In Mimi White's article she continually speaks of a conflict and tension within the hegemonic discourse, or an 'ideological problematic'. This slipperiness of meaning allows for a range of voices to be heard (through advertising for example). However, is the 'range of voices' actually representative of those from oppositional discourses, or is it simply the predominant ideology commodifying other viewpoints, or worse, paying lip service to other perspectives in order to squelch any growing resistance? Also, despite the fact that White insists we do have agency, it seems to me that change seems more difficult than ever considering the uneven development. If there are so many traces from the future and the past here in the present social formation, and we (obviously) are not one giant homogenous population, where can change begin? Clearly I am having a glass half-empty day here, because Baudrillard seems to be making the most sense to me- and that is pretty fucked. I cannot help but feel that the constant bombardment of images hinders our ability to take any clear action...and that even if action is taken its purpose can always be twisted into something reverse discourse-esque thereby making it reinforce the very thing we were fighting. Blah. Yes, that was a full sentence.
I suppose that is where provisionality comes in. Re-fuctioning is not an attmept to get 'outside' of ideology, but to rework the raw materials that we are given. Even a momentary disruption is better than none at all. The glass is filling up folks. Oh- and I thought I had an idea of what a conscious subject was, but perhaps I have no idea. Maybe I was being too practical and just thought of the conscious subject as a more provisional identity...like...oh, I just read a stop sign that read "STOP RAPE" and it sort of jolted me out of my monotonous leisure-less unquestioning life...therefore i was 'conscious' for a moment. That sounds a lot stupider than it sounded in my head, but does that makes sense? If anyone could fill me in that would be grand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I definately agree that the Ideological Problematic is a slippery space where the opressed can actually have access to the products of mass culture and reappropriate them to thier benefit. The big problem with television is that you're right, it does play lip service to other perspectives. When minorities can actually see themselves on the television and hear their problems being discussed, the group is going to feel that someone is listening to them and that someone else, and with alot more power mind you, is reaching out and will take care of these problems. Another prime example of Marx's False Conciousness. Minority groups buying into the dominant ideology and participating in thier own opression. Normal logic would make me think that keeping opressed groups out of the public eye and brushing thier problems under the rug would "make it all go away" aka produce them as docile bodies. But it proves to be the other extreme which does so. Exploiting opressed groups actually silences them further.
Post a Comment