We hold these truths to be self-evident...
As my previous post was about postmodernism I believe I owe it to my Third Way-ism to attack modernism as well. To reiterate a few things I said before: Marxism is not a modernist doctrine, though it is influenced by it. Marxism is also not a postmodernist doctrine, though it is influenced by that too.
In many discussions and part of our society we find a de-politicizing ideology. That is to say, organizations ("NGO:s") do not dare to attach themselves to a specific party and they do not dare to say anything that would rock the boat. To this mindset there is a sharp divide between going out to vote every four years and the civil society wherein we move. Opening up to political ideology, then, is impossible, it is a partisan choice.
As Zïzek so aptly puts it, however, there are no more ideological (in the Marxist sense) choices than just that. We live in a world where we face an original position heavily influenced by burgeoise liberal values and views. This mindset says that a movie is just a movie, it enforces a status quo in the hegemonic middle. This can be as much seen by the insistance that we shouldn't care so heavily that all the bad guys in American movies are either Russian communists/criminals or Arabic terrorists, mindlessly blowing themselves up, as it can be seen in how we talk about mankind or society at large. This reification is typical of the hegemony of the burgeoise: they have turned themselves into the archetype of man - and if you're not part of that, then there is something wrong with you. When you talk about mankind, you are truly talking about the male gender, when you are talking about society, you are actually discussing burgeoise society. The conflicts are hidden by turning the privilieged into the archetype of humanity.
Modernism is infected with certain positivist influences that can be detected more or less everywhere when you look for it. It comes from the idea that we are observing brute facts when we wander around the world. A door is just that, a door. Economy is just that, economy. There is no interpretation, no underlying conflict. What you see is what you get.
However, that is not at all the case. We require certain ideological filters to at all work in the world and in a social context. We interpret one thing to mean another, to be part of a certain causal scheme.
In many discussions and part of our society we find a de-politicizing ideology. That is to say, organizations ("NGO:s") do not dare to attach themselves to a specific party and they do not dare to say anything that would rock the boat. To this mindset there is a sharp divide between going out to vote every four years and the civil society wherein we move. Opening up to political ideology, then, is impossible, it is a partisan choice.
As Zïzek so aptly puts it, however, there are no more ideological (in the Marxist sense) choices than just that. We live in a world where we face an original position heavily influenced by burgeoise liberal values and views. This mindset says that a movie is just a movie, it enforces a status quo in the hegemonic middle. This can be as much seen by the insistance that we shouldn't care so heavily that all the bad guys in American movies are either Russian communists/criminals or Arabic terrorists, mindlessly blowing themselves up, as it can be seen in how we talk about mankind or society at large. This reification is typical of the hegemony of the burgeoise: they have turned themselves into the archetype of man - and if you're not part of that, then there is something wrong with you. When you talk about mankind, you are truly talking about the male gender, when you are talking about society, you are actually discussing burgeoise society. The conflicts are hidden by turning the privilieged into the archetype of humanity.
Modernism is infected with certain positivist influences that can be detected more or less everywhere when you look for it. It comes from the idea that we are observing brute facts when we wander around the world. A door is just that, a door. Economy is just that, economy. There is no interpretation, no underlying conflict. What you see is what you get.
However, that is not at all the case. We require certain ideological filters to at all work in the world and in a social context. We interpret one thing to mean another, to be part of a certain causal scheme.
posted by Björn at 11:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home