Ideology, Hegemony, Simulacra, Spectacle . . .

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I was just wandering if there's anybody on the board who could articulate the similarity and differences between these ideas, and the practical implications thereof. Are all of these terms still individually useful and relevent? Etc.

For the sake of keeping the thread clean, I'm going to ask people not start posting a lot of poorly worded two-line opinions until the first part of the question is answered.

[hoopla]

Well, I dare say that I'm not much help, especially with simulacra.

Its a silly question (especially seeing as you don't way where your coming from), but kinda fun, I guess.

The spectacle is a social relation mediated by images (Debord); whereas hegemony is a relation of space between a group carrying out another classes class task, and the natural class agent (Laclau). There are various forms of ideology, but the way that the differ is in the way they liegitimize hegemony (Frankfurt school).

So, both hegemony and the spectacle are social relations but the spectacle is new, and ideology is a form of consciousness that legitimizes hegemony. I could add that hegemony is an addition to class relations i.e. that its inter class, unlike the spectacle which unites proletarians in their separateness.

Never read anything on the simulacra, but I have notes on texts for each of the other if your desperate for me to eek out more 1 liners.

;)

Edit: Also, ideology is part of the superstructure isn't it and the spoectacle a form of distribution/consumption of the product, so maybe in contrast its part of the base.

[More Fire for the People]

The word 'ideology' has two meanings: 'weltanschauung' and 'consciousness'. An ideology in the sense of weltanschauung means "an intellectual construction which gives a unified solution of all the problems of our existence in virtue of a comprehensive hypothesis, a construction, therefore, in which no question is left open and in which everything in which we are interested finds a place". However, the word 'ideology' can also be used in the sense of consciousness, of perception of being.

The word 'hegemony' means a dominance of perception by another's perception. For instance, the class consciousness of the bourgeoisie can be internalized by the working class. Therefore, all 'bourgeois values' are simotaneously 'proletarian values'.

The 'spectacle' is essentially an object which demands the gaze of all. The commodity is a spectacle as everyone focuses their existence upon the commodity and everything is mediated through the commodity.

[Hit The North]

Here's a link to some of Baudrillard's writing on the simulacra: CLICK HERE (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html)

"The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory..."

Hmmm.

[hoopla]

I would disagree that the spectacle is an object and not a social relation. Perhaps its the equivalent of saying that capital is a factory and not, a social relation.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't know anything about defintions, but you've reminded me of a really fucking excellent book. It's called "Hegemony Or Survival", and it's by Noam Chomsky. It's almost funny, in an extremely depressing and dropkick to the face sort of way.

-Alex

[hoopla]

Thinking about it, it is probably ideology that encourages us to reproduce the spectacle.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:31 PM

Edit: Also, ideology is part of the superstructure isn't it and the spoectacle a form of distribution/consumption of the product, so maybe in contrast its part of the base.
Ideology is product of the base’s two-way relationship with the superstructure which helps reproduce and sustain the base. The Journalist is a proletarian and his commodity is the news laced with its ideological dispositions, which helps to perpetuate capitalistic social formations.

One of the problems I’ve found with post-world war two Marxism has been it’s over compensation for second international type economic reductionism by overly focusing on cultural accepts neglecting in depth focus on the cultural spheres dynamic relationship to economics. Cultural products are still produced and are just not the sole domain of super structure study.

I think Debord’s concept of the Spectacle captures that relationship between culture and economics, Base and Superstructure.

[hoopla]

Just to make it clearer, the spectacle isn't a strictly cultural entity, though I would think that you could critique spectacular culture, I'm sure some people do anyway. The spectacle is capital as commodities, a social relation. Culture is a star commodity.