>Where the ideology comes from and who is behind it are not easily >detached
>or even always clearly separable from what you call the face >of ideology
>here. Who is responsible for locating animation factories >in the
>Phillipines is not the source of the spectrum of ideologies in >which the
>animation they produce participates. Without considering the >cultural
>fields which make animation desirable and profitable in Nth >America you
>would have a very naive understanding of even the >factories themselves,
>let alone of why something like The Simpsons is >produced in the States
>while something like Totally Spies is not.
Ok, I'm breaking all this down to say, basically: it's complicated. I don't think I denied that in my posts. I think it's pretty plain that you know more about the subject than I, so I'll take you at your word for now on this point. However, I still maintain that it's more accurate to privilege "forces of production" over what gets produced by them than vice versa. I don't see why "culture" can't have lots to do with these forces or have some organic link with them where the two condition each other. I just think the "more powerful/pervasive/whatever" are the forces.
"Show me the money."
And I'm still very much a beginner at reading/thinking/doing "The Left Thingie"; naivete is something I'd be surprised to find myself without any time soon. It's a gay, mad Left world.
>Why Lisa wears pearls matters in a different way than why The Simpsons
> >won't be drawn in the Phillipines, but they both matter. The pearls >are
>part of how The Simpsons works, and what sets it apart, as a >social text,
>from generic US animation, and part of what integrates it >within massively
>popular US programming.
"They both matter." Right. I can see that and never denied it. But I think the latter matters a bit more, generally speaking, since it shows something about the way capital operates, why it does this and not that, etc. That's what tends to concern me more, and that's what I think should be the concern of a lot more people IMHO.
You also mentioned earlier in our conversation:
>I've heard this kind of summary, yes, although I don't actually recall
>having read anyone insisting that "Gee-Whiz! Ain't it all grand!" was >an
>appropriate let alone insightful mode of analysis.
I don't actually recall, in the miniscule amount of stuff I've read about culture and its industry, reading those exact words. It's just a subjective feeling I got, like listening to a polite conversation and finding out it's about someone's murder. One book, I think the only actual book as opposed to short articles or convos here, I've read springs to mind just now, actually, "Reality Isn't What It Used To Be" by Walt Anderson:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0062500171/104-4719225-8023122?vi=glance
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail