As individuals, we decide not to run the red light because we are subjected to the law, we cross our legs because we are subjected to other peoples' perceptions of us, we do not overthrow the teacher because we are subjects to the California state schooling system. Of course, as a free US citizen, we have the right to act otherwise, but because we are subjects, there will always be consequences in effect to deter people from opposing the assumed "code of conduct". In other words, ideology creates parameters on the power that an individual has, thus, we are only free citizens to the extent that the "subjecters" allow the subject to be.
So if the individual looses its power when he or she inevitably becomes a subject to unconscious ideologies, can the subject regain power by internalizing these implicit beliefs and ultimately regain his or her right to be an individual? It is an uplifting thought but unfortunately, we we will always be subjects because as humans, we will always be exposed to ideologies. Your beliefs can shift depending on your situation and environment, but you will always have beliefs.
However, just because we cannot overturn the different powers that enforce these"standard" ideas, we should not accept the submissive role that being a subject induces. By recognizing the powers that are in effect, we can at least be conscious of the ideologies that are limiting us as individuals. Even as subjects, we have the ability to be skeptical and question what is taking place around us. There is a very fine line between the unconscious and the conscious so, like Kara said in class, recognizing these ideologies gives us the ability to close read and to not believe everything we are told. As consumers, it is an important skill to use, just as we did with the Blackberry add.
2 comments:
I thought your post was very well written. I like that you brought up a few examples of things that we sort of do unconsciously, that "we" as a collective group of "subjects" participate in without ever really recognizing (let alone questioning) them.
It can be difficult to come to terms with, the idea that none of us can actually live as individuals, but as you said
"By recognizing the powers that are in effect, we can at least be conscious of the ideologies that are limiting us as individuals." Though it may be kind of depressing, this consciousness allows us to (at least) be aware of the things we do and critical of the masses of information we receive each day. We may not start a revolution, overturn the hegemonic power, or disobey the law, but we can begin to understand the ways we have been shaped by society in which we live.
And I think that is an excellent start.
I am glad to see you grappling with a complicated term, Kelly, and you have a keen awareness of its apparent enigmas. I also agree with Shahde that your post is very well written; in line with your first two posts, your prose is very clear and careful, which is wonderful. Also as Shahde writes, you provide some nice examples to illustrate your point. I am sure many of you will grow tired of seeing this comment on posts, but I want more--namely, a close reading that digs more deeply into some of your excellent, but very general, examples. For instance, you mention that women are "conditioned" to cross their legs when wearing a short skirt. I would back up even further and inquire about the cultures of gendered clothing. Why are skirts and women even associated? This is undoubtedly a very long and complicated history, which I do not expect you to uncover in one post, but perhaps you could think about a particularly vexing advertisement that genders clothing, making clear divisions between biological men and women. You could even take a field trip to GAP, for example, where I am always struck by that unbelievable division between men's and women's clothing (except of course when they tried the "boyfriend's pants" line, which I guess meant that the pants were more “masculine,” somehow?). Writing about a direct and seemingly simple experience with ideology in such a place like GAP would be fascinating. Nevertheless, your argument is quite provocative and complex, as I mentioned, but it does threaten to be too general.
Post a Comment