or the grip metaphor is misleading. The second "law" of thermodynamics is true regardless of whether we live in a socialist society or a capitalist society; this is not the same as succumbing to scientism, just that some statements are true whether we wish them to be so or not. The weirdness of it is how this is possible. Who would WANT the second law of thermodynamics to be true? ideologically yours, ian > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 3:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:9393] Re: Re: Let's slow down here > > > Brad De Long wrote: > > >Maybe I'm hopelessly old-fashioned, but I had always thought of > >"ideology" as something different from "knowledge" > > Which just proves you're in the grip of ideology! > > Quoting, as I did a few weeks ago, from Slavoj Zizek's intro to his > edited collection, Mapping Ideology: > > "However, such an approach, although it is adequate at its own level, > can easily ensnare us in historicist relativism that suspends the > inherent cognitive value of the term 'ideology' and makes it into a > mere expression of social circumstances. For that reason, it seems > preferable to begin with a different, synchronous approach. Apropos > of religion (which, for Marx, was ideology par excellence), Hegel > distinguished three moments: doctrine, belief, and ritual; one, is > thus tempted to dispose the multitude of notions associated with the > term 'ideology' around these three axes: ideology as a complex of > ideas (theories, convictions, beliefs, argumentative procedures); > ideology in its externality, that is, the materiality of ideology, > Ideological State Apparatuses; and finally, the most elusive domain, > the 'spontaneous' ideology at work at the heart of social 'reality' > itself (it is highly questionable if the term 'ideology' is at all > appropriate to designate this domain - here it is exemplary that, > apropos of commodity fetishism, Marx never used the term 'ideology"). > Let us recall the case of liberalism: liberalism is a doctrine > (developed from Locke to Hayek) materialized in rituals and > apparatuses (free press, elections, market, etc.) and active in the > 'spontaneous' (self-) experience of subjects as 'free individuals'. > The order of contributions in this Reader follows this line that, > grosso modo, fits the Hegelian triad of In-itself -- For-itself -- > In-and-For-itself. This logico-narrative reconstruction of the notion > of ideology will be centred on the repeated occurrence of the already > mentioned reversal of non-ideology into ideology - that is, of the > sudden awareness of how the very gesture of stepping out of ideology > pulls us back into it." > > Doug >
