Post #6

Slavoj Žižek: Critique of Ideology

The term ‘ideology’ often defines the way in which we see the world around us, shaping the way in which we think and behave, how we derive meaning from the things that we experience and interact with in our everyday lives. As Manfred B. Steger defines it, “ideologies are powerful systems of widely shared ideas and patterned ideas that are accepted as truth by significant groups in society,” serving as a guiding compass for social and political action which circumscribes not only the way the world is, but how it ought to be. As Slavoj Žižek suggests in The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology, however, these ideologies which define the terms of our worldview are often based on false ideas, constructed and promoted by the political regimes under which we live, thus promoting within us a “false consciousness” that urges us to think and act in accordance with this ordained framework. In other words, because these popularized ideas are believed by society’s subjects to be true, they in turn assist in the reproduction of the existing status quo, perpetuating the legitimacy of overarching ideology.

As Žizek eloquently puts it, relying on preconceived notions of ideology is synonymous to eating from a garbage can, one with the material forces to prevent you from effectively realizing that you are eating just that: garbage. When John Nada puts on the sunglasses — which serve as a critique of ideology — he is able to see beyond the garbage which is fed to us in the form of advertisements, publicity, and propaganda which promote glamorous consumption and facades of self-actualization, and instead recognize the real messages which see us as “subjects who should do their duty and sacrifice themselves” to the instruments of society’s ideology. In this way, ideology, as Žizek sees it, is not something which is used to guide our actions around our own natural dispositions and moral principles, but rather is used to distort our vision of reality in the world around us — it is “dictatorship in democracy, the invisible order which sustains apparent freedom.” Thus, the critique of ideology, to recognize truth beyond what it imposes, is the only way in which we can hope to free ourselves from its shackles and see the world in its truest form.

Freeing oneself from these shackles of ideology, however, is easier said than done. As Žižek points out, “ideology is not simply imposed on ourselves, ideology is our spontaneous relationship to our social world, how we perceive its meaning — we, in a way, enjoy our ideology. To step out of it is a painful experience we must force ourselves to do.” Ideology, despite the truths it may shield from us, in many ways is comforting to us: it presents the world  to us in the ways we’ve always seen it, it provides us with reassuring illusions of freedom, it acts in accordance to rules which have already been clearly defined for us. Oftentimes, it is much easier to live in blissful ignorance and accept the truths which ideology feeds to us than it is to challenge its authority and potentially shatter many of the preconceived illusions it provides. Ideology has been so ingrained within ourselves as individuals and within society at large, permeating through our collective consciousness so markedly they are often seen as one in the same, that it often feels inescapable — how do we aim to separate our thoughts from ideology when it defines the world around us? This is the quandary of ideology that Žižek points to when he says that “when we think that we escape it into our dreams, at that point we are within ideology.” When these dreams are formulated under and shaped by an ideological system, how can they be free of its grasp?

It is questions such as this which make me question the role of ideology in my own life. When I see news of ever-increasing environmental degradation, austere wealth and income disparities, horrific acts of war and terror — issues which seem as large and difficult to define as life itself — ideological claims that suggest these issues are merely mandated by natural forces often provide me with a shred of solace. If issues such as these are doomed to occur anyway, where is the point in worrying over them? If the powers that be have yet to come up with real solutions, what hopes to enact change does that leave for me? It is precisely here where the critique of ideology serves to dispel these beliefs, and forces me to confront the realities of the world which we live in. There will always be people who are in need of help, causes which are worth fighting for, and to deny oneself of the belief that you can achieve real, positive change is to deprive those who need it the most of the opportunity.