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.