Geertz on ideology

Geertz outlines two inadequate theories of ideology common in his day: interest theory, and strain theory. The first understands ideology as a mechanism of the powers that be in any given society: it indoctrinates the masses, and sustains the hegemony the dominant group. The latter understands ideology as a coping mechanism. This theory has a much greater descriptive power then the former as it can account for considerably more variance, and explain how factors actually submit individuals to such false consciousnesses. Ideology is seen as the result of weakness, or disease, or unfortunate circumstance; it must be diagnosed and remedied. But for Geertz neither gives an adequate account of how these ideologies are different from one another; how they manifest themselves; why the manifest themselves; and the kinds of outcomes they may bring about. He believes they lack the kind of interpretive power a “thick” ethnographic theory could offer.

What struck me was all the negativity towards ideology. I suppose this was symptomatic of a time and place – a world recovering from the first half of the twentieth century. For Geertz, such negativity towards a widespread social phenomena hinders a good social science. By dismissing such systems rich with meaning, as irrational or irrelevant to the supposed “reality,” we sell ourselves short. To not try and take account of ideology on its own terms is a fatal mistake. Geertz goes on to illustrate some situations in which ideology has been a very real mobilizing force. He states rather strongly:

The function of ideology is to make an autonomous politics possible by providing the authoritative concepts that render it possible […] It is when neither a society’s most general cultural orientations nor its most down-to-earth, “pragmatic” ones suffice any longer to provide an adequate image of political process that ideologies begin to become crucial as sources of sociopolitical meanings and attitudes. (218)

I agree with Geertz whole heartedly. Though his conclusions resonate doubly for myself. Not only is an adequate account of ideology necessary for a “thick” social science, but it is also necessary to any deliberately normative program for change. In a upcoming post I will discuss this latter function more thoroughly.

Cited:
Geertz, Clifford. _The interpretation of culture: selected essays_. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Ps. If you’re in the mood for a sound mind-fucking check this out: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Some humble predictions on the coming course

Tomorrow “Our president” – the president of the world, and Canadians by default – will outline his future plan for Iraq. The media has been abuzz with talk about the coming “surge.” Of course I have my misgivings; flagrantly increasing the number of troops, and setting off into the quagmire, last I heard, has little chance of success. Let’s compare it to pilling on a couple more sweaters and jumping headlong (that is to say with no exit strategy) into a burning building. But all this pessimism lacks constitution – and what’s punditry without constitution? … Well I suppose that’s just what punditry is, but let’s suppose we knew a thing or two about history and events, and such and such, and hence possessed the wisdom to talk about what might likely happen. That is to say, I will try and outline a series of events that will give form, or context, to the coming slaughter of innocent Iraqis, malignant Iraqis, and duped American troops.

First, the surge will occur. There will be an increase in the number of American troops in Baghdad, and a coercive attempt to subdue the civil war there. This will fail. But this will not happen over night: it will need to be put into action, it will need to fail, and then we will need to endure the several months of rhetorical denial that tradition dictates. This should take at the very least a year, and perhaps even two. This will bring us precariously close to the next presidential election. Immediately prior to the grand spectacle of democracy, one of two scenarios may play out, but I doubt this will effect very greatly what is to come. Either the Republican Party will start another war, or create some other ridiculous patriotic solidarity building event, or they will not. For some reason, I doubt that they will – as the troops have been by this time completely run thin, and the Democrats control the other two branches of government. Instead I think they will try and run a presidential candidate that deliberately differentiates himself (his white penis wielding self) from Bush and his legacy. Perhaps McCain. Someone will win the 2008 election (maybe a black man or even a woman), embroiled in controversy, as usual. Finally the inevitable will occur: conscription. It does not matter which party is in power, their line will be as follows: “We are a new authority. We represent a radical break with the past. Bush made many mistakes, but we are in a new world now – one that we must negotiate. We must seek the best course of action. We cannot allow the middle east, home of the world’s largest oil reserves to disintegrate into chaos.” There will be an illusion of frankness and honesty: “Bush was in it for the oil all along, but these reserves have to be protected at all costs. The American way of life depends on the stability of this region. Yes it was foolish of past presidents to allow such dependencies to occur, but we must make due with the situation that history has allotted us.” All this will of course be true. Stability in this region is necessary for the current geo-political order – an order that I doubt will go down without a fight. Queue the rhetoric: “We must band together and fight for our way of life, our future, and our children’s future. For Democracy, against all evil!” And so the seeds of a potential global conflict will be sown. There are many more ensuing insanities that I humor as I write this, but unfortunately after this point all we can do is speculate on what is to come. Perhaps China will not appreciate a direct and coercive American military presence in the middle east, etc…

The “interpreter effect” and Punk, and moving forward

When I was writing the preceding post I had a second criticism in mind that I didn’t bother putting down. Today I was doing some readings for a class of mine and I came across this: “Cultural unity or disunity is in large part a function of the vocabulary and the theoretical presuppositions of the investigator” (Author’s italics, 17). While reading Clark’s article I couldn’t help but get the impression he was overlooking this. Perhaps he was a punk at one time – perhaps he’d still like to think himself one. Maybe he’s simply met so many self-declared punk rockers that he felt there must be some promising commonality called “Punk” that bound them together. My point is that he seemed to presuppose it, then seek evidence of its coherence wherever he could. Furthermore, once he had set this procedure into motion, it was as if punk had actually been revived – as if his declaring its life in death actually succeeded in resurrecting it. But did we really need a cultural theorist to do this for us? I mean there’s enough kids out there calling themselves punk and desperately cutting and pasting their own renditions together, that if all we need is a presupposition of its existence, Punk is alive and well. However this Punk, as a hack job semiology or bricolage, seems to hardly ‘live’ up to the kind of radical promise proposed by Clark’s version. Since when has re-arranging cultural signifiers been enough?

So what in my mind’s eye would have constituted a satisfactory account? The “interpreter effect” threatens more than just a coherent articulation of Punk; it threatens any claim to cultural cohesion in general. It certainly begs the necessity for reflexivity. “The investigator, as well as the conceptual apparatus he or she brings to the study, must be considered as an active factor … in understanding what culture is…” (23) If this is the case, what are we left with? According to Neil J. Smelser, the author who I’ve been quoting here, there are four other features of a good culture description. First, pragmatism, the piece “should be assed primarily on its explanatory adequacy or its usefulness as an explanatory element…” (23) Second, such conceptualizations, though heuristic, need not be arbitrary; they can and should correlate with observable data. In this way “culture becomes similar to a hypothesis” (24). Fourth, particularization, it should not be treated any more then is necessary as a “global entity.” Rather it should be “disegregated into discreet parts” (24). Finally, it should be prepared to give an account of its potential for incoherence, and assume that such a potential is already in play – that is to say, “one should identify the whole range of individual and social pressures and tendencies that work to present the culture as more coherent or less coherent then it appears” (Author’s italics, 25).

Cited:
Smelser, Neil J. “Culture: Coherent or Incoherent,” in _Thoery of Culture_. Ed. Richard Munch and Neil J. Smelser. Berkley: University of California Press, 1992. Pages 3-28.

Punk had to die so that WE could live

“Punk had to die so that it could live” (223) Dylan Clark opens his article, “The Death and Life of Punk, the Last Subculture.” He closes it with the following paragraph:

Punk had to die so that it could live. By slipping free of its orthodoxies – its costumes, musical regulations, behaviors, and thoughts – punk embodied the anarchism it aspired to. Decentralized, anti-hierarchical, mobile, and invisible, punk has become a loose assemblage of guerilla militias. It cannot be owned; it cannot be sold. It upholds the principles of anarchism, yet it has no ideology. It is called punk, yet it has no name (234).

Earlier he claims, “… [Punk is] making its presence felt in the Battle for Seattle, Quebec City, EarthFirst!, Reclaim the Streets, and a variety of anti-corporate movements” (234). But Clark commits a categorical error – it is not Punk itself that lives on, but the punks that once confined themselves to the semiology of this identity. Punk had to die, so that WE could live. The anarchist afterward is not a continuation of the movement, but a definite break with it; at most the punk spirit may carry on in the memories of the bearers of these narratives, but only in those that bother to re-visit it. The aforementioned movements are events in themselves. Attempts to attribute Punk to them is as misguided as attributing to them Liberalism or Platonism, other lineages that might be traced through them should we wish to try. The authentic punk, supposedly is she that realizes the death of punk rock and redirects her attention – alas, there is nothing authentic about this attitude, though it is surely revolutionary in quality. According to Clark, I’m about as punk as they come for being so critical about it. This feels rather tautologous. Maybe it was the prigs that tried to censor the Sex Pistols that were the punkest punks there ever was, for realizing that this whole endeavor was misguided from the start. Thankfully, the passage of time has been able to show us that there is nothing radical in averting ones critical responsibility by shaving the sides of one’s head, and shoving a safety pin through one’s penis.

Cited:
Clark, Dylan. “The Death and Life of Punk, the Last Subculture,” in _The Post-Subcultures Reader_. Ed. David Muggleton & Rupert Weiznierl. New York: Berg Publishers, 2003. Pages 223-236.

Prattle

I’m a strange fellow. Lately I’ve been sort of trying to get into contact with a few folks I haven’t contacted in quite awhile. I seem to always be on the move: I went to many high schools, I’ve had many jobs, last year I moved across the country. I’ve changed my regular group of friends so many times. I guess I used to think this was normal, but recently I’ve started to realize, that although I come and go, many of the people that constituted the groups that I’ve been a part of, still seem to associate quite a bit with one another. I become some other. I’m not really sure exactly why this is the case – nor am I really sure what to make of it. It’s just something I’ve noticed recently. I suppose I’ve always known that I was a little more transitory than most, but maybe only now am I realizing just to what extent. In the past, pondering my tendency toward disequilibrium made me anxious. I suppose I’ve never really decided on just what to make of it.

Yet another integer: reluctantly looking forward

So it’s another year today: 2007. For a long time there in the early 0’s I’d talk like it was 2000. You know round down and all. My age – roughly 15. Obviously this stopped working a couple of years ago, but nonetheless the habit persisted. Well I suppose we’ve definitely crossed the point of no return now – it’s nearly 2010 whether we like it or not; it’s time to round up. I reflect nostalgically on the days when the Second World War happened only 50-55 years earlier. Oh those days of yore – of innocence and discovery. Today, it happened 60-65 years ago. Happy new years. From this day forward I will reluctantly take my bearing off the end of the decade. The years they are a passing.