[The ruling] ideology fulfils a perfect function in the social system, constructing the myths, the pseudo-reality and the joy of the social coercion that is so loved throughout the world. A pure fetishism. For individual people (singularities) inscribed into our current system, ideology and thus fetishism is a lived experience, one that we live without knowing “the motivating forces which set it in action”. The mode of operation charecteristic of the ideological process is here, in the final instance, to ensure that the real motivating forces are forgotten or operate silently, with the intention of making sure that individuals and collectives cannot see, except in exceptional circumstances, the origins of the existing social order and instead individuals experience it as a natural order.That it succeeds in obscuring as in a ‘camera obscura’ the instruments of social coercion, the social media and the mass media. The machines and technological instruments are always already social, always ideological. The fetishisized technological instruments are inseperable from the ideological processes of commodification, consumption and production etc: [“Our tourism, our television, our changes of fashion, alcoholism and drug addiction and sexism, our consumerism under a barrage of advertising, etc., reveal an immense boredness in our society. What has brought this about? A society that produces death as never before, but death without the transcendental, and without the transcendental which is the only present, to be more precise: our life as a fleeting moment of emptiness before death…”]
We can most simply say that any analyst of the ruling ideology,of the fetishisms it generates is going to be a partial critique because criticism and most forms of critique are parasitic forms. In this sense then the parasite is a microbe, an insiduous infection that takes without giving and weakens without killing. The parasite is also a guest, who exchanges his talk, praise and flattery for food. The parasite is noise as well, static in the system or interference in the communicatin channel. In these three variants criticism, analysis exists.
In the sense touched on here there is little difference in the nature of the analysts critique. Whether its the partial critique of an identity politics, the partial structural critique of democracy and political economy, or the postmodern critique of actors and networks. The analyst is a parasite… Consider an analyst…(a parasite obviously) Perhaps for the moment the example of the bourgeois discourse on youth which if the analyst disentangles the actuality of youthful existence, the framework from the myths, the analyst will discover a refusal on the part of the majority of readers to accept the the results of the analysis. That is to say they will refuse to accept that the naked structures (of oppression) appear on the surface. For instance, the mass and social media presents (problem) a polarized opposition between young people and adults, concluding after producing a series of false binary structures: immaturity-maturity, irresponsibility-responsibility, male-female, homosexual-heterosexual, subordination-hierarchy, submission-coercion — which will generate explicit calls for either repression or an implicit/explicit call for rebellion by the citizens, who are urged by the ideological apparatus to demand respect and subservience from youth because of its status of dependence and subordination. They are called university students if they are fighting for university reform, rioters if they protest on the streets, hipsters if they occupy the reactionary flanuerist positions inherited from the 19th century, or extremists if arguing for non-liberal positions against the dominant social order. Those who refuse to accept that the naked structures appear on the surface, will argue that the analysis, the construction, places representations in such a way as to reveal, foregrounds a mechanosphere that cannot be a true reflection of reality, primarily because it is the reality too which they are accustomed. The individuals and communities cannot admit that the strategies of social domination are revealed in the analysts texts. It requires too much of them. They cannot accept that the messages being circulated can be subjected to multiple methods of reading which can arrive at diametrically opposing de-codifications. For example there is the decoding which they carry out daily, a superficial one made up of all the information that is handed out to them, then from the other side there is the reading carried out by the analyst with the pure critique of the spectacle, searching for the lines of connection, the bond which is both in the unconscious and submerged in the unified discourse and that situates the discourse in the interests of the upper classes. The principal also applies to the sender, the creator of the messages, who in refusing the analysts reading will offer as a fact that they always act in complete freedom from coercion.
In other forms of communication, a novel, film, social media blog, in which the communicator wishes to be ‘subversive’ ( to the right or left, though i am biased towards left-parasites) the communication may well be recuperable by the system through the very apparatus of domination which it seeks to subvert through its representation. The communication will be appropriated because the (ideological) structures, representations and meanings, are what enables the objects meaning to re-present the structures of the system which it aims to subvert. It is this which defines the difficulty of radical creativity within a social and historical space that is still owned by the upper classes. In this sense every act of creation which aims to question the apparatus of domination is at risk of expressing and maintaining the nature of the system in which the producer finds themselves. … Consequently then for a body of signs, of work used by a subversive writer (sender) we must go beyond the surface meanings of the message or the form itself to establish the relations between this layer of meaning and the the the the unintentional structures of the production. (What spectacular noise is reproduced? does it matter what cannot be appropriated?) . These are the means we have of discovering how the social and historical occurrences and the structures interface with the created object. This disclose the fetishes, the fundamental structures of the mode of operation of the ideological structures of the system. The analyst suggest that the singularities, the individuals who experience these representations are living within a system whose rules they cannot know. The aim may be to make the dominated aware of this to enable them to discover the rules.
The message sender forms a part of a (information) system in which they are both an operator and submissive reproducer. Their position within the the structure is brought about by a framework of images and concepts (spectacle) which exist as much in their opinions as in the essence of the things produced. To determine the mechanisms of social domination (for example the laws of montage, the grammatical structure of texts, the matheme, the mytheme of intersection, the machinary of authorless theatre)… which is to say how the singularity participates in the continuation of the system of exploitation and how they (individuals) are created as agents of their own exploitatin and alienation it will be necessary to take a few extra steps. Let us then accept that its not about the intentions of the group, for the upper classes do not think out the structures of domination, it experiences them just as the dominated group absorbs and obeys the structures… [To repeat myself edlessly…] The ideological processes being touched on here are not the abstract constructions of an individual human subject or a class. It is rather that it is closely related with the mode of production and a given social formation. It is functional to the social formation and permits its continued existance and the the the continued domination of the class and classes that support this mode. So that we should not be talking of the creation of myths by this class, but rather of their management. Rather than sender and receiver we are parasites, the noise in the system…. a few extra steps…