Ideology Influenced by Culture.

            What is the relationship between culture and one’s ideology?  The very nature of a culture is dependent on its inhabitants and the environment in which you live.  In the same manner, the inhabitants are shaped by the culture in itself.  It is safe to say that culture is truly the individuals of a given area.  These individuals shape the culture that is present in their community that in turns shapes their actions and motives.  There is one thing that I find difficult to comprehend about culture, that is the idea that everyone in that area believes in the same ideology of that specific culture, and culture has either a positive or a negative influence on the individual’s ideas.

            Ideology is ones’ goals, expectations, and actions and I believe that these goals, expectations, and actions can be influenced by culture.  I have grown up in what some would consider the ghetto but to me it is home.  The culture that has surrounded me has given me a very specific perspective on life.  Culture influences ones’ ideology because it is the environment that you have grown up in.  The stigmas, that the ghetto is not a safe place, have shaped my actions dramatically.  They have forced me to be more aware of my surroundings and to watch what I say because it may cause some trouble.  However, it is not a bad thing because it is actually a very good life skill to know how to bite ones tongue at the proper moment.  I have also learned some of my life goals.  I have seen the pain and suffering of those that are less privileged in my environment and those that have struggled day after day to make ends meet.  I want to be able to help these people and to find a way to make their lives better.  Some say the ghetto may be a bad place to live but for me, I call it home and I find that it has shaped me into a tremendous individual that has the needs of others weighing on my heart.

            In class, we talked about Public Enemy’s song, “Don’t Believe the Hype”.  In this song, Public Enemy is talking about the stereotypes have been placed on African Americans.  Culture has placed these negative ideas (ideology) on the members of society.  This is a very strong claim by Public Enemy to rebuke the stigmas that culture places upon African Americans.  Public Enemy’s states, “They claim that I'm a criminal.  By now, I wonder how, some people never know.  The enemy could be their friend guardian.  I’m not a hooligan… Don’t Believe The Hype.”  Public Enemy is attempting to break down the barriers and is preaching the message that the culture’s ideology of African Americans is wrong.  Culture has a strong influence on the individual’s ideology. However, it can have a positive or a negative impact on ones’ ideology.

            Culture projects a specific message for a community in order to influence one’s ideas.  For advertising, it is said that sex sells.  I believe this is true because the commercials are always portraying a supermodel of some sort wearing little more than a skimpy bikini.  With this in mind, the individual may be more apt to buy the product because it is the thought of “that person is gorgeous so the product must work.”  In this way, culture can shape our ideology.  Please see this video for an example (I apologize for it being in spanish.)

            Culture and ideology go hand in hand.  Ideology is based on the image that a culture projects onto the individual.  That individual then bases his personal ideology on the ideas that society (culture) has installed.  Some ideas may be good while others may be bad.  It is up to the individual to decide whether he wants to believe the stigmas that culture projects or to disregard it and as Public Enemy says, “Don’t Believe the Hype”.

           

Interpret This?!

            When an author writes, does he write to entertain a specific audience?  When a comedian tells a joke, does he only expect a certain group of people to laugh?  I ponder these questions when I think about interpretations and how they can be misconstrued.  Different people have different interpretations from an intended meaning that the author has given.  I am contradicting my claim in my last blog but I can change my mind quite frequently.  I do believe that there is a specific meaning that the author of a statement or work is intending for his audience.  The audience may have many different interpretations for the same remark.  I will utilize an example from my daily life and I will also utilize an example from a daily comedian.

            In my daily life, I have certain jokes or phrases that my friends can pick up on because they have been around me for a long time (historical context).  For example, I would use certain phrases that they would think is hysterical because they understand the tone and the connotation that I am using the phrase.  However, I have learned that it is not always the same for each individual person.  The story begins with me talking to my girlfriend at the time (we have now gone our separate ways).  We were talking about a\her struggling in school and that she had failed another of her exams.  In a very sarcastic tone, I said, “Gosh!! What the hell chica?”  I used a Napoleon Dynamite tone which I have posted below.  My friends would have known that I was completely kidding and I did not mean it in the way she interpreted it.  She became quite furious with me and it proceeded into an argument over something stupid.

            I learned my lesson firsthand that interpretations can be taken into different context depending on the recipient.  My meaning was to cheer my ex-girlfriend with my sarcasm.  Obviously, it did not work because she was even madder and it caused an argument.  It proves the point that I am trying to make about interpretations.  Interpretations are dependent on the reader and are independent of the author’s intentions.  The reader can misconstrue the author’s desired meaning with a text because their own emotions may alter their opinion.  In this alteration, their personal interpretation has been constructed and differs from the author’s intentions.

            Interpretations can differ upon reading or viewing a work of art.  In this example, Gabriel Iglesias is telling his interpretation of Steve Irwin’s death.  The problem that I have encountered with this certain clip is how different people have perceived it.  I have shown a few people and they have all had different interpretations of the video.  Some people were very offended by Iglesias’ jokes about Steve Irwin because he had died recently.  However, other people saw that the comedian was making a joke to entertain the audience (author’s intent).  Here is the clip and you may decide for yourself on your own personal interpretation.

            I would also like to consider the words of Stanley Fish on the subject of meaning.  Stanley Fish states, “the self will simply substitute its own meanings for the meanings that texts bring with them, the meanings that texts “have”…” (Fish 335).  Fish states that the individual will project a meaning onto the text without consideration of the author’s meaning.  I agree with Fish that the reader will place a meaning onto a text while ignoring the author’s meaning.  The reader becomes more engaged with the text because he/she will become intertwined with the text because they will interpret the text in whichever way they seem fit. 

            To answer the questions that I asked to begin this blog, I believe that an author has a specific meaning in mind that may pertain to all but he is not necessarily writing to a specific audience.  I also believe that comedians tell jokes to make people laugh and they know that not everyone will find a certain joke as funny because of their own interpretations.  My concluding statement is that the reader can interpret and project is own interpretation onto a text or work of art without consideration of the author’s meaning. 

Where Is The Meaning: The Author, or The Words

            I was sitting in my class today and it started off like any other class day.  My professor walked into class ready to deliver a lecture.  She claims that her lectures “are really good”.  By really good, I believe that she means speaking so fast that it is hard for anyone in the class to digest her words.  Half the class does not even get a chance to participate because she is looking only to one section of the class at the time.  I forgot to mention the fact that we hardly have time to copy all the notes before she moves onto the next topic of discussion.  There was one thing that caught my attention as I packed my notebook into my backpack.  With my undivided attention, I straightened up in my seat to hear her say, “Theologians try to determine the intention of the author” (when referring to the Bible).  I remember thinking to myself that has to be the most pointless thing for a theologian to do.  Class was dismissed before I could raise my hand and  pose my inquiry but then my thoughts wandered to what was spoken in my Literary Theory and Criticism class about Roland Barthes’ essay, The Death of the Author, and Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Custom-House".

            In The Death of the Author, Roland Barthes discusses the role that the author plays in the meaning of the literature.  Barthes believes in New Criticism, which is to say that it does not matter who wrote the work.  Barthes states in his essay, “linguistics has recently provided the destruction of the Author with a valuable analytical tool by showing that the whole of the enunciation is an empty process, functioning perfectly without there being any need for it to be filled with the person of the interlocutors” (Barthes 145).  In this statement, Barthes is declaring that there need not be any consideration of the author upon reading the text.  The language itself projects its own meaning rather than the life story of the author.  Barthes furthermore states that, “The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination” (Barthes 148). This is very crucial to Barthes’ argument. The last line of the previous quote is saying that the text’s meaning does not lie with the author rather it lies in the readers.  It is up to the reader to determine the meaning of the work.  In a sense, it is a matter of individual perception because there may be two different interpretations for the same quote.  To end his essay, Barthes claims, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” (Barthes 148).  Barthes uses figurative language to express his desires.  The author must not be taken into consideration when trying to decipher the true meaning of a work.

            Roland Barthes’ point is further enforced by Nathaniel Hawthorne in his preface to The Scarlet Letter.  Hawthorne’s preface, “The Custom-House”, emulates his reality. However Hawthorne uses a more sarcastic approach. Hawthorne was in the middle of the spot light when he wrote “The Custom-House”.  He had just been fired from his job by President Zachary Taylor.  Hawthorne proceeds to write The Scarlet Letter and its preface supports Roland Barthes’ “death to the Author” essay.  Hawthorne writes, “But, as thoughts are frozen and utterance benumbed, unless the speaker stand in some true relation with his audience… to imagine that a friend… is listening to our talk… we may prate of the circumstances that lie around us, and even of ourself, but still keep the inmost Me behind its veil” (Hawthorne 7).  In this statement, Hawthorne is taunting his audience because of the controversy that surrounds his expulsion from his job.  The reader wants to know about Hawthorne because they believe Hawthorne is writing about his reaction and his own experience.  Hawthorne responds by provoking the audience by the previous quote.  He is saying that authors may write about what surrounds them however they may not even be considering their true self.  They remain hidden behind a veil.  Hawthorne continues to support the idea that a should be “dead” when reading the work when he states, “Keeping up the metaphor of the political guillotine the whole may be considered as the POSTHUMOUS PAPERS OF A DECAPITATED SURVEYOR; and the sketch which I am now bringing to a close, if too autobiographical for a modest person to publish in his lifetime will readily be excused in a gentlemen that writes from beyond the grave” (Hawthorne 34). Hawthorne is joking about his firing from his job and he is saying that he is writing from beyond the grave.  This is to say that he is writing and that the literature should not be compared to his real life scenario.  The meaning of the literature is independent from the author’s jurisdiction. 

            This leads into my own personal take on the issue.  I agree with Hawthorne and Barthes that the author should not be considered when referring to the meaning of the work.  There are many interpretations to the simplest of things in the world.  When thinking about complex literature, there will be many different interpretations.  It is not the author’s interpretation that should take precedence.  It should be the reader’s own personal interpretation because it is what the reader believes.  The author is merely the instrument in which language conveys its meaning.  That is to say that the language has its own meaning that is independent of the author’s intention.  If the language is what is speaking, then the author is like a messenger.  The messenger delivers the message but the meaning comes from the words that are presented.  Therefore, I believe that the author should not be considered when talking about the meaning of a work for it is the words that provide the true meaning to what is being presented.

The video below is an illustration of Roland Barthes' essay, The Death of the Author

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Roland Barthes