Message-Id: <199712171416.JAA20216@syr.edu>
From: "Kelley Crouse" <kcwalker@syr.edu>
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:15:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Fwd: (Insect Politics), bias and media
In-reply-to: <Pine.A32.3.96.971217075553.24194A-100000@acs1.bu.edu>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.971217000124.11055C-100000@general3.asu.edu>
On 17 Dec 97 at 8:05, thomas conroy wrote:

> Okay, thanks, Christa, for making clear your position; I, and most
> likely most of us here, find this attitude intolerable as well.
> Though I'm not sure I'd use the term "ideology," since I take that
> to mean a tacit or official justification for the status quo, I now
> see what you were getting at. I hope that there are no hard feelings
> and that you keep posting.

It seems to me that this story is rather too 'pithy'.  Very little 
is said with regard to the grasshopper and the ant in the orginal 
story-- why one is working hard and getting ready for the lean and 
cold winter, while the other is enjoying his/herself and mocking the 
other's hard work.  That is, the story is polysemic, leaving it to 
the reader to "fill in" the story, attributing motivations and the 
like to the ant and the grasshopper.  The joke *is* ideological in 
that sense, particularly since the original story clearly upholds the 
 Puritan work ethic.  (Perhaps I missed this, but where did the story 
originate? I've heard it before as a child, I think in a book of 
fables)  What would you call the original story, Tom, if not 
ideological?  I'm not being confrontational, just curious about how 
people define 'ideological' which is a word, as you probably know, 
that has entire articles and books devoted to the debates over its 
meanings.

In the American version, the possible multiple interpretations of the 
original story are foreclosed.   In the original version, a reader 
might interpret it as a cautionary tale about the importance of hard 
work, planning ahead, deferred gratification--all components of a 
secularized Puritan work ethic.  In fact, I'd say that most USers 
would probably interpret it in this way.  The American version 
buttresses this interpretation, but the fable 'works' by 
reinscribing a neo-conservative ideology in which the 
ant is 'victimized' by the grasshopper's 'manipulation' of the media 
(read sympathetic liberal establishment) and political figures, such 
as Bill and Hilary (why was Hillary mentioned, by the way?  I think 
that's significant.) and  liberal Dick Gephardt (who just the other 
day announced that he wants to move the Democratic Party away from 
Clinton's centrism and toward a more liberal position on social and 
economic issues).  There is the use of the acronym, NAAGB--a not so 
subtle ref to the NAACP.  Even 'successful' greens like Kermit join 
in and identify with the hardships of being green.

I'd say that this tale surely upholds the status quo; or rather 
encourages the reader to want to roll back change insofar as it 
legitimates a particular interpretation of the story:  the 
victimization of the ant.

 Kelley