Althusser offers a revision of Marx’s theory of ideology. What aspects of Althusser’s theory do you fine particularly useful to understanding popular culture, and what aspects remain unclear? How might such ideas augment concepts argued by Adorno and the Frankfurt School? And how do these various approaches resonate in Wood and Ray’s takes on It’s a Wonderful Life or your own thoughts on Tootsie?
Theories of Popular Culture
Class blog for AMST0355, Spring 09, Middlebury College
Marxism posits that ideology is forced upon people with the aid of false consciousness, or the incorrect illusion one holds when they believe they are not being exploited by institutions and class divisions. Adorno and the Frankfurt school similarly state that the process of standardization – the formulaic nature of popular culture and concomitant passive consumption – is responsible for reinforcing this sense of false consciousness.
I thought it very interesting that Althusser took such allegiance to the role of the State – which in his mind is neither private nor public, but of the ruling class – especially since his argument is founded on the concept that no class can hold State power for a prolonged time frame without dominating over and in the ISAs. This is a compelling argument, albeit very functionalist and mechanically driven. In certain instances I tend to agree with Althusser belief that those outside this ruling class are under some sort of imaginary spell, one that does not ‘correspond to reality’. Politics, economics, and social relations depend on warping the truth and are deeply seated on self-interests concocted for a purpose.
Personally, I am somewhat skeptical that the so-called “Priests and Despots” of today have forged lies so that they could recieve obedience and exploit the people on falsified representations of the world. This does not mean I do not see certain strands of truth in his comments. What I take issue with is that Althusser assumes that ‘the people’ are completely aloof and cannot think for themselves for the life of them. This is not always and necessarily true. Althusser’s second thesis, that ideology has a material existence, seems far more prevalent today and therefore credible. Many if not most beliefs are derived from and perpetuated by our practices and active participation in them, making it easier to be delude through rituals and customs.
These various approaches to explaining the status quo would probably state that movies like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Tootsie” are products of the culture industry, which relentlessly imposes marketable pieces of entertainment. This idea hints at Adorno’s pseudo-individuality and cooptation notions. It’s possible tha tRay and Wood might try and sway these men in a different direction by saying that how much we value something changes dynamically over time and reflects the ideas of a particular society.
In the end analysis, it’s hard to completely agree with all of the ideas put forth by the aforementioned theologians. It depends on what commodity, what piece of popular culture, which ISA (i.e. religious, educational, legal, cultural, etc) that you are referring to. In other words, T.R.L. strikes me as a much more compelling case for a Marxist/Althusser follower than “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
I agree with you, Jeremy, that TRL is especially relevant to Althusser’s arguments about the unconscious prominence of ideology in pop culture. But I also saw many of his arguments play out in the latest films we’ve watched. Althusser argues that ideologies and beliefs pervade everyday life through “practice”, which indicates how an individual is related to the social formation (Storey, Introduction, page 56). Practice has a material existence while ideology is imaginary. Althusser’s arguments in the context of pop culture can be examined through Robin Wood’s article “Ideology, Genre, Auteur”. Wood echoes Althusser’s arguments by examining the role of specific ideologies in the film It’s a Wonderful Life. Most interesting to me were the concepts of the capitalist work ethic and the importance of the family unit as ideological concepts.
Wood argues that the ideology of the family centers on two ideal figures: the ideal man, who is a man of action, and the ideal woman, who is the wife and mother and counterpart to the man (Wood, page 3). While Mary embodies the characteristics of an ideal woman, George Bailey is a more complicated character. He wants to be a man of action, but he is restrained in order to serve his town and his family, hence the capitalist work ethic. I thought at some point he would get to travel and have the experiences he wanted, but the fact that he does not is part of the ideology that It’s a Wonderful Life promotes. The ultimate argument of the film is that the family unit is essential and best.
Althusser and his supporters argued that ideology, especially as it is promoted through films and other cultural texts, creates subjects who are meant to take that ideology as “truth”. Through ideology all individuals are subjects, as the individuals feel unconsciously that they are being addressed. These arguments relate to Tootsie. The narrative of the film suggests that to completely understand another person, you should see life from his or her perspective. Michael does this as Dorothy Michaels, a role that allows him to see how women are treated in the work place. When he sees how the director of the show wrongly treats women, including himself, he becomes a better man. From an ideological point of view, the viewer becomes a subject by placing himself or herself into the film. If we see what happens in the film through Michael’s eyes, we see from both the male and female perspectives. I found it easy, for the most part, to forget that he was actually a man when he was playing the part of a woman. The ideology of the film is conveyed comically and, therefore, it is less easy to discern.
Personally, I find (as usual) that the critics who actually get down and dirty, so to speak, with analysis and comparison of actual cultural texts (Wood, Ray, Levine) to be much more compelling than those whose arguments remain somewhat isolated from it (C&C, Adorno, etc.).
Not to say that I don’t see the importance of understanding these overall schools of thought, but I tend to find their arguments just remain too sweeping, their claims too general.
Robin Wood seems concerned with almost exactly this when he says, “Every critic who is worth reading has been, on the contrary, very much caught up in the effort to define values beyond purely aesthetic ones. [Marxism, anyone???] Yet to ‘live historically’ need not entail commitment to a system or a cause; rather, it can involve being alive to the opposing pulls, the tensions, of one’s world.” While I find some of Althusser’s points more compelling than the predictably elitist Frankfurt School’s–especially the SA & ISA’s as a kind of variation on the base/superstructure model–I simply see much more truth when Wood states that not ALL culture is a product of the urge of the powerful to repress.
For instance, it seems fairly obvious to me that It’s A Wonderful Life (to some degree) and Shadow of a Doubt (especially) are in some way subverting or at least experimenting with the dominant ideology. And I think the same can be said for Tootsie. Certainly that movie is in SOME way experimenting with our ideology surrounding gender roles. I mean, right? Did I miss something? I was glad to see that Althusser’s points were a bit more moderate than those of the Frankfurt School, but I just don’t see that Shadow of a Doubt and Tootsie exist merely to cement their consumers as subjects under the ruling capitalist force.
Althusser points out that Ideological State Apparatuses and Repressive State Apparatuses both function by ideology and repression. Through examples of Repressive (the army) or the ISAs (schools), it is clear that they contain opposite amounts of ideological and repressive elements. However, is there no system within society that exists as an in-between? For example, couldn’t one argue that the state government functions with similar degrees of repression and ideology? In addition, Althusser suggests that a ruling class cannot sustain State power without having some influence over the ISAs. But is this really the case? It seems unrealistic if he is implying all Ideological State Apparatuses, including schools and individual families.
Althusser’s notion that ideology helps men to see their real existence in the world seems somewhat useful. It makes sense that one naturally uses ideology in order to understand his allusions to reality and how this helps him to recognize the actuality of things beneath his representations of them. It also seems logical that, through ideology, one understands his imaginary relations (rather than the existing ones) with regards to their actual relations. But I agree with Jeremy that Althusser’s alienation argument seems realistic, while his “cynical men” argument is not.
The idea that ideology has a material existence seems debatable. He argues that “ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices” (340). That being said, Althusser believes that a subject’s actions are a direct reflection of his ideas and consciousness in terms of a particular ideology. Thus, his actions should be in line with a material practice of the ideology. But if they are not, it is assumed that his thoughts are “inconsistent” with those of this particular ideology. Why is it considered “wicked” if he does not follow along with what he is assumed to do as a result of that ideology? And is it simply society that is determining whether he is line with that particular material practice? “Tootise” is a good example of a popular cultural form that challenges this notion of Althusser. Michael’s behavior/motivations in acting as a woman for quite awhile certainly do not go along with what one would assume he as a struggling actor would do. Although Althusser would argue this is a bad thing, the movie does not necessarily treat it that way; Michael is not punished for his actions and ultimately gets what he wants in the end.
Maybe I’ve become cynical in my final semester at Middlebury, but I found the ideology of Tootsie a bit more sinister. Well they most definitely presented “positive” views (false consciousness, anyone?) of an empowered woman (especially in making chauvinistic Ron an unlikeable character) but I think that their supposed “progressive” views just, to use Toren’s phrasing, cement the viewer in a patriarchal and capitalist ruling force.
For example, it is okay for Michael to cross-dress, but to cross over into homosexuality is definitely presented as as a social taboo and a point of comic mockery. Michael’s pretty terrible treatment of Sandy is seen as acceptable under the democratic cover of “honesty” (and, of course, she is less attractive than Julie).
The final line of the movie is even about the material consumption of clothing. The definition of women becomes reduced to the wearing of a skirt. It almost feels like we are transported back to the Medieval period when they thought that switching clothing would switch genders.
Don’t get me wrong—I really enjoyed “Tootsie” as a piece of entertainment. I think by presenting it as a form of progressive thinking, however, is going a bit far.
Althusser’s idea that we are all subject to ISAs that define us from before birth is especially relevant to gender theory and feminist studies. The central ideology of our culture is that it is male-centered, male-dominated, and (most importantly for Althusser, I would guess) male-,defined. The very difference between the pronouns “he” and “she” demonstrates the extent to which Ideological State Apparatuses maintain the power structure of our society.
Tootsie fails to challenge this ideology, because by recognizing the ideology the movie necessarily operates inside of it. That a cross-dressing man is a source of comedy and ridicule reinforces the male-dominated ideology of our Media.