The word 'ideology' does have such a bad connotation in everyday life. He was associated with fraud, mystification, duping, and political conflict. His name was attached to the irrationality, emotional, and blind fanaticism. Ideology attached to the memory of violence and war conflict between the Western bloc led by the United States and the Eastern bloc under U.S. control. Moreover sejrah ideological war has killed millions of people in the second world war, plus millions of other victims of Nazi German government led Hitler fascism. After the war was won and the victory of the Western bloc understand the economic neo-liberalism in trade, and the observers also claim that the rush of the 20th century this was the end of the world's ideologies. A time full of violent, intrigue, and political conflict.
Connotative view of the concept of ideology can actually be traced from the history of the term ideology itself. The term is a derivation of the ideologues who emerged post-Revolutionary France. Napoleon Bonaparte used the term ideology to attack his political opponents who have ideas that are not realistic kepenntingan interests related to the new French nation at that time. [1]
Further elaboration of Marx and Engels gave a systematic ideology. Connotative color was still so entrenched in their views. Marx used the term ideology to attack and expose distortions, illusions and inversions that make up the Hegelian tradition of German philosophical idealism. By basing itself on the method of historical materialism, Marx criticized the German ideologists is that their minds alienated from life. Opinionated Marx, capitalism has given rise to an understanding / knowledge does not reflect the actual reality (false knowledge), that is the reality of class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the industrial-capitalist society. [2]
Knowledge does not reflect reality or consciousness teralenasi of praxis is called the ideology. Ideology is a false representation about the man and the world because it considers the situation as natural, ahistorical, and memistifikasi a social order. In connection with the society, ideology is part of the superstructure that serves the economic substructure strength. Legitimizing ideology of social and economic relations, as well as weapon of the ruling class. [3]
The classic view of this ideology has been criticized sharply. Connotative of the classical and ideology have obscured the fact, that ideology is actually operate in the realm of everyday life, even more dominant in a particular social order. Even the ideology as a cultural practice relatively has its own autonomy, and can not be reduced not just the forces of production and economic groups. In everyday culture, the folk performing arts, Tayub, or art ketoprak ludruk, even in the ritual istighasah, [4]
For example, it could be ideological, or infiltrated by a variety of interests and power. Ideology is no longer centered and person power into political doctrine, but rather scattered in the realm of everyday life, as powers which are scattered throughout the social order.
Understand this phenomenon, I use a lot of insight of the thinker and philosopher (post) structuralist, Louis Althusser in particular [5] and Michel Foucault [6]. Insihgt well as anthropology and history of the discipline that contributed the most important in the development of the concept of ideology and culture.
| Foucault and Power Production |
Sharp criticism of the ideology of Marx's view was conducted by Michel Foucault. According to Foucault, Marx is still entangled dreams and longing for some form of truth or knowledge that is free of distortion, deception and illusion. He is tempted to contrast between false knowledge and true knowledge. That the idea or knowledge that reflects the reality that right. Here Marx considers the reality of the idea and over prior mental life is secondary to the economic determinants of the material. While her ideology should be contrasted with what is perceived as truth. [7] According to Foucault, discourses, knowledge-knowledge of the institution and its bracket in itself does not contain categories of right or wrong. Because every society and every age has its own forms of discourse in which those truths are built. Truth is the achievement of the knowledge systems of social control that contains the techniques, the procedures, types of discourse, and the technology developed. The issue of "truth" is always associated with power relations in social and political realm. "Truth is not outside power" [8]. Because the truth is in many ways and practices of human life in managing themselves and others. Truth is produced by the formation of regions where the practice of right and wrong can be created in all the rules and relevant. Therefore, every science has its own regime of truth. How power and truth might be related to one another? According to Foucault, the second is in the discursive practices, the place where the words, actions, rules are applied, the reasons given meet and interact, as well as right and wrong is determined in it. Through archaeological research, Foucault investigates the documents, place, and a variety of worker and public ritual, where genealogical history forms ("moral technology", "rationality regime") is present: Such as: the practice of clinical medicine, imprisonment as a punish practice generally, and how crazy people are considered mentally ill. Through this historical evidence, Foucault pointed directly at the practices of power. Types of practices are not only regulated by the institution, determined by ideology and be guided by the pragmatic, but also affect their regularity, logic, strategy and proving themselves their reasons. Thus it can be said that the ideology-kelindan actually intertwined with discursive practices in a society in which power relations are created in progress and truth. |
| Althusser and Ideological Apparatus |
If Foucault suggests that power is dispersed in social relations through discursive processes, Althusser contribute to how ideology operates and how ideology is reproduced and maintained. First of all by refusing to Marx, he argues that we can not possibly capture the true reality that we depend on the language. At most, we can only feel while not 'real conditions', the ways in which we have formed the ideology through recognition processes are complex. According to Althusser, ideology does not reflect the real world, but rather represent "imaginary relations" individuals to the real world. For Althusser, ideology is a necessary feature of society as far as society is able to give meaning to change the shape of its members and its existential condition. Hide the ideology of human society as an element and atmosphere indispensable for breath and life of their history. [9] Second, ideology has a material existence, the apparatuses and practices that ideology can live in it. In the apparatus and ideological practices is believed and lived by all groups, and continue to reproduce the conditions and relationships existing social order, namely the capitalist industrial society. According to him, that ideology is received, believed and lived by all groups, then he should dimaterialkan. The ideology of living in small group practices, in images, and objects used and designated community, and in organizations. For example, in schools, households, trade organizations, mass media, sports, courts, political parties, universities and so on. Ideology, according to Althusser, exist in and through these institutions kembaga. The apparatus is a material existence of ideology. [10] Third, the ideology of the individuals forming the subject of concrete. [11] In the apparatus, ideology and diinterpelasi socialized in the subject. These then form the subject of the interpellation of reality appears to us as a 'true' and 'clear'. For example like this: when we ride motorcycles, all of a sudden there was a whistle behind us. Concurrent imagined in our minds: there is no violation of the police and we may do. Then we looked away and turned around. The presence of the disposition of the 'true / false', or 'break / not break' and the subordination of the discourse of authority (police) basically has shown the presence of an ideology. Ideology moves us in the non-conscious, subjective interpellation process. Supposing we do not recognize that the interaction with the police is ideological, precisely that's where the power of ideology. Namely 'denegasi' practical ideology of his own character. Ideology works in non-conscious and be a part of life and everyday lifestyle. Apparatus is an instrument of ideological hegemony [12] the most sophisticated to preserve, conserve the structure of the dominant class, and perpetuate oppression. How, by striving for as much as possible so that the ideology was believed by all classes and groups, both ruling and ruled classes. According to Althusser, this is where the characteristics of a confusing ideology played a role. "The function of class ideology is that the ruling ideology is the ideology of the ruling class; Ideology helped the ruling class in power in master classes at the same time the exploited to establish itself as the ruling class". [13] Theory of ideology as a fraud that the authorities show that they are in a dominant position actually was not present naturally or because of his expertise. Because if so it is no longer needed an ideology, nor do I need to explain or defend their exploitation. Instead it shows the persistence of social stratification-dominant political and ideological legitimacy requires both sides of the ruler and the ruled. When ideology is accepted by both parties, this means that the structure of unequal power and privelegi it could be preserved. In this context, ideology often use the "language of reciprocity". He pointed out that imperialism consider themselves legitimate because it was responsible or contributed bertanggng build social units and the importance of harmonious social relationships. [14] What Althusser argued this provides new insight about the idea of how ideology is formed and maintained, and what its effects. For example: how class differences were institutionalized through social institutions such as schools; how the educational institutions that put the public in relation to existing classes, how the myth of individual equality, equal opportunities, and achievements of individuals included in the text and the practice of school programs and educational policy nationwide. Common myths that grew up in "the production of inequality" (the production of class inequality and social kelomopok, gender discrimination, for example) shows that the ideological ideas. [15] other ideological function is to connect people to each other, with the world and especially themselves. Ideology gives a specific identity. [16] For example, if an individual's faith in God and then go pray regularly, confess his sins and so on, then realized in the belief that certain practices are governed by the rituals by providing rituals that involve movement and posture as an expression of power interrelated and related to the ideological apparatus. From the above examples it is clear that an idea to load once the action, sentiment, and gesturenya. The ideas lives in the actions. This action then becomes everyday practice which is controlled by a ritual he performed. Three things (ideas, practices and rituals) is a material aspect of the ideological apparatus. In the ideological apparatus to work, producing subjectivity, and confirms the identity of who we really are. |
| Ideology as a Cultural Practice |
The more clearly now, the ideas of Althusser and Foucault at the top of the stock of the new thinking about the concept of ideology. Ideology is no longer seen as right or wrong, but precisely provide the fundamental framework for the individual in interpreting the experience and 'live' according to their condition. This basic framework is not only mental, but it exists as the practical day-to-day life. With regard ideology as material practices or cultural practices, then we can say that the real ideology is alive because it moves and also the human race has always lived in an ideology, in particular in the representation of the world. In cultural practices and habits of everyday ideology is actually reproduced. Namely, through the ideological apparatus as defined by Althusser. If so, practically the entire space into an ideology in everyday life we are non-conscious. Ideology became an organic part of the social totality and in all daily activities. [17] Because the social units are formed by ideological, discursive formation of products of power (Foucault) or the effects of various ideological apparatuses (Althusser language), then to understand the totality of social and cultural needs "exegesis" as historical texts and literature. The view that culture and ideology is a daily Unexplained does not necessarily mean that the grip of ideology is weak, or may be deemed to have expired. Indeed, ideology and power has gripped the entire social order is more extensive and complex than what had been imagined. Ideology operates in all lines and is produced continuously in rituals and gatherings, art, art, and images-images in which the ideological representations and categories are generated and propagated. Hence, ideology is now no longer be understood simply as a product of the ruling class or the effect of the forces of production. But rather results from a combination of various other elements and power complex and dispersed. In the current cultural discourse, as the view of Stuart Hall, culture is no longer really be understood as a reflection of other practices in the world of ideas. But he himself is a practice, the practice of "tagging" that generates meaning. So for the structuralists and post-structuralism, cultural studies emphasis has shifted from issues of cultural content to the types of arrangement (ordering), from the question of what to how the systems of that culture. [18] For example, in the era of globalization characterized by advances in technology and means of communication these days, people actually fed by the production of consumption. Here the power of capital to bring the power of representation through the power of signs and symbols: in advertising and fashion, for example. Political consequence is that the entire social order is the result of an actual course of construction, and concurrent with, the power of capital is produced continuously. In short, ideology is now a cultural practice; an effect that is culturally and related institutions, groups, and certain structures. Ideology operate in 'spread' (decentered) and presents itself in the 'ideology-as-culture.' That is, ideology is in the complexity of the relationships between different forms of civilization (knowledge, images, etc.) and its institutions, and discourses and apparatus-apparatus. Then the question if the daily culture not out of ideology, what about the science of science. Is it too ideological? Foucault asserts that power relations are not beyond the types of relationships such as economic processes, knowledge relationships, sexual relationships, and others. But immanent in the process of power is precisely the relationship. [19] Power is varied relations of power and establish an organization that operates in that space. Thus, social science now also be viewed as a configuration of forces that shape the landscape of modernity and late modernity. Social science is itself a form of power and culture that is not free of interest. Similarly, the natural sciences. He is also inseparable from the interests or the consensus of the scientific community. From the above description more clearly now how great a contribution of the (post) structuralist especially Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault in enriching the notion of ideology and culture. Both unmasked rethink the operation of ideology with the power, the workings, and its manifestations, not least in social science. There is no ideological boundaries of the location. Ideology is not only in the collectivity of bourgeois society, or in the structures of wealth and their labor, but rather spread throughout the social order. He not only is mental, but also historical and material existence. There is a linkage between knowledge and institutions, areas of knowledge and cultural practices as a variety of power (social, economic, political) are produced. |
| Conclusion |
Today we can no longer think of ideology and how it works in the sense of false consciousness or memperlawankannya with science, as do the classical Marxist. Ideology as a knowledge-knowledge that is run by an interest in precisely into everyday cultural practices that provide orientation and identity of a group. Spread as an ideology of power scattered in the discursive practices of life. Ideology included in our daily life, in the web of life. By borrowing the study of myths and signs, can be said that if the culture is a symbol system that consists of various systems of signs, while the markers themselves are arbriter as Barthes says, then we can really see how a culture and all forms of ritual and daily life days into the arena of ideological struggle for its power play. Culture is a social convention is to systematically target is made as scientific, a myth. [20] Dismantling the rules or the code behind the myth is the task of cultural studies today. |
| If you are interested to copy this paper, it is my sincere if you want to copy my paper, but I hope my friend put my link ya .. I'm sure a good friend. other than paper: Ideology and Practice of Culture by Mh. Nurul Huda, you can read any other paper in Aneka Ragam Makalah. and If You Want to Share your paper to my blog please click here . |
References and footnotes
:.