Jon wrote:
> I am not sure what this "ecological" notion of ideology might be: this
> seems to have come from Malgosia's comparison between ideology and the
> atmosphere. This sounds like Althusser to me (we inevitably have
> imagined relations to the real relations of society, it's a function of
> subjectivity). Malgosia's comment was a response to the suggestion that
> individuals "make and participate in ideology as much as they receive
> it." I'm not sure what that means exactly, what kind of subjectivity is
> pre-supposed here. Whatever, I'm a little sceptical, and it doesn't
> sound much like D&G to me.
I think we are at cross-purposes here. The discussion originated in
my claim that D was not "above ideology". When I said this, I was not
trying to use "ideology" in accordance with D&G's conception of it,
about which I know nothing and am learning a great deal from this
discussion. I was using "ideology" the way I understand it in
my own everyday usage, which I think is a pretty middle-of-the-road
kind of thing where individuals are neither conceived of as completely
autonomous and "stamped from the outside" by ideology, nor as completely
un-autonomous. I agree that this makes no contribution to elucidating
D&G's, or any other philosopher's, position, but I also find it funny
that this ordinary usage leaves you so puzzled.
- malgosia
------------------
> I am not sure what this "ecological" notion of ideology might be: this
> seems to have come from Malgosia's comparison between ideology and the
> atmosphere. This sounds like Althusser to me (we inevitably have
> imagined relations to the real relations of society, it's a function of
> subjectivity). Malgosia's comment was a response to the suggestion that
> individuals "make and participate in ideology as much as they receive
> it." I'm not sure what that means exactly, what kind of subjectivity is
> pre-supposed here. Whatever, I'm a little sceptical, and it doesn't
> sound much like D&G to me.
I think we are at cross-purposes here. The discussion originated in
my claim that D was not "above ideology". When I said this, I was not
trying to use "ideology" in accordance with D&G's conception of it,
about which I know nothing and am learning a great deal from this
discussion. I was using "ideology" the way I understand it in
my own everyday usage, which I think is a pretty middle-of-the-road
kind of thing where individuals are neither conceived of as completely
autonomous and "stamped from the outside" by ideology, nor as completely
un-autonomous. I agree that this makes no contribution to elucidating
D&G's, or any other philosopher's, position, but I also find it funny
that this ordinary usage leaves you so puzzled.
- malgosia
------------------