This week's reading in Culler is about performative language. The basic concept is that the words are the acts themselves. I've never really thought about making promises as a performative act of language or an act at all. Usually, making promises were just words that described a future act. "I promise" usually precedes an act or action but, the phrase "I promise" can stand on its own, so it is an act.
The difference between constative and performative are not difficult to understand but more confusing to distinguish at times. From what I see, constative deals more with the past, and a declaration has already been stated. Performative seems to be more in the present moment since it is the active manifestation of the word. One of the problems Culler presents is that words aren't always the act themselves. For example, promising something is an act, but weather or not a person keeps the promise is something else. Perhaps it becomes constative then when the act of promising is over and the outcome of the promise comes to light.
Ideology is "the making natural of cultural phenomena." I really liked this definition, and I believe it is one of the easiest ways to understand the different aspects of ideology. Ideology is man made because like language, they don't exist in the natural world.
I think fairy tales are in general ideological. However, fairy tales may not be as pertinent to today's world. The common thought of today's young women is not to wait for their prince but to develop themselves.
Snow White, in that sense, is very ideological. She is proficient with household chores and she is the archetypal damsel in distress, at least in the Disney version. But even if fairy tales are ideological, I think they have something very valuable to offer. It's tradition and a sort of moral understanding almost. We learn things from fairy tales, weather they progress our culture or not. Most people understand that fairy tales aren't an accurate depiction of real life, but that is the purpose of literature I think. Literature gives us a way to construct an absurd situation that mirrors reality. Conflicts can more easily be written than acted out, so bringing up problems on the page is less detrimental. At least the conflict is brought to attention with minimal or not damage to the "real world."
I don't quite understand ideology as "common sense." I believe more in common knowledge than common sense. Common sense connotes more that we all live in the same kind of environment. I realize that there are natural laws of science that we can't ignore, but our social understanding is much different. I am not convinced that we can have a "common sense." The very dynamics of language makes it difficult for it to exist. "Common sense" is only a part of ideology. Ideology is partially just conjectures on how the world should be. I think, we as humans, make those sort of guesses everyday. We might be more ideological than we realize. Stereotypes, archetypes, patterns, tradition, and culture are ideological in their own ways too.
Hi Mi Sa, Thanks for your post. Your discussion of ideology is excellent. The idea of common sense, though, is that ideology invisibly moves us to view certain perspectives as "common sense": something everyone of course knows. This is how ideology makes cultural positions seem so "natural."
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts to consider. dw
I really love what you’ve said about common sense and ideology. The connotation of common “sense,” as opposed to “knowledge,” particularly when used against someone, seems somewhat biased. Much like the way we so often blindly accept, or perhaps absorb, ideology rather than questioning it, people often just assume their beliefs on what qualifies as common sense apply to all, and this is simply not the case. Like you said, social contexts and backgrounds vary too widely. I also really like the idea that humans make guesses everyday to determine how the world should be in light of what it is or what we believe it is. I had never thought of stereotypes, archetypes, patterns, and traditions as ideological, but they all greatly contribute to cultures’ constructions, so they are inherently ideological. You really brought a whole different perspective to these ideas that I had not considered before. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteMi Sa,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of the term Ideology. Your definition seemed too simple to have a whole chapter dedicated to it. So I looked it up in the Bedford Glossary, and here is their wordy definition:
"A set of beliefs underlying the customs,
habits, and practices common to a given
social group. To members of that group,
the beliefs seem obviously true, natural,
and even universally applicable...
Ideologies may be forcefully imposed or
willingly subscribed to." (pg. 235)
Whew! I THINK that means that these beliefs are adopted by a social group, either voluntary or involuntary. They are common interests of a group as a whole, and may not reflect each individual's personal opinion. Like the subject of waiting for your prince to come and sweep you off your feet. Not every eligible maiden was willing to sit back and wait, yet that was the ideological view back in "the day."
Cathy M.