I wrote:
>"That said, the ideological operation of building union consciousness
>does not necessarily subsume a deconstruction of racist or sexist
>ideologies. In fact the dismissal of racism and sexism as mere
secondary
>behaviors of disrespect dangerously ignores a multiplicity of
>ideological operations (or leaves them opaque)."
James wrote:
> I have no idea what this means. Even if I do come to understand
>it, I'll need to explain it to others, so work with me here, please.
>From Terry Eagleton's _Ideology: an Introduction_, Verso 1991:
Nobody has yet come up with a single adequate definition of ideology, and this book will be no exception. This is not because workers in the field are remarkable for their low intelligence, but because the term "ideology" has a whole range of useful meanings, not all of which are compatible with each other. To try to compress this wealth of meaning into a single comprehensive definition would thsu be unhelpful even if it were possible. The word "ideology," one might say, is a *text*, woven of a whole tissue of different conceptual strands; it is traced through by divergent histories, and it is probably more important to assess what is valuable or can be discarded in each of these lineages than to merge them forcibly into some Grand Global Theory (or, "Common Cause Praxis"--sorry, James, couldn't resist).
To indicate this variety of meaning, let me list more or less at random some definitions of ideology currently in circulation:
(a) the process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life; (b) a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class; (c) ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power; (d) false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power; (e) systematically distorted communication; (f) that which offers a position for a subject; (g) forms of thought motivated by social interests; (h) identity thinking; (i) socially necessary illusion; (j) the conjuncture of discourse and power; (k) the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world; (l) action-oriented sets of beliefs; (m) the confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality; (n) semiotic closure; (o) the indispensible medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure; (p) the process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality.
Let's take (i) and (o) and (p) for where we're at. I would say (i): common cause or habit is socially necessary illusion, but insofar as it is anti-racist or anti-sexist illusion it leaves in tact, or mystifies, certain institutional forms of racism and sexism. As for (o), habit cannot take the place of realization of mutual economic interest, for what would inspire workers to organize in the first place? I think economic interest comes first. But (p) I would argue on the side of habit that, yes, possibly habit is a process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality, that if different races and ethnicities work together, out of habit some kind of anti-racist solidarity will form.
That said, I think it's a bit reductive to say "common cause" will be the gravitational force keeping unions together. Put again, how can workers of different races and ethnicities and genders get into the habit of solidarity if they don't realize the mutual economic interests they're coming together for in the first place, and how these interests may be shot through by the institutional racism and sexism bound up with a system that makes it necessary for them to come together in the first place?
Take Watsonville for example. I attended the march down there, and it was an inspiring display of support for common cause. The slogan was "Si se puede." (BTW, I remember the intro to Gramsci's Prison Notebooks being threaded through with a history of slogans. Anyone know of any linguistic/phenomenological studies of slogans?). But one must also understand the ideological operation behind Pete Wilson thinking it would be fine for migrant workers to become US citizens if they were only to work in the fields, and how this ideological operation is not necesarrily political party-specific, or race/gender construction-specific. There are racists in the to-be organized working class too. When I say deconstruction I'm thinking along these ideological lines.
>
> Let me also work in a phrase from the introduction of Christopher
>Lasch's "The True and Only Heaven." (I'm remembering rather than
>quoting.) more or less: Class consciousness is more a function of habit
An aside to everyone: has anyone read William James on habit? I understand he was a chronic masturbator?
>than it is of people realizing they have mutual economic interests.
> I really doubt if anti-racism is any different. Unions can
>provide a venue for people of different backgrounds coming together in
>common cause.
>
>A couple other notes:
>"Gypsies, Tramps , and Thieves" is also from a 70s Cher album of the
>same name.
>
I remember hearing that version on an X-Files episode again. I think Cher stole it from the Scud Mountain Boys.
-Alec
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com