J103-Reading Analysis-1/10: The Ideologies of Everyday Life; 3rd October 2006.

Discussing the different historical ideas of what ideology goes to form Brett Farmer’s method intended to pick apart ideology, it’s importance and how its definitions compliment each other.
Farmer’s introduction is an example of a condensation of ideology of a particular society. NASA’s attempt at summarising every important feature of the Earth, science and the human race on a brass plaque attached to the farthest reaching object created by man is used as a basis to show deep-rooted ideals hidden within seemingly objective organisations. The plaque as an artefact is used in the case against attempted objectivity and its cousin; universalism: “it serves as a neat example of one of the guiding postulations of cultural studies”.
In defining ideology he makes a fatal error; he explains that ideology is defined externally and rarely is used while talking about yourself. The error comes when he applies his own beliefs to the cultural studies community! For example the phrase: “the network of ideas and beliefs through which culture and its members order, represent and make sense of reality.” Every word in this phrase contains certain connotations that would be jumped on by anyone trying to do the same thing and pin down what ideology is. I believe that his error lies in the fact that he is trying to belong to too many factions or complete societies. He speaks on behalf of cultural studies and then again on the behalf of human society. In no way am I saying that these factions are separate in real life, but by his own reckoning shouldn’t the two share some kind of separation so that they can observe the other, in other words isn’t he a short-circuit between the two?
He accredits this view of ideas and beliefs to Marxism and produces evidence from his early work written with Engels. In actual fact whilst beating around the bush about where his theory comes from he shows that his hand is given to him almost word for word from The German Ideology (1846). The weakness of this lies in the fact that it required no discipline within himself to obtain this seemingly reverential nugget. He goes into some detail about what Marx’ views were on the subject and how his economic take on most of society lead him to this conclusion. In this detail he proves Marx’ link between “ideology and social reproduction”. In replicating Marx and his definitions of ideology he shows his own weaknesses regarding independence and originality; he shows that in essence he is creating an archive of what has come before.
Moving through Althusser, Farmer helpfully summarises another philosopher in four bullet points: Ideology is productive, everywhere, inescapable and heterogeneous. He goes on to link Althusser to Barthes in that they both spent their lives concerned with everyday life and not with vast sociological organisations as Marx did with the houses of economics. Barthes is covered more thoroughly later so this section of the text only serves as an introduction to Mythologies (1957).
The reading then compiles everything discussed into a simple exercise; discussing the ideologies of gender. This involves how the gender divide has been enforced throughout the modern era through various means. Questions are asked of certain signification all around us in public life; those of “urinary segregation” and “physical culture” are particularly evident. Farmer takes “physical culture” and runs with it for several pages, emphasising the ‘patriarchal’ nature of enforcement and its application in all parts of society.

J101-News Analysis-2/10: BBC News 24; 5th Nov 2006

As the english interpreter sighs heavily whilst listening to the press conference held by the judiciary in Iraq this morning, BBC news cover the event with ever decreasing humility. The split-screen shows the sentance being read over and over again until it is all about the man, his image and his defiance in the face of his own death. Quotes from the hearing are flashed up on the screen under the images. This is propeganda at its very worse, the expert (Hamid Alkifaey) present in the studio in White City is a commentator on this Iraqi conflict and former Iraqi politician explains his views of where we go from here. The huge amount of violence predicted is brushed off by this man explaining that the country can 'get on with re-building' their battered country.
This whistle-stop tour through the 'facts' shows scenes from Tikrit and Najaff to stir relief among the Western nations, jubilation in the streets as the verdict is read. Kirkuk is not shown, but pro-Saddam rallies are reported on all newswires. Saddam's reaction is described as defiant: hailing Allah, "long live the nation", "goto hell with your rules and clauses!", hailing the people of Iraq and declaring the judge "a mouthpiece of the occupation". Sections of this film are removed for the "protection of the identities of the court". For example, the former dictator is hauled to his feet as he remains adament that the court is illigitament. The anchors watch the verdict being delivered silently; the camera switches back on and they immediately mention Saddam's composure and mock his outward image of control over these proceedings.
What is not discussed is the fact that this (Iraq) is the issue that Americans feel is the most important in next week's mid-term elections. This verdict was rushed through and is never mentioned in BBC's coverage.
A speech is read by the Iraqi Prime Minister, the translator returns and his depressive style is again evident. He is the english source of what these men are saying, his voice is the one that Americans and Britains will hear when being shown today's proceedings.
This is Show after show, being played before us by a company of performers that all have their own agendas. The true message is lost; this is an execution bundled up into a blanket and taken far into the desert and burned. Iraq's judiciary has been responsible for the last three years for the future of this young country. It has had to balance justice with the reaction that any verdict will stir within the nation.
This is a prime example of how 24-hour news influences the presentation of hard fact, turning it into 'The Greatest Show on Earth'.

J101-News analysis 1/10:The Guardian (London); Oct 6, 2006; P1.

If you look at the ongoing debate on Muslim women wearing veils with fresh eyes, there isn’t any evidence of where it all started. Jack Straw is no longer at the centre of this debate. His comment in his column in the Lancashire Telegraph; then published later in The Guardian, caused huge controversy and questioning about his authority in the matter. The column itself is a well-balanced, sensible approach to something that is seen by many, as an undesirable subject to bring up in public. His comments, although seen as intrusive into Muslim women’s rights by the more hot-headed members of society, are exactly what were required to start a debate on this issue and the wider ones of integration into British society.
My admiration of Jack Straw increased by a factor of two when reading what he had written and not what it was spun to represent. The narrative and reasoning are clear and his position is not compromised by his actions. It is my belief that his support among liberal members of society increased as mine has. He has shown in the column that under the veneer attached to him by attacks from the press in the past, he is a very intelligent and reasoning individual and in my opinion has shown himself as someone that Blackburn should be very proud to have as their representative. I would hope that in the near future the debate of whether he was right or not can end and the debate on the true issue is begun in earnest.