Received: from acs1.bu.edu (ACS1.BU.EDU [128.197.152.10]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id SAA19323 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:00:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (conroyt@localhost) by acs1.bu.edu (8.8.5/) with SMTP id TAA145961 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:59:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:59:02 -0500 (EST) From: thomas conroy Reply-To: thomas conroy To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International Subject: Re: insects and ideology In-Reply-To: <199712171416.JAA20216@syr.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Kelley Crouse wrote: > > 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. What I was earlier referring to was the idea of condescension and felt superiority of the haves/elites/upper classes/priviledged groups toward the have-nots/masses/lower classes/dispriviledged groups; I would say that while such perspectives may contain ideological thinking, the perspective itself is not necessarily the thing which we would call the ideology. My take on ideology - as it is informed by Marx - is that it is some sort of justification - either tacit or explicit and official - for "the way things are" (particularly in contradistinction to the way they might ideally be or become). This seems to be more or less your use of ideology as well. I would further argue that an ideology, whether in the Marxian or some other sense, involves a contextual use; i.e., biblical scripture can be rendered ideological when, and only when, it gets invoked for any such ideological use (eg., for asserting inherent differences between men and women). On the other hand, borrowing from Mannheim's classical distinction between "ideology" and "utopia," the very same text can be used as an inspiration for much more overtly emancipatory projects. Mannheim is clearly more of a relativist than is Marx (and of course, sees Marxism as itself another ideology, just to complicate matters - though that is really a separate discussion, I suppose). Hence, because I am not sure about the contextual use of both the fable and the secondary joke version (though I have some strong guesses as to their likely uses), I'm a bit hesitant to call them ideological; however, my guess is that (1.) the fable was used in ways not unlike biblical parables, ie., as condensed, memorable moral lessons; in this particular storyline, the lesson clearly seems to be one of needing to work hard and to plan ahead; the subtext is that if you don't do this, you shouldn't expect anyone to do this on your behalf - ie., you are more or less on your own in life. This subtextual notion - along with the analogical notion that culture is a pure extension of nature (and thus less than fully alterable) can certainly be ideological - particularly in contrast to imaginable alternatives or the realization of the limitations of the ethic of individualism. In fact, it strikes me, in many ways, as being compatible with present day libertarian and laissez-faire thinking. As far as (2.) the joke version, I'm guessing that it was, indeed, intended to express a social, cultural and political resentment against a whole host of things including: progressivism; the welfare state; affirmative action; minority interest groups; the media; the democrats, etc.. In fact, it strikes me as being so partisan that its offensiveness is at least partially offset by the blatantness of its combined prejudices and biases. My sense is that ideology is generally much more subtle than what we are given here. Humor, also, is a subtler matter than it often appears. Again, Mannheim really helps; his distinction between partial and total ideologies would underscore such distinctions as Gingrichian Conservatism (the partial ideology of the right wing interests and fringes) and mainstream middle-of-the-roadism, which, while perhaps agreeing to a slight extent, at certain times, with some of right wing ideology is not nearly the same thing; So, the "joke" in the hands of a Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh follower (or perhaps in the hands of either of these figures themselves) is heard for what it is, ie., as a piece of partsan sarcasm; What I guess that I am getting at - and here I am speaking as a progressive who is offended by the joke - is that the joke - nasty as it is - is so recognizable as a partisan, reactionary construct that it would have less of an ideological thrust than would the fable, in the sense that it is less likely to be an effective bolster of the status-quo; it is, after all reactionary rather than purely conservative (and these are distinct) and is easily rebuked. But like Mannheim, and as a sociologist, my ultimate concern with ideology is a concern with the trickier matter of total ideology, the general problem of the social shaping of (social) thought, or with, as Berger and Luckmann put it, the "objectivation" of our typologies. So to wrap up answer the question - are these materials ideological, I'd say yes, perhaps, and they are so in both a partial and a total sense. However, in either sense, the upshot is different. I'd also like to know more about their exact usages in the context of their use. In fact, the sociology of humor is very much underdeveloped; someone ought to take this case and analyze it much further. > 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. Yes, I agree with you, Kelley. I certainly hear it this way. I also agree with much of what you say below. Again, though I do agree with you in seeing that the joke expresses contemporary RW rhetoric (with all sorts of topical references thrown in to make this point crystal clear), I am hesitant to use the term ideology because from either a Marxist or Mannheimian usage, the joke - less so than the underlying fable - is neither so fully shared nor so effective a weapon against the have-nots, at least as far as I can tell. Again, though, both contain elements that can clearly be considered ideological. At the most, it is a Mannheimian partial ideology and is expressive - in its entirety - of the wishes of a statistically small, though not entirely significant, portion of the American populace. But I'm hesitant to ascribe too much power or influence to a tale such as this - though perhaps I'm overlooking something or being simply naive. Tom > 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. >