Without ideology acting back upon base we couldn't even have capitalism to begin with. Without bourgeoisie family, without workers being atomized, without patriarchy and so on, capitalism couldn't function in the same form (and at the end - in any form) as it does.
So take this as a starting point for a discussion, tarnish it, jack it into pieces, set it ablaze, do whatever you want.
Please note: this post is full of certain abstractions, for instance, when I say "in the absence of class struggle" I don't literally mean that there is or must be no class struggle etc.