malgosia wrote:
>libby wrote:
>
>> but ideology doesn't just "come from above," nor does it arise
>> and propagate itself by "a culture stamping it into individuals."
>> were that the case, ideology could indeed be tossed out the
>> window with the author, truth, and the autonomous subject. thing
>> is, *individuals make and participate in ideology just as much as
>> they receive it*.
>
>I just wanted to note my agreement with this, as against Aden's
>model of "stamping". I see the relationship between ideology and
>individuals as a complex ecological system. Nevertheless, it is
>sometimes desirable to attempt to trace the journey of some
>particular, often artificially isolated, element through the system.
>The usefulness of the term "ideology" is similar to that of, say,
>"the Earth's atmoshpere".
>
>
>- malgosia
I, too, agree that ideology is not something stamped from above.
This notion came from a post to which I was responding, and I
suggesting that such a view of ideology, though not necessarily
correct, does offer a sense in which ideology is transcendent.
I do think that, to the extent that ideology is precisely a
narrowing of the possible approaches to a subject--that is,
an ideology, for example, Marxism, is something which defines
in advance what counts as a problem and what methods and terms
can serve to address that problem--it can be called transcendent.
(Transcendence, here, is used in the sense of the plane of
transcendence, explicitly opposed to immanence. Transcendence
in this sense, is what imposes an order (code, etc.), from without,
rather than growing an organization (?) from within).Of course,
ideology NEED NOT FUNCTION THIS WAY. But it can and too often
does.
Aden Evens
BGRZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Go Heels?
------------------
>libby wrote:
>
>> but ideology doesn't just "come from above," nor does it arise
>> and propagate itself by "a culture stamping it into individuals."
>> were that the case, ideology could indeed be tossed out the
>> window with the author, truth, and the autonomous subject. thing
>> is, *individuals make and participate in ideology just as much as
>> they receive it*.
>
>I just wanted to note my agreement with this, as against Aden's
>model of "stamping". I see the relationship between ideology and
>individuals as a complex ecological system. Nevertheless, it is
>sometimes desirable to attempt to trace the journey of some
>particular, often artificially isolated, element through the system.
>The usefulness of the term "ideology" is similar to that of, say,
>"the Earth's atmoshpere".
>
>
>- malgosia
I, too, agree that ideology is not something stamped from above.
This notion came from a post to which I was responding, and I
suggesting that such a view of ideology, though not necessarily
correct, does offer a sense in which ideology is transcendent.
I do think that, to the extent that ideology is precisely a
narrowing of the possible approaches to a subject--that is,
an ideology, for example, Marxism, is something which defines
in advance what counts as a problem and what methods and terms
can serve to address that problem--it can be called transcendent.
(Transcendence, here, is used in the sense of the plane of
transcendence, explicitly opposed to immanence. Transcendence
in this sense, is what imposes an order (code, etc.), from without,
rather than growing an organization (?) from within).Of course,
ideology NEED NOT FUNCTION THIS WAY. But it can and too often
does.
Aden Evens
BGRZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Go Heels?
------------------