Referring to Althusser, my understanding is that he believes that we are always-already subject, ready to engage any practice or ritual based on the ideology that we have been brought up to believe and understand about our existence and the world around us. I am thinking of the example of someone calling out to a person and that person turning around assuming they are the subject of the hailing. Is this how he conjoins the two theses: 1. there is no practice except by and in ideology; 2. there is no ideology except by the subject and for subjects? The practice being hailing a person, while the ideology is the assumption that that you are being hailed as an always-already subject. This area is a little confusing for me.
In Hall's The Problem of Ideology, there is a particular idea that truly resonates with me. I would summarize the idea with the following statement: Hegemony is achieved when ideological struggle through "common sense" narratives are paired with the dominant ideas of the historically advantaged group. In what ways do we see "common sense" used in our current day to day interaction to secure hegemonic ideals and positions?
Comments
Post a Comment