Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> Let's start with the Zizek quote. Zizek starts off by saying that
> classical Marxism began with a critique of the political economy, but
> by the mid-20s during the hay day of the Frankfurt School the
> focus shifted to undertake a critique of the representation of the
> political economy, that is to say, its ideology as espoused by its
> ruling elites, i.e. the capitalist class. And of course by the
> political parties in Germany at that time.
This is one of the several legitimate usages of the word "ideology," a sense in which it names a set of ideas and attitudes which may be explicitly _espoused_, promulgated, made the subject of propaganda.
But I have real doubts that propaganda, formal ideology, is (a) all that important and (b) can be successfully confronted without _first_ finding a way to break through the _common sense_ of the world generated NOT by propaganda or argument but by the daily conditions of life in a given society. This is how I use the word, "ideology," but that is not important. What is important is to recognize, under whatever label you choose to give it, this whole complex of tacit assumptions arising from daily practice and experience, which provide the climate or atmosphere to which propaganda appeals.
Take advertising for cosmetics. All such advertising shares on common feature. It is never directed to relations within the household. All cosmetic ads presuppose a public arena where individuals meet and must form relations with each other. No one would advertise a deodorant as something one uses AFTER work and before the family's evening meal. The ads in other words presuppose the "common sense," implicit, unstated assumptions, as to the structure and dynamic of public relations, generated by social relations in a commodity-producing social order. THAT is what we need to analyze and find ways of breaking through. And unless we do break through that common sense, transform it, capitalist propaganda will inevitably be more impressive than our propaganda.
Carrol