Alex's response

The following comments deal with a few of the themes which we talked about in class and were present in the readings. They are not meant to be cohesive, but do follow the general topic of problems with comprehensive definitions and generalizations. I may have missed the mark entirely here, but these things seem relevant and worth mentioning in the context of our discussion, at least as I understood it…

In one of Eagleton’s first statements in his introduction voices the opinion that ideology has many definitions and that it is a waste of time to try to find a single “correct” one. It is more important, rather, to take parts of some and dismiss parts of others. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that struggling with an all-encompassing definition of this term (and many others) can easily cease to be productive and distract us from what, I think, are much more meaningful (or at least more practical) endeavors. By settling for a broad definition and accepting that it can be applied differently in different contexts, we can actually use it rather than simply talk about it. Perhaps this stance leads to occasional misuse of the term, but in order for it to be useful at all it seems that we have to get past trying to comprehensively define it. I think that archaeologically it is more important to describe and interpret what is actually in the material record than fit things into a theoretical framework. I think this is perhaps even more relevant in our upcoming discussion of the State.

Like Brad, I have also just been reading Mann, and think that some of the ways in which he talks about power can be applied here. His model of overlapping, intersecting power networks also applies to ideologies, I think. Within a society there are numerous ideologies in play at any given time: religious, political, economical, etc. These systems of belief are interacting with each other continuously (religious beliefs affecting political beliefs, for example), which makes it a very complex discourse. From an archaeological standpoint, recognizing the complexities of ideological interactions in our own society, we must pause before making statements like artifact A tells us B about the ideologies of society C. There is never going to be a simple answer, as I think everyone knows from the criticisms of DeMarrais et al. So what do we do? Take what we can get, it seems, but I have no intention of getting into that sort of theoretical discourse here. My point is that with a term like ideology recognition of its variety, and flexibility in the way we talk about it is key.

Taking up Omur’s interest in Althusser’s claim that education is the dominant ISA, I tend to not entirely agree. Again, I think this demonstrates the danger of making sweeping generalizations about things like ideology or the state. While the educational system may very well be the dominant ISA for some states or people, I tend to agree with Zizek that, at least based on my own observation, the media is the dominant force in structuring people’s perceptions of reality and ideologies (15). Television’s omnipresence has a significant effect on how people see the world as a whole. I think that only a very narrow part of a person’s total world view is based on personal experience, by which I mean the world as they experience it. Far more (because of the availability of a far greater scope) is based on the world as they see it through the media, a second hand source. Because people base their knowledge of world events on the news, it is easy for them to base their knowledge of how society functions and human interactions on things like sitcoms. If people are basing how they fit into society based on knowledge gained from the media, it has an immense impact on the world views of society as a whole. Rather than formative education (I think people often think of the educational world as separate from the “real world”), I think people look to the media for information on how the world works and society is supposed to function.