Zizek on Ideology and the Relationship Between Ideology and “The Real”

Zizek on political orientation and the Relationship Between Ideology and The actual CMNS 410 Professor Rick Gruneau celestial latitude 13, 2011 Zizek on Ideology and the Relationship Between Ideology and The reliable Slavoj Zizek is sensation of the leading theorists on political surmise since the 1990s and his conceptions of the veridical versus the symbolic versus the imagined be of theatrical federal agencyicular importance when dissecting the question what is political theory? Zizeks unfavorable judgment of political theory and attempt to unpack its inner workings is fascinating, he is a kingful intellectual who aims to expose the fake workings of society. In this physical composition I will outline Zizeks definition and approach to the break down of political theory, paying blow upicular attention to the dealingships he draws amid ideology and the real, as opposed to the imagined and the symbolic. Zizek opens the book Mapping Ideology (1994) with the introd uction The weirdie of Ideology, where he defines and openly criticizes the idea of ideology and its illusory personality. prime(prenominal) he presents us with the idea that ideology is a sort of matrix, a generative matrix that regulates the relationship among visible and non-visible, imaginable and non-imaginable, as tumefy as changes in that relationship (italics mine, p. 1). He get ahead explains non e realthing that seems to be ideologic, necessarily is, claiming that unless on that point is a link to power relations in the affectionate realm he does non consider almostthing to be ideological.He pointednesss out that somemultiplication what we consider to be ideological in fact is not just as well how at other times, things which we whitethorn not perceive to be ideological, actually maintain a very strong ideological orientation. He states that the starting point of the critique of ideology has to be the full acknowledgment of the fact that it is easily possible to deceit in the guise of virtue ideology that is and this is an important realization for it ispels a common misconception we have of ideology, especially here in the west that, ideology is about lying or misleading others and society. Instead Zizek posits the idea that the subject of a subject matter is not what makes it ideological, but instead it is the the counseling this mental object is related to the subjective position implied by its own process of verbiage that makes it so (Zizek 1994, p. 8).In other words, regardless of whether the content (of a message or object or inter run) is true or out of true, it becomes ideological the importation that content functions to achieve some relation of social domination and eve more(prenominal) importantly, he adds in an inherently non-transp arnt way, reiterating that often times ideology is in fact of a misleading nature but not necessarily in content (italics mine, p. 8) it is from this standpoint that we back tooth lower to understand and critique the concept of ideology.It is important to note here, although Zizek stresses the importance of recognizing kinetics of power relations (rather than content) which constitutes ideology, he warns this can also be disadvantageous if it reduces the cognitive value of the term ideology and makes it into a mere compassionate face of social circumstances (p. 9). Considering this, as Gerofsky (2010) explains, Zizek takes on Hegels theory of the trine as a heuristic for further developing the theory of ideology, which is something I will address later in this paper, after we go a little bit deeper in formation ideology.According to Zezik then, a requirement condition for something to be ideological is that there mustinessiness be a relation or motivation to power in some way, and it must be done so in a way which is not app bent to the addressees (Zizek, 1994). However this is a rather general and overarching consideration when defining the term id eology and it is important to deconstruct the term even further before we proceed in analyzing its inner workings and effect on society. Zizek states ideology is a systematically distorted communication a textual matter in which under the influence of unavowed social interests (of domination, etc. a gap separates its official, public meaning from its actual intention that is to say, we ar dealing with an unreflected tension between the explicit enunciated content of the text and its mulish presuppositions (Zizek, 1994, p. 10). Ideology is a system, he argues, of principles, views, theories destined to convince us of its honor, yet actually serving some unavowed violateicular power interest (p. 10). An example Zizek presents to illustrate this point is the way media portrayed the departure and cause of the Bosnian war.News coverage consisted of innumerable accounts of the histories of not solitary(prenominal) Yugoslavia but the entire history of the Balkans from medieval time s (p. 5). This incredulous amount of knowledge, of the struggles and relations between Bosnia and other countries over decades, if not centuries, gives audiences the touch that they must know and understand all the background information of this emerge if they be to have an opinion on it or take sides, over once more presenting countless hours of information and debate on the emergence.Zizek explains that although this is a sort of anastrophe of what we normally constitute as ideological messaging, and it is un wish well the misrepresentation and unbroken demonization of Saddam Hussein which was circulated to give justice to entering into the Iraq war, the Bosnian war ideological messaging that took place is in fact more cunning, the over exaggerated and false demonization of Saddam Hussein. ecause to put it sensibly crudely, the evocation of the complexity of circumstances serves to defer us from the responsibility to act (p. 5). He explains that instead of withholding in formation (as the media most often does), or misrepresenting information (Saddam Hussein), in the case of the Bosnian war the media over saturates audiences with information to the point of immobilizing them to make a decision or take action against the fact that this war is spurred by political, economic and monetary power interests.Zizek explains the subprogram of going into war was portrayed as a need to amend unacceptable human rights conditions in the country, and although human rights conditions may very well be unacceptable in that country, and then improve as a result of the invasion, the true motivations for that war (power, domination, money) were kept hidden. This also illustrates the point do earlier about ideology not necessarily needing to be false in its information, but rather hidden in motive, for the information they presented was by no means false or limited, it was excessive, which proves to be just as debilitating a strategy on the general public.Zizeks examp les and definitions of ideology discussed above demonstrate the division of ideology from Marxs false instinct theory (Gerofsky, 2010), but perhaps one of the most important classifications Zizek makes in the realm of ideology, is its connection to dislocation (dislocating truth from falsity) and how this relates to the idea of the hearty (Stavrakakis,1997). approach from the Lacanian theoretical background, the concept of Real versus Symbolic versus Imaginary is an integral part of Zizeks theory, one which sets him apart from traditional conceptions of ideology.The question of the Real also cannot be separated from the dislocation and presentation of the truth, so these two must be considered together in asserting the concept of ideology. Zizeks Real draws attention to a fascinating idea, that there is a end between what is actually real in our world and what is simply a created real by our social structure and by society (Stavrakakis, 1997). The Real, the true real, is the par t of our world as revealed in our experience, which escapes our attempts to symbolize and represent it in a final way (1997, p. ). The real is the raw and unstructured experience of what is not yet symbolized or emblemd by our social structure, by language, by symbols, and it in fact cannot be symbolized in such a way. Unlike the social reality, the true Real is impossible to represent, explains Stavrakaki of Zizeks theory, impossible to master or symbolize, whereas the social reality is nothing but symbolism and our desire to reason both part of our experience into a definition or worldly conception of some sort.The real is not scarcely opposed to what is socially constructed as real, the symbolic, but also it is even far removed from the imaginary, which weeweefall farthest away on the spectrum, from true reality. The symbolic comes closer to the Real but there is stillness a gap and something will invariably be missing from the symbolic real for language can never be a f ull representation of the real, the true Real in time is always in its place. The symbolic real, however is still of importance to Zizek, for it adopts the largest role in our society and is perhaps the integral component to ideology in the most general sense.The symbolic, although generally in the dimension of lauguage, Lacan (whos theories Zizek has ground his own theories of ideology on) does not describe the symbolic as solely equal to language, because linguistiscs are also present in the realm of the imaginary sphere (Lucaites & Biesecker, 1998). The symbolic rather, is about the relationship to the Other, it is about difference and the signifiers which create a symbolic hostel. For Lacan the symbolic is characterized by the absence of any fixed relations between signifier and signified (Lucaites & Biesecker, 1998).Lastly there is the realm of the imaginary, when Lacan discusses this stage he refers to the formation of the ego. Identification is an important part of the im aginary, for the ego is formed by identifying with the ripo noteart or specular image (Lucaites & Biesecker, 1998). The ego, fundamentally narcissistic, is centered on identification with alienation and this alienation is some other feature of the imaginary. The imaginary is most fundamentally, however, a constitution of surface appearances, ones which are formed in deception as part of the social order. qualifying back to Zizeks theory on ideology, he suggests that one of the most problematic areas of the concept, is that we as theorists, try to escape from the grip of ideology in order to observe the world from an objective position, however the moment we scent we have managed to take up a position of truth, from which we can excoriate the lie of an ideology, we instantly fall back into the grip of ideology again because our understanding of the concept is structured on a binary arrangement, which is invariably playing on this relationship between reality and ideology.It is s uch the issue of ideology, that the moment we feel we are in the realm of truth, at last, we are in fact instantly back into the ideological exchange, without recognizing it (Stavrakakis, 1997). Zezik does not walk a solution to this, however he offers a way to counter the problem, and this is where the concept of the Real (vs Symbolic vs Imaginary) comes into play, to help us recognize and step outside the atmosphere of ideology that surrounds us.Instead of the binary relationship between reality and ideology, now there is a three way relationship. Zizek favours the Real over the other two constructs because he argues, the symbolic, although it is representing reality it is in fact where fiction assumes the guise of truth (Stavrakakis, p. 3), and the imaginary construct, is of course even farther away from that reality, therefore the Real should be the focus of our understanding.The Real is the only non-ideological position available, and although Zizek does not claim to offer acc ess to the objective truth of things, he explains we must begin with assuming the existence of ideology in every aspect of our society, and to take up an actively critical office towards it. This Stavrakakis argues is the main goal of Zizeks theory, to expose the need for constant critique of the ideological realm, especially in a time where our society has title that ideology is a thing of the past and no longer applicable in at onces world.Zizeks theory of ideology is a contemporary one which moves beyond traditional definitions of this concept and is not concerned with the way ideological practices worked in the past and in history, instead he is intrigued with the here and now and argues strongly that the concept of ideology is far from nonextant in todays society contrary to what many would like to believe. And he explains that rather than discarding the notion all, what we need to do to understand todays politics in a completely new way of looking at it and defining wha t it means to be in ideological space and time.Those who believe we are past the concept of ideology, he argues, are in an archeological fantasy and this is only a sign of the greater ability of ideology to ingrain itself without our recognition. In some of his famous presentations Zizek negotiation about the ideological meaning ingrained even in the simplest of human object and appliances, ones we dont even recognize contain an ideological message. His famous example, and one he self critically acknowledges to be some sort of anal fixation which he needs to address, is the example of toilets and how they are constructed in different ideological environments.In France he explains, toilets are constructed with the hollow at the back, so that when used, the excrement falls directly in the pot and disappears he equates this with Frances extremely liberal ideology out of crapper out of mind. In Germany, the toilets are constructed with the hole at the front, in a way that holds the excrement on a shelf (not in water or instantly disappearing) but rather in a way for the individual to see and observe the specimen for worms and any other diseases he explains this is indicative of the strongly onservative ideology of Germany, where everything is business and completed as necessary. In the Anglo-Saxon world, specifically in America, he explains toilets are somewhere in between, when used the excrement falls in the water but still remains, it is not completely hidden but also not completely displayed this shows the median position the Anglo-Saxon society usually takes on, not too extreme in either respect (Zizek presentation, Youtube. com). This rather disgusting but nonetheless interesting observation does an excellent job of portraying his theory on ideology.First, ideology is very much still at play in our society and should be actively observed and considered (in order to minify any negative and violent effects it may pertain), and secondly, in order to even b e able to recognize the workings of ideology in our everyday lives, we have step outside of our customary reality to which we are so well accustomed to, for this symbolic reality is not the Real, and in taking ourselves out of the imaginary and symbolic which appears to be truth and reality, we can then perhaps attempt to get a true coup doeil of what he calls the Real.References Gerofsky, S. (2010). The impossibility of real-life word problems (according to Bakhtin, Lacan, Zizek and Baudrillard). Discourse Studies In The Cultural government Of Education, 31(1), 61-73. doi10. 1080/01596300903465427 Lucaites, J. , & Biesecker, B. A. (1998). Rhetorical Studies and the New Psychoanalysis Whats the Real Problem?Or Framing the Problem of the Real. Quarterly journal Of Speech, 84(2), 222. Stavrakakis, Y. (1997). Ambiguous ideology and the Lacanian twist. Journal of the Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research, 8, 117-30. Zizek, S. (1994a). The spectre of ideology. In S. Zizek (Ed. ), M apping ideology (pp. 1-33). London & New York Verso.