[D-G] Re: Why Do Ideologies Exist?
pretzelworld at gmail.com
Mon Jul 11 11:06:11 PDT 2005
Q#1: How can an article on the rise of Hitler's Nazism not include any
reference to the capitalist forces that finacially backed the entire
operation, companies like I.B.M. and Ford who profitted from it?
Q#2: How can the High-level brain functions (such as ideology) of one
person be designed to appeal low-level brain functions (such as
genesis of identity) of another person?
A: Alienation... the absense of Identity (das ist nicht neu etwas!)
...and now lets use philosophy to describe those high-level brain
functions and let the anthropologists and neurobiologists concentrate
on the low-level ones.
Certainly, nobody falls for the fake smiles of a Toothpaste add, we
are not that stupid, No! but we still buy the product, why? The reason
TV commercials work on us has very little to do with the commercials
themselves, actually, it has more to do with the program that fills
the space between them. It could be funny or dramatic, it really
doesn't matter, what matters is the "intensity" that they reach for
us. let me explain...
(apologies to those of who already know all this, I must sound like an
ass, but some people have't heard this yet...)
The most modern neurobiologists view the mind as a kind of jello-mold,
ideas enter it and then slowly settle, a few hours later... viola, the
ideas solidify as neurological pathways and the learning process is
complete - now we "know" something new. Makes sense? Okay, this next
part you'll just have to accept for the sake of my argument because I
am not a neurobiologist and I don't really know why it works the way
it does, but it just does... So, when we experience an "intense"
situation, our mind floods itself with special chemicals (I think
seratonin is one) and these chemicals act as a kind of primer that
strengthens the solidifying process of the pathways. Have you ever
tried to study for an exam by shouting out the information? Have you
ever forgotten about a highly emotional experience, not likely?
Furthermore, that experience becomes a part of our Identity (say it in
a parrot voice... "Identity!" you bird-brained butt-plug!!!)
So, back to the TV program... When we are watching James Bond jumping
out of a helicopter, our brain is busy flooding itself with chemicals,
getting ready to learn from what it is experiencing. But then, just as
James Bond is about to hit the ground... the TV cuts to a commercial.
Now, in this heightened state, we are forced to learn the information
that inundates our jello-mold of a brain... "buy McDonlads, buy
Cheerios, buy Ford, etc..." get it? These commercials don't even have
to appeal the consumer on an intellectual level, they could be total
nonsense - even Schwitter's Merz poetry, it doesn't matter - so long
as we sit around for 30secs and watch the damn thing... we can't help
it, we are learning-machines, designed to learn, designed to create
Identity, it is just programmed into us... like bloody penguins
fucking in the snow.
Furthermore, it doesn't have to be James Bond on the TV, it could be
George Bush scaring us with the threat of terrorism, it could be Oprah
getting us excited about a new diet, a furry puppet with a dick-shaped
nose, anything really, so long as we "care enough" to keep our eyes
fixed to the damn TV. It could be a fucking documentary on Television
shows that brainwash us and we still wouldn't get it, get it? ...you
stupid ignorant penguin-fucker!!!
Anyway, I liked Koengsberg's piece, mostly the end, because that is
where he finally stacks all his apples and oranges and an undeniable
shape emerges, Identity (Why is this word so difficult to spell?):
"Contemporary theory tends to disconnect the outer world of language,
discourse and ideology from the inner world of need, desire, anxiety
and fantasy. A psychological approach to the interpretation of
ideology seeks to enable us to retrieve our projections. One begins
with the assumption that we are the source. By virtue of the
externalization of our desires, anxieties and fantasies, human beings
create a certain kind of world. Societies reflect our struggles to
come to terms with fundamental psychological issues and existential
dilemmas." [do you see the two-way spiral?]
Just as Koenigsberg suggests above, Identity is in motion, in a state
of genesis (Gen-I), especially since the 20th century came along. In
the classic sense, the Child is our model for that concept of "I"
which is in a state of genesis. Like a chick which must learn it is
really a bird that can fly, Identity is a motion towards an end,
towards Identity quite simply (Frank-I). But the classic age has long
since passed and yet we are still dealing with Identity, why, are we
merely flightless penguins? No! So we keep searching, we must still
learn. So we use that sophisticated tool which the classic age has
given us - that jello-mold between our ears. Yeah right! We can also
go to DyG for an explanation why this won't work, just by reading the
mother-fucking title of their mother-fucking book "Anti-Oedipus -
Capitalism and Schizophrenia."
My point is, we must distinguish between neurological functionality of
low-level brain activity and high-level, it gets messy if we first mix
them up and then afterwards try to sort them with Philosophy, and, if
we do, why try to invent new philosophies when there are already many
to choose from... does not anyone read Marx anymore, what of
Dialectical-Materialism? I try to remind myself, DyG were primarily
interested in shizo-psychology insofar as it further visualized that
philosophic concept of Marx, Alienation (the loss of Identity). We
must try not to get lost in the Virtuals that a frozen spiral presents
us...keep it moving...go from there... avoid the rhetoric of the
my apologies for bringing swiss-cheese to the picnic, but perhaps the
bread will come later...
On 7/7/05, Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
<libraryofsocialscience at earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Contemporary social theory suggests that mind and thought are the result
> the 'discourses that push and pull us'. However, the question remains: Who
> has created societal discourses and why do they exist? Why have particular
> ideas been "selected out" (from among the multitude of ideas that people
> have put forth) to become elements of culture? Why are specific beliefs
> embraced and perpetuated, and not others? Why do certain ideologies evoke
> such passion? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to
> articulate the meaning of culturally constituted ideas, to delineate the
> psychic work that these ideas perform for the people who embrace them."
> Richard Koenigsberg
> WHY DO IDEOLOGIES EXIST:
> The Psychological Function of Culture
> Contemporary social theory does not address the question of the reasons why
> particular ideologies exist. People write about "dominant discourses," but
> the question is why particular discourses become dominant. To answer the
> question of why particular ideas are embraced and perpetuated, I suggest a
> psychological approach. What does the ideology do for the people who
> it? What role does this ideology play in the psychic life of its adherents?
> Culture is not a domain separate from human beings. Ideologies exist to the
> extent that people produce, espouse and perpetuate them. Ideologies are
> created by human beings for human beings. Ideologies perform psychic work,
> functioning to allow people to encounter, work through and attempt to
> fundamental desires, fantasies, conflicts and existential dilemmas.
> The complete paper by Richard A. Koenigsberg is available for the first
> as an on-line publication.
> To read: WHY DO IDEOLOGIES EXIST: The Psychological Function of Culture
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~libraryofsocialscience/ideologies.htm> PLEASE
> CLICK HERE or visit:
> How are we to explain the nature and shape of the entire panoply of ideas,
> material objects and social arrangements that we call culture? What
> us from posing the question: Why do specific ideologies and societal
> discourses exist?
> When people examine cultural forms such as musical symphonies, light-bulbs
> or air-conditioners, it is not difficult to acknowledge that human beings
> are the source; to say that these inventions represent a response to our
> desires and fantasies; that they exist to the extent that they fulfill
> needs. We do not hesitate to conclude that symphonies, light-bulbs and
> air-conditioners exist and are perpetuated as elements of culture because
> they provide physical and psychological gratification.
> It is more difficult for people to say that cultural inventions such as war
> and genocide exist because they provide psychological gratification. We shy
> away from the idea that ideologies of war and genocide represent the
> fulfillment of human desires and fantasies. We prefer to imagine that war
> and genocide come from a place outside the self. We would rather understand
> war and genocide from the perspective of the political situations out of
> which events grow; or to declare that what occurs is generated by
> "historical forces."
> I theorize that war and genocide--like symphonies, light-bulbs and
> air-conditioners--exist because they represent the fulfillment of
> psychological needs. Why do ideologies of war and genocide exist? Why have
> they been perpetuated as elements of culture? Because--like symphonies,
> light-bulbs and air-conditioners--they are responsive to and serve to
> articulate human desires, anxieties and fantasies.
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari